Sometimes music can capture an ethos of a debate more than anything else:

an homage made by some Barack Obama supporters led by Will.I.Am of the Black Eyed Peas

and now, a parody of this video describing how I feel about Senator McCain:

The Boston Red Sox’s resident hothead, Curt Schilling, was at Game 2 of the NBA Finals between Boston and Los Angeles (I still think the Cavs could have hung with the Lakers if they were able to sneak past Boston. With Tim Donaghy’s allegations and the foul calling disparities in the Boston-Cleveland series, maybe there were bigger forces at work) and he had a comment (surprise, surprise) about Kobe and how he talked to his teammates. Curt said in this post:

I only know what I have heard, starting awhile back with the entire Shaq debacle. I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other on or about him other than to know that people feel he might be one of the 4-5 greatest players to ever lace it up. What I do know is what I got to see up close and hear, was unexpected. From the first tip until about 4 minutes left in the game I saw and heard this guy bitch at his teammates. Every TO he came to the bench pissed, and a few of them he went to other guys and yelled about something they weren’t doing, or something they did wrong. No dialog about ‘hey let’s go, let’s get after it’ or whatever. He spent the better part of 3.5 quarters pissed off and ranting at the non-execution or lack of, of his team. Then when they made what almost was a historic run in the 4th, during a TO, he got down on the floor and basically said ‘Let’s f’ing go, right now, right here’ or something to that affect.

So, Mr. Schilling, there’s no cursing by baseball greats? The difference between baseball and football is we can’t hear what’s going on in the dugout but anyone in proximity of courtside (and sometimes the TV audience) can hear the dialogue on an NBA bench. Game 2 was the Lakers’ 99th game this year so I think they know how Kobe rolls by now, certainly a lot better than you.

Schilling then proceeds to laud Kevin Garnett and how he handles himself on the floor, all the while wearing a Larry Bird throwback.

Here’s a big difference between Garnett and Bryant…0 to 3 as in how many rings Kobe has. With Shaq, without Shaq, it doesn’t matter. He has 3 rings. He knows a little about what makes a champion in the NBA. While I wouldn’t handle things the way Kobe would, Kobe has his style and it has gotten them thus far.

I am a Red Sox fan (Coco, Manny and Tim Wakefield are my favorites — what can I say, former Indians and a knuckleballer) but you have to call out a jerk and Curt, you are that jerk.

Stick to the sport you know…the word for you is…shhhhhhhhhhhh.

While I was catching up on AlterNet, I came across this piece called “He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut:The Sexual Double Standard” by Jessica Valenti. She posits that sexual promiscuity is allowed in men (and, in some ways, promoted — hence the stud terminology) and it is discouraged with considerable scorn and disgust (as embodied by the word slut).

In this exerpt, she speaks about the power of the word slut and how there is no real parallel for men:

Naturally, I’d be called a slut many times over later in life — not unlike most girls. I was called a slut when my boobs grew faster than others’. I was called a slut when I had a boyfriend (even though we weren’t having sex.) I was called a slut when I didn’t have a boyfriend and kissed a random boy at a party. I was called a slut when I had the nerve to talk about sex. I was called a slut when I wore a bikini on a weekend trip with high school friends. It seems the word slut can be applied to any activity that doesn’t include knitting, praying, or sitting perfectly still lest any sudden movements be deemed whorish.

Despite the ubiquity of “slut,” where you won’t hear it is in relation to men. Men can’t be sluts. Sure, someone will occasionally call a guy “a dog,” but men simply aren’t judged like women are when it comes to sexuality. (And if they are, they’re judged in a positive way!) Men who have a lot of sexual partners are studs, Casanovas, pimps, and players. Never sluts. In fact, when I just did a Google search for “male sluts,” the first result I got was She Male Sluts DVD! I know, should have seen that coming. The point is, there isn’t even a word — let alone a concept — to signify a male slut.

Sister, you are preaching to the choir…

The chauvinist tyranny of sex has to stop. It’s preventing all of us from having meaningful relationships inside and outside of the bedroom. This is one more thing that men (and other women) use to needlessly subjugate women. The amount or number of partners you have had sexually does not change your worth as a person but the stud/slut gambit says just the opposite.

The only number that matters when it comes to sexual partners is zero. If it is anything other than zero, then you are among the billions of people on this planet that have had sex! There are worse clubs you can be in. Some of us have had it more, some of us have had it less, it’s our prerogative.

The depth of our sexual dysfunction in this country is sad.

I don’t normally check out Crain’s Cleveland Business but this article shook me : Urban centers to lose CSU Support

During my time studing at CSU, I worked in the Center for Neighborhood Development (I just had to disclose that). The urban research that Levin turned out shows how cities in general (and Cleveland in particular) are working (or not working) and how we can come up with tangible solutions to push cities in the right direction. To be totally objective and to be able to discover all of the answers of the conundrum of urban life, you need to be funded independently. Unfortunately, CSU does not see it the same way:

The centers will lose their university financial support and will be expected to support themselves entirely through the research and consulting services they offer nonprofit groups and governments on a fee-for-service basis.

Isn’t this the kind of money we need to spend? I don’t mind state money or tuition money going to these centers. They export valuable knowledge and import prestige to a otherwise nondescript urban university. No matter how much new construction is undertaken, it doesn’t matter at all unless something of value is being taught and/or researched in those buildings.
Why do I believe that this could spell the end of some, if not all,

One word. Politics.

The centers will have to rely on the entrenched foundations, cities and other entities to pay consulting fees. Do you really think that they will pay for news they don’t want to hear? Do you think that they will pay for thorough research into the good AND the bad of a city? No, because politicians don’t want to lose their jobs and foundations don’t want to lose face.

Horrible move, CSU.

In the words of the immortal Negro poet, Charles Barkley, it’s terrible!