« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
May 29, 2006
Danica Patrick finishes 8th at the Indy 500
Danica Patrick, who last year became the first woman to ever take the lead at the Indianapolis 500 during her first time at the race, finished a strong 8th in a race that had a surprising number of... I don't want to call them crashes, because no one was greviously injured, but they were serious enough that a number of cars were taken out over the course of the race. Most costly was the last one; in Indy racing, a crash means they put out a caution flag for a number of laps, a pace car comes out and everyone holds their position in the order, driving slowly while the damage is cleared. At the end of the race, this can mean getting racers getting stuck when they were planning to spend their last bit of fuel, and Patrick wasn't the only one who got caught by a caution flag that went out in the last 8 laps of the 200 lap race.
It was nowhere near as exciting as last year's race, where Danica Patrick received a standing ovation from the crowd when she took the lead for a number of laps, but it was still an excellent race. This was only my second year watching the Indy 500, but I've got to say it's incredibly thrilling when you've got someone to really cheer for. The first serious female competitor in a notoriously boys' club sport is an exciting bit of history, and the fact that it involves speeding cars, crashes, and last second upsets doesn't hurt.
Honestly, I don't actually remember who won, but the announcers made a big deal out of the second place finisher: 19 year-old Marco Andretti, grandson of the legendary Mario Andretti and son of Micheal Andretti (who was also in the Indy 500, and got passed by his son). Check out ESPN if you're curious. Me, I'm over at the Danicaracingstore.com. And while I love the uniform tee, the White Dazzle Scrunchie might just be the best thing ever.
Posted by Elizabeth Tangora at 12:32 AM | Comments (21)
May 28, 2006
American Overkill
This is my manifesto: American Idol is not hard news and should not be covered in the media as such. As of May 23, 2006, I never want to hear about this season of American Idol again.
I have never been a regular American Idol viewer. A show that spawned Clay Aiken and “From Justin to Kelly” never made it on my list of must-see TV programs. But this year I happened to see a couple of episodes of Idol. I didn’t like the episodes I saw, I didn’t see any performances on it that were extraordinary in any way (except, in the beginning, extraordinarily bad), and I’m beginning to resent that talk of American Idol has saturated the media. In fact, I’m resenting it so much that I never want to hear about this season of American Idol again. I can’t erase the episodes I’ve already watched from my mind, but I can refuse to hear or see any more news about Idol from this moment forward. Or can I? This is my diary of my efforts to have an American-Idol-free week.
Tuesday, May 23:
The problem with American Idol is that it is being covered like it is really big news. And I don’t think it is. Sure, the show is popular, but neither of the two remaining contestants seems to be any good and frankly I don’t see how it could be big news if either one of them wins. I don’t want to hear about it anymore. I don’t want to know whether the next American Idol is What’s-Her-Face or Prematurely-Grey-Man. I won’t watch the show and I won’t read about the results in the news. I need to see how long I can go before somewhere, somehow I accidentally find out who the winner is.
I know if I don’t turn the TV on, I won’t run the risk of seeing the show. But that would be too easy. I want to watch a little bit of evening TV and I want to be able to do so “Idol”-free. Luckily, tonight I’m watching TV with my dad, who would veto anything and everything to do with current pop culture anyway. We settle for a documentary about Nat King Cole. I wonder who would win American Idol if a young Nat King Cole were transplanted to the show today.
The documentary ends at 10 PM EST, and I’m not sure but I suspect that on some nearby channel, American Idol is ending too. I could see comments about the show on any 10 PM newscast. I head for my computer, thinking the internet will be safer than TV. But my homepage is a news site. And my Yahoo! Email always has links to current headlines at the bottom of the page. So does the Daily Jolt. I’m afraid to check even Sophia’s Draft, afraid that one of our enterprising writers has already posted a comment about the show.
Suddenly, I realize that nothing is safe. I won’t be able to read the newspaper tomorrow, or listen to the radio. Anyone, anywhere, could comment on the Idol results at any time, from radio DJs to the customers at the restaurant where I work. I’m even afraid to read my friends’ instant messenger away messages, although none of my friends is really a devoted Idol fan. But where do I draw the line? I don’t want to know the results of American Idol, but I don’t want to drastically change my life to avoid them.
I know it is very possible to live a full, productive life in the United States and not know or care the slightest bit about American Idol. My parents, for example, are totally oblivious. But I have the disadvantage of already knowing something about American Idol. If I find out the results, I’m going to remember them.
Wednesday, May 24:
It is reasonable to assume that, since American Idol is entertainment, any entertainment news is going to do a story on the results. So I won’t listen to pop music radio stations, I won’t read the entertainment section of the newspaper, I won’t go to entertainment news sites on the internet, and I won’t watch E! Entertainment Television. Sounds simple enough. But I still want to be able to read the paper every day, go on the internet, and watch the news on TV. If I restrict all of those activities to just news, not entertainment, can I avoid Idol?
I change my homepage from my usual news website to the smith website so I won’t accidentally see any headlines on the internet. But in the afternoon I happen to go to Dunkin’ Donuts with some friends. Apparently Dunkin Donuts have TVs in them now, or at least my local restaurant does, and it is playing CNN far too loudly. In the background, I hear a story about American Idol come on the news while I’m sipping my coffee, but I’m also talking to a friend so I don’t hear what the story says. Even more of a close call comes when I get in my car and switch on the radio, thinking I can listen to a pop station if I just listen to the songs and change the radio station when the DJ gets on the air. But the song ends and the very first thing the radio announcer says is “Before we get to the next song on our countdown, here’s your next American Idol!” I change the station just as the American Idol theme song starts to play. That was close.
Later, while I’m channel-surfing at home, I happen to see What’s-Her-Face and Prematurely-Grey-Man singing. Apparently the show did not end last night as I had thought. This must be the results show now. I turn off the TV and go to bed.
Thursday, May 25:
I decide it is okay to listen to National Public Radio this morning as I drive my mother to the train station. One of their morning news shows is on, and the reporter is doing a story about immigration in Boston. But as soon as the story ends, the announcer gets on the air and says: “Your votes have been counted, and the winner of Morning Edition Idol is..." Even NPR has been sucked in.
For the rest of the day I avoid the entertainment section of the newspaper and don’t watch TV. I do listen to the radio, but it is live coverage of a news conference with President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair—I sincerely hope that their discussion of the Iraq war won’t segue into an opportune comment about American Idol. Hey, it’s possible.
Later in the evening I’m at a friend’s house when the Comedy Central show on her TV starts to make fun of Idol. As much as I would like to hear the punch line, I stick my fingers in my ears and sing until the joke is over. The “la la laa, I can’t hear you” method should be reserved for extreme situations, and preferably not around other people, but my friends already know me well enough not to bat an eye at this behavior. There used to be a saying “friends don’t let friends watch Friends.” My friends help me stay Idol-free.
Friday, May 30:
I can’t believe it—I’ve made it all the way to Friday without hearing the results of American Idol! I didn't see the results in the newspaper, or on the internet, or hear about it on the radio. Nobody mentioned them to me in passing, and I didn't overhear it from customers at work. Now the show is yesterday’s news, and my heart starts to fill with the wild hope that I could go the rest of my life without ever knowing who won season five.
Humming with joy, I scoop up a pile of newspapers to put them in the recycling bin—and I see it. On the top of yesterday’s Boston Globe, a teaser for the entertainment section has the winner’s name and picture right on the top of the front page.
It’s over. I know who won American Idol. And, because I’m writing this story, I will probably never forget who the winner was. Every time anyone anywhere mentions the fifth season of American Idol, I will have a mental image of the winner crooning some forgettable pop song. But I have learned a lesson about the influence of the media in my life. We’re bombarded with information constantly under the guise of news. Some of it I would consider "real" news, and some of it isn't. While we can take the initiative to seek out what we consider "real" news, it is a lot harder to tune out all that other stuff. My downfall was that I cared too much. If I had just completely ignored American Idol as I have every other season, I would have forgotten the results the minute after I'd heard them.
I heard, once, that the President of the United States does not read newspapers or listen to any news reports. He gets all the information he needs to know from his Senior Staff. For the rest of us, it's a lot easier to just forget the news we don't need to know.
So who won? What’s-Her-Face or Prematurely-Grey? I’m not telling. If you don’t already know, consider yourself lucky.
Posted by Frances Kingsbury at 08:48 PM | Comments (16)
May 23, 2006
Smith's Class of 2006 finally finishes
Graduates in Diploma Circle in front of King and Scales: they pass the diplomas they received from hand to hand until they find the diplomas with theirs names. Photo by Frances Kingsbury.
It threatened to rain all Commencement weekend, but luckily for the Class of 2006, the weather held off long enough to guarantee Commencement ceremonies in the Quad instead of the ITT. The Class of 2006 undergraduates and graduate students received their diplomas on this past Sunday, May 21. The rain did start in the middle of the ceremony, prompting parents to scramble for their umbrellas and a warning to the graduates to be careful of the slippery ramp. But the sun came out again soon, there were no major mishaps during the ceremony, and hundreds of proud graduates went home with their diplomas.
Following tradition, prizes and awards were announced at the "Last Chapel" service in the Quad after the Ivy Day parade on Saturday, May 20.
At Commencement ceremonies on the 21st, the college awarded honorary degrees to Jewel Plummer Cobb, Paula Deitz '59, B. Elizabeth Hormer, and Ruth Ozeki Lounsbury '80, Jody Williams, and Jane Lakes Harmon '66.
Stacey Baird addressed the audience as Class President. She said that her four years at Smith have taught her that great minds often don't think alike, and that Smith has taught her the value of diversity of ideas. She concluded her speech with a quote from the poem "The Whitsun Weddings" by Phillip Larkin.
The commencement address was given by Congresswoman Jane Lakes Harmon ’66. She spoke on the topic of leadership. Several people in the audience commented that her speech seemed a little too self-congratulatory and that Harmon took too long to get to the point, "a typical politician speech" as one student put it. At the end of her address Harmon did give eight pithy statements to graduates about leadership. She said that leadership is “inside out” and that it takes work. Leaders learn from failure, never give up, and that leadership is lonely, for women in particular: “sadly, I have learned that women don’t always support each other.” It gets harder to be a leader the higher one climbs, and “when you succeed as a leader, your most important obligation is to mentor and help the women who come after you.” Finally, Harmon stressed the importance of being there for family members as well: “all of you have families. They need you too.”
Posted by Frances Kingsbury at 11:17 PM | Comments (11)
May 17, 2006
Worth more than the Cover
Anything that increases journalistic optimism must be pointed out, if only for the novelty of any hope that is found in the media. Rolling Stone has redeemed itself from this with its 1000th issue. While some may argue that the issue is worth picking up solely for the cover that cost founder Jann Wenner $1 million, the issue is more compelling for its reflection on its organizational ethics and the history of its political coverage (which is admittedly more interesting than its actual political coverage normally is). Rolling Stone boasts that it once was--it arguably is no longer--the kind of magazine that would bite the hand that feeds it, putting Eric Clapton on the cover in May of 1968 and panning his album with Cream in the same issue. While some say that the issue is overly self-congratulatory, which it probably is, it's refreshing to read about a time when Hunter Thompson led the RS critique of American Politics and a pop star like Britney Spears would never make the cover of a rock magazine.
Posted by Mandy Smithberger at 10:43 AM | Comments (665)
May 01, 2006
A Day Without an Immigrant
Protesters march in Chicago. Photo from CNN.com.
If you've been following the news at all, you probably already know that today is "A Day Without an Immigrant," a nationwide boycott by immigrants and those who support immigrants rights. The goal of the protest is to create a real life version of the movie A Day Without a Mexican and show exactly how crucial immigrant labor is to the U.S. economy.
Today is also an important day in Mexico. May 1 is El Día del Trabajo, the equivalent of Labor Day, and many people don't have to work today. To show solidarity for friends and relatives in the U.S., many have unofficially declared it "Nothing Gringo Day" and refuse to buy U.S. products today. The move is controversial because large U.S. companies tend to support lifting restrictions on immigration, and, therefore, are one of the immigrant movement's greatest allies. Many people I've talked to in Mexico do not realize this, but, surprisingly, many people do know and plan to boycott U.S. products anyway. It seems that the average Mexican likes the idea of dealing a blow to the United States enough not to care about the logic of it all.
This attitude comes from the love-hate relationship that Mexico has with the United States. As a U.S. citizen living in Mexico I've been asked too many times to count what it's like to live in "el Imperio." And why do all gringos hate all latinos? But even more often the first question I am asked by a new acquaintance is, "Where are you from in the U.S.? Because I have relatives who live there...." Mexicans love to hate the U.S. for being an arrogant, imperialistic empire determined to meddle in the affairs of Latin American countries and exploit their economies. But at the same time the U.S. is a land of employment for so many people who can't find work in Mexico, and Mexicans devour U.S. culture as soon as they can get it. Of the 80-something cable channels available here, less than five are Mexican. My friends' favorite shows are South Park and the Simpsons. Mexican telenovelas are incredibly popular, especially among the older crowd, but so is Desperate Housewives.
So what's the deal with the whole immigration thing? Recent protests in Chicago, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, San Diego, Texas, and Boston, among other locations, brought to light an issue that has been simmering under the surface of U.S. politics for a while. But, until now, it has not made much of a splash in the media. People know the basic arguments: immigrants who enter the country illegally shouldn't be here, they're illegal, and they take jobs that should go to U.S. citizens. In the words of comedian Stephen Lynch, they're known for "taking our welfare and best jobs to boot, like landscaping, dishwashing, picking our fruit." On the other side of the debate is a growing latino population in the U.S. that argues that almost everyone in the country is descended from an immigrant, and that there wouldn't be so many illegal immigrants if it weren't so hard for people to come to this country legally. The most recent protests stem from the idea of making illegal entry into the country a felony. Because designating illegal immigrants as felons puts them in the same category as people who tamper with federal elections or bomb federal buildings. The back-and-forth between the two sides has been going on as long as there has been illegal immigration to the U.S..
The average news-watcher in the U.S. might be tempted to tune out the immigration debate because it is nothing new. But what is interesting is that many in Mexico see the recent clashes as more than just a flare-up in an old debate. Speculation in Mexico is that immigrants' rights protests will become the next big civil rights movement in the U.S., akin to the most famous movements of the '60's.
Is that realistic? At first glance it seems unlikely. The civil rights movements of the '60's had a few key characteristics that today's immigrant rights movement lacks. First, there hasn't been a sensational news story to grab the attention of people who otherwise wouldn't pay attention. The sheer numbers of people protesting has been sensational, but to really grab people's attention it may take a hate crime or similar act of violence. No such crime has made a splash in the U.S. news yet. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that these crimes don't happen. When U.S. border patrol agents shot a young man in the back for throwing a rock at them, it made a huge sensation in Mexico, but barely made the news on the northern side of the border.
Secondly, the immigrant rights movement in the U.S. has not yet produced a charismatic leader to grab attention and make headlines. Some would argue that the movement benefits from many charismatic leaders, and that s why the protests have been so successful. But the movement would benefit from one or two people at its forefront to really grab the attention of the nation.
What the movement does have is manpower. Depending on how today's boycott goes, it remains to be seen whether that will be enough to turn immigration into the Next Big Issue in the U.S.. Will "a Day Without an Immigrant" have lasting results? Stay tuned.
Posted by Frances Kingsbury at 07:19 PM | Comments (7827)