Social Consciousness is a Moving Target

Like all parents there are some things we're doing right, and some thing we're still figuring out. Of course there's also the fact that kids will often just do whatever they want, and that's fine. We are trying to raise our kids to understand and appreciate choice and diversity. We want our daughters to know they can play with action figures and play sports if they want. We encourage our son to play dress-up and wear whatever colors he decides he likes. It's been going pretty well. Even though they are still drifting towards traditional "boy/girl" activities more often than not they do play a lot of games together. Sometimes there are funny reminders that they are still figuring out both themselves and the world around them.

There has been a lot of discussion in my corner of the internet about the lack of female action figures. It started with a father's quixotic search for a Gamora figure, and has moved along to a recent story of Marvel man-washing Black Widow out of a toy line based on her big cool scene in Age of Ultron. I fully support the idea that many boys would want a Black Widow figure. I am certain that many girls would want a Black Widow figure. My kids typically want their toys to be the same gender as themselves. The Boy does play with his Wonder Woman Lego figure, but he typically decides that his stuffed animals are boys, and insists that his version of El Toro Loco is driven by a man even though the driver was Becky McDonough when we went to the show.

So sure, that makes me a little sad, but he's being himself. All I can do is provide opportunities and messaging, I can't make those decisions for them. On the other hand there are places where we are definitely succeeding. (Though maybe success/failure isn't the right way to frame the previous discussion.) My kids think it is perfectly normal for two people of the same gender to get married.

Doing "girl things"

Where it gets interesting for me is when these two areas intersect. This morning as we were waiting for the bus the kids started playing house with some twigs. The Boy had the two larger twigs so he took the role of the parents. Lou had the smaller stick so she took the role of the child. The part that caught my attention is that The Boy's aversion to playing a female character led to him declaring that his sticks were "two men who got married." My internal reaction could be described as "YayD'oh" (TM pending).

As with many things about parenting I don't see this as problem that needs fixing. The kids are going to pretend what they will. I do think it's an interesting window into their development as socially conscious people. I look forward to tomorrow's chuckle worthy gem from my little developing minds.

Belated Commentary “Everyone’s a little bit _____-ist, sometimes.”

Carl Everett of the Chicago White Sox, who has previously stated that he doesn’t believe that dinosaurs existed because they’re not mentioned in the bible, has come out with his opinion on gay marriage. In this month’s issue of Maxim magazine Everett says something to the effect of, “I’ve had gay teammates and I’ve accepted them, but being gay isn’t right. I don’t believe in gay marriage, it isn’t right.” He goes on to reveal that two women cannot make a baby, nor can two men. This morning on Mike & Mike in the Morning on ESPN radio Mike Greenberg suggested that this comment by Everett will spark “a firestorm of controversy.” It shouldn’t. Everett’s comments should be taken up to the point of “I’ve accepted them” and end there. As far as his opinion of gay marriage, or the validity of homosexual romance he is entitled to his opinion; even if he’s wrong.

Listening to Greenberg read Everett’s statement on air I got the impression that Everett was clearly stating his belief rather than attempting to influence people or incite debate. I don’t agree with Everett’s remarks but the fact that he is willing to accept gay people regardless of his personal opinion is enough for me. After all, we all have our own prejudices (cue Avenue Q soundtrack here). I am not for illegal immigration. I’ll never vote for harsher immigration laws, or denial of services to immigrants regardless of their legal status. Equality and justice for all doesn’t mean we all have to like each other. There will always be groups of people that we have some dislike for. As long as we don’t allow our prejudice to inform our treatment of people, or God forbid our public policy, it doesn’t matter what we think behind our eyes.

Ewoks are not Ethiopian. They’re Iraqi.

OK, they’re neither. One of the lasting memories of childhood is an argument between my mom and her boyfriend a couple of years after Return of the Jedi. The argument was about whether or not Ewoks were derogatory African stereotypes. My mother took the position that they were simply annoying little teddy bears created to sell merchandise to eight-year-olds. This led to one of the more vicious political arguments I have ever witnessed including during my recent trip to the senate.

Now the Ewok argument is being played out on a larger scale as republican leaders attempt to get people to boycott "Revenge of the Sith" due to its alleged anti-Bush bias. Among other things republicans point to Darth Vader’s line “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.” As invoking Bush’s “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Republicans have also pointed to the films apparent criticism of the war in Iraq.

For crying out loud people get a grip! People have been trying to find hidden messages in Star Wars films for too long. Sure, Lucas borrowed from eastern philosophy and Christianity in order to shape his epic. Sure, there are allusions to other famous stories. Yes, the films depict an amalgam of classic themes on the human condition. We get it. That’s where it should end. When asked about the republican’s ire Lucas himself issued one of the greatest non-confirmations of my young life saying that the story was written during the Vietnam war, not the current war. This statement at once denies that the movie had any overt bias against the current administration while at the same time using the GOP’s accusations to compare the current war to Vietnam, something most republicans want to avoid. In a sly way Lucas is pointing out what should be obvious to all of us, if the GOP see caricatures of themselves in the behavior of the Sith, who are patterned after a xenophobic administration that perpetrated a failed war, maybe they should take a hint that this a clear case of life imitating art. People need to stop trying to find the hidden political messages in Star Wars. After all, how long has this movie been in post production? Wasn’t some form of “Yer either wi’us ‘r a’gin us” used in films as far back as the 1930s? Isn’t likely that it was written into Bush’s speech because it’s an iconic phrase? So did Lucas play on Bush, or did Bush play on John Wayne? Or did Lucas play on Wayne? Could the line have been written prior to Bush’s speech? Yes, yes, yes and yes. Besides, if Bush says something that childish shouldn’t he be lampooned for it? Or are world politics so simple that the entire issue can be as simple as disagreeing with the war equals wishing death upon American civilians? I for one am not against the war because I’m for the terrorists, but rather because I am for the soldiers, and I am for the people of Iraq.

If republicans are upset about Sith now, imagine if Return of the Jedi were released today. Instead of being worried about comparing Bush to Vader the GOP would be up in arms about how the Ewoks, with their guerrilla tactics, were a clear nod to the Iraqi insurgents. After all, the Ewoks used IEDs and other primitive weapons to attack checkpoints in an attempt to defeat the most technologically advanced army in the galaxy, a strategy that closely parallels the tactics of the Vietcong who preyed upon the over confidence the US put into it’s military might. If Jedi were released today Lucas might find himself at Gitmo while our boys kept on the look out for insurgents using big logs and hang-gliders armed with giant rocks. Again, if the GOP sees a parallel, in a film, about outer space, written during Vietnam, to the current political climate they might want to take that as a sign. From what I can tell Vietnam is now widely acknowledged as an abject failure. If we have reached the point where even those who are perpetrating this war, the same people who promised that Iraq would “not be another Vietnam,” are starting to see the similarities, maybe they should wake up and realize it’s not a case of liberal bias, it’s reality.

On a related note…

…I’m kind of glad it’s all over. I was born approximately 11 months before Star Wars was released. The films have been a constant for me, as they have been for most American males my age. Like a Red Sox fan under the age of 90 I don’t know life without gossip and speculation surrounding one of the passions of my generation. Still, I’m glad that I’ll never again have to leave a movie theater listening to a depressed, thirty-something, never-been-kissed Star Wars junkie complaining that “this one wasn’t (fill in the blank) compared to the originals.” Never again will I have to fight the urge to shake this person and scream, “Dude! When you saw the originals you were 12 years old!” Here’s the deal gang, these are movies made for kids. Adults loved the originals in part because there had, to that point, never been a movie like Start Wars. Heck, if you’re reading this chances are your parents were in their mid-twenties when Star warts came out which ain't exactly old. The special effects were unlike anything that had been done to that point. The story was different than anything that had been done to that point. Star Wars was different. Now it’s not. Now we get a few special effects vehicles every summer. Now we have an entire channel that does nothing but sci-fi. Not to mention that no matter what, there’s almost nothing Lucas could have made that would live up to the hype and anticipation that preceded Episode I. Nothing will ever live up to a beloved childhood experience it’s stupid to expect it.

That said Episode III was far and away the best of the recent trilogy. The interesting thing is that this film puts the entire series into a different perspective. The original three were about Luke’s journey from Tatooine farm boy to Jedi Knight. Anakin’s transition into Vader shifts the focus of the entire series to his rise, fall, and eventual redemption. Looking at the series as a whole Luke becomes a supporting character. Say what you want about the acting, the directing, the writing or whatever Episode III delivered exactly what Star Wars fans should have wanted. I think John Cloud said it well in a recent issue of Time magazine. Cloud wrtites, “True, Lucas’ beautiful but turgid prequal trilogy has disappointed. But then again I am no longer an awe struck boy secluded in a theater, trying to find himself in that place far far away.

Let's Catch Up

Greetings Rant fans. I am writing this from high over Iceland on my way to London for the Mark Bingham Cup. It's been a while since my last post, the rigors of commencement, obligations to family, and transition to a new job and a new home have kept me from the keyboard. Today I'd like to hit on a few things that have been floating around my newly shorn dome since my last dispatch. This won't be posted for another week after it's written but I'll be back in form after things calm down a bit.

Same Sex Marriage:

I know this has been done to death over the past few weeks but I am constantly amazed by the comments I hear and read from the far right. I can't fathom how people can feel that extending more rights and freedoms to people takes anything away from themselves. If you are not gay I really don't see how this issue effects you at all.

I know, I know, "the sanctity of marriage, " "Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve," etc. Lets look at some of these arguments. First, the "sanctity of marriage" thing. Guess what? It doesn't exist, ask my wife's boyfriend. There is no sanctity of marriage in the US. Nearly everyone in my family is now, or has been divorced. Why not give marriage to same sex couples? Maybe they can teach the rest us something we can't seem to figure out.

I can't believe a letter I read in the DC Express recently. They actually printed a letter pushing the "Adam and Steve" platform. Basically the letter suggests that if we allow same sex marriage the human race will die off because people will stop procreating. The idiocy of this argument astounds me. Hello! The people getting same sex unions (with acknowledgement to the Melissa Ethridges of the world) were never likely not going to procreate anyway. Also, no one has been waiting for same sex marriage so that they could finally indulge their homosexual desires. Just like hanging out with gay people or having gay parents will not "turn you gay" sanctioned ay marriage will not put and end to us breeders. Besides, same sex couples often give good, loving homes to the children discarded by irresponsible straight folks. We have no shortage of children, or people for that matter.

Finally, another letter I read recently suggests that the definition of marriage is a huge issue. The author suggests that same sex marriage is not comparable to the civil rights movement because opening lunch counters and integrating schools did not "require us to re write Webster's." According to the author the dictionary defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Here's what my dictionary says:

"mar.riage (n) 1. a legally recognized relationship established by a civil or religious ceremony between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners. 2. a married relationship between two particular people, or an individual's relationship with an individual spouse"

No mention of "man" or "woman," strangely prophetic? Or is it in fact the case that "man' and "woman" are not actually in the definition? And so what if they were? Webster's like all other dictionaries publishes new editions every so often. The dictionary changes because language is not static. Language is a reflection of culture and culture is fluid. Proof? "Party " is now listed as both a noun and a verb. No one got up in arms about that change.

Good job Mailman!

Good job by Karl Malone giving a hard elbow to that guy in game two of the Western Finals. The fact that Derek Fischer got smacked by The Gangsta Choka and then got called for a foul that sent Tha Choka to the line was ridiculous. In fact, all of game two was a farce. Also, what's up with not having all the conference finals games on regular TV? Was "Extreme Bloopers" so great a program that ABC couldn't have carried a playoff game instead? Fer fucks sake!


Baseball Notes

Sexson Done

The Richie Sexson deal is looking better and better for the Brewers (see Sir Rantalot's archive for 12/5/03) now that Sexson is out for the year with a bad shoulder. Meanwhile Lyle Overbay is mashing (.335/6/40), and the other players Milwaukee acquired in the deal have contributed. Right now the Brew Crew is above .500 and just 4 games out of a tough NL Central.

Chavez Out 6 Weeks

At first glance this sucks for the A's, but if take a second look you find that it really does suck for the A's. Once again Sir Rantalot the GM looks prescient in his insistence that the A's sign Mark McLemore (see Sir Rantalot's archive for 12/16/04). Losing an all-star gold glove 3B is never good, but at least the A's have a guy who can step in and at least hold down the fort until Chavey gets back.

The injury also opens up more playing time for my man Marco Scutaro to get more playing time. As you may remember (if not just scroll down and read "2B 2B do?") Scoot was my pick to replace Mark Ellis, but he was unfairly bumped by the versatile switch-hitting McLemore. Now Scoot and his .288/1/11/.321/.701 and good glove get back in the line up.

The other domino is that my original choice for 2B, Esteban German has been recalled from AAA Sacramento. German got the call after the A's quietly dealt Frank Menechino to Toronto.

Finally, it's nice to see Eric Byrnes making a place for himself again. I predict that the A's will let Jermaine Dye walk at the end of the year and install an outfield of Byrnes, Kotsay and Kielty from left to right for 2005.

What's Up With Dem Guys

I recently came across an article that showed the Royce Clayton was hitting 58 points above his career average. With McLemore starting at 3B for Oakland I decided to look and see how the other guys who I said the A's should sign are doing this year. Players are listed by salary in order to show who the A's may have actually been able to bring in, in lieu of say, Eric Karros (550K .137/2/8) or McLemore (.231/0/1).

-Jay Bell (Minor Leagues)
-Fernando Tatis (Minor Leagues)
-Tony Womack [Unkown, but not much]: .287/3/12/.330/.727 (Shoulda had him)
-Royce Clayton [550K]: .304/5/18/.363/.844 (Coulda had him)
-Eric Young [1M] : .310/0/6/.354/.754 (No HR but still more production than EK)
-Pokey Reese [1M] : .253/2/21/.346/.636 (Better than McLemore but more expensive)
-Rich Aurilia [3.15M] : .241/2/19/.305/.640 (Not worth the money)

So there it is. Go back and check it. The guys I really wanted are performing with Reese the disappointment. OK, Rant fans, I promise to take shorter breaks for the foreseeable future, check back soon, and remember you can rant back by signing the guestbook.