The following article summary got my attention in my google reader because it offended me.
Part-time work in the Netherlands has turned from being the prerogative of women with little career ambition into a powerful tool to attract talent in a competitive labor market.
The article "The Female Factor: Working (Part-Time) in the 21st Century" is odd- I find the message hard to pin down as far as what it's saying about women- but it's worth a read.
When I read the summary, I thought, "Really, New York Times? Did you have to say it that way? Just because you work part-time does not necessarily mean you have less career ambition. Balancing work and family life is just smart. Oh, and now that GUYS are working part-time too, suddenly it's the latest, greatest thing and shows ambition?" That line seemed like a bit of a dig to me.
The article focuses on the Netherlands. It's pretty much about flexible working hours, but the info on Dutch gender roles is interesting. The article summary line comes from a couple sentences that have two typos, so part of me wonders if that summary is a result of not-so-thoughtful editing/writing.
Take a look:
But in just a few years, part-time work has ceased being the prerogative of woman with little career ambition, and become a powerful tool to attract and retain talent — male and female — in a competitive Dutch labor market.
Indeed, for a growing group of younger professionals, the appetite for a shorter, a more flexible workweek appears to be spreading, with implications for everything from gender identity to rush-hour traffic.
Did you catch the two typos?
I find the article's message a little confusing. While showing that both men and women in the Netherlands want to work less to spend more time with family, it also cites studies that imply that women- but not men!- are, well, lazy.
According to Ellen de Bruin, the author of “Why Dutch Women Don’t Get Depressed,” Dutch women don’t seem to mind too much. She notes that 96 percent of Dutch part timers tell pollsters they do not want to work more; the Netherlands is that rare country where — even taking housework and child care into account — women work less than men.
Um, ok... I dunno. What do you guys think? If you read the whole article, can you tell me if it's as wander-y as I think it is?
The article is part of a series called the Female Factor, which aims to examine "where women stand in the early 21st century."
Showing posts with label Opinions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinions. Show all posts
Being "That Parent"
You know how you sometimes see parents do stuff you think YOU'D never do? Like letting a kid play a video game at dinner? Or letting your kid scream at the library? Or, letting a kid run amok, ripping stuff off shelves, while you chat with your friend?
Now, I'm not necessarily saying I've done those things, but I did have a moment last weekend when I saw a couple looking at my family as if we were "those horrifying people." It does involve letting my baby play an iPhone app at dinner, but let me give you some background.
In early August the toddler and I flew to California to visit my sister, just me and him, with- horrors- a layover. With the thought of seven hours in a plane, and an hour layover, I armed myself with all the things I could to keep him busy: food, drink, books, stuffed animal, and iPhone apps. Most parents do videos, but I didn't want to deal with bringing a laptop for that, since I didn't want to have to put it in and out of the backpack at security. I already had to deal with kid and carseat, so I figured I could make the iPhone work.
One of the apps I got for him is Talking Tom- a cat that repeats what you say. You can also knock him out if you poke him in the face repeatedly. Well, since my kid only says like 15 words, he preferred to mostly knock the cat out. Oh- and shriek at it. The app was a moderate success on the plane- I had to limit his time with it because of the shrieking, plus I was a little freaked out by how addicted to it he (and my sister's older 3 kids- yes she now has 5 kids age 7 and under) became.
So, cut to last weekend. We were out for what we thought would be a quick dinner. The kid, as usual, was doing great, snacking and being pretty quiet. Something weird happened to our order, though, and our entrees took 45 minutes to arrive. The kid had been in the stroller for a while, then in his dinner seat for an hour, and was getting restless and fussy. I didn't want to get him out of his seat because he's way too active and crazy to let walk around a non-baby safe area, so to calm him down, I gave him the drug- I mean, iPhone. He immediately became deliriously happy and started punching Talking Tom in the face. I noticed the lady across from me turning to look at my kid, then turning back toward her date, and then they both looked back at us. It was an "Oh my god" look, rather than a "Oh how cute and funny" look. I could totally see that she saw us as "those awful people that let their kids play video games." And even worse, a very young kid.
I feel a little bad about that, but then I think, "Whatever." I don't see how you can expect kids (and active boy toddlers) to do ridiculous things like ride in a plane for 7 plus hours, or sit in a in a seat or stroller for almost two hours, without doing something equally ridiculous like letting them play with your iPhone. It's hard to live a balanced life as a parent without doing a little crappy parenting here and there.
By the way, the flights turned out well. On the way out he slept a lot since he'd woken up at 3am to make a 6:45 flight- and on the way back, not only did we have new iPhone videos of him and his cousins to watch, he'd also learned from his cousins how to jump off stuff, so he spent several minutes jumping off the armrest into his seat. Our flight home landed at- ugh- 11pm, and although he was crabby, he spent, no joke, 30 of the last minutes quietly buckling and unbuckling our ERGObaby carrier. The kid's a champ.
Now, I'm not necessarily saying I've done those things, but I did have a moment last weekend when I saw a couple looking at my family as if we were "those horrifying people." It does involve letting my baby play an iPhone app at dinner, but let me give you some background.
In early August the toddler and I flew to California to visit my sister, just me and him, with- horrors- a layover. With the thought of seven hours in a plane, and an hour layover, I armed myself with all the things I could to keep him busy: food, drink, books, stuffed animal, and iPhone apps. Most parents do videos, but I didn't want to deal with bringing a laptop for that, since I didn't want to have to put it in and out of the backpack at security. I already had to deal with kid and carseat, so I figured I could make the iPhone work.
One of the apps I got for him is Talking Tom- a cat that repeats what you say. You can also knock him out if you poke him in the face repeatedly. Well, since my kid only says like 15 words, he preferred to mostly knock the cat out. Oh- and shriek at it. The app was a moderate success on the plane- I had to limit his time with it because of the shrieking, plus I was a little freaked out by how addicted to it he (and my sister's older 3 kids- yes she now has 5 kids age 7 and under) became.So, cut to last weekend. We were out for what we thought would be a quick dinner. The kid, as usual, was doing great, snacking and being pretty quiet. Something weird happened to our order, though, and our entrees took 45 minutes to arrive. The kid had been in the stroller for a while, then in his dinner seat for an hour, and was getting restless and fussy. I didn't want to get him out of his seat because he's way too active and crazy to let walk around a non-baby safe area, so to calm him down, I gave him the drug- I mean, iPhone. He immediately became deliriously happy and started punching Talking Tom in the face. I noticed the lady across from me turning to look at my kid, then turning back toward her date, and then they both looked back at us. It was an "Oh my god" look, rather than a "Oh how cute and funny" look. I could totally see that she saw us as "those awful people that let their kids play video games." And even worse, a very young kid.
I feel a little bad about that, but then I think, "Whatever." I don't see how you can expect kids (and active boy toddlers) to do ridiculous things like ride in a plane for 7 plus hours, or sit in a in a seat or stroller for almost two hours, without doing something equally ridiculous like letting them play with your iPhone. It's hard to live a balanced life as a parent without doing a little crappy parenting here and there.
By the way, the flights turned out well. On the way out he slept a lot since he'd woken up at 3am to make a 6:45 flight- and on the way back, not only did we have new iPhone videos of him and his cousins to watch, he'd also learned from his cousins how to jump off stuff, so he spent several minutes jumping off the armrest into his seat. Our flight home landed at- ugh- 11pm, and although he was crabby, he spent, no joke, 30 of the last minutes quietly buckling and unbuckling our ERGObaby carrier. The kid's a champ.
Windshield Spam
You know how it's illegal to spam people via email? Illegal to send emails about your product unless the person has signed up? Well, shouldn't that same idea apply to your CAR WINDSHIELD?
I forget where I was- maybe the Newfield CVS, maybe the Super Stop and Shop, but after I crammed the crabby baby into his carseat under the blazing hot sun, I got inside to the blessed cool air of the car and put it in drive... only to see a FLIER under my passenger side window.
Yeah. I really feel like stopping my car and walking ALL THE WAY AROUND THE OTHER SIDE OF MY CAR IN ONE HUNDRED DEGREE HEAT to dislodge a piece of paper about which I likely have NO interest.
Well, turns out I have a great interest in the product- FOOD- so I'm actually MORE likely to remember that it was Myrna's who put the flier there, and more likely to NOT go to that restaurant, so as to not support the annoying practice of putting fliers under people's windshields.
At a certain point, it's a safety issue. I should not have to stop my car on the side of the road to remove a flier, nor should I have to drive with the distraction of a piece of paper fluttering along in front of me.
Myrna's, cut it out!
OK actually I am looking at the flier- JUST THE COVER, I refuse to open it!- and it's kinda making my mouth water for falafel.
I forget where I was- maybe the Newfield CVS, maybe the Super Stop and Shop, but after I crammed the crabby baby into his carseat under the blazing hot sun, I got inside to the blessed cool air of the car and put it in drive... only to see a FLIER under my passenger side window.
Yeah. I really feel like stopping my car and walking ALL THE WAY AROUND THE OTHER SIDE OF MY CAR IN ONE HUNDRED DEGREE HEAT to dislodge a piece of paper about which I likely have NO interest.
Well, turns out I have a great interest in the product- FOOD- so I'm actually MORE likely to remember that it was Myrna's who put the flier there, and more likely to NOT go to that restaurant, so as to not support the annoying practice of putting fliers under people's windshields.
At a certain point, it's a safety issue. I should not have to stop my car on the side of the road to remove a flier, nor should I have to drive with the distraction of a piece of paper fluttering along in front of me.
Myrna's, cut it out!
OK actually I am looking at the flier- JUST THE COVER, I refuse to open it!- and it's kinda making my mouth water for falafel.
Stamford's Nickname: Who Cares?
Fellow Stamford blogger Kevin McKeever has a great column up in the Advocate about Stamford's quest for a new nickname. As usual, he's got some very funny lines: I could dream up far sillier yet more apt mottos -- "A City Terrified of Big Box Retailers," "Caught Between the Posh and the Poor," etc. -- but I'll refrain. That's because slogans don't reinvigorate a city. You know what does? Kevin then goes on to suggest improvements that our city should be spending time refining: education, housing, and responsible development. Go, Kevin. You struck the perfect balance between humor and opinion about a serious issue.
I am not sure if our dear Stamford needs a nickname. It seems kind of wannabe to have a nickname. Greenwich doesn't have a nickname. ("Hedge Fund Central?") Darien does, but it's the unofficial "Aryan Darien" jab. I know that Danbury is called "Hat City" (I could be wrong, which proves how pointless nicknames are) and I only know that because there's a music venue with that name. Having a nickname seems like a desperate grab for an identity. And really, the identity of a place is always evolving... so let's just chill out about the nickname. Let's officially have NO nickname.
Other cities' nicknames:
Big Apple? That's kind of cool. Like you are a big apple, and I like apples!
Windy City? That's just boring.
Hotlanta. That's a cool nickname, I guess, but it's simple and obvious, which is why it's OK. And being hot is better than being windy. If it's hot, you can go swimming, and drink margaritas poolside in your bikini. If it's windy, it messes your hair up. I do concede, I've never been to Chicago, so maybe I'm not up to speed on the benefits of wind.
I am not sure if our dear Stamford needs a nickname. It seems kind of wannabe to have a nickname. Greenwich doesn't have a nickname. ("Hedge Fund Central?") Darien does, but it's the unofficial "Aryan Darien" jab. I know that Danbury is called "Hat City" (I could be wrong, which proves how pointless nicknames are) and I only know that because there's a music venue with that name. Having a nickname seems like a desperate grab for an identity. And really, the identity of a place is always evolving... so let's just chill out about the nickname. Let's officially have NO nickname.
Other cities' nicknames:
Big Apple? That's kind of cool. Like you are a big apple, and I like apples!
Windy City? That's just boring.
Hotlanta. That's a cool nickname, I guess, but it's simple and obvious, which is why it's OK. And being hot is better than being windy. If it's hot, you can go swimming, and drink margaritas poolside in your bikini. If it's windy, it messes your hair up. I do concede, I've never been to Chicago, so maybe I'm not up to speed on the benefits of wind.
Fairfield County Weekly Sloppily Busts on a Topic Near and Dear to My Heart
Voice amplication systems have nothing to do with why “Public School Still Sucks”- that’s the title of a not-so-cleverly constructed article in the Fairfield Weekly. The article opens by portraying the horrifying scenario of a Stamford teacher- gasp!- using technology to make it easier for students to hear her:
Newfield Elementary teacher Shelly Romano walks around with something that looks like an electric razor dangling from her neck. It's part of a RedCat amplification system, which booms her voice across her classroom via wireless infrared technology. It's not just for kids with hearing disabilities, principal Miriam Arango told the Stamford Times; it makes all students filter out every sound but Romano's voice. Arango said "the students don't even realize that they are paying more attention."
Um, I had to start using a system like this last year when the daily overuse of my voice almost ended my ten-year teaching career. I know a thing or two about the subject of voice amplification; it saved me after 3 devastating years in which I could not teach effectively, could not go out to restaurants with friends, and could not even read a book to my nephews without severe voice pain.
The article- by the FCW Editorial staff- then goes on to its main argument, which is totally unrelated to voice amp systems:
We bring up this extreme scene from a local school — the Bionic Schoolmarm with the voice in stereo — to show the kind of insanity State Rep. Jason Bartlett (D-Bethel, Redding, Danbury) wants to expose our children to for an extra two years. Bartlett has proposed a bill to increase the age at which Connecticut students can pull themselves out of compulsory education, with a parent's permission, from 16 to 18.
Clearly, if that scene seems “extreme” to the writer, he did not do much research on voice amplification in the classroom. (I recommend this Washington Post article on the subject, which describes how hundreds of DC area classrooms now use VA because of the benefits to students and teachers.) VA systems are not a form of “insanity” that brainwashes kids with a robot voice; it’s about the teacher’s voice being clear as a bell over the constant noise of 25 active little bodies in a large room. I’m sure most parents would rather their child be talked to in a calm voice through a high quality speaker system rather than shouted at by a strained voice that can barely croak at the end of the day.
The FCW author’s hook about the teacher’s mic system makes no sense in the context of his actual topic. If his point is that public school “sucks,” he’s going to need to give a better example of why. It’s not because a teacher is using a microphone to save her voice and communicate more clearly and easily with her students. (I’ll pipe up with a Stamford Talk “DUH” here.)
The article ends with an equally unclever mic tie-in:
We have an idea for a new law: Require all kids to leave school by age 16. That would force schools to drop the cosmetic makeovers and figure out how Dutch and Finnish schools teach everything useful American schools do before students hit puberty. More importantly, it would give our youth two years to do something more productive than sit in a room and stare at some bizarre woman with a blinking gadget tied around her neck.
Dude, just leave out the last line! Stop being such a smarty pants with the whole mic thing! The article would have been so much more coherent without it.
And why is the author calling that teacher "bizarre?" Did he observe her and find her behavior odd? Or did he just read one article in the Stamford Times that mentioned her, and then use its info as if he himself had actually done some research on the use of voice amplification systems?
I left a comment on the article at the FW website. This is what I said:
I don't think voice amplification systems are why "public school still sucks."
Did you interview the "bizarre woman," or did you just read about her in the Stamford Times?
If you knew anything about voice amplification systems in the classroom, you'd have chosen a different and more relevant hook for this article.
I'm not sure why you needed to insult that teacher, and criticize technology you clearly don't understand, to make a point about the required age to stay in school
Bring on the second draft with a different hook and end.
I think the article relished in the idea of insulting a person while making their otherwise perfectly rational point about public education. To call someone else bizarre, someone he probably has not met, is just strange.
I used to really like the Fairfield Weekly, but I notice more and more often that some of the articles are unnecessarily mean-spirited. That bothers me. You shouldn't insult people unless there's a good reason, and the FCW Editorial did not have a good enough reason to insult that teacher. In this case, the unnecessary meanness shows how uninformed the writer of the article is.
Newfield Elementary teacher Shelly Romano walks around with something that looks like an electric razor dangling from her neck. It's part of a RedCat amplification system, which booms her voice across her classroom via wireless infrared technology. It's not just for kids with hearing disabilities, principal Miriam Arango told the Stamford Times; it makes all students filter out every sound but Romano's voice. Arango said "the students don't even realize that they are paying more attention."
Um, I had to start using a system like this last year when the daily overuse of my voice almost ended my ten-year teaching career. I know a thing or two about the subject of voice amplification; it saved me after 3 devastating years in which I could not teach effectively, could not go out to restaurants with friends, and could not even read a book to my nephews without severe voice pain.
The article- by the FCW Editorial staff- then goes on to its main argument, which is totally unrelated to voice amp systems:
We bring up this extreme scene from a local school — the Bionic Schoolmarm with the voice in stereo — to show the kind of insanity State Rep. Jason Bartlett (D-Bethel, Redding, Danbury) wants to expose our children to for an extra two years. Bartlett has proposed a bill to increase the age at which Connecticut students can pull themselves out of compulsory education, with a parent's permission, from 16 to 18.
Clearly, if that scene seems “extreme” to the writer, he did not do much research on voice amplification in the classroom. (I recommend this Washington Post article on the subject, which describes how hundreds of DC area classrooms now use VA because of the benefits to students and teachers.) VA systems are not a form of “insanity” that brainwashes kids with a robot voice; it’s about the teacher’s voice being clear as a bell over the constant noise of 25 active little bodies in a large room. I’m sure most parents would rather their child be talked to in a calm voice through a high quality speaker system rather than shouted at by a strained voice that can barely croak at the end of the day.
The FCW author’s hook about the teacher’s mic system makes no sense in the context of his actual topic. If his point is that public school “sucks,” he’s going to need to give a better example of why. It’s not because a teacher is using a microphone to save her voice and communicate more clearly and easily with her students. (I’ll pipe up with a Stamford Talk “DUH” here.)
The article ends with an equally unclever mic tie-in:
We have an idea for a new law: Require all kids to leave school by age 16. That would force schools to drop the cosmetic makeovers and figure out how Dutch and Finnish schools teach everything useful American schools do before students hit puberty. More importantly, it would give our youth two years to do something more productive than sit in a room and stare at some bizarre woman with a blinking gadget tied around her neck.
Dude, just leave out the last line! Stop being such a smarty pants with the whole mic thing! The article would have been so much more coherent without it.
And why is the author calling that teacher "bizarre?" Did he observe her and find her behavior odd? Or did he just read one article in the Stamford Times that mentioned her, and then use its info as if he himself had actually done some research on the use of voice amplification systems?
I left a comment on the article at the FW website. This is what I said:
I don't think voice amplification systems are why "public school still sucks."
Did you interview the "bizarre woman," or did you just read about her in the Stamford Times?
If you knew anything about voice amplification systems in the classroom, you'd have chosen a different and more relevant hook for this article.
I'm not sure why you needed to insult that teacher, and criticize technology you clearly don't understand, to make a point about the required age to stay in school
Bring on the second draft with a different hook and end.
I think the article relished in the idea of insulting a person while making their otherwise perfectly rational point about public education. To call someone else bizarre, someone he probably has not met, is just strange.
I used to really like the Fairfield Weekly, but I notice more and more often that some of the articles are unnecessarily mean-spirited. That bothers me. You shouldn't insult people unless there's a good reason, and the FCW Editorial did not have a good enough reason to insult that teacher. In this case, the unnecessary meanness shows how uninformed the writer of the article is.
Fake Male Apologies? Obama, Phelps, Drugs
There’s an editorial the weekend’s Advocate called “Pointless apologies for victimless crimes.” Boring title, but the first few lines caught me: “American men learn early to apologize, whether we think we've done anything wrong or not. Any husband married longer than 10 days knows he's required to do this often, even if he has no clue why. Women demand contrition, even after we've denied any wrongdoing, made it clear we aren't sorry and guaranteed that the apology they're about to receive is completely insincere.”
Initial reaction: What IS this drivel?
I only make my husband apologize for very specific things, like complaining about the pediatrician interview I set up. I’m tired of doing boring grunt work, then having someone complain about my performance on that grunt work. If you don’t like my pediatrician selection methods, get off your butt and make a few tedious phone calls yourself. You’re sorry? Thank you; that takes away some of the sting of your rudeness, even if your rudeness was unintentional.
Next reaction: Oh, I see, it’s cute intro commentary about Barack Obama’s apology related to Daschle. Your point is that Barack didn’t have to apologize, but he was the bigger man and did so. Want to get on my good side? Say something nice about Barack. You can even make mean generalizations about women to set up a Barack compliment. That’s fine. No problemo.
But then, the author, UConn professor Mark Drought, goes into the Michael Phelps situation. I was actually just thinking about Michael Phelps, and how he’s just a young man, and how even though he won 8 gold medals, chances are, he’s going to do some of the many dumb things that young men do. Honestly, a bong hit is probably one of his least dangerous options, because it didn’t put his life or the lives of others at stake. When I was in college, we had several students die or get severely injured in alcohol-related incidents. Driving drunk, or getting so drunk that you fall down a flight of stairs (that happened twice at my school- one person died, one was paralyzed) are among the more dangerous dumb things Phelps could do. Drought calls Phelps' bong hit a "victimless crime." I'm not endorsing bong hits here, or marijuana use in general, but I can basically agree with that part of Drought's idea.
Drought also says that Phelps “has nothing to be contrite about.” I do not fully agree with that. Phelps should apologize. Because to kids, that bong hit is confusing.
We tell kids that drugs are bad, because, well, they often are. Drought points out that alcohol can be bad too. Right, but alcohol use is legal; you don’t have to score alcohol from a shady dealer. You’re not breaking the law if you drink alcohol over the age of 21. You are breaking the law if you are caught with drugs.
Phelps’ apology: "I'm 23 years old and despite the successes I've had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again."
Essentially, he said, “I’m young; I did something dumb. I realize I let the public down.” That’s a pretty accurate and reasonable statement. It’s dumb to do illegal things, especially around people who are going to take your picture and then sell it. I was disappointed in Phelps; not so much that he’d done pot, but that the kids I know had to see that.
I agree with Drought that Phelps does not need to apologize to adults; we know young men do careless things, especially at parties, especially when drinking. Phelps does need to apologize though, for the sake of all the kids who idolize him and now need to figure out if it’s cool for them to do bong hits, too.
I know it’s parents’ jobs to explain this stuff to their kids, but I think it’s silly that Drought seems upset that Phelps felt like he needed to apologize.
In general, I found the tone of this article to be too flippant. I completely disagree with the last 2 lines: “I have no idea whether Phelps is genuinely sorry for his victimless crime, or merely kicking himself for jeopardizing his endorsements by getting caught, like a husband feigning remorse for sins he's clueless about. Either way, the American public should get over it, and be mature enough to realize that Michael Phelps is moral enough to sell Sugar Frosted Flakes to our nation's youth.”
Yes, adults are mature enough to get over it, but a 10 year old does not have the life experience to put that public bong hit in perspective. As the author himself acknowledges in the last line, the issue is the message it sends to young people. So, while Phelps is probably about as moral as the rest of us, a smiling Phelps on a Kellogg’s box doesn’t quite jibe with the image of an unshaven Phelps huffing pot. Advertising isn’t about maturity and realistic expectations of people, it’s about selling an image.
And, I just don’t think the clueless husband metaphor holds up in the Phelps situation; surely he understands why people are upset. He’s young, maybe he’s dumb, but I doubt he’s clueless.
Final reaction: at least this column was written by someone local- a UConn professor- and isn’t one of those generic national columns.
Actually, looks like Phelp did get a DUI, 5 years ago at the age of 19. Thanks, Wikipedia! So, Phelps ain’t no saint, and if that tarnishes his rep, and ruins some sponsorships, so be it. I really don’t care. But I’m OK with him apologizing. It’s OK to apologize for setting a bad example for young people, especially if you do feel badly about it, for whatever reason.
From Wikipedia: In November 2004, at the age of 19, Phelps was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in Salisbury, Maryland. He pleaded guilty to driving while impaired the following month and was granted probation before judgment and ordered to serve 18 months' probation, fined $250, obligated to speak to high school students about drinking and driving and had to attend a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) meeting. Questioned about the incident later that month by Matt Lauer on the Today Show, Phelps said it was an "isolated incident" and that he had "definitely let myself down and my family down...I think I let a lot of people in the country down."
Initial reaction: What IS this drivel?
I only make my husband apologize for very specific things, like complaining about the pediatrician interview I set up. I’m tired of doing boring grunt work, then having someone complain about my performance on that grunt work. If you don’t like my pediatrician selection methods, get off your butt and make a few tedious phone calls yourself. You’re sorry? Thank you; that takes away some of the sting of your rudeness, even if your rudeness was unintentional.
Next reaction: Oh, I see, it’s cute intro commentary about Barack Obama’s apology related to Daschle. Your point is that Barack didn’t have to apologize, but he was the bigger man and did so. Want to get on my good side? Say something nice about Barack. You can even make mean generalizations about women to set up a Barack compliment. That’s fine. No problemo.
But then, the author, UConn professor Mark Drought, goes into the Michael Phelps situation. I was actually just thinking about Michael Phelps, and how he’s just a young man, and how even though he won 8 gold medals, chances are, he’s going to do some of the many dumb things that young men do. Honestly, a bong hit is probably one of his least dangerous options, because it didn’t put his life or the lives of others at stake. When I was in college, we had several students die or get severely injured in alcohol-related incidents. Driving drunk, or getting so drunk that you fall down a flight of stairs (that happened twice at my school- one person died, one was paralyzed) are among the more dangerous dumb things Phelps could do. Drought calls Phelps' bong hit a "victimless crime." I'm not endorsing bong hits here, or marijuana use in general, but I can basically agree with that part of Drought's idea.
Drought also says that Phelps “has nothing to be contrite about.” I do not fully agree with that. Phelps should apologize. Because to kids, that bong hit is confusing.
We tell kids that drugs are bad, because, well, they often are. Drought points out that alcohol can be bad too. Right, but alcohol use is legal; you don’t have to score alcohol from a shady dealer. You’re not breaking the law if you drink alcohol over the age of 21. You are breaking the law if you are caught with drugs.
Phelps’ apology: "I'm 23 years old and despite the successes I've had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again."
Essentially, he said, “I’m young; I did something dumb. I realize I let the public down.” That’s a pretty accurate and reasonable statement. It’s dumb to do illegal things, especially around people who are going to take your picture and then sell it. I was disappointed in Phelps; not so much that he’d done pot, but that the kids I know had to see that.
I agree with Drought that Phelps does not need to apologize to adults; we know young men do careless things, especially at parties, especially when drinking. Phelps does need to apologize though, for the sake of all the kids who idolize him and now need to figure out if it’s cool for them to do bong hits, too.
I know it’s parents’ jobs to explain this stuff to their kids, but I think it’s silly that Drought seems upset that Phelps felt like he needed to apologize.
In general, I found the tone of this article to be too flippant. I completely disagree with the last 2 lines: “I have no idea whether Phelps is genuinely sorry for his victimless crime, or merely kicking himself for jeopardizing his endorsements by getting caught, like a husband feigning remorse for sins he's clueless about. Either way, the American public should get over it, and be mature enough to realize that Michael Phelps is moral enough to sell Sugar Frosted Flakes to our nation's youth.”
Yes, adults are mature enough to get over it, but a 10 year old does not have the life experience to put that public bong hit in perspective. As the author himself acknowledges in the last line, the issue is the message it sends to young people. So, while Phelps is probably about as moral as the rest of us, a smiling Phelps on a Kellogg’s box doesn’t quite jibe with the image of an unshaven Phelps huffing pot. Advertising isn’t about maturity and realistic expectations of people, it’s about selling an image.
And, I just don’t think the clueless husband metaphor holds up in the Phelps situation; surely he understands why people are upset. He’s young, maybe he’s dumb, but I doubt he’s clueless.
Final reaction: at least this column was written by someone local- a UConn professor- and isn’t one of those generic national columns.
Actually, looks like Phelp did get a DUI, 5 years ago at the age of 19. Thanks, Wikipedia! So, Phelps ain’t no saint, and if that tarnishes his rep, and ruins some sponsorships, so be it. I really don’t care. But I’m OK with him apologizing. It’s OK to apologize for setting a bad example for young people, especially if you do feel badly about it, for whatever reason.
From Wikipedia: In November 2004, at the age of 19, Phelps was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in Salisbury, Maryland. He pleaded guilty to driving while impaired the following month and was granted probation before judgment and ordered to serve 18 months' probation, fined $250, obligated to speak to high school students about drinking and driving and had to attend a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) meeting. Questioned about the incident later that month by Matt Lauer on the Today Show, Phelps said it was an "isolated incident" and that he had "definitely let myself down and my family down...I think I let a lot of people in the country down."
Blue Holiday Lights Downtown: I Like 'Em
It took me a few minutes to get used to Stamford's new blue lights, but I'm OK with them. Obviously, I like the fact that they match my Stamford Talk theme. At first I missed the classic white lights, but blue is cool. As my husband says, "They're Christmas yet Hanukkah." He believes that holiday lights should be colorful. He shot down my all-white light Christmas tree idea the first year we lived together, then totally took over and proceeded to put together a great-looking tree. I'll admit, I'm a convert. I now see the appeal of colored lights.However, I wonder if the all-blue lights will get old after a couple months. I wonder if I'll start to feel like I need a little variety. The blue is very blue, with no break. I wonder what other cities have all blue, and if people tolerated them for long periods of time. The nice thing about white is that it's very standard. Household lights are white, so having all-white lights in the trees year-round is no biggie, and it's pretty.
But see, this is where my husband would say holidays are for fun, and for different. I see his point... which is why I am OK with the blue lights. Et tu?
Does the Advocate Also Endorse Palin?
Um, Advocate? I suppose it's your job to endorse a political candidate. Therefore, I am not holding it completely against you that you endorsed McCain. However, your endorsement of McCain failed to mention vice-presidential candidate Palin. I'm refraining from using the words "cracked out" (adjective form, as in, "you are cracked out"), because I'm too mature and level-headed for that, but I think it was a foolish oversight not to factor Palin's presence into your decision.
While Palin was a hoot in her cameo on SNL, I can't say enough bad things about almost every politically-oriented word I've heard come out of her mouth. It's a horror show of ignorance and unpreparedness, and that's an unacceptable situation for the vice-president. If the Advocate's editorial board is endorsing McCain, they are also endorsing Palin for vice-president and possibly president. So why don't they mention her?
Is the Advocate OK with Palin? If so, tell me why. I'd love to hear. If the Advocate is not OK with Palin, and didn't mention her because they know she is an unacceptable choice, it's irresponsible to endorse McCain. Either way, I'd like to know what the Advocate thinks. It was kind of weird they didn't mention Palin, because her out-of-nowhere selection has been a big factor this presidential race.
I've been tactfully keeping mum on politics, because Stamford Talk is about Stamford, not about my own political leanings. But when the local paper endorses a candidate but ignores his choice of an extremely problematic running mate, it needs to be called out. That's an incomplete story, and readers notice.
If you missed the real Sarah Palin's cameo on SNL, here it is:
While Palin was a hoot in her cameo on SNL, I can't say enough bad things about almost every politically-oriented word I've heard come out of her mouth. It's a horror show of ignorance and unpreparedness, and that's an unacceptable situation for the vice-president. If the Advocate's editorial board is endorsing McCain, they are also endorsing Palin for vice-president and possibly president. So why don't they mention her?
Is the Advocate OK with Palin? If so, tell me why. I'd love to hear. If the Advocate is not OK with Palin, and didn't mention her because they know she is an unacceptable choice, it's irresponsible to endorse McCain. Either way, I'd like to know what the Advocate thinks. It was kind of weird they didn't mention Palin, because her out-of-nowhere selection has been a big factor this presidential race.
I've been tactfully keeping mum on politics, because Stamford Talk is about Stamford, not about my own political leanings. But when the local paper endorses a candidate but ignores his choice of an extremely problematic running mate, it needs to be called out. That's an incomplete story, and readers notice.
If you missed the real Sarah Palin's cameo on SNL, here it is:
New Strip Mall on High Ridge a Good Idea?
Uh, isn't that obviously a bad idea? Some dudes want to build a strip mall just across from Town Fair Tire- you know, just north of the Turn of River stop light (the light by Kit's and Dunkin Donuts). If you've ever sat in the 5pm traffic that starts right at that stoplight, you may be a little PO'd that this new set of stores would necessitate another stoplight right at Town Fair. Yes, a city engineer recommended another stoplight to deal with the traffic that would need to turn into the stores. Can you imagine the gridlock on Fridays before holidays? I've seen traffic back up 1/2 mile or more.
I wonder what stores are interested in the proposed mall. I understand that something needs to go into that lot (right now it's just a vacant office building), but I just don't know if an already congested intersection is the right place to put something that will draw a lot more cars.
I do know that we need more shopping downtown, not up near the Merritt. We need to drive less in Stamford. We need to be able to park our cars somewhere where we can eat, shop and chill out for a few hours before getting back in the car. There is nowhere to do this in Stamford except the mall. Bedford St. has food, but only two stores of interest to me: glass and chocolate. (OK, and liquor and bridesmaid dresses.)
Last weekend, I suggested to my husband that we stroll around Stamford. "Stroll where?" he asked. "Bedford St.!" I answered. I wanted to eat outdoors at Capriccio, then walk around and enjoy the weather and pop my head into a few stores. However, my husband declared he had no interest in glass and chocolate. Instead, I drove to Target, then the gym, then Westport to shop. I did not get to enjoy any outdoor time in Stamford.
I reaaaaaaaaaaaaally think they should make Bedford St. more pedestrian friendly, even if only on weekends. Pedestrians need things like clothes, toys and knick-knacks to look at. Instead, we're talking about more shopping far from the center of town.
Oddly, the Advocate article ends by suggesting there is no opposition to this project:
...controversy over the development has died down since last month's public hearing, when many Turn of River Road residents who live behind the property expressed concerns over possible traffic and noise. They subsequently met with representatives of the developers.
By Monday, the handful of residents who showed up at the hearing seemed relatively satisfied. "I arranged the meetings on the first and the second," Turn of River resident Joseph Gabriele told the board. "They came through on everything."
A few still had reservations. "The road is fairly stressed now," said George Shepherd, who also worried about the new traffic light. The redevelopment of 969 High Ridge has been in the works for more than three years.
I think we should be worried about that traffic light. Do you agree, or am I being a paranoid development-phobe?
I wonder what stores are interested in the proposed mall. I understand that something needs to go into that lot (right now it's just a vacant office building), but I just don't know if an already congested intersection is the right place to put something that will draw a lot more cars.
I do know that we need more shopping downtown, not up near the Merritt. We need to drive less in Stamford. We need to be able to park our cars somewhere where we can eat, shop and chill out for a few hours before getting back in the car. There is nowhere to do this in Stamford except the mall. Bedford St. has food, but only two stores of interest to me: glass and chocolate. (OK, and liquor and bridesmaid dresses.)
Last weekend, I suggested to my husband that we stroll around Stamford. "Stroll where?" he asked. "Bedford St.!" I answered. I wanted to eat outdoors at Capriccio, then walk around and enjoy the weather and pop my head into a few stores. However, my husband declared he had no interest in glass and chocolate. Instead, I drove to Target, then the gym, then Westport to shop. I did not get to enjoy any outdoor time in Stamford.
I reaaaaaaaaaaaaally think they should make Bedford St. more pedestrian friendly, even if only on weekends. Pedestrians need things like clothes, toys and knick-knacks to look at. Instead, we're talking about more shopping far from the center of town.
Oddly, the Advocate article ends by suggesting there is no opposition to this project:
...controversy over the development has died down since last month's public hearing, when many Turn of River Road residents who live behind the property expressed concerns over possible traffic and noise. They subsequently met with representatives of the developers.
By Monday, the handful of residents who showed up at the hearing seemed relatively satisfied. "I arranged the meetings on the first and the second," Turn of River resident Joseph Gabriele told the board. "They came through on everything."
A few still had reservations. "The road is fairly stressed now," said George Shepherd, who also worried about the new traffic light. The redevelopment of 969 High Ridge has been in the works for more than three years.
I think we should be worried about that traffic light. Do you agree, or am I being a paranoid development-phobe?
Juicy Political Gossip! Local Candidate Whitnum Doesn't Like That Internet Leaves a Record, Doesn't Like Immigrants
Jim Himes, the Democratic Congressional candidate, walked from Greenwich to Bridgeport yesterday to show that our district is connected. Cool. Himes is the endorsed candidate on the ballot this fall vs. incumbent Republican Shays. A woman named Lee Whitnum just got enough signatures to challenge Himes in the August 12 Democratic primary. Whitnum lives in Greenwich and is a substitute teacher in Stamford.
Here’s the gossip: Whitnum appears to be bonkers. I feel bad saying that, but I can’t think of another explanation. Get ready for a lurid/goofy webpage, light S&M and, most importantly, Whitnum’s lack of understanding that everything we do and say on the internet leaves a permanent record about us.
The best account of Whitnum’s strange internet past is at My Left Nutmeg (MLN), a liberal political blog. "A Voter's Guide to Lee Whitnum" starts with Whitnum's 1990 relationship with John Kerry (he was single at the time). She told the press about it during promotion of her fictional book Hedge Fund Mistress in 2004. The book was written under the name Lee Roystone, but Whitnum said the events in the chapter about a Massachusetts senator Presidential candidate are all true. The chapter includes a sex scene with light spanking. But that's not even the gossip.
MLN also includes a link to a bizarre webpage by Whitnum (rather, Roystone) that looks like a collage about a high school boyfriend... but it’s about John Kerry. The page, part of the HFM site, was taken down, but a cached copy exists. Memorabilia on the collage include photos of Whitnum with Kerry, a phone message written on a pink heart and newspaper clippings.
On Whitnum’s current book site, a note says: “This page has been removed. This page never contained G-rated photos of the candidate at the podium...the candidate at a tree planting... etc. Do not believe the bloggers. Lee”
However, the cache page does show Kerry at a podium. What is Lee talking about? Is she trying to say the webpage never existed at all? Does she mean that bloggers altered it? Why does it even matter if he was at a podium? Was the collage meant to be fictitious and created by the character? If so, Whitnum should state that. She’s running for Congress and voters will want to know if that collage was serious, a joke, or a mix of the two that makes you pity the collage-maker.
I’d say, “I’m confused,” but I can tell Whitnum is the confused one. Galley Cat, one of mediabistro’s blogs, has a post from last summer about an author who emailed to ask them to remove any reference of her from their site. Guess who? Yup. Why does Whitnum think she can edit the internet record to her liking?
What’s freaky is that her political webpage says she got a degree in computer science. That makes her actions even more puzzling.
Even the Greenwich Time got confused by Whitnum. (Who can keep up with her? I’ll provide article links at the end of this post if you want to try to untangle the convoluted stories.) From a recent GT article: “In a case of ‘he said, she said,’ Congressional hopeful Jim Himes is accusing fellow Democrat and Greenwich resident Lee Whitnum of calling him a Nazi on her campaign Web site and on a popular Internet blog.”
CT Local Politics points out how misleading the GT article is: First of all, this is not “a case of ‘he said, she said’.” The post by Lee Whitnum, which has been removed from her website, is still available, right here, where she posted it on My Left Nutmeg. Helpfully, it is entitled Jim Himes Nazi Connecticut, by Lee Whitnum Candidate for Congress. In it, she writes, “I went to bed a congressional candidate and I woke up to find myself in Jim Himes’ version of Nazi, Germany.” There is no “he said” here - her words have been immortalized online.
In this case, maybe the Greenwich Time is confused, but I’m going to bet their mistake involves Whitnum saying she never said that... which, again, she obviously did.
All you can do is shake your head, right?
No- because Whitnum does more just say all the wrong things. Not only does her campaign website have typos and grammar errors, it has inflammatory comments about immigrants. I can take the typos, I can take the grammar errors (just barely), but don’t call people “illegals” as if they are things.
You can read my analysis of her website. Imagine the most racist, anti-immigrant person you know; that’s what her comments about illegal immigrants sound like. (Although, if she sees this, she might take it down.)
Before looking at her sloppy Whitnum 2008 site, I might have turned a kind shoulder and dismissed her as a tactless but harmless person who I should leave alone to bumble her hapless way along.
Instead, I found a person who comes off as if she is entitled to say whatever she wants with no consequences. Those kinds of people bother me, because even while they purport to be the “average” person who gets shat upon by a “tiny, elitist group: the wealthy, Greenwich, Wall Street male,” they are the ones who sound like they think they are better than others. Quoted words in this paragraph are from LW’s campaign home page.
Whitnum is blustering about how Himes should debate her. Can you imagine?
If you want further reading, try these links:
--A post by Whitnum called "Jim Himes Nazi Connecticut, by Lee Whitnum Candidate for Congress" on My Left Nutmeg. She rails on local bloggers big time, who respond in commments. Dec 18, 2007
--Another self-righteous post by Whitnum at MLN: "Lee Whitnum Returning Your Hired Assassin" Jun 27, 2008 She calls Himes a “wimpy candidate” and tells an MLN blogger that he has "no soul."
--A CT Local Politics post: “Lee Whitnum and the Greenwich Time” Read more on how she tried to explain her Nazi comment. 6/13/08
June 2008- Slightly Positive Advocate article about Whitnum possibly debating Himes
Feb 7, 2008--Whitnum responds to being named Clown of the Year by a local paper; staff at the paper responds.
--Aug 8, 2004-Kerry's Ex-Lover - Is Her Web Site A Plant Or A Scam?
Here’s the gossip: Whitnum appears to be bonkers. I feel bad saying that, but I can’t think of another explanation. Get ready for a lurid/goofy webpage, light S&M and, most importantly, Whitnum’s lack of understanding that everything we do and say on the internet leaves a permanent record about us.
The best account of Whitnum’s strange internet past is at My Left Nutmeg (MLN), a liberal political blog. "A Voter's Guide to Lee Whitnum" starts with Whitnum's 1990 relationship with John Kerry (he was single at the time). She told the press about it during promotion of her fictional book Hedge Fund Mistress in 2004. The book was written under the name Lee Roystone, but Whitnum said the events in the chapter about a Massachusetts senator Presidential candidate are all true. The chapter includes a sex scene with light spanking. But that's not even the gossip. MLN also includes a link to a bizarre webpage by Whitnum (rather, Roystone) that looks like a collage about a high school boyfriend... but it’s about John Kerry. The page, part of the HFM site, was taken down, but a cached copy exists. Memorabilia on the collage include photos of Whitnum with Kerry, a phone message written on a pink heart and newspaper clippings.
On Whitnum’s current book site, a note says: “This page has been removed. This page never contained G-rated photos of the candidate at the podium...the candidate at a tree planting... etc. Do not believe the bloggers. Lee”
However, the cache page does show Kerry at a podium. What is Lee talking about? Is she trying to say the webpage never existed at all? Does she mean that bloggers altered it? Why does it even matter if he was at a podium? Was the collage meant to be fictitious and created by the character? If so, Whitnum should state that. She’s running for Congress and voters will want to know if that collage was serious, a joke, or a mix of the two that makes you pity the collage-maker.
I’d say, “I’m confused,” but I can tell Whitnum is the confused one. Galley Cat, one of mediabistro’s blogs, has a post from last summer about an author who emailed to ask them to remove any reference of her from their site. Guess who? Yup. Why does Whitnum think she can edit the internet record to her liking?
What’s freaky is that her political webpage says she got a degree in computer science. That makes her actions even more puzzling.
Even the Greenwich Time got confused by Whitnum. (Who can keep up with her? I’ll provide article links at the end of this post if you want to try to untangle the convoluted stories.) From a recent GT article: “In a case of ‘he said, she said,’ Congressional hopeful Jim Himes is accusing fellow Democrat and Greenwich resident Lee Whitnum of calling him a Nazi on her campaign Web site and on a popular Internet blog.”
CT Local Politics points out how misleading the GT article is: First of all, this is not “a case of ‘he said, she said’.” The post by Lee Whitnum, which has been removed from her website, is still available, right here, where she posted it on My Left Nutmeg. Helpfully, it is entitled Jim Himes Nazi Connecticut, by Lee Whitnum Candidate for Congress. In it, she writes, “I went to bed a congressional candidate and I woke up to find myself in Jim Himes’ version of Nazi, Germany.” There is no “he said” here - her words have been immortalized online.
In this case, maybe the Greenwich Time is confused, but I’m going to bet their mistake involves Whitnum saying she never said that... which, again, she obviously did.
All you can do is shake your head, right?
No- because Whitnum does more just say all the wrong things. Not only does her campaign website have typos and grammar errors, it has inflammatory comments about immigrants. I can take the typos, I can take the grammar errors (just barely), but don’t call people “illegals” as if they are things.
You can read my analysis of her website. Imagine the most racist, anti-immigrant person you know; that’s what her comments about illegal immigrants sound like. (Although, if she sees this, she might take it down.)
Before looking at her sloppy Whitnum 2008 site, I might have turned a kind shoulder and dismissed her as a tactless but harmless person who I should leave alone to bumble her hapless way along.
Instead, I found a person who comes off as if she is entitled to say whatever she wants with no consequences. Those kinds of people bother me, because even while they purport to be the “average” person who gets shat upon by a “tiny, elitist group: the wealthy, Greenwich, Wall Street male,” they are the ones who sound like they think they are better than others. Quoted words in this paragraph are from LW’s campaign home page.
Whitnum is blustering about how Himes should debate her. Can you imagine?
If you want further reading, try these links:
--A post by Whitnum called "Jim Himes Nazi Connecticut, by Lee Whitnum Candidate for Congress" on My Left Nutmeg. She rails on local bloggers big time, who respond in commments. Dec 18, 2007
--Another self-righteous post by Whitnum at MLN: "Lee Whitnum Returning Your Hired Assassin" Jun 27, 2008 She calls Himes a “wimpy candidate” and tells an MLN blogger that he has "no soul."
--A CT Local Politics post: “Lee Whitnum and the Greenwich Time” Read more on how she tried to explain her Nazi comment. 6/13/08
June 2008- Slightly Positive Advocate article about Whitnum possibly debating Himes
Feb 7, 2008--Whitnum responds to being named Clown of the Year by a local paper; staff at the paper responds.
--Aug 8, 2004-Kerry's Ex-Lover - Is Her Web Site A Plant Or A Scam?
Lee Whitnum's Campaign Website: Sloppy, Unprofessional
Lee Whitnum just got on the ballot to challenge Jim Himes in the Democratic primary Aug. 12. In my post "Juicy Political Gossip! Local Candidate Lee Whitnum Doesn't Understand That Internet Leaves a Record, Doesn't Like Immigrants", I made sure you know that she has been far too chatty on the internet and has left a trail of foolish comments. Her campaign website, which should be a professional, mature piece of work, only adds to the impression that she is slipshod and reckless.
Whitnum’s current campaign website is a study in strangeness. There are typos, grammar errors, and bizarre statements. (I have highlighted them in red.) I don’t feel like looking at her whole site right now, because she tires me out with her obnoxiously worded writing. I’ll focus on her intro page and illegal immigration page for now.
Let’s look at the obvious stuff first: typos and ‘sounds-like-your-racist-grandpa’ rhetoric. From Lee Whitnum 2008:
Illegal immigrants must apply for a tax payer identification, and a background check to ensure we are not harbouring fugitives. Many illegals make more hourly than many Americans (waitresses, retail employees, teaching assistants and substitute teachers) but the Americans have to pay taxes. Everyone need to contribute.
We need immigrants but, there has to be limits and respect for the law. Also, society pays in other ways:
Whitnum then lists 14 statements about immigration that include statistics. At the end of the statements, there is an asterisk with “The aforementioned 14 have not been verified.”
Well, then, why are they on her site? Is there any other explanation other than straight-up craziness? Or is she just a really terrible researcher? If she’s too busy to locate verifiable facts for her website, she shouldn’t write anything. Sometimes it's good just to be quiet.
I like 10 and 14, which are followed by a 4th grade level misspelling.
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's
two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
Doesn’t that translate to “Watch out for darker-skinned people who don’t speak English”? As best I can tell, that fact comes from a transcript of a Lou Dobbs show. Robert Rector, a research fellow at conservative thinktank Heritage Foundation, said on the show, "I'll say another thing that can't be said here, which is the fact that Hispanics in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-Hispanics, and it seems very clear that if you basically bring in a lot of low-skilled Hispanics with dysfunctional family structure from the Central America, that both they and, in particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the United States. The data is very clear on that. But it can't be discussed. We can't really also discuss the fact that, my goodness, if you're bringing in high school dropouts who aren't married and have children out of wedlock, what are they going to do? They're going to be on welfare."
Pretty interesting to see where Whitnum pulls her research, huh?
14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex
Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in The United States ".
Why is that in quotes? Oh, I see, it’s an article. I googled the title to find it. LW’s site seems like a rushed, unprofessional job; why else wouldn’t a computer science major provide a link to an article? The author of the article is a criminal profiler. The one million figure is an estimate based on the 1500 cases she studied of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants. That author is also quoted in an article called "Illegal aliens linked to gang-rape wave: The crime epidemic no one will talk about?"
Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!
(Double o makes a long o sound: “oooooh.” She means whopping, as in big, not "whooping," as in screaming.)
Second, Whitnum’s statements about herself are awkward. On the intro page she proclaims herself as:
“-Teacher
-Cancer survivor
-Single woman.”
Is this a Match.com profile or Congressional candidate?
Third, further down the page, she writes in bold font, “I am the average American woman.”
If so, this is a good reason not to have her in Congress. I’d like someone at least a little above average to be running this country. However, I don’t think the average American woman acts this oddly. Maybe she writes this badly, but if so, she has the sense to have someone proofread her website. No, I don’t think Lee is average.
Fourth, there are more typos on the intro page. One of her positions:
Take a hard stand on illegal immigration. Enforce existing laws.
Danbury recently passes the Immigration and Custom's Enforcement (ICE).
There’s no apostrophe in Customs. And did she mean Danbury passed it, not "passes" it? I have typos in this blog sometimes, but I work alone. Is she doing this all by herself or does she have a bad copy editor? Or does she get emotional when typing about immigrants? Most typos seem to be in paragraphs about immigrants. There’s only one on her health care page, and it’s a common one:
Governor Rell has threatened to veto the bill in it's current state.
It’s is short for it is; the possessive is an exception and takes no apostrophe.
It’s exhausting dealing with this; maybe that’s one of Whitnum’s strategies: to wear people down. I’m going to bed.
By the way, Whitnum also has a problem with legal immigrants. From a Stamford Times article: Whitnum speaks of repealing laws that allow legal immigrants to come to America for work. A former software engineer for the U.S. Army, Whitnum lost her job after lawmakers passed a law granting more work visas.
Mmm-hmm. I’m sure that’s why she lost her job. It’s those damn foreigners!
Whitnum’s current campaign website is a study in strangeness. There are typos, grammar errors, and bizarre statements. (I have highlighted them in red.) I don’t feel like looking at her whole site right now, because she tires me out with her obnoxiously worded writing. I’ll focus on her intro page and illegal immigration page for now.
Let’s look at the obvious stuff first: typos and ‘sounds-like-your-racist-grandpa’ rhetoric. From Lee Whitnum 2008:
Illegal immigrants must apply for a tax payer identification, and a background check to ensure we are not harbouring fugitives. Many illegals make more hourly than many Americans (waitresses, retail employees, teaching assistants and substitute teachers) but the Americans have to pay taxes. Everyone need to contribute.
We need immigrants but, there has to be limits and respect for the law. Also, society pays in other ways:
Whitnum then lists 14 statements about immigration that include statistics. At the end of the statements, there is an asterisk with “The aforementioned 14 have not been verified.”
Well, then, why are they on her site? Is there any other explanation other than straight-up craziness? Or is she just a really terrible researcher? If she’s too busy to locate verifiable facts for her website, she shouldn’t write anything. Sometimes it's good just to be quiet.
I like 10 and 14, which are followed by a 4th grade level misspelling.
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's
two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
Doesn’t that translate to “Watch out for darker-skinned people who don’t speak English”? As best I can tell, that fact comes from a transcript of a Lou Dobbs show. Robert Rector, a research fellow at conservative thinktank Heritage Foundation, said on the show, "I'll say another thing that can't be said here, which is the fact that Hispanics in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-Hispanics, and it seems very clear that if you basically bring in a lot of low-skilled Hispanics with dysfunctional family structure from the Central America, that both they and, in particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the United States. The data is very clear on that. But it can't be discussed. We can't really also discuss the fact that, my goodness, if you're bringing in high school dropouts who aren't married and have children out of wedlock, what are they going to do? They're going to be on welfare."
Pretty interesting to see where Whitnum pulls her research, huh?
14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex
Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in The United States ".
Why is that in quotes? Oh, I see, it’s an article. I googled the title to find it. LW’s site seems like a rushed, unprofessional job; why else wouldn’t a computer science major provide a link to an article? The author of the article is a criminal profiler. The one million figure is an estimate based on the 1500 cases she studied of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants. That author is also quoted in an article called "Illegal aliens linked to gang-rape wave: The crime epidemic no one will talk about?"
Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!
(Double o makes a long o sound: “oooooh.” She means whopping, as in big, not "whooping," as in screaming.)
Second, Whitnum’s statements about herself are awkward. On the intro page she proclaims herself as:
“-Teacher
-Cancer survivor
-Single woman.”
Is this a Match.com profile or Congressional candidate?
Third, further down the page, she writes in bold font, “I am the average American woman.”
If so, this is a good reason not to have her in Congress. I’d like someone at least a little above average to be running this country. However, I don’t think the average American woman acts this oddly. Maybe she writes this badly, but if so, she has the sense to have someone proofread her website. No, I don’t think Lee is average.
Fourth, there are more typos on the intro page. One of her positions:
Take a hard stand on illegal immigration. Enforce existing laws.
Danbury recently passes the Immigration and Custom's Enforcement (ICE).
There’s no apostrophe in Customs. And did she mean Danbury passed it, not "passes" it? I have typos in this blog sometimes, but I work alone. Is she doing this all by herself or does she have a bad copy editor? Or does she get emotional when typing about immigrants? Most typos seem to be in paragraphs about immigrants. There’s only one on her health care page, and it’s a common one:
Governor Rell has threatened to veto the bill in it's current state.
It’s is short for it is; the possessive is an exception and takes no apostrophe.
It’s exhausting dealing with this; maybe that’s one of Whitnum’s strategies: to wear people down. I’m going to bed.
By the way, Whitnum also has a problem with legal immigrants. From a Stamford Times article: Whitnum speaks of repealing laws that allow legal immigrants to come to America for work. A former software engineer for the U.S. Army, Whitnum lost her job after lawmakers passed a law granting more work visas.
Mmm-hmm. I’m sure that’s why she lost her job. It’s those damn foreigners!
Rrrrr Stamford Talk Angry at Advocate Editorial
There is a ridiculous editorial in the Advocate today. It's so pointless that I'm surprised it ran. The title was "School closings require good reason” and, after a paragraph of jibberish about how superintendents make a lot of money, it made the point that kids should not have been sent home in the 97 degree heat on Monday and Tuesday.
Well, what a koinkydink, I'm a teacher in a room with no AC, so I whipped out a response. Here it is below. I posted it as a comment on Topix and sent another version (without the Stamford Talk "DUH") to the editor. I hope it gets published.
Dear editor:
You SHOULD have visited the schools before you wrote this.
I teach in one of the un-ACd schools and it was by far the worst in my ten years of teaching. The heat and humidity were nauseating to all of us. You didn't do much research if you only heard a "few reports."
I don't understand your nasty attitude about kids needing to toughen up. If you were in the schools, you would know how nice most kids are and how hard they work. The kids tried to tough it out, but all we could do was sit and look at each other listlessly, and then when it was time to change classes, wade through slick, humid halls with 700 middle schoolers. School is for learning, not for toughening up, and no learning could go on in humid, hot, 100 degree rooms.
It's laughable that you say the "creative" teachers moved to the ACd spaces. I'm going to give you a big Stamford Talk DUH on that. That's what we all did, but there was not enough space for the hundreds of kids who were in the un-ACd rooms. That's why kids were sent home. It was the right decision.
You seem to want kids to suffer. If it makes you feel better, don't worry, it's "uncomfortable" all of June and August. Please, feel free to pick a 95 degree day to come visit and sit in my room for an hour at 2pm. Actually, I'll sit; you can stand and teach.
I think it is so odd that whoever wrote the piece was not even IN a school building on those hot days! It seemed like someone just felt like complaining about schools... maybe that person should toughen up!
Well, what a koinkydink, I'm a teacher in a room with no AC, so I whipped out a response. Here it is below. I posted it as a comment on Topix and sent another version (without the Stamford Talk "DUH") to the editor. I hope it gets published.
Dear editor:
You SHOULD have visited the schools before you wrote this.
I teach in one of the un-ACd schools and it was by far the worst in my ten years of teaching. The heat and humidity were nauseating to all of us. You didn't do much research if you only heard a "few reports."
I don't understand your nasty attitude about kids needing to toughen up. If you were in the schools, you would know how nice most kids are and how hard they work. The kids tried to tough it out, but all we could do was sit and look at each other listlessly, and then when it was time to change classes, wade through slick, humid halls with 700 middle schoolers. School is for learning, not for toughening up, and no learning could go on in humid, hot, 100 degree rooms.
It's laughable that you say the "creative" teachers moved to the ACd spaces. I'm going to give you a big Stamford Talk DUH on that. That's what we all did, but there was not enough space for the hundreds of kids who were in the un-ACd rooms. That's why kids were sent home. It was the right decision.
You seem to want kids to suffer. If it makes you feel better, don't worry, it's "uncomfortable" all of June and August. Please, feel free to pick a 95 degree day to come visit and sit in my room for an hour at 2pm. Actually, I'll sit; you can stand and teach.
I think it is so odd that whoever wrote the piece was not even IN a school building on those hot days! It seemed like someone just felt like complaining about schools... maybe that person should toughen up!
More Falling Objects in Stamford: Oh No You DI'IN'T, Trump Parc!
WHAT- THE- HECK. One of us is going to get killed by Trump Parc.Last week, I took this pic of the busy intersection by TP.
Today's Advocate Headline: Object falls at the site of Trump Parc
The article text: For the second time in two weeks, an object fell yesterday from the Trump Parc construction site and struck a vehicle, police said. A 3-foot-long piece of cable about a half-inch in diameter fell from the 29th floor, said Lt. Sean Cooney, a city police spokesman. Cooney said the object hit the back of a VW Jetta occupied by an unidentified Greenwich man at about 2:50 p.m. The driver was not injured, but the car's roof caved in, and its rear and side windows shattered on impact, he said.
CAN YOU IMAGINE? What if there had been a baby in the backseat by those windows? I am PISSED.
Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy said he will speak with the city engineer, the building department and those in charge of construction at the Trump Parc site. "We're going to have to sit down with these folks, maybe close the job, until we get some level of satisfaction about these procedures," he said. "A second incident in a short period of time tells me people are being reckless."
YES, Malloy, you tell those f#&kers. SHUT DOWN TRUMP UNTIL WE HAVE SOME ANSWERS. Stuff falling 20 stories onto cars below is unacceptable!!!
SHUT- DOWN- TRUMP. No "maybe." Shut it down. And invite the public to the meeting.
For your gawking pleasure, here are a four pictures I took of the TP construction site, which looms over the busiest part of the city. You can see how huge the crane is. The last shot is of a concrete truck blocking traffic on May 1; that's my steering wheel in the bottom left corner. I know- I'm an amazing photographer.
Boring Beer Column in the Advocate: Why?
I don't mean to be a b!%@h, but every time I see the Advocate's "What's Brewing" column, I am severely disappointed. A column about beer! Cool! Oh, wait- it's jibberish about technicalities of beer brewing! Parts of it read like a chem textbook: ...partly because hop utilization - a measure of the alpha acids and other components they release into the brew as it is boiled - increases with the size of the batch.How many beer connoisseurs are reading the Stamford Advocate for their news? Maybe two. So why does the Advocate host such a specialized column?
Well, the byline reads "By Jim Zebora Greenwich Time Managing Editor." Ah. I see. Clearly, he gets to write this because he is an editor, not because the column has great value for Stamford and Greenwich. Sure, I’m a little bitter because I don’t have my own column, but if “What’s Brewing” were more interesting, I would have no opportunity to complain.
I don’t care that Back in the years of plenty, I could sometimes buy a pound of bittering hops for $8, and noble hops could be as low as $1 per ounce. Today, homebrewers are seeing three- and fourfold price increases in this essential ingredient. This is almost as boring as talking about gas prices! Come on, this is beer! Let’s have some fun while we’re getting all intellectual.
Here's my column about beer. Notice how fun and approachable it is. I'll admit that it's light on facts, but if I were writing a column, I'd do more research. This is just off the top of my head:
Howdy, Stamford! The weather is getting nicer, and summer beer season is starting. A Guinness on a chilly evening will still hit the spot, but for your all-purpose beer, it's time to go light. Bud Light and Amstel Light are standbys, but go international with some Blue Moon Ale from Belgium or Brahma beer from Brazil. Brahma would go beautifully with a nachos appetizer at happy hour. It also comes in a cool curved bottle.
See how I've related it to the readers?
Beer column continued: Look at these awesome owl beers! You can get them all at Duo, my favorite Euro-Japanese place. At 8 bucks (9? I forget) these ain't cheap, but they're a treat. Each one has a very different flavor, and they are made from rice. The New York Times liked the Red Rice Ale, but I myself preferred the white. If you do decide to try all of them in one evening- well, just don't do that. My favorite: the Espresso beer! Have it closer to the end of the meal, or at happy hour. It's like Guinness with a coffee kick.See how practical my column is? Jim, for gosh's sake, give us some personal stories. What's your fave beer? At what restos did you drink beer this week? What's the craziest beer you've ever brewed? It's a nice tidbit that The hop flowers are sometimes used in original form, but processing them into pellets gives greater yield, and also makes them easier to ship and store, but Jim, I'm not picking up the Advocate for that minutae. Entertain me!
"Stuff White People Like" Update: I Still Hate It
Two weeks ago I went off on the blog mentioned above because I didn’t think it was about white people. Even after Stamford Talk readers posted clear-headed answers, I was still bothered by it and wanted to figure out why. I’ve rewritten and edited my opinions down to two main points.1. The generalizations on SWPL are not about white people. Every article I read says the same thing: "Well, it's really about yuppies." So, change the name. If it’s only about say, 2 % of white people, the blog shouldn’t be titled “SWPL.”
Lander is a 29 year old (aspiring) comedy writer in LA. In a nauseating NPR interview, Lander explains that his blog is less about soccer moms than “Park Slope parents.” Ohhhhh... chuckle chuckle! I get the difference! I’m in on the joke! But Lander, those are your peers- twenty-nine year old upwardly-mobile creative types. They call those people “yuppies.” Most white people in this country aren’t like that. I’m sure Chris Lander is aware of the distinction, but he knows that “SWPL” sounds funnier. See if you can listen to the NPR interview without wanting to throw up at his smug, self-satisfied tone of voice. I only made it through 5 minutes.
Stamford Talk reader KG posted, “You can’t take it too seriously when you read it. I can see how perhaps if you think about it too hard, you can take offense, but I just get a chuckle.” I do see why people get a laugh; it’s a cute site even if it doesn’t appeal to me. I’m only thinking hard about the title of his blog. If he’s going to talk about race (which he’s not), he should know what he’s talking about (he doesn’t, so he should rename his blog).
It’s fine if someone wants to write satire about a certain demographic of white people. If you like his writing style, cool. It will be just as good when he changes the name to "Stuff Yuppies Like."
2. The media is overly-positive about the site, and are trying to make it into something more meaningful than it really is. ST reader John C commented, “You're overthinking the site. SWPL is as empty-headed as those VH-1 specials wherein people make snarky comments about daily observations...” That’s why I’m astonished and annoyed by all of the media coverage.
The media is over-thinking the site, not me. I was quite happy to ignore SWPL. When I first saw the site, I looked at one entry, got the impression from his “About” page that he was an uneducated dolt, and quit out without thinking much about it. I was surprised when friends sent me the link; that’s when I wrote the first post. When Zobot provided the link to the Boston Globe article, I realized the situation was worse than I thought. Respectable news outlets were talking about the blog’s insights on race.
From abc news: According to experts, he hit the right note at the right time, while — perhaps unintentionally — creating a forum for people to openly mock, or explore, what it means to be white. You mean, what it means to have money and privilege. I live in Fairfield County, so you can trust me on that.
The articles I read offer convoluted explanations about why the blog is such a hit. From an expert quoted on abc.com: “The blog does a really good job of walking the line between provocative and offensive... I think the reason it's popular with a really broad spectrum of readers is that white readers can be the focus of the content and that's not usually the case with blogs about race." I don’t find Lander’s writing provocative or offensive. Yuppies have been joked about before; so have white people.
As the Globe says: The blog's popularity may have something to do with its singularity. Jokes about rednecks and Republicans are common. But white middle-class liberals rarely face comedic barbs unless they're the target of black comics such as Dave Chappelle or Chris Rock. Right... so how is it rare if the nation’s top comedians talk about it all the time? And, as my sister pointed out, who is this “broad spectrum?” She’s less yuppie than me, but she’s white, so her perspective has been invaluable: “I’m white, and none of these apply to me.” Straight from the mouth of a white person.
An LA Times reporter writes: Lander is doing to whites what scores of journalists and politicians do to non-white minorities every day, "essentializing" complex identities -- that is, stripping away all variety and reducing them to their presumed authentic essences. One irony-deficient reader complained that the blog was less about white people than it was about yuppies. And without knowing it, she was cutting to the heart of the joke. Lander is gently making fun of the many progressive, educated, upper-middle-class whites who think they are beyond ethnicity or collectively shared tastes, styles or outlook. He's essentially reminding them that they too are part of a group. Uh... right, but the group is not white people. I don’t think I’m irony-deficient; what joke’s heart am I cutting to when it say the blog is about yuppies?
The same LA Times article quotes Lander: "I'm writing about the white people who think they're absolutely unique and individual... I'm calling them out and poking fun of myself. The things I post are all the things I like too!"
Oh! Well, whoop-dee-doo for you, Chris! You sound super-dumb, so maybe you should keep letting the journalists speak for you. I don’t think you even have your target audience down. Yuppies don’t think they’re unique; it’s hard to miss all the other people leasing BMWs, joining book clubs, and drinking red wine. The FC is all about shared tastes.
Wait- wait! I think I get the joke. The LA Times article was titled “A blogger explores the attitudes and foibles of a new minority group.” So is the irony that we’re stereotyping yuppies? Is the joke that yuppies aren’t aware they’re part of a group? I don’t think so; anyone who watches TV and movies can figure that out. Are people not aware that stereotypes of “white minorities” exist, other than white trash?
Oh, Lander can help me. From the Globe: "This is the stereotyping of people who have tried to distance themselves from what they perceive as white stereotypes: the white trash, the Republican," says Lander, 29, who works as a copywriter at Schematic, a new media marketing company. "Well, you're still white, you still have white privilege. It still exists, believe it or not. No matter how much you donate to charity or how much organic food you eat, you still have white privilege."
Noooooooooo shit, Sherlock. Wow- this joke is as obvious as I thought, and that’s why I’ve missed it. I commend Lander for writing; writing takes guts and skill, and he’s got that. He’s missing a few key concepts, but I’ll let him slide if he renames his blog.
I Don't Like 'Stuff White People Like'
Two people I respect have sent me a link to a site that I find despicable. Since the subject of the website is pretty much Fairfield County, let’s see what you think.
When the title of the website “Stuff White People Like” appeared on my screen, I felt a rush of humor and “that’s so funny” that was quickly replaced by the feeling “I will not give this site my time because the humor is based on ideas of race and class that I don’t find funny.” The site struck me as something a 19-year old boy would write.
Haha, white people like expensive lattes and North Face jackets. Actually, that’s what people with money can afford, and it follows race lines because most money lines in the US lie on race because of our history and all kinds of other complicated things. I refuse to look at the site again to think more about why I feel so repulsed by it.
Even if the site is really about socio-economics (as in “stuff yuppies like”), I personally don't find it that funny to laugh at rich people. It's not such a taboo subject for me that I have to joke about it. I can just discuss it.
I just found an interview with the author of SWPL (young white guy, big surprise). I find his comments absolutely stupid. This man needs to take some sociology classes and get a clue.
SWPL: oh yes. this site pokes fun at ME. that’s why I use pictures of myself. those aren’t taken out of irony. this is the shit that I do. I need to call myself out for all of the stupid shit that I take for granted. why do I need $300 bike rims? why is a $10 sandwich considered normal?
It’s fine that this kid is working through his feelings about race and class, but he’s not calling himself out. He’s just making a bunch of jokes. Often humor deals with things we find uncomfortable. I guess that’s what’s going on with the author of SWPL, but I find his writing small-minded, mean-spirited, and not very enlightening.
I'm not trashing the people who sent me the link... but I want to know why people who I know are intelligent like the site. Why do people who care about race and issues relating to race and class find it funny?
Maybe it’s funny to laugh at people, like the one about how all white people think their kids are gifted. But I don’t have to laugh at that- I can just talk about it, because I know those people. When I had just moved up here from Virginia, 8 years ago, maybe I would have found jokes about yuppies funnier. Maybe it’s now too familiar to me to be funny. Or maybe it’s just not funny because the SWPL author is saying nothing new. I’m from an area where the majority of people were white or black, and I took a lot of courses on African-American history and lit in college, so nothing that SWPL kid is saying are things I haven’t already heard in a way more interesting format.
Can someone please tell me why smart people think the site is funny?
When the title of the website “Stuff White People Like” appeared on my screen, I felt a rush of humor and “that’s so funny” that was quickly replaced by the feeling “I will not give this site my time because the humor is based on ideas of race and class that I don’t find funny.” The site struck me as something a 19-year old boy would write.
Haha, white people like expensive lattes and North Face jackets. Actually, that’s what people with money can afford, and it follows race lines because most money lines in the US lie on race because of our history and all kinds of other complicated things. I refuse to look at the site again to think more about why I feel so repulsed by it.
Even if the site is really about socio-economics (as in “stuff yuppies like”), I personally don't find it that funny to laugh at rich people. It's not such a taboo subject for me that I have to joke about it. I can just discuss it.
I just found an interview with the author of SWPL (young white guy, big surprise). I find his comments absolutely stupid. This man needs to take some sociology classes and get a clue.
SWPL: oh yes. this site pokes fun at ME. that’s why I use pictures of myself. those aren’t taken out of irony. this is the shit that I do. I need to call myself out for all of the stupid shit that I take for granted. why do I need $300 bike rims? why is a $10 sandwich considered normal?
It’s fine that this kid is working through his feelings about race and class, but he’s not calling himself out. He’s just making a bunch of jokes. Often humor deals with things we find uncomfortable. I guess that’s what’s going on with the author of SWPL, but I find his writing small-minded, mean-spirited, and not very enlightening.
I'm not trashing the people who sent me the link... but I want to know why people who I know are intelligent like the site. Why do people who care about race and issues relating to race and class find it funny?
Maybe it’s funny to laugh at people, like the one about how all white people think their kids are gifted. But I don’t have to laugh at that- I can just talk about it, because I know those people. When I had just moved up here from Virginia, 8 years ago, maybe I would have found jokes about yuppies funnier. Maybe it’s now too familiar to me to be funny. Or maybe it’s just not funny because the SWPL author is saying nothing new. I’m from an area where the majority of people were white or black, and I took a lot of courses on African-American history and lit in college, so nothing that SWPL kid is saying are things I haven’t already heard in a way more interesting format.
Can someone please tell me why smart people think the site is funny?
Stamford Steak Awards 2008
I don’t consider myself a steak expert, but I married into a steak-loving family. I’ve eaten more steak in the past 3 years than I did in the first 28 years of my life. For those of you who are not steak smarty-pants, I humbly offer you my overview of steak in Stamford.
For trendy steak: Dunn’s Loft. This is my favorite place to go for steak. The filet is buttery and awesome. There are creative sauces like peppercorn and horseradish, and they offer Luger’s steak sauce, too. The sides are good and free. The French fries are McDonald’s-esque, and the garlic mashed potatoes are worth the starch. The interior isn’t stuffy, so to me, Dunn’s offers the most interesting eating experience. It’s also cheaper than Morton’s. I went to Dunn’s Loft for my b-day dinner last month and was pretty happy, although I regretted ordering the vegetable side. What was I thinking? Just get the fries! The chocolate dessert, tragically, was not molten enough.
For tradition and for chocolate: Morton’s. I’ve been twice, and I wasn’t blown away by the steak, but other people love it. Morton’s gets minus points for presenting me with a living lobster before I eat, but Morton’s chocolate molten cake is 15 times better than Dunn’s.
For nothing out of the ordinary: Bennett’s Fish and Steak. I went for the first time Thursday. I didn’t love the filet mignon, but I did like the $ 35 prix-fixe meal and the merlot-butter-gravy steak sauce. Bennett’s had nice energy; the dining room was full on a Thursday, and tables are placed at a pretty good distance for eavesdropping. There is nothing exciting about Bennett’s, although Rudy Giuliani and the Dalai Lama have eaten there (separately) and there is an awfully cute little bar. Bennett’s only offers chocolate mousse- what??? Mousse? Where’s the cake? Go to Bennett’s if you’re looking for an ordinary but good experience.
Some steak-xperts here on the couch are telling me that Morton’s is dry-aged and maybe some people like that, and that maybe Bennett's isn't, but that “they’re different types of steak.” That’s fine- I understand that food is often personal preference, but I'm telling you what I like. I'll do a more thorough analysis as I keep eating at steak houses.
For good steak in a non-steak restaurant: Duo. Duo has a steak entrée; half is braised pulled tenderloin and another half is filet mignon. It’s very good, but comes with no sides except for like, 2 carrots. However, Duo’s chocolate dessert rules this town, so check it out.
My awards are limited to the steak places I’ve been to. Sorry, Giovanni’s II, Anthony’s and Capital Grille. I hear that the first two are regular old steak houses, nothing bad. I hear decent things about Capital Grille online and from some men who I know like steak, so I’ve got an open mind about it. I’ll go once I’m in the mood to pay big bucks for a meal that is in essence, pretty boring.
Steak and potatoes? Give me green tea infused pasta with octopus and vegetables with beet foam! Pad thai with peanuts! Spicy lamb koorma with a glass of white wine! Give me Naan! Ginger noodles in fish sauce! Spicy Garlic chicken sandwich at Layla’s! At least give me pasta Bolognese- Napa and Co has a good one. I just can't do OK steak or it will kill my spirit.
I’m not a doctor, but I just want to end by reminding you that if you eat a lot of steak, you should be doing cardio every week to clear your poor arteries out. Get on the treadmill, you lazy steak-eating men. Turn that meat into muscles for the ladies! Planet Fitness has great rates.
Maybe we should do a Stamford Talk Steak Test one evening. We can split dishes to keep it cheap-ish! And maybe we could get deals from restaurants. Let's ponder this. Any friends who think this would work, email me and we'll see if it's worth getting something together!
For trendy steak: Dunn’s Loft. This is my favorite place to go for steak. The filet is buttery and awesome. There are creative sauces like peppercorn and horseradish, and they offer Luger’s steak sauce, too. The sides are good and free. The French fries are McDonald’s-esque, and the garlic mashed potatoes are worth the starch. The interior isn’t stuffy, so to me, Dunn’s offers the most interesting eating experience. It’s also cheaper than Morton’s. I went to Dunn’s Loft for my b-day dinner last month and was pretty happy, although I regretted ordering the vegetable side. What was I thinking? Just get the fries! The chocolate dessert, tragically, was not molten enough. For tradition and for chocolate: Morton’s. I’ve been twice, and I wasn’t blown away by the steak, but other people love it. Morton’s gets minus points for presenting me with a living lobster before I eat, but Morton’s chocolate molten cake is 15 times better than Dunn’s.
For nothing out of the ordinary: Bennett’s Fish and Steak. I went for the first time Thursday. I didn’t love the filet mignon, but I did like the $ 35 prix-fixe meal and the merlot-butter-gravy steak sauce. Bennett’s had nice energy; the dining room was full on a Thursday, and tables are placed at a pretty good distance for eavesdropping. There is nothing exciting about Bennett’s, although Rudy Giuliani and the Dalai Lama have eaten there (separately) and there is an awfully cute little bar. Bennett’s only offers chocolate mousse- what??? Mousse? Where’s the cake? Go to Bennett’s if you’re looking for an ordinary but good experience.
Some steak-xperts here on the couch are telling me that Morton’s is dry-aged and maybe some people like that, and that maybe Bennett's isn't, but that “they’re different types of steak.” That’s fine- I understand that food is often personal preference, but I'm telling you what I like. I'll do a more thorough analysis as I keep eating at steak houses.
For good steak in a non-steak restaurant: Duo. Duo has a steak entrée; half is braised pulled tenderloin and another half is filet mignon. It’s very good, but comes with no sides except for like, 2 carrots. However, Duo’s chocolate dessert rules this town, so check it out. My awards are limited to the steak places I’ve been to. Sorry, Giovanni’s II, Anthony’s and Capital Grille. I hear that the first two are regular old steak houses, nothing bad. I hear decent things about Capital Grille online and from some men who I know like steak, so I’ve got an open mind about it. I’ll go once I’m in the mood to pay big bucks for a meal that is in essence, pretty boring.
Steak and potatoes? Give me green tea infused pasta with octopus and vegetables with beet foam! Pad thai with peanuts! Spicy lamb koorma with a glass of white wine! Give me Naan! Ginger noodles in fish sauce! Spicy Garlic chicken sandwich at Layla’s! At least give me pasta Bolognese- Napa and Co has a good one. I just can't do OK steak or it will kill my spirit.
I’m not a doctor, but I just want to end by reminding you that if you eat a lot of steak, you should be doing cardio every week to clear your poor arteries out. Get on the treadmill, you lazy steak-eating men. Turn that meat into muscles for the ladies! Planet Fitness has great rates.
Maybe we should do a Stamford Talk Steak Test one evening. We can split dishes to keep it cheap-ish! And maybe we could get deals from restaurants. Let's ponder this. Any friends who think this would work, email me and we'll see if it's worth getting something together!
Illegal Immigrants: Not Job-Stealers, but Subject to Raids and Arrests in Danbury
The biggest complaint I hear about illegal immigrants is that they take jobs from Americans and soak up social services like education and medical care. In fact, studies show that in all cases except for low-skilled work, illegal immigrants are a boon to the economy and, over the long haul, give more than they take. In the fall, I read an awkwardly-worded letter to the editor from a man named Paul Streitz. Of all of his points, this is one of the more coherent:
"If illegal aliens are sending back 5 percent of their earnings to Mexico,
the Mexicans are taking billions out of the pockets of working-class Americans… U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro says, ‘We cannot deport 12 million people.’ Why should Americans deport anybody? Dry up the jobs. With the money that illegal aliens have made, they can all go back to their home countries drinking champagne on a first-class airline ticket."
Under the letter, it said “The writer is co-director of CT Citizen for Immigration Control, an Internet organization of residents throughout the state.” My first thought was, If you are anti-immigration, don’t say you’re from Darien, for goodness’ sake. That doesn’t help your cause. Darien has a certain rep that this man is not helping. My second thought was, you sound like a crazy man.
I was dismayed to find Streitz quoted recently in a Stamford Times article about Danbury’s controversial move to give police authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
"Paul Streitz... believes the measures taken in Danbury are a good thing for Connecticut, and he would like to see Stamford take similar steps.
"It makes the removal of illegal aliens with criminal records or who are subject to deportation orders easier (to pursue)," Streitz said. "But, there is not really any solution to removing illegal aliens that have not committed crimes. (CTCIC) has always recommended attrition through enforcement of employment laws. When the jobs dry up, the illegals will go home."
Quoted in the paper? Oh, no! Maybe this man is more legitimate than I thought! I did some research, and no, he’s as off-the-handle as he seemed in his Advocate letter. Jobs aren’t going to dry up unless the economy tanks. Streitz's energy is disproportionate to reality. If his biggest argument is a weak one about “taking billions out of working-class Americans,” maybe his passion about the subject comes from a different source: xenophobia. “The Mexicans?” Dude, most of the Danbury immigrants are from Ecuador! Streitz should do some reflection and ask himself if he should be saying, “It makes me nervous to see people with brown skin in groups speaking languages I don’t understand. I hear they’re going to be 30 % of the population 2050.”
I concede that Streitz isn’t totally insane. I share part of his opinion: police, ideally, would use their authority to deport immigrants who are wanted by their country of origin and/or lawbreakers here. However, the reality is not so neat, as shown by the Danbury police’s sloppy arrest tactics so far.
In September 2006, a Danbury police officer, posing as a contractor, invited 11 day laborers into a federal Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) van, then drove to a fenced lot and arrested them when they turned out to be undocumented. An Advocate article from Feb. 2008 reports that a federal judge ruled that the arrests were not racial profiling, stating that “’solicitation of day labor in our current culture has a strong correlation to undocumented presence in the United States and lack of employment authorization’ and thus it was not unreasonable for police to question the men, nor was it racial profiling.”
Not racial profiling? Are you joking? I know most day laborers are undocumented… so, the racial profile is that Hispanic day laborers are illegal. That’s racial profiling. I think the judge’s ruling will at some point be overturned, because saying it’s not racial profiling is wishful thinking. By that judge's logic, every Hispanic person looking for work or doing menial labor is fair game.
I don’t think many people would say that they are in favor of people being in this country illegally, but I think the steps taken by police under ICE create more problems than they solve. I’m not wild about people flowing willy-nilly over US borders either, but once people are here, I don’t think Danbury police should be raiding apartments in Danbury and scaring the crap out of little kids. By raiding the apartments of law-abiding illegal immigrants (I know, I know), police are alienating some of the only people who would be able to let police know who should be deported. Streitz is gung-ho about this arrest-o-rama, but we’ve seen that his attitude is based not only on logic. To me, the only logical response is to accept the people that are here. It's just too ugly not to. I can't see Stamford doing what Danbury has done.
Related Stamford Talk posts:
--Feb. 22: Day Laborer = Illegal Immigrant?
--Feb. 24: Stamford Day Laborers = Criminals?
Related articles online:
--articles about Danbury immigrant community and arrests
--articles about immigration and jobs.
"If illegal aliens are sending back 5 percent of their earnings to Mexico,
the Mexicans are taking billions out of the pockets of working-class Americans… U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro says, ‘We cannot deport 12 million people.’ Why should Americans deport anybody? Dry up the jobs. With the money that illegal aliens have made, they can all go back to their home countries drinking champagne on a first-class airline ticket."
Under the letter, it said “The writer is co-director of CT Citizen for Immigration Control, an Internet organization of residents throughout the state.” My first thought was, If you are anti-immigration, don’t say you’re from Darien, for goodness’ sake. That doesn’t help your cause. Darien has a certain rep that this man is not helping. My second thought was, you sound like a crazy man.
I was dismayed to find Streitz quoted recently in a Stamford Times article about Danbury’s controversial move to give police authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
"Paul Streitz... believes the measures taken in Danbury are a good thing for Connecticut, and he would like to see Stamford take similar steps.
"It makes the removal of illegal aliens with criminal records or who are subject to deportation orders easier (to pursue)," Streitz said. "But, there is not really any solution to removing illegal aliens that have not committed crimes. (CTCIC) has always recommended attrition through enforcement of employment laws. When the jobs dry up, the illegals will go home."
Quoted in the paper? Oh, no! Maybe this man is more legitimate than I thought! I did some research, and no, he’s as off-the-handle as he seemed in his Advocate letter. Jobs aren’t going to dry up unless the economy tanks. Streitz's energy is disproportionate to reality. If his biggest argument is a weak one about “taking billions out of working-class Americans,” maybe his passion about the subject comes from a different source: xenophobia. “The Mexicans?” Dude, most of the Danbury immigrants are from Ecuador! Streitz should do some reflection and ask himself if he should be saying, “It makes me nervous to see people with brown skin in groups speaking languages I don’t understand. I hear they’re going to be 30 % of the population 2050.”
I concede that Streitz isn’t totally insane. I share part of his opinion: police, ideally, would use their authority to deport immigrants who are wanted by their country of origin and/or lawbreakers here. However, the reality is not so neat, as shown by the Danbury police’s sloppy arrest tactics so far.
In September 2006, a Danbury police officer, posing as a contractor, invited 11 day laborers into a federal Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) van, then drove to a fenced lot and arrested them when they turned out to be undocumented. An Advocate article from Feb. 2008 reports that a federal judge ruled that the arrests were not racial profiling, stating that “’solicitation of day labor in our current culture has a strong correlation to undocumented presence in the United States and lack of employment authorization’ and thus it was not unreasonable for police to question the men, nor was it racial profiling.”
Not racial profiling? Are you joking? I know most day laborers are undocumented… so, the racial profile is that Hispanic day laborers are illegal. That’s racial profiling. I think the judge’s ruling will at some point be overturned, because saying it’s not racial profiling is wishful thinking. By that judge's logic, every Hispanic person looking for work or doing menial labor is fair game.
I don’t think many people would say that they are in favor of people being in this country illegally, but I think the steps taken by police under ICE create more problems than they solve. I’m not wild about people flowing willy-nilly over US borders either, but once people are here, I don’t think Danbury police should be raiding apartments in Danbury and scaring the crap out of little kids. By raiding the apartments of law-abiding illegal immigrants (I know, I know), police are alienating some of the only people who would be able to let police know who should be deported. Streitz is gung-ho about this arrest-o-rama, but we’ve seen that his attitude is based not only on logic. To me, the only logical response is to accept the people that are here. It's just too ugly not to. I can't see Stamford doing what Danbury has done.
Related Stamford Talk posts:
--Feb. 22: Day Laborer = Illegal Immigrant?
--Feb. 24: Stamford Day Laborers = Criminals?
Related articles online:
--articles about Danbury immigrant community and arrests
--articles about immigration and jobs.
Stamford's Best and Worst Restaurant Names
I’ve been yakking about Sabatiello’s reality TV debut, and I just realized that the name of the restaurant annoys me. It’s too long- 5 syllables!- and the website describes the food as “eclectic” and “unexpected.” Well, “Sabatiello’s” says “old” and “same Italian food you’ll find anywhere else.”
Names matter! Here’s my short list of best and worst restaurant names:
Annoying:
Remo's (sounds like Nemo)
Paradise Grill (tacky)
Mackenizie’s Bar and Grill (already a Mackenzie’s in Greenwich!)
Dragonfly (way too trendy, but 10 years ago trendy, and therefore tacky)
Republic Grill (this name does not stand out, maybe because it makes me think of the Thai restaurant Republic in Union Square)
Good names:
Duo, Market, Tigin (nice, short, communicates restaurant theme)
Saltwater Grille (despite the pretentious e, every one loves the salty ocean)
Egane (unusual name matches unusual food style- Korean BBQ)
Not great if you think about it:
Plateau (if something plateaus, that’s a bad thing)
Fin II (I question naming a restaurant the equivalent of Fin Jr. The well-regarded original Fin is in Fairfield. Why not call this one Fin also, just like there are 3 Tengdas in Fairfield Co.?)
OK:
g/r/a/n/d (good with a dash of annoying because of the slashes)
Crabshell (neutral- “shell” implies dead, but “crab” conjures visions of a summer crab feast at a picnic table)
Telluride (nothing about the menu reminds me of a ski resort, but the name is unusual and memorable)
Siena (only 3 syllables and named after a popular tourist destination)
What have I missed? And which ones do you like/hate and why?
Names matter! Here’s my short list of best and worst restaurant names:
Annoying:
Remo's (sounds like Nemo)
Paradise Grill (tacky)
Mackenizie’s Bar and Grill (already a Mackenzie’s in Greenwich!)
Dragonfly (way too trendy, but 10 years ago trendy, and therefore tacky)
Republic Grill (this name does not stand out, maybe because it makes me think of the Thai restaurant Republic in Union Square)
Good names:
Duo, Market, Tigin (nice, short, communicates restaurant theme)
Saltwater Grille (despite the pretentious e, every one loves the salty ocean)
Egane (unusual name matches unusual food style- Korean BBQ)
Not great if you think about it:
Plateau (if something plateaus, that’s a bad thing)
Fin II (I question naming a restaurant the equivalent of Fin Jr. The well-regarded original Fin is in Fairfield. Why not call this one Fin also, just like there are 3 Tengdas in Fairfield Co.?)
OK:
g/r/a/n/d (good with a dash of annoying because of the slashes)
Crabshell (neutral- “shell” implies dead, but “crab” conjures visions of a summer crab feast at a picnic table)
Telluride (nothing about the menu reminds me of a ski resort, but the name is unusual and memorable)
Siena (only 3 syllables and named after a popular tourist destination)
What have I missed? And which ones do you like/hate and why?
Stamford's Opinions: YOUR Turn!
We need to step it up and make the Advocate's Letters to the Editor a more exciting place. There's some decent gossip in there, but overall, it doesn't deliver on its potential as a repository for all of our hopes and dreams for this city.
Some letters are about national issues (boring! that's not why I read the Advocate!), some about school funding (I don't have kids), and some about political figures (I don't like politics). Where is the juicy gossip? There are two interesting letters this week, one about firestation conflicts and mistrust and one about the mayor not being upfront about expenditures.
However, I want more. I want more local drama, more local opinions. I've done my part; I got a letter published a couple of months ago. Now it's time for you to do your part. I challenge you: submit a letter to the editor. It's so easy! Just email it! I'll post it here when it gets published.
My suggested topics: I don't know, I can't think of anything. Be creative. Write about the movie theater at the mall. Write about class wars in Stamford.
Don't write about parking. That's boring. I don't recommend talking about your Toter; that subject is pretty old unless you have a funny story about how it knocked you over. I don't recommend criticizing the Advocate; there have been several recent letters criticizing their coverage and/or proofreading. Don't talk about that priest that got arrested recently; I skip over those letters.
Good luck. I know there is something in your life related to Stamford that will make for a witty, passionate letter. Take advantage of the opportunity to express your opinion to a wider audience... it's fun.
Some letters are about national issues (boring! that's not why I read the Advocate!), some about school funding (I don't have kids), and some about political figures (I don't like politics). Where is the juicy gossip? There are two interesting letters this week, one about firestation conflicts and mistrust and one about the mayor not being upfront about expenditures.
However, I want more. I want more local drama, more local opinions. I've done my part; I got a letter published a couple of months ago. Now it's time for you to do your part. I challenge you: submit a letter to the editor. It's so easy! Just email it! I'll post it here when it gets published.
My suggested topics: I don't know, I can't think of anything. Be creative. Write about the movie theater at the mall. Write about class wars in Stamford.
Don't write about parking. That's boring. I don't recommend talking about your Toter; that subject is pretty old unless you have a funny story about how it knocked you over. I don't recommend criticizing the Advocate; there have been several recent letters criticizing their coverage and/or proofreading. Don't talk about that priest that got arrested recently; I skip over those letters.
Good luck. I know there is something in your life related to Stamford that will make for a witty, passionate letter. Take advantage of the opportunity to express your opinion to a wider audience... it's fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
