See You on the Other Side

Solipsist Central is relocating in a couple of days, so I'll be off 'til the move's over.  Assuming our internet hook-up goes smoothly, I'll see you early next week.

A Dirty Post

A while back, a friend of mine did "Warrior Dash."  Basically, this is a medium-length marathon/ obstacle course, featuring mud.  Lots and lots of mud.  I guess the thought of running, sweating, and ending up coated in muck appeals to some people.

More recently, one of my tutors did a "Color Vibe" "fun run."  This is a medium-length marathon, during which participants are pelted with paintballs.

In other words, at some point, someone, somewhere, went out for his morning workout and, while jogging along, gasping for breath, thought, "You know what would make this even better?  Mud!"  And then, when he told someone his idea, another person said, "Hey!  Why stop there?  Why not add assault and battery! With paint!"  And then someone else said, "And you know what?  I'll bet we could charge people to participate in this!"

And they did charge people.  And people paid.

And people wonder why Americans are in debt.

Too Depressed to Blog

I don't think I can post today.  Too broken up about the whole Margaret Thatcher thing.  In her honor, I plan to go outside and kick a hobo.  RIP, Iron Lady.

PS: I'm still kind of pissed off about the whole "Iron Lady" movie: Robert Downey, Jr., wasn't even IN it!

Advice for New Teachers: SERIOUSLY?!?

Many people have trouble with deciding when to use "who" and when to use "whom."  Simple answer: "Whom" is always wrong.  But if you want to go beyond the simple answer, there is a fairly easy way to know when to use which.

The technical explanation is that "who" is used in the subject position of a clause, while "whom" is used in the objective position: Who kicked whom.  If you're not sure which one to use in a given situation, try this: Substitute the word "who" or "whom" with the word "he" or "they."  For example, if I write,

"I am looking for the person ___ molested the hippopotamus"

I could place the word "he" in the blank: "He molested the hippopotamus."  That sounds grammatically correct (if morally unacceptable).  Thus, the correct word to use in that clause would be "who."  But try this:

"I am looking for the person ___ the hippopotamus molested"

Well, if I say, "He the hippopotamus molested," that sounds weird.  I could say, "The hippopotamus molested he," but that sounds even worse.  On the other hand, "The hippopotamus molested him" sounds juuuuust right--if kind of horrifying.  In this case, then, the correct word to fill in the blank would be "whom."

Briefly, then, the rule is, "If he/they would fit in the sentence, the correct relative pronoun is 'who'; if him/them would fit, the correct relative pronoun would be 'whom.'

Now, admittedly, this is not the most crucial rule in the ol' grammar database.  Many people could happily go through their entire lives using "who" or "whom" interchangeably, or never using "whom" at all.  Still, the knowledge comes in handy, especially if one is--oh, I don't know--FILLING OUT AN APPLICATION FOR A FULL-TIME POSITION AS AN ENGLISH PROFESSOR!!!

Just sayin'.

He's Just Trying to Be a Football Player, Not Ambassador to the Court of St. James

I'm beginning to think we expect too much of athletes, at least when it comes to the whole role-model thing.  A few weeks ago, two star high-school football players from Steubenville, Ohio, were convicted of raping an unconscious girl at a series of parties.  The case gained national notoriety due to the fact that the assault was recorded and uploaded to the internet.  While few questioned the appropriateness of the verdict, there was much lamentation and gnashing of teeth over the "wasted" futures of these young men, whose dreams of football scholarships were now as destroyed as--oh, I don't know--as destroyed as the life of a teenage rape victim.  I don't feel much sympathy.

Still, I couldn't help but think of this case, as I read today the story of Josh Jarboe, a likely NFL draft pick out of Arkansas State.

Jarboe, too, was written off as a lost cause early on in his collegiate career: He was cut from Oklahoma and bombed out at subsequent colleges.  His initial offense?  Appearing in an amateurish, freestyle rap video where he seemingly endorsed the "thug life": fast cars, faster women, violence.  While I am no fan of the genre, I hardly think an affinity for gangsta rap disqualifies one from a career of catching a football.

I do not equate these two cases: The Steubenville players committed a felonious assault and received appropriate punishment.  Had the players been acquitted in a court of law, high-profile college football programs would have been well advised to avoid recruiting them: I imagine many female students and their friends and loved ones would have a problem with such a recruitment.  Nevertheless, a certain "equation" of these cases--along with cases involving drug use, gambling, and other offenses against normative society--occurs simply by virtue of the fact that the automatic punishment--a loss of playing opportunity--is the same. 

I understand Oklahoma's position: They don't want to recruit a player who will reflect badly on the university.  But frankly, freestyle-rapping is just an offense against good taste, not civil society.  At this point, if a star athlete can just play the game and avoid shooting, dog-fighting, or raping anybody on the way to the locker room, I think we should all be thankful.