I really liked Katie Couric's show tonight on Walter Cronkite. It's truly the most appropriate format for an obit on this legendary newsman.
Watch CBS Videos Online
I really hope Cronkite's standard of journalism isn't dying. Some would argue that it's already dead, but I don't agree. I think things are simply evolving and adapting to some seriously disruptive technological changes. The love of truth and representing important issues and stories to the public is what drives real journalism, and I can't see human beings ever surviving without that.
All these deaths lately are making me realize that I guess I finally am "growing up" (a.k.a. getting older). With Michael Jackson, it was remembering "Beat It" as one of the first music videos I'd ever seen. This time, it's remembering watching Walter Cronkite on the evening news. My mom would have it on during dinner, and I remember hearing him count each night how long the hostages had been held in Iran. I guess getting old isn't so bad -- think of all the history you get to see! (Uncle Walt himself would probably attest to that.)
I think what astonished me most about Katie's report was the part where they showed his old papers, and his old reporter's notebooks. He kept everything! I can't wait until that guy publishes his biography. I'd love to see some of Cronkite's old notes. It also makes me sad my own notebooks have rarely if ever captured anything worth saving for decades, and even when they have, my notes have always been so sloppy I don't think they'd be worth poring over ever again. I might have 'em tucked away somewhere nonetheless. (I guess reporters are reporters, whatever the generation! Gotta save your notes!)
7.17.2009
7.09.2009
Belonging
I hope I'm getting this just in under the wire of relevant Michael Jackson posting, because it has got to be said. Every time the question of Michael Jackson's kids' paternity and custody comes into question, somewhere an adoption angel dies. Really. I've really been wondering how adopted (or any non-traditionally conceived) children feel when they hear these newscasters pondering that because Jackson may/may not be the biological father to those children, it's just a complete MYSTERY who is going to take care of them now that he's gone, and really, to whom do these kids belong? It's ridiculous. Why should his kids (which I assume are legally his kids, especially if their mother relinquished her parental rights) be treated any differently than any other kids whose parents/guardians die? To say that they should be treated differently because they might not be genetically related to their father is such outright ignorance and stupidity, and I can't believe how glibly it keeps getting stated and questioned over and over again.
The other thing that has been nagging at me is this question of whether the kids are his, based completely on their looks, and whether there's any way those kids could be half-black. I thought we had come farther than this as a society, I really did. I mean I grew up with people questioning whether my dad was really my dad, questioning whether I was really Chinese, etc. and I never really held it against anyone. Back when I was growing up -- believe it or not -- multiracial marriages and mixed children were still quite unusual. But nowadays it is so obvious how quickly "dark" genes can get diluted. I'm not saying it's the norm, but it can happen in a single generation. Genetics are weird, and there's so much living proof of this fact that it is simply ignorant and embarrassing for people to insist that there's just no way those kids could be half-black. That's simply not the case. I'm not gonna go on record and say I think they actually are half-black, because frankly, Michael Jackson's life and ways give me plenty of reason to believe that they might not be genetically related to him at all. But to be so ignorant of the reality of mixed ethnic heritage in the multicultural era in which we live makes you painfully out of touch.
And then finally, to top it all off, today when I was finally saying, ah, well, I'm taking this all too seriously and just need to let it go, I see this ridiculous, embarrassing, preposterous story on ABC News of all places (Peter Jennings, please be rolling in your grave!) about Michael Jackson's "white" kids and the challenges they are going to face getting along with his black family. I don't think I need to break down all the things that are wrong with this article, but I do have two questions for our friends at the network:
1) Did Luchina Fisher, the author of this story, and whoever edited it get a serious talking to? Will an apology be appearing for this frankly racist "news" article?
2) If not, then when are you guys going to do a retrospective on my life growing up as the one "white" kid dealing with an all-Chinese family? The language barrier! The hair color! The pressure to do well in school! The chopsticks! Oh, the stories I can tell! If only I'd realized earlier this was breaking news!
Race in this country is a complicated issue, and judging by how contemporary media are handling the strange, sad, unusual story of Michael Jackson's life and death, it's clear that whatever progress we so celebrated when we elected our first black president back in November was -- important though it may have been -- still just a baby step toward combating our tribal, xenophobic, and prejudiced human nature.
The other thing that has been nagging at me is this question of whether the kids are his, based completely on their looks, and whether there's any way those kids could be half-black. I thought we had come farther than this as a society, I really did. I mean I grew up with people questioning whether my dad was really my dad, questioning whether I was really Chinese, etc. and I never really held it against anyone. Back when I was growing up -- believe it or not -- multiracial marriages and mixed children were still quite unusual. But nowadays it is so obvious how quickly "dark" genes can get diluted. I'm not saying it's the norm, but it can happen in a single generation. Genetics are weird, and there's so much living proof of this fact that it is simply ignorant and embarrassing for people to insist that there's just no way those kids could be half-black. That's simply not the case. I'm not gonna go on record and say I think they actually are half-black, because frankly, Michael Jackson's life and ways give me plenty of reason to believe that they might not be genetically related to him at all. But to be so ignorant of the reality of mixed ethnic heritage in the multicultural era in which we live makes you painfully out of touch.
And then finally, to top it all off, today when I was finally saying, ah, well, I'm taking this all too seriously and just need to let it go, I see this ridiculous, embarrassing, preposterous story on ABC News of all places (Peter Jennings, please be rolling in your grave!) about Michael Jackson's "white" kids and the challenges they are going to face getting along with his black family. I don't think I need to break down all the things that are wrong with this article, but I do have two questions for our friends at the network:
1) Did Luchina Fisher, the author of this story, and whoever edited it get a serious talking to? Will an apology be appearing for this frankly racist "news" article?
2) If not, then when are you guys going to do a retrospective on my life growing up as the one "white" kid dealing with an all-Chinese family? The language barrier! The hair color! The pressure to do well in school! The chopsticks! Oh, the stories I can tell! If only I'd realized earlier this was breaking news!
Race in this country is a complicated issue, and judging by how contemporary media are handling the strange, sad, unusual story of Michael Jackson's life and death, it's clear that whatever progress we so celebrated when we elected our first black president back in November was -- important though it may have been -- still just a baby step toward combating our tribal, xenophobic, and prejudiced human nature.
5.30.2009
On <3 and Animal Crossing
I've been playing this game against my will lately. My niece and nephew adore it, so I've sort of been peer-pressured into playing it on Alex's behalf. He's not quite old enough to play it on his own, but he is old enough to appreciate it and understand that he and his cousins can play it "together" online, visiting each other's towns and such.
We all know the <3 emoticon denotes love. What's the opposite of that?
See, I've played the previous Animal Crossings, on Gamecube and DS, pretty extensively. I've already paid off multiple mortgages to Tom Nook and filled numerous museums with dinosaur bones. I've shaken trees and conversed with town inhabitants ad nauseum. Even the hottest show in town, KK Whatever-his-name-is on Saturday night, got boring years ago. So this third time around, enduring all of Animal Crossings odd quirks (the endless dialogues, the not-quite-exact enough controls, the lack of new content or gameplay) doesn't feel quite as rewarding or enchanting as it was, especially, the first time around.
The game makes you pay a steep price -- especially if you want to go online. I knew about friend codes, so I was expecting that part. I wasn't prepared for the fact that, before you can even get your damned friend code, you need to complete your first round of odd jobs for America's favorite predatory lender Tom Nook (which happens to involve having lengthy conversations with every bleepin' animal in town). Then, once you have all the friend codes (and every human player needs his/her own code -- fun fun fun!), you have to be online simultaneously, with your gate open (a setting which requires a save and restart to change) and Wi-Fi firewall settings fixed just so. For some reason, I had a ludicrous notion that I'd be able to mail letters to another friend's town, but I couldn't get that to work. I mean, there's absolutely no way in hell you are ever getting Animal Crossing set up online without also having to be on speakerphone with the people you are trying to contact, which just seems ridiculous. What's the opposite of <3 again?
But when we finally succeeded, and Alex's cousin made her first exuberant foray from Pretty town into Gearland -- with Wii Speak enabled and everything! -- I've got to admit, this game that has frustrated me so, the game that has been shoveled from system to system with the most minimal of effort, became magical all over again. My ennui evaporated and I was full of <3!
I'd still like to know the other emoticon, though. Alex and I haven't even made our first mortgage payment to Nook, and given how he always gives us an earful even for the simplest transactions, things are bound to get ugly.
We all know the <3 emoticon denotes love. What's the opposite of that?
See, I've played the previous Animal Crossings, on Gamecube and DS, pretty extensively. I've already paid off multiple mortgages to Tom Nook and filled numerous museums with dinosaur bones. I've shaken trees and conversed with town inhabitants ad nauseum. Even the hottest show in town, KK Whatever-his-name-is on Saturday night, got boring years ago. So this third time around, enduring all of Animal Crossings odd quirks (the endless dialogues, the not-quite-exact enough controls, the lack of new content or gameplay) doesn't feel quite as rewarding or enchanting as it was, especially, the first time around.
The game makes you pay a steep price -- especially if you want to go online. I knew about friend codes, so I was expecting that part. I wasn't prepared for the fact that, before you can even get your damned friend code, you need to complete your first round of odd jobs for America's favorite predatory lender Tom Nook (which happens to involve having lengthy conversations with every bleepin' animal in town). Then, once you have all the friend codes (and every human player needs his/her own code -- fun fun fun!), you have to be online simultaneously, with your gate open (a setting which requires a save and restart to change) and Wi-Fi firewall settings fixed just so. For some reason, I had a ludicrous notion that I'd be able to mail letters to another friend's town, but I couldn't get that to work. I mean, there's absolutely no way in hell you are ever getting Animal Crossing set up online without also having to be on speakerphone with the people you are trying to contact, which just seems ridiculous. What's the opposite of <3 again?
But when we finally succeeded, and Alex's cousin made her first exuberant foray from Pretty town into Gearland -- with Wii Speak enabled and everything! -- I've got to admit, this game that has frustrated me so, the game that has been shoveled from system to system with the most minimal of effort, became magical all over again. My ennui evaporated and I was full of <3!
I'd still like to know the other emoticon, though. Alex and I haven't even made our first mortgage payment to Nook, and given how he always gives us an earful even for the simplest transactions, things are bound to get ugly.
5.07.2009
"NO! MINE! [pause] Thank you!"
"NO! MINE!"
There are few more classic symptoms of the terrible twos than this phrase, which Alex has started saying lately. He doesn't so much say it as he does bark it like a dog trainer or German soldier. It's so curt and stern-sounding that it is obvious if it were being typed, it would be in ALL CAPS. It's mostly uttered in reference to a cherished toy or piece of candy, and it's usually said in the expected context -- if he fears something is going to be taken away from him, either by us or by another child. We're trying to cope with this as we have any of his other "terrible" stages -- correct when possible, ignore when necessary, divert and distract when all else fails.
Sometimes, though, "NO! MINE!" comes out at strange and (since this is my blog, I can say it) really darling times: at the dinner table, right after he's helped himself to something off my plate, or at random moments throughout the day, like recently when Nick heard Alex say the following:
"NO!!! MINE!!!" Then a pause. Then, in the sweetest, most polite tone of voice ever, a chirpy little "Thank you!"
Mind you, Alex said this to nobody in particular. When he was playing all by his lonesome, with unchallenged access to every single one of his earthly possessions.
The little guy may be in his terrible twos, and he may be developing a real sense of territorialism. But you can't say he isn't being polite about it.
There are few more classic symptoms of the terrible twos than this phrase, which Alex has started saying lately. He doesn't so much say it as he does bark it like a dog trainer or German soldier. It's so curt and stern-sounding that it is obvious if it were being typed, it would be in ALL CAPS. It's mostly uttered in reference to a cherished toy or piece of candy, and it's usually said in the expected context -- if he fears something is going to be taken away from him, either by us or by another child. We're trying to cope with this as we have any of his other "terrible" stages -- correct when possible, ignore when necessary, divert and distract when all else fails.
Sometimes, though, "NO! MINE!" comes out at strange and (since this is my blog, I can say it) really darling times: at the dinner table, right after he's helped himself to something off my plate, or at random moments throughout the day, like recently when Nick heard Alex say the following:
"NO!!! MINE!!!" Then a pause. Then, in the sweetest, most polite tone of voice ever, a chirpy little "Thank you!"
Mind you, Alex said this to nobody in particular. When he was playing all by his lonesome, with unchallenged access to every single one of his earthly possessions.
The little guy may be in his terrible twos, and he may be developing a real sense of territorialism. But you can't say he isn't being polite about it.
4.27.2009
Chocolate Snobbery
I never thought I had the potential to become a chocolate snob, because I'm really not much of a fan of dark chocolate, and everyone knows that dark chocolate is the finest chocolate and people who have fine tastes prefer dark chocolate. My husband is one of these people. He won't even eat Hershey's Kisses! I've always been pretty open-minded about chocolate, though I'm also not someone who really obsesses about it in any way. So I was very surprised the other day when, at a work function where I had access to a giant bowl of candy bars, I ate a Kit-Kat and found myself completely not enjoying it at all! The chocolate just tasted...weird -- synthetic almost. I need to dig a little deeper to find out if they changed their formula or ingredients. I mean, Kit-Kat has always been one of my faves -- I'm fine not being a chocolate "snob," per se, but I'd hate to think that for most of my life I had genuinely bad taste!
4.12.2009
Help a robot!
Read the story of the little robot who made it!
The ever awesome Greg Orlando (formerly of Xbox Nation and Daily Radar) sent me this link. It's lovely....
The ever awesome Greg Orlando (formerly of Xbox Nation and Daily Radar) sent me this link. It's lovely....
3.15.2009
Twitter: The New Smoking
Twitter drives me crazy. I'm not saying I'm not drawn to its infectious, somewhat addictive nature. But I realized recently that for me, Twitter is a lot like cigarette smoking, and social smoking in particular. I want to do it -- all my friends are doing it, and it looks rather cool. Everyone's talking about it -- it's all over the blogosphere and news, and it certainly seems like the "thing to do" of the moment. But when I actually sit down in the bar and light up a Twitter account, first of all, I find I don't actually enjoy its strange, abbreviated form of oversharing. Then I realize I'm surrounded by fumes and totally can't control which ones invade my consciousness -- it's pretty much all or nothing. And then even after I've left the bar, I can't get the smell out of my hair. If I had an addictive personality, I'd probably be coming back for more (luckily, I don't). Yup -- Twitter is the new smoking.
Anyone with a personal blog already understands the desire to share one's thoughts with the world. Individual reasons vary beyond that broad, overarching goal. I started this blog as a way to motivate myself to formulate my random thoughts into somewhat coherent written essays and vignettes. Over time, I realized it was a great way to keep in contact with long-distance friends and family. And now that I've moved on from EGM and 1UP, of course, it is a way to keep in touch with the community of gamers and friends I made along the way. A bonus is being able to share my thoughts and knowledge with people typing particular keywords into search engines. So, lots of good reasons, if I may say so.
Facebook enabled me to share my thoughts in a more automated manner with many of the same people. I call it "automated" because Facebook's format means you can be expressive without actually having to come up with a thesis, developing arguments, and a conclusion. You certainly don't need to be articulate, and even proper grammar and spelling is rather optional. Plus, what with superpokes, photo tagging, chain-letter notes, having the Bigger Brain or Word Challenge score, and the like, Facebook gives you words when you can't think up any of your own. And often, those means of communication end up being much more effective than a beautifully penned treatise. Sure, you could come right out and say, "Hey, we were good friends once, and I've thought about you a lot over the years. I'd love to reconnect and keep in touch, but don't expect to hear from me very often because obviously I have a pretty busy life. Still, that doesn't mean I don't care!" But that's so direct, emotionally honest -- even confrontational. It's much more humane to just invite your old friend to play Scrabble once in a while, occasionally noting in the chat how cute their kids are or how you've been stressed out at work lately. Better yet, you just challenge them to an '80s movie trivia quiz and remember fondly the slumber parties where you watched all those movies together. I appreciate Facebook for this ability to make connecting with friends less emotional, less articulate, less carefully thought-out, and it's been a damn near miracle how it's reconnected me with people I thought were totally gone from my life for good.
And then there's Twitter. To me, Twitter is like a double-derivative. You take the derivative of blogging and you get Facebook. Then you take the derivative of Facebook and you get Twitter. It's all that oversharing boiled down again and again to its most addictive, infectious essence. I've noticed this among my circle of friends. You had the early smokers -- the ones who got right into Twitter and really enjoyed the up-to-the-minute newsiness of it. Then, just the way so many otherwise healthy-living, conscientious folks will smoke cigarettes socially, Twitter started to ensnare friend after friend into its weird, stream-of-consciousness blabbing. The difference for me between Twitter and Facebook or a blog is that I often care what people write in those other two forums. I really like reading people's blogs, because they often have some thought and care put into them. And Facebook is a nice way of recounting the overall ups and downs of ordinary life. But Twitter gives people a little too much freedom in recounting a few too many ups and downs. Like, bodily functions, people? Really? It's also taken the questionable grammar practices of 1337speak and Facebook and put them front and center, to the point where it seems people are almost trying as hard as they can to write 140 characters of broken English. And it's made this whole @soandso format seem like an almost normal way of referring to your friends. Like, "Yeah, what'd you do this weekend? Oh I changed @Alex's diaper and did @Nick's laundry. Went out to breakfast with @Grandparents and then took @Fido for a walk."
It drives me crazy. Obviously, Twitter is not going away, and luckily, it's a hell of a lot healthier than smoking. But it's also lucky I don't have an addictive personality, and though I do give my occasional update on Twitter, I think for now I'll stick with my other two primary avenues for oversharing.
Anyone with a personal blog already understands the desire to share one's thoughts with the world. Individual reasons vary beyond that broad, overarching goal. I started this blog as a way to motivate myself to formulate my random thoughts into somewhat coherent written essays and vignettes. Over time, I realized it was a great way to keep in contact with long-distance friends and family. And now that I've moved on from EGM and 1UP, of course, it is a way to keep in touch with the community of gamers and friends I made along the way. A bonus is being able to share my thoughts and knowledge with people typing particular keywords into search engines. So, lots of good reasons, if I may say so.
Facebook enabled me to share my thoughts in a more automated manner with many of the same people. I call it "automated" because Facebook's format means you can be expressive without actually having to come up with a thesis, developing arguments, and a conclusion. You certainly don't need to be articulate, and even proper grammar and spelling is rather optional. Plus, what with superpokes, photo tagging, chain-letter notes, having the Bigger Brain or Word Challenge score, and the like, Facebook gives you words when you can't think up any of your own. And often, those means of communication end up being much more effective than a beautifully penned treatise. Sure, you could come right out and say, "Hey, we were good friends once, and I've thought about you a lot over the years. I'd love to reconnect and keep in touch, but don't expect to hear from me very often because obviously I have a pretty busy life. Still, that doesn't mean I don't care!" But that's so direct, emotionally honest -- even confrontational. It's much more humane to just invite your old friend to play Scrabble once in a while, occasionally noting in the chat how cute their kids are or how you've been stressed out at work lately. Better yet, you just challenge them to an '80s movie trivia quiz and remember fondly the slumber parties where you watched all those movies together. I appreciate Facebook for this ability to make connecting with friends less emotional, less articulate, less carefully thought-out, and it's been a damn near miracle how it's reconnected me with people I thought were totally gone from my life for good.
And then there's Twitter. To me, Twitter is like a double-derivative. You take the derivative of blogging and you get Facebook. Then you take the derivative of Facebook and you get Twitter. It's all that oversharing boiled down again and again to its most addictive, infectious essence. I've noticed this among my circle of friends. You had the early smokers -- the ones who got right into Twitter and really enjoyed the up-to-the-minute newsiness of it. Then, just the way so many otherwise healthy-living, conscientious folks will smoke cigarettes socially, Twitter started to ensnare friend after friend into its weird, stream-of-consciousness blabbing. The difference for me between Twitter and Facebook or a blog is that I often care what people write in those other two forums. I really like reading people's blogs, because they often have some thought and care put into them. And Facebook is a nice way of recounting the overall ups and downs of ordinary life. But Twitter gives people a little too much freedom in recounting a few too many ups and downs. Like, bodily functions, people? Really? It's also taken the questionable grammar practices of 1337speak and Facebook and put them front and center, to the point where it seems people are almost trying as hard as they can to write 140 characters of broken English. And it's made this whole @soandso format seem like an almost normal way of referring to your friends. Like, "Yeah, what'd you do this weekend? Oh I changed @Alex's diaper and did @Nick's laundry. Went out to breakfast with @Grandparents and then took @Fido for a walk."
It drives me crazy. Obviously, Twitter is not going away, and luckily, it's a hell of a lot healthier than smoking. But it's also lucky I don't have an addictive personality, and though I do give my occasional update on Twitter, I think for now I'll stick with my other two primary avenues for oversharing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
