Picayune Extra: Tweet Madness is here!
It's time to join in the round of 64
To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.
Every year I offer a list of my personal favorites from among the Tweet of the Week poll finalists (the archive is here). But I’ve never made an attempt to allow readers to choose their favorites from among the weekly winners.
That stops now!
Monday, to coincide with the NCAA basketball tournaments, I kicked off Tweet Madness in which I’ve placed the winning tweets from the last 64 weeks of Tweet of the Week polls into a playoff bracket. The entries have been seeded by winning percentage though I’m not sure that was necessary. Anyway, help pick the first-round winners here.
Now help me fix baseball and life itself
The great Tribune sports columnist Paul Sullivan writes about the return of Major League baseball:
Perhaps it’s time to rethink everything about the game, which obviously has not appealed to kids now accustomed to nonstop video-game action and YouTube.
In comments, let’s try to come up with good ideas — even radical ideas — to make baseball a better spectator sport. Those of you who wax poetic and nostalgic about the languid beauty of the pastoral game need not participate. We have heard your retrograde ruminations for years and the game is just getting longer, slower and less and less interesting.
My plan is to come up with a list of suggestions and then publish a click poll where readers will pick the top 10.
Also, let’s hive mind a list of changes wrought by the pandemic that we’d like to see made permanent. Here are few that come to mind:
Ubiquitous hand sanitizer stations in offices and public spaces
Tele-health options for certain routine medical office visits
Fist-bumps instead of handshakes
Cart-handle wipes at the entrance to grocery stores
Hotel rooms with TV remotes wrapped in plastic
Movies that open simultaneously in theaters and on home-streaming platforms
Normalized (but not mandatory) mask wearing on crowded public transportation
Add yours in comments. Thanks!
Notes and comments from readers —lightly edited —- along with my responses
Some of these letters are in reference items in last Thursday’s Picayune Sentinel.
Matthew F. — You wrote, "I realize that some of you prefer the group viewing experience and huge screens at the multiplex, but your desire to impose that preference on everyone is irritating." I, in turn, found it kind of irritating. Desiring more of a social experience after the last two years is problematic? When I've had to look at my co-workers as Zoom squares during that time? I don't want to foist my movie-going choice on anyone. I think everything but the biggest blockbusters are available either at release or shortly after.
I’ve never understood why some consider sharing a theater with strangers all sitting in the dark looking at a screen or a stage a “social experience” or in any way particularly enjoyable. At best, fellow audience members are a nullity. At worst they are noisy and annoying.
At a sporting event, yes, fans interacting with one another and with the action in front of them is part of the experience. So I exempt “Rocky Horror Picture Show” from my analysis. But the movie experience is far superior in nearly (not all) ways at home. And a man of my age would have difficulty making it through “The Batman” (running time 2 hours, 56 minutes) without at least one bathroom break.
And to be clear I don’t begrudge anyone their preference except when it tends to crowd out my preference. “Shortly after” can be many months.
Shirley C. — It is wonderful that you are having more fun writing now than when you were working for the Tribune. However, if you are making less money than when you were there, why did you take the buyout? I assume you received a lot of money. It is not my business, I understand, my children tell me I can be intrusive. It is more important that you are enjoying yourself more.
The Tribune/Alden buyout offer for someone with my length of service was basically a year’s pay minus benefits (which was a major subtraction).
I accepted it because I looked around the country at papers owned by Alden Global Capital, the hedge fund that was taking over, and saw that these papers did not tend to employ local staff news columnists and relied instead on freelance opinion contributions from the community. The long-term future looked bleak and I was at an age — then 63 — where I could think about scaling back, looking for other opportunities even if they weren’t as lucrative.
Stephen K. — Your list of comedians that would make superior leaders to the ones we actually elect omitted the most obvious one: Bill Maher. Maher virtually stands alone among thinkers who were sounding the alarm early and often about the threat of ascendant autocracy that Trumpism represented (he was one of the few media commentators that repeatedly predicted Trump would win in 2016), while just as loudly condemning the quasi-Stalinist, virtue signaling leviathan of woke radicalism that has emerged in its wake.
Maher’s libertarian, atheist deviations from mainline liberal thought often infuriate the left — see “The Phony Liberalism of Bill Maher” from Fairness and Accuracy In Media, “Bill Maher is Just an Asshole” from Blerds Online and many other postings — but he’s been a very strong voice against Trump and Trumpism and has keenly identified and called out the political tone deafness of the left’s feckless efforts to win hearts and minds. The pure hostility to Maher reveals an inability to recognize and appreciate those who are mostly but not totally allies. I suspect if garden variety progressives were to look at a list of the 25 things Maher believes in most strongly, they’d agree with 20 or more of them. But it’s easier to claim he’s “just an asshole.”
Another name I didn’t mention (because he’s not American born and therefore couldn’t run for president) is the brilliant John Oliver.
Jerry B. — College sports are inane. What’s the purpose? With the high price of college, a prospective student choosing a college because of its sports team is foolish. And the so-called student athlete is simply being used, performing very hard work for no pay, with not enough time for serious academics.
The essence of team sports is our people against your people -- our community, our neighborhood, the athletes who happen to live in our school district and so on. In the Olympics, it's our citizens against your citizens. Kind of a proxy for war, really.
But this essential idea has since been widely perverted beyond recognition for, well, at least a century, right? As soon as colleges and even high schools began recruiting athletes and pro teams began hiring players who lived elsewhere, it basically became our laundry against your laundry.
Club sports — like ultimate Frisbee — and intramural sports — like dorm basketball — are the only thing close to pure sports that are left. High school sports at lower levels where student athletes really did grow up in the districts they represent are also fairly pure.
The men and women who wear the maize and blue for my beloved Wolverines were in most cases lured to the Ann Arbor campus from all over the country (and sometimes the world) with scholarship offers to help Michigan win games/meets/matches, most of which attract a small audience. There is either a mass delusion that the investment in money-losing sports is a net benefit to a college or university or there's something I'm missing.
Does the fact that Michigan has a golf team, for example, make the school any more attractive to non-golfing potential students? Does it return value for investment by helping the school fulfill part of its core mission? In the entire history of American academia has there been one single non-golfing prospective student who has thought to himself or herself, "Well, I would go there, but they don't even have a golf team"?
I suspect not.
At some schools, the big-time sports do earn their keep with various revenue streams and can be justified on that basis.
A 2012 study in the National Bureau for Economic Research by Michael Anderson, an assistant professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California at Berkeley found that:
For NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision teams -- teams that compete during the season and are potentially eligible for postseason bowl games -- winning football games increases alumni athletic donations, enhances academic reputation, increases the number of applicants and in-state students, reduces acceptance rates and raises average incoming SAT scores…..Non-BCS colleges experienced a larger effect from athletic success in enrollment of in-state students and average SAT rates. …If a college improves its season wins by 5 games, it can expect alumni athletic donations to increase by $682,000 (28 percent), applications to increase by 677 (5 percent), in-state enrollment to increase by 76 students (3 percent) and incoming students’ 25th-percentile SAT scores to increase by nine points (1 percent). But Anderson said these positive effects would not recoup however much money a college invested in its athletics program.
And of course many student team members do consider athletic scholarships and preferential admission to be adequate compensation for the time they devote to their sports.
For those who do find time to study, it can become a leg up on the ladder of professional success.
Finally, as fans, it's simply fun to assign a value to a team that "represents" us in some way or that we identify with for purely geographical reasons.
Why do you root for the Bears over, say, the Indianapolis Colts? My guess is that the players on the Bears are no more inherently Chicagoans than the players on the Colts, and we know from experience that any one of them will defect to another team in a heartbeat when the circumstances are right.
Jerry B. (again) — I’m triple vaxxed and I wear a mask wherever required.
But now when I see a non-elderly guy wearing a mask I think “p-ssy.” But I say nothing. And since this is hopefully still a “free effing country,” I have to defend this guy’s right to be a “p-ssy.”
I tell my wife that “cowardice” is not a moral failing. Rather it is a physiological state characterized by hyperventilation, rapid pulse, incontinence, etc. Thus this low-T guy is hardwired to be what he is.
I no longer wear masks where it is not required as the p--ssy people are not entitled to further courtesy. Have I made the p-ssy men upset by posting these comments? For sure and that is my intention to do my part to get back to the old normal. The p-ssy men know who they are, and since I keep my mouth shut about this, no one who does need to wear a mask can be offended by thoughts that reside in my head towards the p-ssy men.
The universe is filled with germs. Children growing up on farms breathing the dust of cow manure are healthier than those living in so-called bubble environments.
I agree that in the pre-vax days some caution was called for. But it is my understanding that for the fully vaxxed, COVID is no worse than a common cold.
Do you think "pussy" when you see someone washing his hands as he leaves the restroom? And why the gender distinction in "when I see a non-elderly guy wearing a mask"?
I wear masks in stores and on planes and trains not only to protect myself but as a courtesy to others since it's possible I've become infected and don't know it and it's not that big an inconvenience. Long COVID is a real thing and if you can reduce your chances of getting COVID in any form with such a simple preventative, why not? A triple-vaxxed former colleague of mine just died of COVID-19 and he was a super fit former foreign correspondent whose T, I daresay, was quite a bit higher than yours.
You have no way of knowing if a person wearing a mask is feeling symptomatic and is trying to protect you, is immune compromised or just being cautious. Making an invidious snap judgment about him is weak minded.
You might as well be declaring here that when you see a Black person you think of the vile racial epithet and most dehumanizing stereotypes, but that’s OK because you never give voice to such thoughts. Or declaring that when you identify someone as Islamic you think “probable terrorist,” but that’s also OK since you keep your mouth shut.
But decency and morality are habits of mind, not just habits of mouth. “Coward” may not be the right word to describe someone who is proud of his ugly prejudices but fears to give voice to them. The brave person is the one who interrogates his most unpleasant impulses and prejudices and corrects them internally so that his words can match his thoughts.
Rick L. — My understanding is that relief pitchers want to acclimate themselves to the mound when they enter a game. Other pitchers have been throwing during the game and they tend to create their own landing areas in the dirt. I think it’s fair to let the new pitcher toss a few when he comes in to make sure he’s comfortable with the footing.
Yes, and I’m sure field-goal kickers would love to have a few practice kicks so they can check out the field conditions right where they’re going to have to kick and basketball subs would like a few shots to see just how the particular ball feels, but come on.
Ken B. — Regarding Lori Lightfoot’s crude talk: I love it! She pulled no punches. Being Chicago Mayor is a tough job, and you have to be tough. The Daleys were tough. Rahm was tough. Now Lightfoot is tough. If anyone thinks her language is inappropriate, then they may not want to get involved in Chicago politics. It’s not for the faint of heart.
As I’ve said, normally, yes, a little profane tough talk isn’t going to hurt a politician, especially these days when most of us have stopped collapsing in a heap when someone uses coarse language. In this case, however, the publication of her alleged rant about her dick — credit my former colleague John Kass with coming up with the nickname “Phallus Maximus” — plays into the belief that she’s thin-skinned and doesn’t know how to cooly exercise her considerable authority, which is why she has alienated so many constituencies.
Ted N. — Concerning the length of this newsletter, no way can I read the whole Thursday issue at once, but I don't have to. I read what I have time for, and keep it in my inbox, returning to it later to read further. Long live The Picayune Sentinel.
Bitsy B. —I wish your newsletter would arrive more often and in a shorter form. It is much longer than I imagined, probably because I was used to your columns in the Trib.
Ann H. F. — I love the Sentinel, but it wouldn't bother me a bit to have it broken up a bit.
Kaye G. — Please do not shorten the Picayune Sentinel. I love the fact that it's long and takes time to read and digest. And I often want to comment on each and every topic, but I control myself. Please keep it one long wonderful piece.
Michael R. — Don’t increase the number of posts. Every time I sign up for a blog/podcast/periodical or pretty much anything else, I start getting daily or thrice-daily emails that are simply too much to handle. Soon, I start ignoring them and plan to read the next one, but eventually I find that I’m not opening any of them. The Sentinel is a conversation. I open it and read it once a week, but I cannot imagine opening and reading one seventh of it seven times a week. One man’s opinion. You owe me two cents.
These are just a few of the responses I received on the issue of the considerable length of the Thursday newsletter. My sense is that there is a strong preference for the main issue coming out just once a week for the reasons that Ted, Michael and others expressed. Fewer posts can be more. I’ve abandoned certain podcasts altogether when they ramped up from one to two and three episodes a week for reasons that have nothing to do with quality and more to do with trying to avoid feelings of being overwhelmed.
I subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson’s popular, widely hailed “Letters from an American,” Substack, but the fact that it arrives five days a week causes me to skip it on many days, to the point where I kind of wish LFAA would show up just once a week, even if the post was five times longer than the daily posts.
A more likely change for the PS would be to eliminate the Tuesday mailing and add that content underneath a paywall at the bottom of the Thursday issue, making that issue even longer but strictly hebdomadal, a word I committed to memory when studying for the SAT and have just now used for the first time.
Man, what are you doing here?
I’d never heard this theory, which evidently has been floating around for a while, and the lyrics do offer some clues it might be true. All the members of “the regular crowd” Joel sings about are men, including the aspiring novelist who “never had time for a wife.”
But in interviews Joel has said that he based the characters on people who frequented The Executive Room, a long-defunct Los Angeles piano bar where he gigged in 1972, very early in his career. And I find no evidence online that it was a gay bar. Perhaps some of the lonely men he sang about were gay, but the song does not seem to be about homosexuality or obliviousness, but loneliness.
On the other hand … Michael Madigan in perspective
Reader columnist Ben Joravsky started his most recent offering with a familiar list of the flaws and misdeeds of recently indicted former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. But then he offers this:
On labor matters, (Madigan) was the goalie. When newly elected governor Bruce Rauner set out to destroy collective bargaining rights in Illinois, Madigan blocked him.
No other state official,except comptroller Susana Mendoza, did as much to stifle Rauner’s anti-union agenda as Madigan. He rallied the Democratic legislators—gave them a purpose.
You think other leading Democrats were going to stand up to the Rauners and Griffins? … Every union member in Illinois owes Madigan some gratitude for the role he played in the Rauner years.
All in all, I agree with state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, who broke from Madigan before other Democrats dared. On my podcast, I asked Cassidy about Madigan’s legacy, and she said it’s not one way or the other: “all the best and worst things that have occurred in this state have his fingers on them.”
Apropos of Joravsky’s daily podcast, I try never to miss his Friday “Oh what a week!” news recaps featuring the droll asides of his producer, Dennis Schetter.
Ya gotta see these tweets!
I often run across tweets that are too visual in nature to include in the Tweet of the Week contest (the template for the poll does not allow the use of images). Here are a few good ones I’ve come across recently:
$518,000, actually….
There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!
Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.
.
Loved this week's crop of visual tweets.
"You might as well be declaring here that when you see a Black person you think of the vile racial epithet and most dehumanizing stereotypes, but that’s OK because you never give voice to such thoughts. Or declaring that when you identify someone as Islamic you think “probable terrorist,” but that’s also OK since you keep your mouth shut.
But decency and morality are habits of mind, not just habits of mouth. “Coward” may not be the right word to describe someone who is proud of his ugly prejudices but fears to give voice to them. The brave person is the one who interrogates his most unpleasant impulses and prejudices and corrects them internally so that his words can match his thoughts."
This response is why I will subscribe to wherever Eric's writing appear. I totally despise those who cannot accept facts and science. Eric's response pushes me to question the level of decency and morality in my habits of mind. These are my fellow humans, even some in my own extended family. However, when someone rejects that facts matter, I internally scream, because after many hours of back and forth on FB and other venues with no change, I have avoided total despair by resorting to non-engagement (but internally screaming nonetheless).
BTW- you can't spell America without Eric