Mystery Lady

Well, we are at due date plus five now, just waiting for the mystery lady to show herself. Really, who is this creature residing in my torso area? She rolls her little body around all day and night, has sneezed twice (totally cute) and hiccuped possibly ten thousand times (not so cute after hiccup 10,001 at 2 o'clock in the morning). She certainly has made her presence felt. And yet we both know she will be so much more captivating/beautiful/tiring/scary once she's here with us in the outside world.

If mom and baby can't get in sync by the weekend, labor will be induced and we'll force you to make your entrance, Nola! Everyone is so excited to finally meet you!

Susan Jacoby Don't Know Nuthin'

Probably the most annoying interview we've seen on the Bill Moyers show (and that's saying a lot) was shown last weekend: Susan Jacoby shilling her new book, The Age of American Unreason.

For Charlie's take on it, go to the interview comments on Bill Moyers's Web site:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2008/02/bill_moyers_rewind_susan_jacob.html

And here is mine; I used it for fodder in my Literary Journalism class:

Last week, I caught an interview on Bill Moyers Journal with Susan Jacoby, author of the new book, The Age of American Unreason. She called various segments of the American public “dumb” five times in the interview, always punctuating this word with that unique combination of frustration and relish that exposes the inner dilemma of the unpopular class egghead. How to compassionately display concern for your less intellectually endowed classmates, while remaining triumphant and superior?

The next day, I saw an article about Jacoby’s book in the New York Times, which allowed me to flesh out her argument a bit more. She mostly declaims lowered expectations and anti-intellectualism in the public arena. Both pieces featured a sadly entertaining moment from reality television where a “celebrity” contestant, Kellie Pickler, says “I thought Europe was a country,” and “I’ve heard of Turkey. But Hungry? I’ve never heard of it.” In Jacoby’s interview, other examples of the debasement of American culture include the use of the word “folks” in political speech, which she finds condescending (or maybe the language has simply changed?), and the fact that maps sold out during FDR’s fireside chats (but now, can’t we use the Internet? If maps are all over the Internet, does that really point to less interest in the larger world?).

These are classic straw man arguments. Of course there will always be ill-informed people in any society. Shine a light only on them, and you will never see the real picture. To quote the Times article:

Ms. Jacoby, whose book came out on Tuesday, doesn’t zero in on a particular technology or emotion, but rather on what she feels [emphasis mine] is a generalized hostility to knowledge. She is well aware that some may tag her a crank. “I expect to get bashed,” said Ms. Jacoby, 62, either as an older person who upbraids the young for plummeting standards and values, or as a secularist whose defense of scientific rationalism is a way to disparage religion.

What I would like to know is: are Americans really becoming less informed and anti-intellectual? Hasn’t this charge been leveled in the past? For instance, I’ve read arguments against full democracy that reason that the people, as a whole, really aren’t smart enough to make decisions that affect their country. I’ve also read that the difficulty of IQ tests has been raised several times since their inception in order to keep the median score at 100. Wouldn’t that make a case that Americans are actually getting smarter?

If this has been a common complaint throughout history, is there anything unique about the current situation? Or, as I suspect, have we accurately “tagged her as a crank,” one of a long line of a less than lovable species?

Does this make me look fat?

"You look great!"

This compliment is almost always closely followed by, "You can hardly tell you're pregnant!"

I hear this all the time, and I know it's meant as a compliment. But it always sounds weird to me -- is "looking pregnant" supposed to be the equivalent of "not looking great"? That seems to be the implication.

Before I got pregnant, I always thought that the pregnant women I knew or saw on the street looked like goddesses. They were bringing new life into the world, they had the special clothes, they were plump and happy about it. Who wouldn't be? I thought. A woman is supposed to gain weight to feed her baby. She's supposed to get the glow and ignore the scale.

I guess this is just another fiction that formed in my head because I don't spend enough time with other people. It seems like, in this country, weight is *always* a concern, and body image *always* tied to looking thin, no matter what the circumstance. I mean, why else tie "looking great" with "hardly looking pregnant"? We don't actually hate the growing baby, just the way she detracts from the idealized image of a woman as thin, athletic, yet still curvy, or whatever it is we're supposed to be.

I know I'm lucky in that I escaped these pressures growing up naturally thin (although, wearing a back brace, I didn't exactly conform to the feminine ideal, either). I never had to worry about dieting, and my mother, thankfully, didn't ever talk about dieting. So, for the most part, I was never indoctrinated. I tend to think of most women I know as pretty attractive, whether fatter or thinner, taller or shorter.

My whole life, mostly I've heard, "you're so thin!" expressed kiddingly or approvingly, but with an undertone of something, I'm not sure what. But I hear it again in "you can hardly tell you're pregnant." To me, it's not a compliment -- I want to celebrate my big, huge belly and the little girl that's growing inside it.

Svendlor to gain a member

OK, we're not so great at blogging. But in case anyone still checks this site, we wanted to show off the ultrasound of our latest accomplishment.

Nola is on the way -- look out, world!

"Classy"

Watching Boston at Cleveland for games 3 through 5 tested my patience in so many ways. Watching Cleveland beat Boston's brains out isn't fun for a Sox fan no matter where they're playing (though I'm grateful they pulled out a win and the series returns to Boston, regardless of the outcome of tonight's game). But adding insult to injury were Fox's presentation, the Cleveland mascot, and the most visible of Cleveland's fans (see above).

Start with Joe Buck. I've never had beef with him until this series. Maybe I'm the one who's biased, but it seems to me his commentary was one-sided -- as though Cleveland winning was inevitable and favorable and he just couldn't wait to get it over with. Is he bitter about the Sox sweeping the Cardinals in the 2004 World Series? Don't know, don't really care, but I certainly wouldn't call his commentary objective. Not to mention he and Tim McCarver kept getting Ortiz and Ramirez mixed up. They have some things in common, sure (both great Sox hitters of Dominican descent), but are they really that hard to keep straight?

The worst was when Buck, in game 3, went on and on about the Cleveland organization, which he characterized as "classy". Um... what?! Sorry -- any team with Chief Wahoo as its mascot could not be called classy. This seems like an incredibly obvious point but, if anything, that makes it all the more important to make.

I grabbed the picture above from King Kaufman's Sports Daily. (No point in rehashing the whole column, but I agree 100%.) His point is that this was posted, without comment, as the lead photo on the ESPN website. What he doesn't mention is how often Fox showed these jackasses (and many others, also offensively attired) during the game, also without comment. (On a side note, Cleveland fans, step away from the towel. Only Steelers fans can get away with it.)

I'm not singling out Cleveland. Boston, home of my Sox, has been guilty in the past. It's had Braves and Redskins franchises. (Unfortunately, though they're not in Boston, they live on in Atlanta and Washington.) The worst of all these mascots, in my opinion, was a college mascot -- Chief Illiniwek. Luckily, it's gone, though it took threatened sanctions from a governing body, the NCAA, to convince the University of Illinois to retire it.

That brings me to my point. Major League Baseball: Do the right thing. Obviously, Cleveland is not going to get rid of its racist mascot without strong incentives to do so, and that's what you must provide. In the short run, it might be painful -- to fans, possibly to the city itself -- but it's the right thing to do.

An Open Letter to Lovie Smith

Dear Lovie,

You're a guy, so maybe you've never experienced this. It's something many women have had to learn the hard way.

I'll get straight to it – Rex, he's no good for you. And when he's no good, you have to let him go.

You can argue all you want about his talent and his potential. You can keep thinking that if you're just loyal enough, and support him enough, he'll change. But no matter what special, wonderful qualities drew you to him (like a moth to the flame), you have to look at his actions. Sunday after Sunday – interceptions, fumbles, those eyebrows. They're always the same.

But don't blame yourself. You did all you could. It's not you – it's him. And there has to be a point when you say, I'm just not going to take it anymore. We Chicagoans all support you and want you to do well. That's why I'm writing to you today. You've got to move on.

Everyone can see it but you, Lovie. He's a loser. You deserve so much better than him. Don't settle for less than that. I just know there's a guy out there who's willing and able to give you what you need. For instance, I can think of one, named Donovan, who's also in a bad relationship right now. Give yourself some time and space to heal from this experience, Lovie. But then, maybe you should give him a call.

Surprise...

We're married!
7/30/07.