Monthly Archives: June 2010

Winning vs. a country’s culture

Posted on by

Brazilian coach Carlos Caetano Bledorn “Dunga” Verri has had a successful World Cup run thus far: four matches and four pretty easy wins. For many national coaches, this would lead to general praise from the media and fans.

But not in Brazil. Dunga has been playing with a more defensive-minded system, particularly compared to the attacking-with-flair Brazilian teams of past decades. A quick description of the battle Dunga has been fighting:

Then there were the fans, who almost always favor the spectacular and revel in the nation’s tradition of breathtaking open-field play.

Brazil has always been about offense, offense, offense. It has the deepest pool of talent in which to select a team. Its players pride themselves on creativity.

Even some of the  country’s former stars, such as Carlos Alberto, captain of Brazil’s 1970 team, have blasted Dunga:

“I am not confident in this group because our national team do not play Brazilian football…I’m talking about movement and use of the ball. We have good defenders, but the midfielders: if you ask Brazilian kids, who are our midfielders, they shrug their shoulders.”

So if Brazil wins a sixth World Cup title, what then? Will the country celebrate in the same way or will it be considered a less-than-great title? Sports fans can be an interesting lot, particularly when they are used to winning.

“The Triumphant Decline of the WASP”

Posted on by

A NY Times opinion piece from Harvard law professor Noah Feldman makes this argument: “The decline of the Protestant elite is actually its greatest triumph.” Feldman explores the changes in the Supreme Court (the appointment of Kagan would make it 6 Catholics, 3 Jews) and Princeton (“As late as 1958, the year of the “dirty bicker” in which Jews were conspicuously excluded from its eating clubs, Princeton could fairly have been seen as a redoubt of all-male Protestant privilege).

So what changed? Feldman provides some reasons: “the anti-aristocratic ideals of the Constitution,” education was an important defining trait for WASPs so opening up universities was a big step, and the American value of fair play. The result:

Together, these social beliefs in equality undercut the impulse toward exclusive privilege that every successful group indulges on occasion. A handful of exceptions for admission to societies, clubs and colleges — trivial in and of themselves — helped break down barriers more broadly. This was not just a case of an elite looking outside itself for rejuvenation: the inclusiveness of the last 50 years has been the product of sincerely held ideals put into action.

These may be accurate reasons. But they seem to ignore the historical context: something happened in the 1960s that changed institutions like Ivy League schools and led to a very different looking Supreme Court. In that decade, the Civil Rights Movement plus an explosion in higher education for the burgeoning US population plus higher rates of immigration from non-European locales plus cultural change (rock ‘n’ roll, television, more open questioning of authority, etc.), changed, or at least began to change, the socioeconomic status of WASPs.

Measuring celebrity

Posted on by

Forbes has released its annual list of the 100 most powerful celebrities. See Forbes’ website for a full portal that includes profiles of some of the celebrities and the full rankings (including rankings on subcategories). Topping the list is Oprah followed by Beyonce and James Cameron.

Buried at the bottom of the story is the methodology by which Forbes developed its list (the methodology is mentioned in this reposted story at Yahoo):

The Celebrity 100 is a measure of power based on money and fame. Earnings estimates, which include income from films, television shows, endorsements, books, and other entertainment ventures, are calculated between June 2009 and June 2010. Figures were rounded off where appropriate. Additional sources include Billboard, Pollstar, Adams Media Research, The Nielsen Company, and SNL Kagan. Fame is calculated using web hits on Google, Blog Search, TV/radio mentions on LexisNexis, overall press mentions on Factiva, and the number of times a celebrity’s image appeared on the cover of 25 consumer magazines. Social rank is calculated using metrics like Facebook friends and fans as well as Twitter followers.

I would be very interested in knowing the weights applied to each of these measures and broader categories (such as social rank). Take Lady Gaga for example: she is new to the list this year, does not have the media empires like some of the others on the list (Oprah’s big money advantage comes from an involvement in a multitude of media outlets), and yet benefits from a #1 ranking in the social rankings.

After a quick glance, money appears most important here. Perhaps having money prompts more media (of all kinds) mentions. Or perhaps the media mentions help build the money which then leads to a reinforcing cycle. Regardless, just having money may be a sign that you are a true celebrity. We as Americans may like our celebrities because they host a TV show or can do amazing things with a golf ball or can direct exciting movies, but just having money seems pretty interesting in itself.

Supreme Court decides on Chicago guns

Posted on by

In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court has decided 5-4 against Chicago’s gun ban in McDonald v. Chicago. The Chicago Tribune notes that Chicago will soon consider new gun laws and that the decision seems to be motivated in part by current conditions in the city:

In the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court noted a recent call by two state legislators to deploy National Guard troops to quell the violence on Chicago’s streets.

“The legislators noted that the number of Chicago homicide victims during the current year equaled the number of American soldiers killed during that same period in Afghanistan and Iraq,” the opinion stated.

“If (the) safety of . . . law abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.”…

Read the full decision here.

Alito’s argument (summed up briefly in the article above) is interesting: Chicago may have lost this case because the crime rate, particularly murder rate, remains high even with a gun ban. Chicago’s ban has not limited the number of guns in the hands of violent actors. If violent actors can get guns even with a ban, Alitio suggests local citizens should have the tools to be able to fight back, particularly citizens “whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.” This is a case about a law but this statement in particular is a Supreme opinion regarding the abilities of Chicago government.

UPDATE 11:13 PM 6/28/10: Some Chicago officials also read some of the decision as an attack on the performance of Chicago’s police and government. Read here.

UPDATE 7:08 AM 6/29/10:  Links to more coverage:  Chicago Sun-Times, National Law Journal, ABA Journal, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NRA press release…

Modern careers more amenable to women?

Posted on by

Hanna Rosin writes in the July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic about the rise of women in many career fields and the consequences for society. Rosin argues that in addition to women holding “a majority of the nation’s jobs,” dominating higher education, and having a majority in 13 of the 15 job categories predicted to grow the most in the next ten years, more and more jobs today seem suited to women and men have not yet adapted:

The postindustrial economy is indifferent to men’s size and strength. The attributes that are most valuable today—social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus—are, at a minimum, not predominantly male. In fact, the opposite may be true.

The list of growing jobs is heavy on nurturing professions, in which women, ironically, seem to benefit from old stereotypes and habits.

Some of this has been more visible lately with the effects of the recent economic trouble, dubbed by some a “man-cession” or “he-pression” due to a disproportionate loss of jobs in male-dominated fields. The loss of manufacturing and manual labor jobs in the last five decades has been severe and men, unlike women, have not yet jumped on the higher education bandwagon.

The strange world of Google Streetview includes “Horseboy”

Posted on by

The Daily Mail of London reports on another strange find on Google Streetview: “Horseboy,” with the body of a man and head of a horse. The article highlights some of the other strange finds over the years including Samurai warriors, Sherlock Holmes, and others.

There are websites devoted to seeing odd things on Streetview – a quick Google search will lead you to a number of websites.

Sports redemption vs. true redemption

Posted on by

Former NBA player Manute Bol died recently. Bol’s primary claim to fame was that he stood 7 feet 7 inches tall. Upon his passing, Bol was hailed as a “humanitarian.” As Jon Shields, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, points out in the Wall Street Journal, this humanitarianism was rarely linked to Bol’s strong Christian faith. The redemption Bol believed in was quite different than the redemption sports journalists typically write about. Rather than overcoming odds on the basketball court to finally reach a personal accomplishment, “Bol reportedly gave most of his fortune, estimated at $6 million, to aid Sudanese refugees. As one twitter feed aptly put it: “Most NBA cats go broke on cars, jewelry & groupies. Manute Bol went broke building hospitals.”

Shields argues that the redemption Bol was after was not connected to personal rewards but was instead “the Christian understanding of redemption has always involved lowering and humbling oneself. It leads to suffering and even death.

Privacy is possible online?

Posted on by

A journalist laments the end of JournoList – but also seems to think that privacy is possible in today’s online world. Really? This is something that most 20 year old Facebook users know: if you don’t want something to become known online, don’t ever post it online. Even among groups that trust each other, as the journalists on JournoList did, the Internet is one of the least private places I can imagine.