Dear flight attendant,
It’s called a “mixed drink” because it’s supposed to be served mixed. If I wanted bloody mary mix with a vodka floater, I would have ordered it that way.
Sincerely,
- josh
(cross-posted to my mostly-neglected upgrd.com blog)
…since before it was cool to be a Mac guy:
This is what we believe.
Technology alone is not enough.
Faster, thinner, lighter…
Those are all good things.
But when technology gets out of the way,
Everything becomes more delightful,
Even magical.
That’s when you leap forward.
That’s when you end up with something…
Like this.
That’s an even better manifesto than this one.
Update: There’s more.
If you ask a parent,
They might call it intuitive.
If you ask a musician,
They might call it inspiring.
To a doctor,
It’s groundbreaking.
To a CEO,
It’s powerful.
To a teacher,
It’s the future.
If you ask a child,
She might call it magic.
And if you asked us…
We’d say it’s just getting started.
With no outs in the top of the 6th inning of Game 7 of the 1955 World Series, Duke Snider — who’d hit four home runs in the previous six games — laid down a sac bunt to move PeeWee Reese to second. After Snider reached on an error, the next batter, Roy Campanella, laid down another bunt to move Reese to third.
So the record books say that Gil Hodges had both the Dodgers’ RBI in that game. But maybe they should also note that the Dodgers’ second run came as a result of the MVP (Campy) and the runner-up in MVP voting (the Duke) bunting over a runner who Hodges drove in with a sac fly. Can you imagine such a thing in today’s game?
Let me put a fine point on it. For his career, Duke Snider had 11 HR, 26 RBI, and 21 runs in 36 World Series games. (He’s the fourth best in WS history.) This was the final game of a season in which he had 42 HR, 136 RBI, 126 runs, and an OPS of 1.046. And this is the guy you want bunting with no outs in the sixth?
Darn straight. RIP, Duke.
(By the way: There are seven members of that team in the Hall of Fame. Or eight if you’re like me and you count the radio announcer.)
A recent article on Foward.com highlights a demographic study by Leonard Saxe that offers some new insights on the national Jewish population and might even contradict some of the generally-accepted-as-gospel research on the matter. In the Forward article, Saxe talks about the sticky problem of “identification”:
Instead of writing some fancy introduction, I’m going to just start by telling you that the thesis of this blog post is that the entire concept of the “December dilemma” is a myth. I’m going to explain why, and then I’m going to suggest what we (the Jewish community, and perhaps more specifically, those of us who serve in
leadership roles in the Jewish community) should do about it.
So with that totally transparent introduction, you can click if you’re interested in reading more.
People seem to get all up-in-arms when they perceive that peace-loving, moderate Muslims don’t do enough to condemn the acts of violent extremists with whom they happen to share (kind-of) a religion. When anyone tries to point out that the vast majority of Muslims abhor of violence, and that violent radicals are choosing to emphasize only those parts of the Quran which justify their hatred (and that extremists commit heinous acts in the name of other religions, too), the response is that if Muslim moderates want people to see them as peaceful, then they should stand up and condemn their violent co-religionists. The problem is, peace-loving Muslims condemn violence all the time. Maybe we’re not listening. Or maybe we just bury their statements ten paragraphs down.
From the AP’s story about Farooque Ahmed, the guy who tried to help some undercover FBI agents plant a “bomb” in the DC subway:
Born in Lahore, Pakistan, Ahmed arrived in the U.S. in 1993 and became a citizen in 2005, officials said. He worshipped at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, which is known for its mainstream Islamic congregation. Leaders there have decried violence and were quick to call for Ahmed’s prosecution. He was not a member of the society, said board member Robert Marro.
He worshiped at the mosque. He never stuck around long enough for the regulars to get to know him. And when they found out that he’d been arrested for plotting violence, the members of the mosque said he wasn’t a member, spoke out against violence and called for him to be punished. In other words, they said, “He’s not one of us, and we despise what he stands for.”
That’s condemnation if I’ve ever heard it.
1. I’ve flown over 200,000 miles (domestic) on airplanes in the last two years. Not once have I been scared because of “people who are in Muslim garb” or people who “are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims.” The only people who scare me on airplanes are the ones who are overly nervous, overtly anxious, or rude and obnoxious. It seems to me, based on my experience, that none of these behaviors are exclusive to a particular religion, ethnicity, race, or creed.
2. It’s clear that the most of the people who loudly bashed NPR in the wake of Williams’ firing weren’t particularly fond of public radio (that bastion of the elitist liberal media) to begin with. What’s ironic is that NPR (and the rest of public radio) is actually the only mainstream media outlet that seems to have refused to be overtaken by blow-hard punditry, sensationalism, or both.
3. NPR was right to fire Williams, and they shouldn’t hesitate to tell it like it is: He wasn’t fired because the rules of “political correctness” deemed his comments on O’Reilly’s show to be offensive. He got fired because real journalists (and “news-analysts”) have to be fair and unbiased. That means they can’t behave like loudmouth pundits. End of story. Williams can spout off saying that he got fired for “telling the truth” or “speaking his mind.” But that’s only half the story. He got fired because he wanted to get paid for being a journalist, but then he also wanted to go on O’Reilly and spew whatever “truth” he wanted. You can’t have both, buddy.
4. This week, I made a donation to my local public radio station. You should too.