Book: I saw the author of Smashing Statues: The Rise and Fall of America’s Public Monuments interviewed on C-SPAN, being interested enough to check out the book. (I checked it out of the library.) I read the Sandy Levinson book cited in this capsule review, including an update. I also read another book, talking about Confederate monuments. All three are somewhat of a piece, focused on what one might call "bad monuments."
All three are worthwhile (yeah, the other one slips my mind at the moment) in their own ways. The book here is a bit misleadingly named. The book is largely about Confederate monuments with a bit about others such as the knocking down George III's monument. But, even in that respect, it isn't really comprehensively about bad ones. The main focus in about Confederate monuments though there is (to be fair) a chapter on Christopher Columbus.
[On that subject, there was traditionally not too far from me -- if I went to public high school, I was zoned for it -- a school called Christopher Columbus High School. We also traditionally had a Christopher Columbus parade down the main block near me. The school broke into smaller schools. COVID made the parade not a thing recently.]
I would have liked a more complete book about monuments (celebrations) and memorials (mourning something). Why not a chapter on some "good" monument, or at least one that has so far met the test of time, such as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial? Or, something like the Statue of Liberty? If the book is meant to be about those that are "smashed," even so -- this sort of thing will provide a comparison.
Still, the chapters on various memorials -- to be fair there are ones on matters other than the Confederate monuments -- and monuments are pretty interesting. One thing of note is her argument that Confederate monuments partially was a way to stop rising labor unrest, especially when it was biracial in nature. Bits like that adds new details.
===
Let's Play Ball! Injury to an ace and another try manager-wise? Check! Still, we have some reason to hope this year is a bit different, with a career manager in place, a stud ace signing, and some good additions. I think two time cheater Cano should have been gone, but early on at least (it is the Nats, the predicted NL East whipping boy) he seems to be a promising addition too, especially with the DH (boo) giving him more playing time.
The first two games of a four game series versus the Nationals already had some drama. We had deGrom out, so Megill started (well), and then Apple TV (not too well apparently) had the second game. And, as if that and Scherzer (vs his old team) was not enough, yet another hit by pitch had some drama (we got a bit of video on Twitter for those who wasn't watching).
The game was delayed twice -- lighting issues and at the end (which could have been avoided perhaps without the first delay) some rain. Mets 2-0, top of the NL East. So it begins. Nice to see GKR back and I listened some on the radio, which has its charms. And, Howie Rose (cutting back apparently this season after a health scare) is getting pretty good at Twitter, giving the daughter involved in the biz a run for her money.
===
Academy Awards: I didn't watch, there was some drama -- as noted -- when Will Smith (who from what I can tell is not a "bad boy" type, but I don't pay much attention) hit Chris Rock for making a joke about her lack of hair (a result of a medical condition). At the time, the Oscars let him stay, and Smith then came on the stage after winning an award.
That was not ideal. But, if a tad late, the Oscars has penalized him by banning him from the awards for ten years. Will Smith himself resigned from the academy, basically meaning he doesn't get a vote. He can be voted for, since that is a separate matter. That might confuse a bit, but it makes sense (mostly). He did not somehow corrupt the acting process or something (such as if a director was caught abusing a cast member).
I think the thing to do was address the matter in the moment. This is not totally bad though. For one thing, the tradition is for the Best Actor winner to be a presenter the next year. So, this sort of thing matters in a message way in that direct fashion. (It matters more there to the degree his absence is specifically notable.)
And, often -- though it is unfortunate -- it is hard to do things "in the moment." Ideally, Will Smith should have left, though just what happened there is subject to conflicting reports in the coverage I saw. Some talk of him being "asked" to leave, but not too strongly; maybe not? Unfortunate there was not some more lag time, perhaps before him winning.
Is ten years the right length? Maybe a bit much, but you cannot handwave physical violence against presenters. These things sometimes will include presenters or categories for things that might in some fashion will invite the unhinged to do something. Plus, violence in general should be strongly rejected.
And, we are not talking prison time here or something.
===
Border Issues: One thing a repeat ask at Jen Psaki's daily White House press conferences (saw news she is leaving soon, but after a few questions -- which she waived off -- about talks with MSNBC, saw/heard nothing ... though she seems to be highlighting support staff more lately as if in preparation) is Title 42. A bit of immigrant/COVID inside baseball.
I have not gone into the weeds too much here, but have seen some criticism of the Administration continuing a Trump policy here. The idea is that there is a health need -- COVID (Big V) -- to be more strict regarding migrants wishing to come in, resulting in over a million (some duplicates, but it is still a big number) being blocked. Better be necessary, right?
The link provides some helpful analysis. Jen Psaki basically had a mantra that it was a health measure. But, the article argues that the actual health officials at the CDC never really thought it was necessary. So, there is some idea that was a makeweight argument. Now, there are plans to end it, and (shocker here) Republicans (and some others) are worried.
Republicans, of course, are regularly against any number of COVID restrictions. When it is a border matter, largely involving Latin Americans, suddenly they change their tune. Repeatedly, health experts are wary about the laissez faire policies of the Republicans in this area. HERE, we have actual evidence (a recent court case reaffirmed this, though upholding the policy as a matter of law, excepting those at risk of torture or the like) from experts the policy is unnecessary.
The reactions underline why the Biden Administration is loathe to have a more liberal immigration policy, even to the degree that in various respects would be a good thing. JUST how much criticism they warrant is far from clear to me, but that sort of real politics reality also should be factored in.
===
Blogger Issue: Twice now, for some reason, Blogger has blocked my posts. One, regarding the bike death of a media critics, was shortly thereafter found to be okay. I didn't closely read the email to see what the alleged issue was.
Another, an earlier version of my latest SCOTUS post was allowed too, after a somewhat longer review. The first time for some reason "spam" was the problem. I then posted a short post summarizing it, with "Blogger" in the title and a link to the content policy. THAT was blocked!
I reposted a new version, taking out a couple embedded tweets and some other formatting. THAT was allowed. A recent short Judge Jackson post had an embedded tweet. I have been doing this since 2003 without one case of having something blocked, including linking to porn.
I'm unsure why there is an issue here, but it's annoying, in part since there does not seem to be a way for me to simply ask Blogger what the issue here. There is a "help" page with FAQ material and an option to post questions. If I'm blocked, I rather have a chance to ask directly.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!