I should be working right now, but...

...I stumbled on this article, the reading of which was akin to drinking a warm cup of validation (on a cold day. On a hot day, validation would be best served cold). I imagine others might feel the same way. 

40 meaningless points in some never-to-be-explained game will be awarded to those who guess the article's source before clicking the link.

The piece is about procrastination, and how procrastinators should learn to embrace their nature rather than fight it. This rings true to me, as I have a habit of doing things at the last minute and often, hours before a deadline, resolve that from this point on I will always get started on projects well in advance. Of course, I rarely if ever live up to this resolution. It's just an endless cycle of putting things off, growing increasingly agitated about the unfinished (or unstarted) state of said things, putting them off some more, wallowing in existential guilt about the fact that I am the kind of awful person who puts things off, and, finally, putting things together in a hasty scramble with minutes to spare. This is usually followed by a brief, endorphin-fueled period that can be understood as the intellectual equivalent of post-orgasmic afterglow (provocative!).

All of which makes me more common than unique. But the issue of procrastination raises questions about the way people process their own bad habits. When it comes to procrastination, I am slowly teaching myself that it's not a big deal - that I actually do my best work when my laziness has backed me into a corner. What I'm trying to remove isn't the procrastination but the guilt that I feel about it, guilt that tends to inform other aspects of my life and self-esteem in general.

What I'm getting at is: what's more destructive, a bad habit or the guilt one associates with it? Obviously, if your habit is meth or child porn or terrorism, your guilt is the least of your concerns. But I have a feeling that a lot of people would be better served by giving themselves a break about certain habits, rather than enduring the endless guilt cycle.

I'd be interested to hear what bad habits people have that make them feel especially guilty, and whether they think the bigger problem is the habit or the guilt. Please weigh in.

I meant for this to be a really short post, but it didn't turn out that way. I must be trying to avoid something.

The Clapper

To this point, this blog has been concerned primarily with "serious" issues. And an inordinate number of scare quotes. I would like to get away from both of these habits - well, the first one at least - for at least one day.

And so I bring your attention to this outrage.

Don't feel like clicking? Here's the deal: Stubby Clapp, longtime member of Canada's national baseball team, has been denied permission to play in the 2008 Olympics by the Houston Astros, for whom he coaches at the minor-league level. 

Richard Keith Clapp was drafted in the 36th round by the St. Louis Cardinals in 1996 and played 28 games in the majors, all with the Cardinals in 2001. In 25 at-bats, he had five hits, one RBI and no home runs. In nine minor-league seasons - including a stint in the Toronto Blue Jay organization in 2004 - he hit .268 with 43 home runs and 323 RBIs. How did I become such an authority on Stubby Clapp? I went here.

As mediocre as Clapp was, he always suited up for Canada in international events, providing some helpful offence and giving a country not known for its baseball prowess a sense of credibility, by virtue of being named Stubby Clapp. 

That's why the Astros' decision is such a slap (clap?) in the face - the Olympics are the absolute pinnacle for a career minor-leaguer like Stubby Clapp. And did I mention that his name is Stubby Clapp? Stubby friggin' Clapp? It's a name that just reeks of baseball, of dirty uniforms and pine tar and head-first slides. Go ahead and try to find a current player with a better baseball name - you'd have a better chance of identifying a guy whose name sounds like a breakfast cereal.

Guys named Stubby Clapp are good for baseball, and deserve a chance to shine on an international stage. Shame on you, Astros.

PS: (to read a blog by funnier guys who know more about baseball and about writing funny stuff about baseball and sports journalism, go here.)

What kind of name is Miley, anyway?

By now I'm sure everyone's seen the supposedly controversial picture of 15-year-old pop star Miley Cyrus that caused a media tempest last week. If not, here it is. 

I don't know. My gut reaction to the shot is an emphatic "meh." Maybe that speaks to how pervasive the sexualization of young girls is in popular culture. Maybe I've been desensitized. But I certainly feel like the after-the-fact "outrage" manufactured by Cyrus and Disney is just that - manufactured. They signed up for this shot, and even a 15-year-old knows when she's topless and tousled, and what that might ever-so-coyly suggest to the viewer. I'd be interested to hear what others think.

For an interesting point of view on teen sexualization, here's a great piece by music journalist Elizabeth Bromstein, who argues that the young stars who sell purity are actually, by implication, selling sex.

Upstaged

I'm away for a week, dealing with a seemingly endless string of minor ailments, and I come back to find that the lovely people taking time to comment on some earlier posts are, not surprisingly, doing a better job of talking about the issues than I am. This is a good thing, and I hope you keep doing it.

Anonymous, I wonder if you could elaborate on this comment. I'm willing to lay responsibility for many things at the feet of Reagan and the Bushes, but I confess I don't understand the union connection.

Women's work

How big a problem is discrimination based on gender in 2008? Most of us would, I think, concede that great strides have been made on gender equality in the past few decades, but at the same time would acknowledge that we're a long way from the end goal. I'll admit that sometimes I'm seduced by the idea that we're closer than we are. Then something like this comes along. 

Here's the Coles Notes version: The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a jury decision that called for Goodyear to pay a former employee, Lilly Ledbetter, $3.5 million. Ledbetter had brought suit against the company after discovering, following her retirement, that she had been paid far less than men in similar positions for the duration of her 19-year career. I'll leave you to parse out the legal jargon on your own (it's all there in the above link and the subsequent links), but essentially the Supreme Court based its decision on Ledbetter waiting too long to file suit.

This ruling is inflammatory and profoundly disappointing, not just because it is unjust, but also because so many elements of the rationale reek of condescension - not to mention favouring the rights of corporations over the individual. 

For a blistering critique of the verdict, check out this article from (where else?) Slate.

And for a little evidence of why this kind of backward motion on gender equality is so dangerous, hold your nose and read this post from a particularly noxious conservative blogger, who chides Ledbetter for being slow to figure out the pay discrepancy but conveniently fails to mention that Goodyear forbids employees from sharing salary information.

Brutal.

State of the Union

A couple of years ago, as I was finishing up my final year of journalism school at Ryerson, I tossed off a comment in conversation with some of my Ryerson Review colleagues about a potential TTC strike (the TTC actually went on strike in May 2006, after graduation, but if memory serves the possibility of job action had been raised several weeks prior to the walkout). My comment went something along the lines of, "TTC workers are overpaid, rude and selfish for holding the public hostage, etc. etc." 

To which my professor slyly responded, "What kind of lefty are you?" referencing the fact that I had written and interned for the very liberal This Magazine. The question gave me pause - perhaps because I didn't realize how my comment trampled on traditional left-wing values, or perhaps because I didn't like being labeled as a lefty.

At any rate, the TTC and its union managed to raise the question again with another strike this weekend. This time, the union shut down service at midnight on a Friday, less than an hour after voting down a tentative deal. The decision left thousands of partygoers, shift workers and other stranded, and resulted in back-to-work legislation from the province. 

The TTC is back in operation today, but the whole affair has been yet another PR disaster for the union. The general feeling among the public, I think, reflects the kind of sentiments I expressed to my Ryerson colleagues a couple of years back. For a sampling of what some folks are saying, check out this Toronto Star forum.

Majority opinion aside, my professor's question is still a tough one. Support of unions is a pillar of left-wing politics, after all, and there is a part of me that feels I should be on the workers' side in this dispute regardless of any personal inconvenience. On the other hand, unions don't seem to stand for the same things they used to. In fact, they don't seem to operate any differently than the most piggish capitalist corporation, motivated exclusively by self-interest and greed and unable to grasp the concept of having "enough."

Two years ago, had I been quick enough, I might have responded to my professor with a question of my own: is the union an outdated concept? After the latest TTC strike, I find myself leaning toward an answer that might not please the dyed-in-the-wool lefties in the crowd. But I would defend that position by pointing out that, while unions were once a necessary tool for workers to protect themselves against abusive and neglectful employers, too many of them exhibit the same characteristics as the "establishment" forces they're supposed to oppose. 

You know there's trouble in union-land when even the NDP tells you to get back to work. Looks like it's possible to be a lefty and a union skeptic at the same time.

More Obama

It's been a while, but I've had the pleasure of being in New York City for a couple of days and haven't had the chance to post. Nice, quaint little town worth visiting if you get the chance.

Another good comment from P's Blog regarding Obama and the perception of his racial makeup. I'm not entirely sure if P's challenging me on my suggestion that people with a biracial background (black/white in this case) identify themselves, and are identified by others, as more black than white, but I'll stick by my point for now - although I'll admit that it's based on intuition more than anything else. 

For better or worse, race matters in America. It matters to an awful lot of black Americans, who I think see Obama's candidacy, and the idea of an Obama presidency, as a point of pride. The last poll I read said something like 80-90% of black voters in the Democratic primaries had gone for him. Given that his policies don't differ tremendously from Clinton's, I think it's reasonable to suggest that racial identification has played a role in these results.

Similarly, there are Americans who have a viscerally negative reaction to the idea of a black president, a view that could be borne out of guilt, ignorance, or out-and-out racism. That Obama's racial background is mixed makes him a unique candidate, one that both black and white voters can "claim" as one of their own. This is one of the reasons he's been so effective in talking about race. He can frame the issue for whites and blacks in a credible way, because he is both white and black, and at the same time neither.

He's been less successful talking about class issues, because he's the kind of well-off, highly educated liberal that historically chafes working-class voters. However, if he does win the nomination, he'll have a lot of time to recalibrate his approach to this demographic.

Speaking of the nomination, Clinton winning Pennsylvania just delays the inevitable. She almost literally cannot win without convincing superdelegates to vote against the will of the primary voters, who have turned out in record numbers during this campaign. It's time for her to get out of this race. Her attacks on Obama are creating a blueprint for McCain to go after him in the general election, and if she does manage to convince the superdelegates to overturn Obama's near-certain pledged delegate and popular vote win, a lot of pissed-off Obama Democrats are going to turn into McCain supporters. Either way, she's hurting the party.