My top 10 favorite names for women. Many of them end in “ie” because they are fun sounding.
1. Katie (also Caitlin, Katy or Kate)
2. Jennifer (also Jenny)
3. Amy
4. Susan (or Susie)
5. Heather
6. Sara
7. Patricia (or Tricia but not Pat or Patty)
8. Valerie
9. Annie
10. Stephanie
Here’s a list of my 100 favorite movies. This isn’t a list of the 100 greatest movies of all-time, just my 100 best of all-time. I include a few old movies – keep in mind that I’m only old enough to remember movies from the mid-70s on, plus older ones that I’ve seen on TV.
The list is kind of random – I’m sure there are some I’ve forgotten, I don’t like horror movies or mafia movies, and I do like action movies even though they’re not always the best reviewed. I include action, drama, comedy, sports, documentaries, and a little bit of romance. So here are my top 100 movies of all-time.
1. Bourne Identity (and Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum)
2. Return of the King (and the Two Towers and the Fellowship of the Ring)
3. It’s a Wonderful Life
4. Stripes
5. Terminator (and Terminator II)
6. Raiders of the Lost Ark
7. Rocky (and Rocky II)
8. The Fugitive
9. Memento
10. Point Break
11. The Wizard of Oz
12. Back to the Future
13. Airplane
14. Slap Shot
15. Risky Business
16. Animal House
17. Braveheart
18. Forrest Gump
19. The Graduate
20. Stir Crazy
21. The Game
22. The Vikings
23. Star Wars (and the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi)
24. Silver Streak
25. Hoop Dreams
26. The Firm
27. Planet of the Apes
28. Fast Times at Ridgemont High
29. Surfwise
30. The Da Vinci Code
31. An Inconvenient Truth
32. Vision Quest
33. Swingers
34. Kramer vs. Kramer
35. First Blood
36. Bad News Bears
37. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles
38. Patriot Games
39. Tequila Sunrise
40. Borat
41. Kurt and Courtney
42. Sicko
43. The Dirty Dozen
44. When We Were Kings
45. Die Hard
46. E.T.
47. Caddyshack
48. Clear and Present Danger
49. Back to School
50. Jagged Edge
51. Ghostbusters
52. Basic Instinct
53. King Kong (1933)
54. A Beautiful Mind
55. Trading Places
56. Lethal Weapon
57. Enemy of the State
58. Naked Gun
59. When Harry Met Sally
60. Minority Report
61. Elling
62. The Pelican Brief
63. New Jack City
64. The Lion King
65. Awakenings
66. Wall Street
67. No Way Out
68. Good Will Hunting
69. Back to the Future III
70. Sneakers
71. Casino Royale
72. Splash
73. Dead Poets Society
74. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
75. Speed
76. Jaws
77. Rain Man
78. True Lies
79. War of the Worlds
80. Rocky III
81. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
82. Miracle
83. Octopussy
84. U.S. Marshals
85. Platoon
86. Paycheck
87. Time Bandits
88. John Q.
89. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
90. Hangover
91. Wedding Crashers
92. Sixth Sense
93. Sex, Lies, and Videotape
94. Déjà vu
95. Breakfast Club
96. Iron Man
97. Jackass
98. Stand By Me
99. Office Space
100. Spy Game
Honorable Mention: Coming to America, This is Spinal Tap, Shawshank Redemption, Total Recall, Ocean’s Eleven.
I was going to wait until I start my autism blog for this, but this is as good a place as any for me to address something here – and it is about a misconception about what I do for a living. I provide therapeutic services to children and adults with autism in the areas of sports and exercise, social skills, and academics. It’s not that people always misunderstand what I do, but they often have some preconceived notions about it.
The reactions I get are sometimes very positive – some people really appreciate what I do and find it very interesting. For every time that I have received that reaction, though, there have been many times that people have had reactions that fall into one of the categories below. Surprisingly, it’s often women who have these reactions – sometimes on a first date or upon an initial conversation that starts with “What do you do?” Then after I answer, the follow up response is something like:
“Oh, that must be so hard.” They say this with a really pained expression on their face. (Remember those commercials a few years ago – the Bitter Beer Face?) They say it as if to say, “Wow, I would never be able to do that, and I would never want to do that. How unfun and boring.” Their body language gives away the fact that the last thing they would want to do is work with kids on the autism spectrum. I try to explain that it is hard sometimes but it’s also a lot of fun.
Kids with autism are like neurotypical kids except that they have different skills and abilities. They are just more extreme. To put it simply, if you don’t like children with autism, then you don’t like children. And I’m surprised at the number of women in the Washington area who don’t like children. Your job, whether it is being a lawyer, a pharmaceutical sales representative, or a consultant, would be unfun and boring to me. While you’re watching the clock, I’m in the flow and time is flying. So have fun with your spreadsheet.
(I don’t mean to imply that career oriented women aren’t good with children. You don’t have to be a teacher, a pediatric nurse, or a volunteer to be good with kids. And people need to make money, and careers should be important. But if you think that your career is more important than anything else, and you don’t value the idea of having any experience with kids, that’s a little extreme.)
There is also an attitude that people have about children and adults with disabilities that they are to be felt sorry for. While this may be a normal initial reaction, once you get over it, you can’t feel sorry for the kids too much because if you do then you’ll spoil them and let them get away with just about anything.
“Wow…what you do is really great. That must be really…rewarding.” However, they say this with a hushed tone, and look at you as if you are from another planet. “How could someone want to do something like that?” I usually follow this one up with, “Yes, but it’s also a lot of fun.” One time, I actually had someone reply back to me, “No, you mean rewarding, but not fun.” I responded back, “No, I mean fun.”
The tone with which they say, “That must be rewarding,” again, seems to imply, “Wow, that must be so tough.” “Rewarding” happens when you help a charity when you don’t really want to, but you make a sacrifice in order to achieve some good. Like serving food to the homeless. For me, that would be boring and tedious, though certainly honorable. What I’m doing isn’t unselfish – it’s selfish – because what I do is highly enjoyable.
“Oh, you’re a do-gooder.” Usually they just think this instead of say it outright, but recently someone I met said that exact sentence to me, in a condescending tone. She followed it up with, “I work in the hotel industry. I get people drunk for a living.” The implication seemed to be, “Oh, you’re a goody two-shoes. I like to party and have fun.” Now you might say that was just being self-deprecating and was actually putting what I do on a pedestal. But no, in this case it was condescending. I agree that partying is fun. I did it from the time I was in college through my early 30s. Is that not enough? I partied with the best of them and had a lot of fun. But you can only do so much of that.
Playing sports is also fun. Catching a touchdown pass in a coed football game, hitting a backhand winner in tennis, scoring a goal in soccer, or throwing a long pass in ultimate Frisbee are all fun.
Going to a great concert is fun. So is seeing your favorite team win a big game. Traveling to new places is fun. Being at a party when things are rolling is fun. Seeing a great movie is fun.
And teaching kids is also fun. If you can’t appreciate teaching a child to learn to read, converse, do math, play sports for the first time, develop a sense of humor, learn to make friends, and make progress in all these areas, all the while improving behaviors, then I feel sorry for you. If you think that working with the coolest kids in the world isn’t fun, then what kind of a parent will you be? These kids are miracles and miracles are happening, although slowly.
It’s like trying to explain music to someone who doesn’t get it. If you like Bruce Springsteen’s “Born to Run,” the Eagles’ “Hotel California,” Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven,” or any number of inspiring songs, and you try to explain that to someone and they don’t get it, then, well, they just don’t get it. So if you don’t like kids, then you don’t like kids. Just admit it.
Of course, many people say these things with the best of intentions and really do admire this type of work, but many women have a high regard for men who work in more traditional roles such as lawyers or salesmen. I’m not looking for admiration – I just don’t want someone to look at what I do as a negative. You don’t have to love my job, but don’t hate it.
My point is that this work is not only rewarding, but it is also fun. In his book, “Authentic Happiness,” psychologist Martin Seligman says that using your strengths to forward knowledge, power, or goodness is great. Doing all of that while you’re having fun is the best of both worlds. So doing kind and fun actions creates a lot more satisfaction than doing things that are only kind, or things that are only fun.
Or you can sit in your office and do neither.
President Obama’s gaffe last night on the Tonight Show was unfortunately all too reminiscent of the federal government’s attitude toward people with disabilities.
First of all, when Obama said of his bowling, “It was like the Special Olympics or something,” it was obviously very insulting to people with intellectual or cognitive disabilities. It’s very possible that Obama talks this way among his peers. To not understand how offensive that statement is shows a glaring unawareness. I’m sure there are a lot of Special Olympians who could beat Obama in bowling.
If Obama had made a racist or religious joke, the media would have been all over it. But a joke against people with special needs? That’s acceptable.
I volunteered for two years as a soccer coach for the Special Olympics in Maryland, and I went to a Special Olympics event in California last year (see the two photos I took). I started volunteering for sports programs for kids with disabilities 10 years ago, and I currently work with kids with autism (www.coachmike.net), so I know a little bit about this subject.
Special Olympics, Long Beach, California, summer 2008. Photo by Mike Frandsen
(Obama sits up there, trying to be smooth and cool. In fact, let’s face it. The reason that Obama got elected really isn’t any different than why every U.S. president has gotten elected in the last 40 years. He was a better speaker than his opponents and people vote mainly on image. Look it up – of the past 10 presidential elections, it is ALWAYS the candidate who has a better image – the one who is more friendly, possesses more charisma, and is a better public speaker. The only possible exception was in 2000 when you could argue that Gore had a better persona than Bush [it was about even because while Gore was a much better speaker, he was more stiff and Bush was much more folksy], but many say Gore actually did win that election and he did get half a million more votes anyway.
It’s why Obama beat Hillary – he was “cooler.” Experience didn’t matter – funny – it always matters when I apply for a job but it doesn’t for the presidency. I’m not saying people don’t vote for who they think will be the better president, I’m just saying that people vote for candidates who they like the most based on their personality and charisma.)
I personally believe that Obama is one of those people who is somewhat fake and unauthentic because he constantly says things and does things that are calculated to improve his image. Not that you would expect anything other than that from a politician.
I’m not anti-Obama – I agree with Obama and the Democrats on most issues – for example, people should have a fair chance at health care – the U.S. policy on that is shameful (in fact, if I ever run for office you can look back at this statement: “I am NOT proud of my country because of our health care situation.” And I will never retract that statement). And we need a clean environment to reduce the incidence of autism, breast cancer, and other disorders and diseases.
But back to the point.
There is a startling unawareness in the federal government with respect to hiring people with disabilities. It starts at the top with the President, filters down to the cabinet members, down to the directors of the federal agencies, and down to the management and hiring personnel. I’m not saying Obama is worse than other presidents in giving a fair chance to people with disabilities, but I’m not sure he’s any better. See my report at http://www.coachmike.net/special_report.php. I concluded that “The federal government’s Schedule A program intended to facilitate the hiring of people with disabilities is severely underutilized, especially in hiring people with cognitive and psychiatric disabilities.”
Schedule A is a hiring authority set up by the government to help level the playing field and make it easier to hire people with disabilities, whether they be cognitive/intellectual (the government still uses the outdated “mental retardation” terminology), psychiatric, or physical. (There still isn’t a developmental category to cover autism).
The Office of Personnel Management created the Schedule A program more than 20 years ago to allow for greater recruitment and hiring of individuals with disabilities. It allows federal agencies to bypass the competitive process to provide disabled
Special Olympics, Long Beach, California, summer 2008.
individuals a unique opportunity to demonstrate their ability to successfully perform the essential duties of a position with or without reasonable accommodation. OPM states that the Schedule A certification is used to “appoint persons who are certified that they are at a severe disadvantage in obtaining employment…Certification also ensures that they are capable of functioning in the position for which they will be appointed, and that any residual disabilities are not job-related.”
In almost all cases in which the hiring authority was used, hires of people with physical disabilities outnumbered those with cognitive and psychiatric disabilities by a very wide margin.
People with disabilities have a 70% unemployment rate. This figure only includes people who are willing and able to work and it’s still 70%.
The only problem is that Schedule A isn’t mandatory, so it’s woefully underused except by a few agencies. Take the National Institutes of Health as an example. You would think this organization would be better, not worse, than other agencies at hiring people with disabilities through the Schedule A hiring authority. In fact, I believe that the facts show that NIH discriminates against people with disabilities in their hiring process.
From 1998 to 2008, NIH, with nearly 18,000 full-time employees, hired just four people with cognitive disabilities and one with a psychiatric disability through the Schedule A program. I learned this information through Freedom of Information Act requests.
I first notified NIH in 2004 that they had been negligent in hiring Schedule A employees with disabilities. I also notified them in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Their response was almost always no response. Each year I contacted the NIH Director, Equal Employment Office, Human Resource Officials, Selective Placement Coordinator, Institute Directors, and Ombudsman multiple times. I have 200 pages of documents to prove it. When I brought the subject up, several times speaking at the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, parents applauded but scientists and NIH leaders laughed at me.
To this day, NIH refuses to comment on the report, and refuses to take any action to improve the situation. After eight years at NIH (the last five as an employee), I threatened to quit in December 2006 if NIH did nothing to improve the situation. They did nothing, I quit, and two years later NIH still hasn’t taken any action.
(This is a little off topic, but now I need a federal job again because the kidney transplant I will need soon will cost $180,000 including medications for the first year, and my insurance currently only covers 80% of it whereas the federal insurance covers 100% – see www.mikeneedsakidney.com. But NIH is treating me like a private company would treat a whistleblower. Instead of trying to improve the situation that I brought attention to, they are ignoring it, and holding the fact that I brought it to their attention against me.).
When I contacted Congressman Chris Van Hollen’s (D-MD) office, they promised to respond. They ignored the issue for more than a year and then stonewalled until they thought I went away.
You may say that it costs too much to include people with disabilities in the workforce. But in fact, it costs too much not to do it. You can get productivity at a relatively low price by hiring people with disabilities, and prevent them from relying on government programs like Social Security disability when possible. (Same with health care – a little bit of preventative care goes a long way to save money in the long run).
The success or failure of any organization starts at the top. The President’s remarks were dismissive of the abilities of people with special needs. There is an attitude throughout the government that people with disabilities are to be ignored. Taking action would be to admit that there is a problem, and agencies such as NIH are more concerned with their image than doing the right thing, so they would never admit that they have been deficient in hiring people with disabilities through the Schedule A hiring authority.
The media doesn’t care either. As I write this at 2:30 p.m., I just saw an interview on MSNBC with Chuck Todd about Obama’s appearance last night on the Tonight Show. Todd said the show went great for Obama. Not once in this ridiculously long interview did they bring up the President’s remarks about the Special Olympics. The interview went so long that it delayed the Presidential Press Secretary’s press conference. If Hillary had made those remarks, you can bet that MSNBC would be all over it.
As for NIH, if they can’t handle hiring people with disabilities through the Schedule A program, and they were made aware of this problem five years ago, I’m sorry to say but you have to question whether they can handle other important initiatives such as stem cell research. Don’t get me wrong – I think stem cell research is critically important to save lives and improve the quality of lives, and as much research should be done as soon as possible. However, it would be a mistake to just throw a ton of money at the problem like the government did for the banks just because they are supposedly smarter than us.
If there are competing organizations that can get the job done, they should be considered as well. Either way, there should be a stringent process that funding goes to the programs that are most deserving and will be held accountable for what they do. This process should be stringent but also expedited so that bureaucratic red tape doesn’t delay research. You can argue that stem cell research is more important than ensuring that people with disabilities get a fair chance to contribute to the missions of government agencies. I would say they are equally important – but they are not mutually exclusive. The government should do both.
This blog entry has been a little scattered, but I thought it was important to address the subject quickly. In summary:
1. The NIH and other federal agencies must do a better job of hiring people with disabilities using the Schedule A hiring authority. The only way to do this is to make it or a similar program mandatory because otherwise, the government will discriminate.
2. President Obama (“Teflon Barry”) should set an example by hiring people with disabilities to work in the White House. He should also give a better apology. He should also ensure that the federal government is held accountable for giving people with disabilities a fair chance, otherwise, hiring officials and management will do the same things they have always done about this situation: ignore it or laugh about it.
Please see my websites: www.coachmike.net and www.mikeneedsakidney.com.
Finally – I reviewed this post and was going to tone it down because I thought it might be a bit harsh, but I actually decided to add to it and make it stronger. I think Obama is a good person and a good president – we shouldn’t be afraid to criticize him, though, when he deserves it. I’m a big Redskins fan but I’ve criticized them mercilessly for the last 15 years. As for this and other blog posts, I try to be honest and tell it like it is. Hopefully you appreciate it but if not, it is what it is.
Last year, I wrote that Byron Leftwich wasn’t getting a fair chance to be an NFL starting quarterback, and that NFL people were concentrating too much on his deficiencies instead of his winning record (24-20) as a starter. A lot of NFL owners, general managers and coaches prefer style over substance, and they’d rather have a player who has what they believe to be the necessities to be a good quarterback (height, arm strength, mobility, etc.) than someone who is great at winning football games.
Another example of this – NFL people putting a higher priority on style than substance – was Doug Flutie, who if he were given a fair chance would have been a very good NFL starting quarterback for 15 years. Still another example was Trent Dilfer, who was the starting quarterback during the 2000 season for the Baltimore Ravens who won the Super Bowl. Dilfer was 58-53 for his career, and he didn’t play on many good teams other than the 2000 Ravens. For that 10-1 record and Super Bowl championship, Dilfer got kicked out of the door in favor of Elvis Grbac and then Kyle Boller, the poster boy for the first round draft choice who doesn’t work out.
(At least Boller started for a few seasons. Top 3 overall draft picks Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, and Akili Smith were all out of the league after a few seasons). I guess it’s high risk/high reward, like stocks. A good veteran quarterback (value stock) who can lead you to winning seasons is often passed over for a younger quarterback (more volatile, aggressive stock) who fits the mold but ultimately may not become a winner, but at least seems to have more potential.
I was reminded of this oddity – how NFL teams don’t always like winners – when Denver Broncos QB Jay Cutler was in the news lately. Not because of Cutler’s anger at almost being traded, but because it made me remember that Cutler’s predecessor, Jake Plummer, went 40-18 with three playoff appearances with Denver. Plummer was 7-4 in 2006 when he was replaced by Cutler, who lost 3 of the final 5 games of the season for the Broncos. Denver failed to make the playoffs that year. Ok, so you say the Broncos had to sacrifice a year for the future.
But Cutler’s record as a starter is 17-20 with no playoff appearances. Denver coach Mike Shanahan replaced Plummer with Cutler at the time because Plummer hadn’t played well in the playoffs, but he missed the point. First you have to get there, and once you get there, you have an excellent chance to win it all. The point is putting yourself in a position to win, which Plummer did. Look at the Cardinals this year, the Giants last year, and the Steelers three years ago. Each team barely made the playoffs but won or made it to the Super Bowl. You have to get to the playoffs – after that, there is some luck involved.
There are two sides to every story, and Plummer did make too many mistakes, while Cutler has a very strong arm and will probably have success one day. But at some point, production – wins – should matter. Substance should matter over style. Unfortunately, too often in the NFL, it doesn’t.
I was watching ESPN’s college basketball analysts today talk about who belongs in the NCAA tournament. (As I write this, it’s still a half an hour before the NCAA selection committee announces which teams get into the 64-team field).
The three commentators, Digger Phelps, Jay Bilas, and Hubert Davis were really arguing in favor of the major conference teams and against the mid-majors. All of them kept talking about how teams that finish .500 in major conferences are better than the best of the mid-major at large teams. They claim that the schedules of the mid-majors are too easy. Of course teams from major conferences are all going to have a few wins against big time programs because they play against those teams a lot more. Bilas asked, “Who can you beat that is really good?” He said of the mid-majors, “They’ve gotta go out of conference and find those teams.” The fact is that the majors are afraid to play the mid-majors because they don’t want to lose to them, and it’s very hard for the mid-majors to schedule major teams because they won’t play them.
When you have a panel debating something, you can’t have everybody on one side. Bilas, Davis, and Phelps all either played for or coached teams from major conferences. They obviously have a lot of friends who are coaches from the major conferences.
Finally, at least ESPN had Joe Lunardi on who said that the record of double seeded mid-major teams (10 seeds, 11 seeds, 12 seeds, etc.) is better than the record of equivalent seeded major conference teams. So even though the selection committee is probably biased against mid-major teams because of strength of schedule and gives the mid-majors worse seeds than they deserve, the mid-majors still outperform similarly seeded major conference teams.
It was shameless how Bilas, Davis, and Phelps kept politicking for Arizona and Penn State in favor of Creighton and St. Mary’s. And Rece Davis failed to reign them in. The arrogance with which they look down upon the mid-majors and the disdain they have for them is apparent.
I’m sick of seeing boring teams that finish 8-8 or 9-9 in their conferences get into the tournament in favor of mid-majors who only have a few losses. Does anyone really want to see Penn State in the tournament? Phelps had to look at his paper to name the supposedly great players on Arizona’s team while saying that Creighton would have no chance to beat them. Bilas scoffed at Creighton’s 2-2 record against the top 50 and said Penn State’s 6 wins against the top 50 was so much better. But they also had 10 losses against the top 50. Creighton was 9-5 against the top 100 while Penn State was 7-10.
I’m a Maryland fan and I hope they get in but quite frankly I don’t think a team that finishes below .500 in its conference deserves to get in. Otherwise, why play the regular season?
Contrast this with ESPN’s college football gameday crew who at least has the guts to bring up differing opinions.
I think it’s time for ESPN to bring in a commentator from a mid-major school in place of Bilas or Phelps.
“You have to have the patience of understanding that at the time you will be ostracized, but as history moves into it, people will see that what you said made all the sense in the world. As things change, the radical points of view that you had will not be radical anymore. You have to have the courage to deal from that position.”
— Jim Brown, Black Star Rising, a documentary about blacks in the NFL in the 1950s and 1960s.
The Washington Wizards have accepted losing. I applaud Stephen A. Smith of ESPN who today said of the Wizards:
“Simply pathetic…it’s because of two players. Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison… they are supposed to be all-stars. I understand you being mediocre because you don’t have Gilbert Arenas. But 11-42? That’s pretty pathetic…I don’t care if they’re both averaging 20 points a game. If you have two all-stars in the starting lineup, you are not supposed to be 31 games under .500 at the all-star break. That is an atrocity. And you have to look at those two because clearly, they are not the all-stars we thought they were.”
This brings up two points. You should always try your best. Second, the media in DC allows an atmosphere of mediocrity to flourish by not criticizing teams enough.
The Wizards also took a cue from their leader, Arenas, who said, early in the season, “If this is one of those years we don’t make the playoffs, we’re one of those teams that’s in last place the whole year — you know that’s what happened to San Antonio and that’s how they got Tim Duncan. If that happens with us, it’s for the better.”
That’s a losing attitude. Sometimes, playing badly on purpose (and it’s the same thing as not trying 100%) can help, like it did for the Miami Heat, who gave up last year, finishing 15-67 two years after winning the NBA finals. That netted them Michael Beasley, the 2nd pick in the draft last year, who has helped the Heat to a 28-24 record so far.
Usually, though, when you don’t give 100%, or you try to be bad on purpose to get a high pick in the next draft, it doesn’t work out. The Bulls tried that after Jordan retired and it took them 5 years to get respectable, and even after 10 years they’re still just an average team. The L.A. Clippers franchise has had two winning seasons in the past 29 years.
There is something admirable about trying your best. Some people would say, “What difference does it make if the Wizards win 20 games or 40 games? If they don’t make the playoffs it will be better if they lose more to get a better draft pick.” That leads to an attitude that losing is acceptable, though.
Too often, the sports media in DC looks the other way. When someone criticizes an organization, a lot of people interpret that as being against that organization (take the example of a whistle blower), when it actually may mean that the person is helping the organization by pointing out areas that need to be improved. The sports media in DC is soft. That’s why Wes Unseld remained the Bullets coach for 7 years with a .369 winning percentage. It’s why Norv Turner made one playoff appearance for the Redskins but lasted 7 years.
Sure, Tom Boswell ripped the Nationals for not signing any free agents until the recent acquisition of Adam Dunn. Boswell also ripped into the Redskins a few years ago for being too cheery after losses. But for the most part, the poor play of the Nationals and the mediocrity of the Wizards, Redskins, University of Maryland in both basketball and football is tolerated by the media. (Maryland has been mediocre in basketball the last five years, and don’t tell me that a college football team that finishes two games above .500 each year is good when three of their early games are against teams that are from much smaller programs). The Redskins finished .500 this year. The Cardinals were one game better and made it to the Super Bowl. What if there was an attitude that being average isn’t good enough?
Most people don’t like honesty. They avoid the truth. They want to be politically correct and diplomatic. Thanks, Stephen A. Smith, for your honesty.
Washington Wizards: Try your best for the rest of the season.
One of my pet peeves is when people use the phrase “pet peeves.” Just kidding. What I really want to say is that there are a bunch of words and phrases that are used in the news as well as in popular culture that don’t seem to fit their meaning, or that people use incorrectly. Let’s start with words that are used to describe war.
· Casualties. I remember when I first heard this word, I was a kid watching reruns of the TV show “MASH.” Even back then I thought it was strange to call deaths in war “casualties.” I remember thinking that the word must have been popularized by some generals or heads of state who thought that if they used the word “casualties,” deaths wouldn’t seem so bad. Of course, there’s nothing casual about a death caused by war. It makes it sound as if, “Oh, by the way, some people died,” as if these are side effects of war. Maybe we should think of another word. How about deaths?
· Friendly Fire. When someone is accidentally killed by his own troops, it is called “friendly fire.” Doesn’t sound too friendly to me. The human body doesn’t distinguish where a bullet or a bomb came from. Again, we need a new term for this. According to Wikipedia, this term was originally adopted by the U.S. military. Great. Let’s come up with something else.
· Collateral Damage. This term also originated in the U.S. military. It’s when unintended damage occurs either to people or places. This one isn’t as bad as the previous two, but it still seems to imply that the unintended killing of people is ok, that it’s a necessary side effect of war for a greater cause.
· Theater. This term is used when war is conducted in separate areas, such as the “European Theater” and “Pacific Theater” of World War II. Can you think of anything less fitting than calling a place of war a theater? It makes it sound like it’s a play. Maybe this is used to make war sound more palatable.
Ok, now I’m going to shift gears a little and talk about some other non-war terms here in this blog, just because I’m not sure where else to talk about them.
· Foul Play. This seems to have originated by Shakespeare to describe unfair behavior. Later it was used in sports to describe something outside the rules. Now we see from thefreedictionary.com, foul play means: 1. actions which are not fair or honest. 2. murder. Likewise, dictionary.com, calls it: 1. any treacherous or unfair dealing, esp. involving murder, 2. Unfair conduct in a game. How did we get to “murder” and “especially involving murder?” I just don’t think “foul play” should be used to describe murder. It makes it sound as if it was something mischievous or playful.
News anchors seem so happy to say, “Was foul play involved? Police haven’t ruled out foul play. Is FOUL PLAY suspected? Authorities are not suspecting foul play.” They over enunciate it and seem thrilled to say “foul play.” It sounds like the perpetrators are these madcap, wacky criminals or villains from Batman such as the Joker, the Penguin or the Riddler. Somehow I always imagine the San Diego Chicken running around, or maybe the three Stooges or the Marx Brothers. Just because everyone else says it, doesn’t mean you have to continue to use it. Think of another term. “Foul play” should be used to describe something outside the boundaries of fair play, not murder.
Now here are a couple of terms constantly used in sports (again, for lack of a better place to write about them, I’m including them here).
· Schizophrenic. “That team is schizophrenic.” Sportscasters and sportswriters constantly use this term to describe a team that is great one day and bad another day. There is a misconception that the term means “split personality.” In fact, “schizophrenic” refers to a mental disorder, but not “split personality.” Maybe the sportscasters should use the term “Jeckyl and Hyde” instead.
I did some sports writing and sports casting in the past, and I can vouch for the fact that most of these people (sports journalists) are not very smart. Like the news journalists’ use of “foul play,” sportswriters love to call a team, “schizophrenic,” but it’s not accurate. Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon are two of the main culprits, but maybe that’s just because they are on TV all the time. I wrote them about the error but they still continue to use the term.
· Anemic. This is another term that sportscasters like to use when a team has an offense that has a lot of trouble scoring. The offense is “anemic.” Anemia refers to low levels of red blood cells, which results in a lack of oxygen and subsequent fatigue. In fairness, the second definition of anemic relates to a lack of power or energy, but I still think that sportscasters should stay away from using medical terms because it could be offensive to people who have anemia, as if it is their fault that they are anemic. Writers and broadcasters use the word in a condescending, critical way to describe an inept offense, yet people who are anemic almost always have anemia due to factors beyond their control.
· I could care less. So many people use this phrase incorrectly. What they should be saying is, “I couldn’t care less.” When you say, “I could care less,” you’re saying that it’s possible for you to care less about something. It doesn’t make sense. The phrase is supposed to be “I couldn’t care less,” to emphasize that it’s not possible for you to care any less than you do right now. In other words, you don’t care at all about a particular topic. When you say “I could care less” you’re saying the opposite of what you mean, like saying, “I don’t need nothing.”
I’ll never understand why some people don’t reply to email. It seems that this is America’s new national sport. If you don’t want to take action on a subject, simply don’t respond. It’s one thing if the recipient is very busy or occasionally forgets. And I’m not saying all emails need a response. Many informational emails don’t require a response. Jokes certainly don’t. However, if someone has taken the time to give very detailed recommendations or is asking a very specific question, to simply ignore the email I think is inappropriate. It results in the sender not knowing whether the recipient agreed or disagreed with the email. Some people, rather than send a negative email, will simply not reply. However, this brings up a problem. What if someone sends an important email and never gets a response? Is the sender to interpret that the lack of a response meant that the person receiving the email disagrees with it or has a problem with the person who sent it?
This brings up a point about getting things done. There’s actually a book called “Getting Things Done” by David Allen that says that if something is important enough to be done, if it takes less than two minutes, just do it and get it over with rather than letting it pile up on your to do list – even if it’s less important than larger projects. Sending a response to an email that obviously requires a response is worth the time it takes. You might as well respond right away if possible rather than wait and risk forgetting about the issue. Or do them all in batches, once a week. This concept can be used in other areas too. Say you have a long to do list. You should do the most important items first, right? Not necessarily. If the minor items are worth doing, you can get some of them over with quickly rather than bury them behind longer projects.
There are a couple of exceptions. In the dating world, it’s commonly known that the lack of a response means that the person isn’t interested. I’ve sent emails to women saying, “It was nice meeting you. Do you want to meet again sometime?” And a lack of a response means no. Likewise, I’ve done the same thing many times myself – simply not respond rather than say, “No thanks.” Obviously another exception would be spam, or unwanted email. But other than these exceptions, I believe that all questions posed through email deserve an answer rather than run the risk of alienating the sender and causing confusion as to whether the recipient has a problem with the message or the sender. When someone sends an email requesting information or providing important information, it is respectful and appropriate to respond, even if the answer is, “I disagree” or “No, thanks.”
It’s also nice to let someone know that you’re working on a response or an answer. For example, if you get a request by email, but you won’t have the answer for a couple of weeks, don’t wait for two weeks to respond. Say something like, “I got your email – I may not have an answer for a couple of weeks but I will be working on it.” When I worked for Metro Traffic, which does traffic reports on the radio, drivers would want to know how long a delay would be. It wouldn’t necessarily get them home any faster, but they were happier knowing how long it would take and that there would be an end to the delay.
Mike's Blog 