Two states just wrapped up a month that they dedicated to Confederate history or “heritage.”
It shouldn’t be a surprise that Confederacy is celebrated in some states when the it and the Confederate flag get away with little or no criticism in popular culture. It’s because those other representations of the antebellum South are romanticized as if straight out of Gone With The Wind. That film begins with the following on the screen:
There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind…
What’s incredible is that the quote includes slavery as part of the pretty world of the film’s “Old South.”
Flash forward to today. For some, the Old South is still that pretty world. For them, it’s either country and folksy or, just the opposite, elegant and aristocratic. There are films like Sweet Home Alabama where the parents of Reese Witherspoon’s character have sofa pillows with the Conferderate Flag on them. And I like watching fast cars jumping over things as much as the next guy. When The Dukes of Hazzard movie came out, though, with the General Lee and the Confederate flag on top of it, I couldn’t go see the film. Then there is the country-pop act Lady Antebellum. The story behind their name is that the band thought they looked good in pre-Civil War style photo shoot. Ok, but is that the only name they could think of? Didn’t anyone think it might be a problem for a country band from the South to be called a name that references and glamorizes (that would be the “Lady” part) the pre-Civil War era? Continue reading 'The Old South Isn’t Folksy or Elegant'»
For the second year in a row, I’m running in the Father’s Day Race Against Prostate Cancer. I’m looking forward to raising money to fight prostate cancer and to getting my body in shape for the 5-mile race. Now, five miles is the longest distance I’ve ever run, and I’ve gone that distance only a handful of times. It’s probably the limit my 36-year-old body can go in its current condition.
So, I was at once inspired and intimidated when I read this piece from the Times of London that talked about men in their late 30s and 40s who run, cycle, swim and other things in endurance races. The piece is framed as one in which men compete to get through a mid-life crisis. They’re not taking the traditional (or cliched) route of buying a red sports car or dating younger women.
Triathlon is the fastest-growing mass-participation sport in the UK, and endurance sports across the board are bulging at the midriff with middle-aged men with moobs to lose and something to prove.
That something to prove is not getting old. It’s holding on to youth. It’s proving you still have your mojo. I get that. I’m not going through a mid-life crisis, but I can tell I’m slowing down and not able to do as many of the things I used to do.
The funny thing is, I began thinking about what, if anything, I have to prove with this race. I ran it last year, so I know I can get in shape for it. It’s not a question of whether I’m able to prepare for it. But staying youthful and all that entails – health, vibrance, sex-appeal – gets harder as one grows older. This race isn’t just a way to raise money to fight prostate cancer, it’s a chance to prove to myself that I still have It. When the race is over, the plan is to train and race in something else – something bigger. I know I can’t out-run old age, but I’m going to stay ahead of it for as long as I can.
One in six men will get prostate cancer and one in 35 will die from it. Please help me in the fight against prostate cancer by making a contribution to the American Cancer Society on my fundraising page.
If you know me, you know that I love history and that I truly believe having a complete understanding of history is important so we’re not doomed to repeat it (as the saying goes). Understanding and celebrating history, though, are two different things. So, the fact that several states are currently having Confederate History Month boggles my mind.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell came under fire earlier this month for leaving slavery out of his declaration of April as Confederate History Month. He apologized, put slavery in the new declaration and the story died shortly after that. I don’t think the controversy should have been about why was slavery left out of the Virginia declaration. The controversy should have been why is Virginia, as well as Georgia and Alabama, having Confederate History Month at all?
The Civil War wasn’t a noble struggle for states’ rights. The only state “right” the Confederacy defended was slavery. The Civil War was only about slavery. Defending slavery wasn’t just about perpetuating a the slave labor system (which, even if Lincoln hadn’t ended it, probably wouldn’t have been able to sustain itself anyway). It was about having a population that boosted slave states’ representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Even though slaves couldn’t vote, they counted towards 3/5 of person toward representation in Congress. Not only did that influence the passage of laws, it influenced the Electoral College which elects the president. Southern states seceded because they saw their voting power and economic way of life being threatened by abolitionists and the balance of power toward the free states in North. The balance of free and slave states was maintained by the Compromises of 1820 and 1850 and helped keep the Union together. But numerous events in the 1850s began to shake this fragile balance. One event was the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act which empowered the federal government to capture, try and return escaped slaves to their masters, even in free states. Slave-holding states didn’t care about “states’ rights” when it came to getting their slaves back.
It wasn’t so much that Tiger Woods didn’t win the Masters Golf Tournament on Sunday. It’s that wholesomeness did.
I was at the gym when coverage of the Masters was wrapping up on TV. When watching TV on mute (or close to mute), the images can speak to the viewer more than when the sound is turned up. At the gym, I was watching pictures and video of this year’s winner, Phil Mickelson, hugging his wife, Amy, who is battling cancer. (Mickelson’s mother also has cancer.) For someone who doesn’t follow golf and wouldn’t have been able to point out Mickelson if he passed me on the street, I was touched sitting there in the gym resting between my sets.
It was great video for the folks at the Masters and CBS, who broadcasted the event. The warm, fuzzy moment was great TV. After all the speculation about how Tiger might perform because of the scandal and the scandal itself looming over coverage of the tournament, it was a guy with a backstory that pulls at the heartstrings who won the weekend.
It would’ve been odd if Tiger won. The win would’ve been great for his career and a step towards the comeback of his image. A win is a win. In light of the sex scandal, though, Woods would’ve looked like an ass if he celebrated exuberantly with his trademark fist-pumping. His wife Elin wasn’t at the tournament. Even if she were, I don’t think there would have been a warm embrace.
All of this, of course, has little to do with actually playing golf. But how viewers feel about winners can impact how they feel about a sport. On Sunday, the golf world could put the scandal behind them – maybe even let out a sigh of relief – and have a feel-good moment.
What’s the latest on Jazz Guns Apple Pie? Two ad campaigns trying to be macho, a tampon commercial that can’t use a relevant word, and Ricky Martin announces he’s gay. Plus, a marriage question I keep getting asked, and wives making more money than their husbands.
Famous people who cheat always get the public’s attention. Lately, though, it seems that we’re bombarded with stories about the rich and powerful who are unfaithful.
The latest, of course, is the allegation that Sandra Bullock’s husband, Jesse James, cheated on her. We’re still in the midst of the whole Tiger Woods saga – he’ll make his professional comeback at the Masters this week – and the John Edwards story has been a slow drip of revelations for about two years now. While the three might seem the same – famous people who cheat – the fame and income dynamics of James and Bullock’s relationship is the opposite of Edwards, Woods and their wives. Even though James is famous (well, semi-famous, perhaps infamous) and presumably makes a good living on his own, Bullock is an A-list superstar and surely makes more money than he does.
So, why do men cheat? There have been a ton of recent stories trying to answer that question. (Don’t be fooled, though. Women cheat too. Yes, men cheat more than women, but not by a huge margin.) On Saturday, “Larry King Live” had a show to discuss try to answer the question and get into what causes cheating. I won’t tell you the entire motley crew of guests. All you need to know is that addiction expert Dr. Drew Pinsky, comedian Adam Carolla, “Survivor” host and LKL guest-host Jeff Probst, and Dr. Daniel Amen, a psychiatrist and brain imaging expert, (as I said, a motley crew) got into an exchange about whether driven and high-powered people might cheat more:
On Monday, singer Ricky Martin announced to the world that he is gay, or in his words, “a fortunate homosexual man.” This wasn’t huge news, since many people had suspected it for years. He also hasn’t had a hit or been in the spotlight for quite some time. And there are far more high profile gays and lesbians (in show business and other fields) than in 1999 when Martin became known to mainstream American audiences. So, put those three together and his announcement wasn’t huge news.
On his website, Martin addressed why he didn’t come out sooner:
Many people told me: “Ricky it’s not important”, “it’s not worth it”, “all the years you’ve worked and everything you’ve built will collapse”, “many people in the world are not ready to accept your truth, your reality, your nature”. Because all this advice came from people who I love dearly, I decided to move on with my life not sharing with the world my entire truth. Allowing myself to be seduced by fear and insecurity became a self-fulfilling prophecy of sabotage.
Back in the late ’90s, it actually was big news that Ellen DeGeneres was saying “Yep, I’m Gay,” both in real life and as the character on her show. Singer George Michael revealed he’s gay after getting arrested for a “lewd act” in a Beverly Hills bathroom, and Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered for being gay. So, it’s understandable that Martin and the people around him were reluctant to be open about his sexuality. And whatever the context of those times, Martin had to come out on his own clock, whenever he felt the time was right.
Were you offended at the word “vagina?” It’s not a dirty word. So, there shouldn’t be a problem with saying it on television, right? That’s what I thought, until I read this.
Kotex is coming out with a new tampon line called U by Kotex. The original ad for the campaign used the word “vagina.” It turns out, using the proper word for female genitalia in a commercial was too much for three broadcast networks. So, they rejected it. Kotex came up with another version of the ad that replaced the v-word with “down there.” That was still over the line for two of those networks because they rejected the revised spot, too. (The networks involved weren’t disclosed.)
It’s bad enough that these corporations rejected the vagina version. It’s not like it’s inappropriate. The ad is for a tampon! But “down there” didn’t make it either? It’s vague, playful without being dirty, and relevant when talking about stuff that happens Down There. (Maybe they should’ve used vajayjay.)
So, after two strikes, here’s the sanitized version Kotex came up with:
My wife, Holly, and I have only been married for 6 1/2 months. In that short time, people have been asking me a question that catches me off guard. It literally started the day after the wedding. It’s not a huge question, but I’ve always paused when trying to answer it.
The question is, “How’s married life?”
It’s not an unanswerable question. I usually respond with a variation of, “Good. The same as before we were married.” Which is the truth. The question was hard for me to answer the first couple of times. It’s not because there was something wrong with Holly and me. I just don’t think of life in terms of before and after getting married. It seems I don’t understand the concept of “Married Life.”
Did you see the controversial Dodge commercial during the Super Bowl? Many people thought it was sexist. I thought it was whiny. Check it out.
The life of these guys are so miserable because they have to spend time with their mothers-in-law and take their wives’ calls? What assholes. These guys are whining about how whipped they feel because they have to watch “vampire shows?” Having to do those things doesn’t break down the American man. Feeling that those things do break it down is being whiny. It’s the opposite of the manly-man they’re trying to be.
I never understood the whole “life is over because I’m married” line of thinking. First, the reasons “life is so bad” always seemed lame, like in this commercial. And second, no one forced these guys to get married in the first place. So, conclusion: Stupid commercial.
A few weeks later, I noticed an ad for Dockers khakis that said “Wear the Pants.” I saw it and others for the same campaign in a few places in Midtown, but didn’t initially pay too much attention to them. Then I thought about “Wearing the pants” in light of the Dodge ad. It turns out the Dockers campaign is telling men to “wear the pants” to bring back manhood. Wearing khakis is going to bring macho back?
Comments (3) 
Themocracy