Youk! Youk!

I voted once for MLB's All-Star Voting, but I can't seem to summon the enthusiasm to do it again. I discovered to my dismay that Kevin Youkilis, who's currently batting a robust .342, seventh in the majors, is not on the All-Star ballot. Despite the fact that outside of possibly Garko, Morneau, Teixeira, and maybe Swisher there is not a single first baseman in the American League worthy of consideration for this slot, the only way to vote for Youk is to write him in at the bottom of the ballot. And if I decide to do that, it means I can't vote for David Ortiz, which is something I don't feel comfortable doing either. So I'm stuck.

Maybe Red Sox fans could start a campaign voting Youkilis in as a second baseman, since there's no way Dustin Petroia's gonna make the club as a rookie. Then Youk and Ortiz could make the All-Star Team, and we'd have the added enjoyment of watching Youk try to turn a double play with Jeter after Bonds grounds to short in the first inning.

Alright, that's the plan. Let's do it.

But while I'm all in favor of letting Ortiz represent the Sox at the All-Star Game, it's hard to make the argument that Youk doesn't deserve to go. Let's take a look at price versus performance for AL first basemen this year. Keep in mind that fans across the country are accusing the Red Sox of being the Yankees, and wildly overpaying players in order to keep them around. I've ordered all the AL first basemen in accordance with their batting average, starting with the highest, Youk:

Kevin Youkilis (BOS): .342 BA, .956 OPS. He's 28 years old (the beginning of his baseball prime), and he'll make $424,500 this year.

Now, all of these players are between 26 and 32 years old, so assumably all of them are also in their prime, and are not being paid for their future potential but for their contributions right now. Also, this being first base and not an important defensive position like shortstop or catcher, being a good fielder doesn't count for much here. A first basemen in the American League needs a big bat, games are won with power rather than glovework. Now, find me a more appropriate All-Star in this lot and I will publicly eat crow about how Youk is the most appropriate All-Star choice, as well as baseball's best bargain.

Ryan Garko (CLE): .319 BA, .882 OPS. $383,100. A fantastic find by Cleveland. Do you realize he was never drafted? This is why absolutely nobody cares about the MLB draft.
Mark Teixeira (TEX):. 312 BA, .922 OPS. He'll make $9 million this year.
Nick Swisher (OAK): .287/.898. He'll make $400,000, which, after Youk and Garko, makes him the best bargain of this sorry lot. That's Beaneball for you, though, would you expect anything else? He'll be out of Oakland and in New York, LA, or St. Louis within two years. He's only 26, too.
Justin Morneau (MIN): .274/.884. He'll make 4.5 million this year.
Lyle Overbay (TOR): .255/.810. $1.35 million.
Aubrey Huff (BAL): .253/.672. He'll make $4 million this year.
Sean Casey (DET): .252/.620. $4 million. He's 32 years old, by the way.
Ty Wigginton (TB): .250/.713. He'll make $2.7 million this year.
Shea Hillenbrand (LAA): .237/.534. $6 million this year. By the way, having an OPS of .534 is really, really bad.
Paul Konerko (CWS): .214/.686. $12 million this year. ESPN has labeled Konerko "one of the year's biggest disappointments." Ouch.
Doug Mientkiewicz (NYY): .212/.646. $1.5 million. To be fair, because I like Mientkiewicz, he is an excellent defensive first basemen. But that's definitely not what the Yankees need right now.
Ryan Shealy (KC): .212/.625. $392,500.
Richie Sexton (SEA): .197/.633. $15.5 million. Yes, you read that correctly.

In addition to all of this, Youk is the strongest bat on the best team in baseball, and carrying the offense of a team on which their top two sluggers have yet to hit their stride. Now, tell me honestly: who else could you possibly vote for?

Books for boys and books for girls

AVI posted this entry about a comment J.K. Rowling made about sexism in Narnia, and I responded so energetically that I ended up running out of room on the comments area. That's a moment you're supposed to stop, rethink, and rewrite, so of course I just copied the comment straight onto my site and kept going. If you've got time, make sure you read AVI's post and the comments before starting into mine. Actually, even if you don't have time, do it anyway. Otherwise this post will make no sense. In fact, reading The Chronicles of Narnia would also be a prerequisite to reading this post. So if you haven't done that, go do that now.

I'll admit that last bit is a little unnecessary. I would be very surprised if anyone who reads my posts has never read The Chronicles of Narnia. Very surprised indeed.

To get to it, though - young female characters in kid's books tend to go in two different directions. Some are the girls in boys' books, who sit idly by, either as a prize or a companion or a caretaker, or sometime as a distraction. They don't swing on birches across the river or adopt runaway dogs as heroic pets, they don't discover underground tunnels near the old warehouse or see shady characters wander into town on a hot afternoon. That sort of stuff is for the boys. Girls don't come along on those adventures.

Girls in girls' books don't come along on those adventures either. They find their own adventures in hidden crawlspaces in the attic or in the branches of the great old oak tree just over the hill from the school grounds. Sometimes boys come along on those adventures, but they're always pale, sissy boys who need to be loosened up, or wild boys who are in tune with nature, and would never try to change the verve or spunk of these girls. These girls are free and adventurous and untamed, and often afraid that marriage will one day tie them down and hold them back from all their free, untamed adventures, that it would make them become 'manageable.'

Eventually, as the girls in the books get older, the girls in them begin to feel that they must change their untamed nature in order to be married - I Capture the Castle; Catherine, Called Birdy; etc. Eventually, they realize that their untamed nature is a good thing, but they still must tone it down some, leave some of it behind, in order to actually move into adulthood. Boys in boys' book make this decision, too, but in boys' books it's as seen as "becoming a man" (a very good thing in the eyes of boys), whereas in girls' books, it's "putting childish things away" (a sad, bittersweet day).

In fact, it's not a jump to say that when girls put their wild, childish sides away in these books, is a loss of their virginal status - no longer are they the unfettered free spirit of their youth, but the responsible, burdened wives and mothers they tried so hard to avoid being.

Lewis never asks that of his female characters. Jill is never punished for her femininity - she loves the beautiful dress that she's given at Cair Paravel, but chooses smarter clothes to go adventuring in. She frolics and flirts with the giants holding them prisoner in their castle in order put them off their guard, but doesn't hesitate to dive into the bowels of the earth to go rescue the captured prince. And in the end, she isn't asked to be the love interest of the boy she adventured alongside, they're allowed to end the story partners and fast friends. Aravis rejects the frilly, perfumed life of a rich man's wife in order to go adventuring, but she never has to give it up in order to find happiness and get married. No compromise ever mars her untamed nature.

The girls in Narnia always end up following their own lot, and while they may sometimes become more maternal, or seem to be lacking a harder edge (it is Trumpkin and not Susan who shoots the attacking bear, as Susan is afraid that it might be a talking - or, good - bear), sometimes those instincts save the day (Jill doesn't kill Puzzle, the foolish donkey masquerading as Aslan, and in turn he becomes their close ally). The girls are too small to wear much of the armor, they are given quivers and daggers instead of swords and shields, but Lewis never asks them to be subservient to anyone - Lucy and Susan rule alongside Peter and Edmund, with a chain of command relating to age rather than sex; Polly is sent as an equal partner on Digory's journey, and it is to Jill that Aslan gives the responsibility of her and Eustace's quest. Whenever someone refers to their ideas as girlish or lacking in bravery, it's always when someone is about to do something phenomenally stupid and is unwilling to listen to reason.

Rowling can disagree with Lewis' statements on femininity all she wants, but he treats all his characters with a deep love and respect, most girls would die for the chance to be Lucy or Aravis. But no girl would ever want to become Cho Chang or Fleur Delacour. Even if they do get to wear lipstick.

I'll have some of that!

It finally happened. I saw an advertisement for a prescription drug where they list the side effects, and they included, right up front, "may cause death." No, really? Death? Not nausea, rashes, headaches, or erections lasting longer than four hours, but you came at us with "death?" You didn't even mention other side effects, maybe squeezing it between "diarrhea" and "numbness?" You didn't think that would be a turn-off, pointing out that in return for lessening my arthritis, I could also accept a trip 'cross the river Acheron?

In fact, the whole ad ended up being so bad that I couldn't really believe that it was a legitimate advertisement. It was twice as long as an average commercial, and featured the motto "Understand the Risks. See the Benefits." Wait, didn't you say the risk was death? You want to keep that as your motto? Diet Pepsi has "More Cola Taste." McDonald's has "I'm Loving It" - in every possible language. And you have "Understand the Risks?" Why not "F--- It. Life Sux. Use Celebrex." I'm not sure you guys have really gotten the concept of "branding" down pat yet. Maybe you should focus a little more on the actual positive aspects of your product.

None of which you remembered to mention in your advertisement. It's almost impossible to go through an ad without mentioning a positive aspect, but you managed. Wow.

Someone should seriously get canned for that ad.

Jive, turkey!

Peracchio transcribed my last post into "jive," which I've always thought is slang for a certain sort of black dialect, but as I can best figure it in this context, means "how black people talk in 70's cop movies." I giggled for hours after reading it, and then started to worry about what kind of crazy time he had on his hands to develop this. But someone was in my office chatting with me and said "oh, they've got translators for that sort of thing online." So I ran a search and found some, and was relieved that Peracchio's new job giving press releases about vein disorders (really) hadn't exploded his head after all. Then I started trying translating myself. Here's a best of list for the best translations of the following phrase:

It's just more information for the consumer. So if 101 Dalmations or Peter Pan is now an R-rated film, who really cares? Parents can still buy the films and show it to their kids.

Cockney
"It's just more information for the bloomin' consumer. So if 101 Dalmations or Peter Pan is now an R-rated film, right, 'oo right cares, eh, luv? Parents can still buy the chuffin' films and show it ter ffeir kids. Yer can't 'ave a knees-up wivout a joanna."

Redneck
It's jest mo'e info'mashun fo' th' consoomr. So eff'n 101 Dalmashuns o' Peter Pan is now an R-rated film, who pow'ful cares? Parents kin still buy th' films an' show it t'their kids.

Jive
Man! It's plum mo'e info'mashun fo' de consumer. Ah be baaad... So's if 101 Dalmashuns o' Liva' Lips Pan be now an R-rated film, who real cares? Parents kin still steal de films and show it t'deir kids.

Elmer Fudd
It's just mowe infowmation fow the consumew. So if 101 Dawmations ow Petew Pan is now an W-wated fiwm, who weawwy cawes? Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! Pawents can stiww buy the fiwms and show it to theiw kids.

And, my personal favorite.

Swedish Chef
Um de hur de hur de hur. It's joost mure-a inffurmeshun fur zee cunsoomer. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Su iff 101 Delmeshuns oor Peter Pun is noo un R-reted feelm, vhu reelly ceres? Perents cun steell booy zee feelms und shoo it tu zeeur keeds. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

That is all.

How the MPAA gave us back the movies.

AVI, also known as my dad, has posted a quick post about the MPAA's decision to consider glamorized smoking as a category when rating a movie. The U.S Senate is also trying to get into the game by giving the FCC power to control film content and possibly improve the morality of the medium. That first bit of news is funny but relatively unimportant, but that second bit is awfully serious.
Content of movies has not always belonged solely to the studios (more on that later), but it does now, the MPAA does not and cannot change the content of any movie being released in the United States. They rate these movies purely as a method of keeping parents informed on the violence, sexuality, or profanity appearing in every movie released to theaters. Keep in mind that the MPAA does this only for movies, which is a medium available only in venues in which the consumer has complete control: movie theaters, video rentals, and DVD purchases. It is well-nigh impossible to see a movie with an R-rating accidentally, since these are the only ways to view films: for a movie to be broadcast on television, it has be re-cut to meet all FCC regulations.

Jack Valenti, who died a few days ago, created the MPAA system in order to keep the FCC and the government out of movies at a time when that seemed impossible. For years, the government had forced movies to avoid all of the stickier issues of life - no one was allowed to have any really tough problem in their home or anything like that; ideally, no one would ever have any problem tougher than whether Mickey would be able to get that tugboat moored or not. But then television took over as the major entertainment medium of the country, and since no one had figured out how to really enforce decency standards on broadcasts yet, they were crossing a lot of boundaries that the government wasn't allowing movie studios to cross. The studios were already upset to have lost so much of their market share, and figuring that maybe if they were able to show some of the reality about what was going on in our country - this was, by now, the late 60's - they started clamoring to be able to dig into meatier issues in their movies: marital trauma, social rebellion, domestic violence, sexual indiscretion, and the like - issues the government had expressly forbidden them to reference in any way. I'm not talking about showing nudity or having extensive profanity, I'm talking about referencing these issues at all.

Valenti created the MPAA system as a safeguard to keep the government out of the studios' hair. They would evaluate and rate movies according to a checklist morality system, and that way, parents would be to see what each film was rated and decide if they wanted to allow their children to see the film or not. After the R-rating was created, theaters started enforcing that, too, keeping underage kids out of these theaters (as best they could) and not selling them tickets. I have real issues with the MPAA on certain points, but the system has, by and large, been a huge success.

If the MPAA feels that they want to include smoking as one of those categories, there's no real problem with that. It's just more information for the consumer. So if 101 Dalmations or Peter Pan is now an R-rated film, who really cares? Parents can still buy the films and show it to their kids. Their kids'll probably love it.

Every other day we come across facts and figures that show that children today absorb an alarming amount of violent or sexual images over the course of their young lives, and I won't argue that it makes a real effect on the psyche of the youth of our nation. But motion pictures aren't the same thing as broadcast television, this isn't something where these images are broadcast over airwaves, able to be picked up by any receiver; these films are played in the theaters, or available for purchase at local stores. The government can slap on warning labels or force stores to require picture ID, they can station armed guards outside of theaters and announce mandatory 5-year minimum sentences for all 16-year-old ticket agents who sell R-rated tickets to minors. That's all within their boundaries. But they cannot, cannot, absolutely cannot force studios to change the content of their movies. It's a violation of the First Amendment, which - hey! - the U.S. Government wrote.

I don't know why we seem fully willing to forget our principles on items that Americans feel morally superior to, and movies have always been in that category. Since movies sometimes have violence or sexuality, it's our responsibility to force the movie makers to make films that don't have these things. We could force them to make movies about how violence and sexuality is bad, but they already make a lot of movies like that. We don't go to them because they're full of violence and sexuality.

It's possible we could make studios only make clean, acceptable movies by only going to see clean, acceptable movies. Nothing speaks louder than the almighty dollar. But we don't go to those movies because those movies are... well... boring.

In fact, the only thing we can get the public to agree on is that they aren't going to go see movies about 9/11. We have standards, you know.