Women Who'd Make Great Biopics (I find yet another excuse to talk about the Godfather)

In "This Year’s Best Actress Race: A History of Inequality", Keith Dodge has outlined what he perceives to be problematic inequality in how stories of men and women are treated by the movie industry and the Academy, and he opens with thoughts on biopics. People who study movies methodically have attempted to measure this inequality, and I'm not in the mood to compile sufficient data to argue one way or the other. The truth is, however, that I like some of these "men's stories" a lot. So I decided to take a look at some famous movies about men and see how similar stories might be made about real life women. Here are three (an extremely incomplete list, but bed is calling):

If you liked Gladiator or Lincoln, what about a movie about Harriet Tubman?
Escaping from slavery once is an unbelievable triumph of the human spirit. Returning back to the South to continue to lead more and more slaves out is simply unbelievable. Now maybe there wouldn't be any gladiator-type fights in it, but when you watch Gladiator, it's not really the violence that's captivating. At least not for me. The violence in the movie was necessary to show how truly brutally harsh the life of a Gladiator was. That movie succeeded because of the convictions of Maximus won over the crowd. Surely, Tubman's convictions could as well? Harriet Tubman is one of the most remarkable figures in American history--probably in all history, and seems to be remarkably underrated. Brave, caring, principled, smart, and strong-willed, she is a hero in every sense of the word, and--perhaps more importantly for movie makers (though obviously not to the countless lives she changed at the time)--her story involves an incredible amount of suspense, danger, and (presumably) countless interesting interpersonal relations. Our obsession with the wrongs of slavery have led to an idolization of Lincoln, of which I have certainly participated. I haven't seen the Daniel Day-Lewis movie, but as history informs us, Lincoln didn't start trying to free the slaves until the middle of the war, whereas on-the-ground emancipation was Tubman's business from the get-go (after that was successful, she worked on women's suffrage). I greatly admire the work Lincoln did in politics and recognize the fortitude that is required for that field (more on that later). Since Lincoln was born free and worked to free others when it was militarily advantageous and Tubman was born a slave and had to free herself through her own skill and chose to liberate others through great personal risk, it seems inappropriate that her narrative has received so little attention in pop culture.

If you liked The Godfather, what about a movie about Angela Merkel?
This fall, a book was released that compared the German Chancellor to Vito Corleone. While it's not really fair to equate this real-life, legitimately elected, currently-in-power government official with a fictional Don, The Godfather is a movie about much more than organized crime. It's also a movie about power and priorities. It's a movie about having people who depend on you. One character (you know who if you've seen the movie) even says, "My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator". So while I would take great objection to calling Merkel, whom I greatly respect, a criminal, one could certainly make a thoughtful movie in that vein about any political figure with that kind of power. In "Why We Love Politics", David Brooks writes "Politics is noble because it involves personal compromise for the public good...Politics involves such a perilous stream of character tests: how low can you stoop to conquer without destroying yourself; when should you be loyal to your team and when should you break from it; how do you wrestle with the temptations of fame". These are some of the many themes discussed by The Godfather and are presumably some of the Merkel's concerns, as she is tasked with determining what is best for Germany, what is best for the EU, and, if she finds the answers to be different, whom to prioritize. While the account would, of course, have to be fictionalized because that part of history is very much still in the making, necessitating either a fake history and future of Germany or some fictional character meant to approximate the German chancellor. But you'd have to presume that kind of decision making, drama, and responsibility would be seemingly made for the big screen.
(On a side note, you could, I suppose, make a movie about the real life cocaine "queen" nicknamed the "Godmother" who named her son Michael Corleone Blanco.)
Oh, and for the record, I agree with Bill Simmons that "there will never be another 'Godfather.'"

If you liked movies like Troy or ones about Hercules, why not a movie about Athena?
Okay, so Athena isn't a historical figure in the way these others are since she's not real, but the Greeks did literally worship her and named their most important city after her. Back in the day, I used to be very well versed in Athena mythology, but unfortunately I'm a little rusty right now. But she played a great role in guiding heroes to great successes. She also beat out her uncle for the right to claim Athens as her own (aren't there tons of movies about competing for power. Glengarry Glen Ross, though not a commercial success, was critically well-received, and that was a movie about competition in real estate. This would be similar. Except the competition would be between gods with superpowers and they'd be competing for a city whose prime we still idolize.

Nantucket's Influential Women in Nathaniel Philbrick's In The Heart of the Sea

I recently finished Nathaniel Philbrick's In The Heart of the Sea. Subtitled The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex, it tells the true story of the boat and whalers that served as the inspiration for Herman Melville's Moby Dick (just bought the book--anyone want to read it with me)? For those of you with a strong stomach, I highly recommend it.
In an era in which we constantly discuss whether or not women can "have it all" (can people have it all?), the women of early Nantucket should not be forgotten. And before the Essex leaves shore, Philbrick makes a point of mentioning these women--even in a story about an all male boat. For that he deserves credit. Here are a few highlights:
--Nantucket Quakerism, a defining part of the island's identity, was only possible because a woman allowed it: "It was Mary Starbuck's conversion to Quakerism that established the unique fusion of spirituality and covetousness that would make possible Nantucket's rise as a whaling port" (Philbrick 8). Starbuck (there is a connection to the coffee company) had refused similar efforts, as Philbrick notes: "Throughout the seventeenth century, English Nantucketers resisted all attempts to establish a church on the island, partly because a woman by the name of Mary Coffin Starbuck forbade it" (Philbrick 8). For a woman to wield the power to choose a society's religion and by extension its culture and, ultimately, its economy, is remarkable. Men may have gone on the whaling missions, but they owed their livelihood to a woman.
--"With their men gone for so long, Nantucket's women were obliged not only to raise the children but also to run many of the island's businesses. It was largely the women who maintained the complex web of personal and commercial relationships that kept the community functioning" (Philbrick 15).
On pages 15 and 16, Philbrick describes how the island's Quaker faith (which, as you recall, was allowed by a woman) gave women a status and equality that the would not have received on the mainland, a point that was acknowledged by the Nantucket feminist Lucretia Coffin Mott (15-16).
Yes, In the Heart of the Sea and Moby Dick focus on an all-male voyage. But those voyages were made possible by the hard work of women. And the Nantucket Quaker culture found the roles played by women to be of equal value to those played by their male counterparts.

HIMYM Thoughts: I really don't care who the mother is

How I Met Your Mother is a guilty pleasure of mine, and I've been watching this season with interest. But not in "the mother". Instead, the intriguing plot point for me is the relationship between Barney and Robin and how it evolves. Here are a number of reasons why I'm not holding my breath for Ted's future wife's identity to be revealed:
1. By the title of the show, I kind of always assumed we'd just meet her in the last episode in some final scene, Ted would say "and that's how I met your mother", and we wouldn't need to know more about the mother, because well, the kids already know who their mother is, there's a good chance they've heard stories about their mom and dad's dating life from their mother or from Ted's friends or from Ted because he's obviously so interested in sharing intimate details of his own personal life.
As I understand it, HIMYM isn't the story of Ted's relationship with his wife--how could it be if we've gone seven full seasons without meeting her, and if Ted were actually telling the story of that relationship, she'd be more than a minor detail.
2. The story of Barney and Robin is much more compelling.
To me, this is the key reason. While I like Ted and think he's a nice guy, he's just not as fun to watch as Barney. While Ted seems to genuinely fall for every girl he meets, Barney and Robin are more cynical, which makes their connection more powerful on a screen. Yes, their relationship does to a degree fall under the cynical-man-falls-for-smart-driven-passionate-woman branch with Casablanca and Star Wars. (Many thanks to Grantland's Brian Phillips for making that connection.) Yes, it's been done before, but there's a reason people like it. Neil Patrick Harris is a better actor than Josh Radnor, and his relationship with Robin is one that has been developing throughout the course of the show, whereas we haven't even met the mother yet, so it would be hard for the relationship to be as meaningful as one that's been there all along. Some people don't like Barney and Robin, but I do. I find them both to be dynamic characters with interests much less straightforward than Ted's "I want to get married and have babies" philosophy.
Aside: The more I think about it, the Star Wars analogy that posits Ted-as-Luke, Barney-as-Han, and Robin-as-Leia actually makes a ton of sense. And who's to say the creators didn't consciously make that way, since they reference Star Wars all the time. Just like in Star Wars, the self-interested character ends up becoming a good person as well as everyone's favorite character. Robin works as Leia because they're both feisty, independent, and motivated by some very important non-romantic passion (Robin wants to become a journalist, and Leia wants the Rebellion to win.) And Ted and Luke are both good guys, but Robin/Leia just isn't happening for them. That's okay though, because they get to succeed in other ways.
3. I feel like the level of anticipation that has greeted "the mother" is setting fans up for failure.
This last one is me just being pessimistic, but I think it will be hard for the creators to envision a character that pleases all of their fans. And as of late, they haven't been doing very well. Victoria in season 1 was well received. She had her own personality and career ambitions, she was nice and not stereotypically jealous, and she was strong and intelligent. Stella was a well done character as well. You know, for someone who doesn't like Star Wars. I thought Stella and Ted running into each other, and her giving her thoughts on how there's a "one" out there for Ted was great and continued that general philosophy of the show that certain people are meant for each other. (Whether or not you believe this to be true in real life, the show relies heavily on the notion, and it was therefore good for Stella and Ted's meeting to confirm that.) Zoey, meanwhile, was not well received (and I didn't like her either), and Victoria's season eight persona felt much more contrived. I actually like Quinn a lot, so I haven't given up on the show's ability to create new, interesting female characters. That being said, I'd much rather spend my viewing time rooting for characters I already know that I like. And Barney and Robin happen to be my two favorite characters in the show.

How the Corleone Brothers are Voting

Fredo: Fredo hasn't been watching the debates, but he's pretty confident that he'll be able to make a good decision come election day. A Fredo voter resents his lack of influence and is overeager to show how smart and important he can be. He tries to do things, such as getting the car with his dad, that he's not ready for. He's also easy to manipulate, and we all saw how his initiatives turned out in Part II.

Sonny: Santino is the most passionate of the Corleone brothers and gets very worked up about politics. He's well informed, which would make his views convincing if he weren't so hotheaded. Instead, his quickness to anger makes him very vulnerable. Sollozzo says of Santino "You can't talk business with him." You can try to talk politics with a Sonny voter, but you won't convince him of anything.

Michael: Michael might know who he's voting for, but there's no way you do unless you're Tom Hagen, the only person Michael trusts. Michael is a cold blooded realist who won't vote on one issue but will carefully weigh the pros and cons of each candidate. He's not concerned about making the moral vote; he'll vote for the guy whose policies will help him personally. While he has no interest in bipartisanship, he can feign one pretty well. He keeps his true views to himself while convincing both Republicans and Democrats that he believes their version of the story. Just as he did with Frank Pentangeli and Hyman Roth, he'll hear how you defend your story and use that to make a decision. Michael is the most respected and feared among the brothers. Politicians, even the ones who disapprove of him such as Senator Geary, work hard for his approval.

Tom Hagen: Tom is much more idealistic than Michael and wants to see the two parties working together to improve the country. He's very smart and extremely well versed in the law, which makes his opinions highly valuable. He's not spineless and is more than willing to stand up to a Sonny voter. There is a great level of mutual respect and trust between Tom Hagen and Michael, but Michael holds all the power, and Tom will ultimately vote for whomever Michael chooses.

The Case for Robin Scherbatsky

How I Met Your Mother's Robin Scherbatsky, played exquisitely by Cobie Smulders, is on the very short list of my favorite female characters ever. Some of this is has, as personal preferences tend to, a lot to do with me: I'm also into sports and highly competitive, and I spent three years on a college newspaper and worked at a tv news station one summer so I enjoy hearing about Robin's career in news.
But from a less individual standpoint, I think Robin is a unique female character who displays strength of character without being perfect, ambition without being heartless, and moments of struggle and doubt without being weak.
A few highlights:
1. While Robin is ultimately successful at her job, we appreciate her for her personality and character long before her journalism dreams are reached. What this means is that her career path is  presented as an important part of the show. While some (e.g. here and here) have criticized the show for making Robin struggle so much in her pursuit of journalism greatness, this has a lot to do with the fact that Robin has chosen broadcast journalism, a very difficult career in which advancement comes not only with persistence but also with a lot of luck. Don Frank, for example, only got his job because the more qualified and more professional Robin turned it down. Moreover, Robin's struggles make her ultimate success even more of a testament to her perseverance and her ability to act with confidence even when she herself feels great doubt.
Moreover, the fact that we meet Robin long before she has much success in her career or personal relationships means that we actually come to respect and admire her for her strength of character and strong sense of self. Imagine appreciating female characters not because they're more successful than others but because they are people with convictions and thoughts and feelings.  Additionally, and this is very important for me, Robin is consistently portrayed as at least as intelligent as any of the male characters in the story.
Finally, the portrayal of Robin's coworkers in journalism suggests that it is easier for men to make it in her career than women. Nora is the coworker we know best because she dates Barney. Like Robin, Nora has very strong sense of self, morality, and conviction. Meanwhile, Robin's male coanchors, Sandy Rivers and Don Frank receive great opportunities despite being unprofessional and far less motivated than Robin.
2. Robin doesn't want to have kids, and this isn't portrayed in a way that makes her uncaring, unattractive, or robotic. Even before Robin connects with a little kid in "Little Boys" in season three, she shows her nurturing side by taking care of Barney when he is sick and looking out for her little sister when she comes to visit. She's very committed to her friendships, even caring about Ted greatly as she rejects him.
In "Symphony of Illumination", Robin is shown to have a more complicated relationship with the notion of children that she had previously thought and is actually saddened when she finds out that she can never have any. But when Kevin notes to her in "The Drunk Train" that there are other ways of having kids, she reaffirms her commitment to not having children.
Whether or not a character wants kids can be a sensitive subject, especially since the pop culture has been criticized for assuming that all women want children, and not surprisingly, Robin's character has drawn criticism from some who resent that the show might somehow imply that a life without kids cannot be full (apparently not sold by Ted's description of Robin's incredibly full life at the end of "Symphony of Illumination"). This, however, is unfair. Because so many tv characters are shown as wanting kids, no single character is tasked with representing the entirety of mothers. It's seen to be a nearly universal experience, and each character represents just one take on it. Robin's feelings similarly should not be seen as a representation of the emotions all women experience when they decide that they do not want children. As this blog post shows, Robin's spectrum of emotions was relatable to at least some.
But to me, whether or not Robin's experiences speak a universal truth is secondary. More important is the fact that Robin is shown as a full character who contemplates the issue thoughtfully and with an independent mind and because her decision is not shown as placing a limit on her potential for happiness.
3. So what if Robin has "daddy issues"? Four of the five characters have major issues with their parents. Jason Segel's Marshall is the only one who does not seem to have any emotional residue from his upbringing. His family is mocked extensively but for their quirkiness and wackiness. Moreover, Robin emerging as confident as she is despite her traumatic upbringing is a tribute to her strength of character.
4. While Robin is very strong, she's not perfect. Robin is a realistic character because she doesn't do everything right. She smokes (though she will eventually quit), she can have a hot temper, she makes bad decisions sometimes, and she shows occasional signs of trauma from her upbringing. Yet it is her strengths that stand out more than her weaknesses, a credit to the show and to Smulders' acting. Robin is independent, intelligent, thoughtful, and loyal. And that strength is what makes her a great character.
5. Oh, and this:
Let's Go to the Mall!
excerpt from show
full video

Can't teach kids? Just drug them instead

It doesn't take a research expert to detect America's obsession with drugs. Just start watching football and after the fifth Cialis commercial in the first quarter alone you may find yourself remarking, as one of my friends did, "How can people criticize athletes for taking performance enhancing drugs when every other commercial is for performance enhancing drugs?"
But in professional sports, athletes are drug-tested. And even when they manage to pass every single drug test they've taken, they can still be banned for life based on witness testimonies (which, by the way, I find highly problematic). In academia, there is neither drug testing nor a universal consensus around the need for one. In an article in The Harvard Crimson this May, Quinn D. Hatoff details how some Harvard students have become dependent on various study drugs, especially Adderall, in order to meet deadlines and examines the consequences they have faced. As one student acknowledges, “There is no way you can take a drug to make your brain work at twice the speed and intensity as normal without having some consequences.”
These instances of collegiate drug abuse are troubling enough, but as Jezebel writer Katie J. M. Baker says of her own experiences, "at least I was a 20-year-old adult at the time able to make my own decisions, not a little kid with a developing brain." (Baker decided against continuing to use study drugs, as she also notes.
There are arguments to make in favor of allowing legal adults to abuse drugs as they so choose (though the practice is currently illegal), and with caffeine abuse a socially accepted vice, it is fair to question why caffeine is acceptable but Adderall is not.
That being said, when doctors are prescribing study drugs to children, a trend described in The New York Times, who do not medically require them, something is very, very wrong.
1. Children are having their physical health and well-being put at risk just because their parents wanted them to have better grades. Doctors should not be complicit in this.
The stories of drug abuse speak for themselves. Here's one from the Crimson:

She found herself hospitalized in ninth grade. Two months of daily use had taken their toll: her weight had plummeted from 130 to 94 pounds, and she had not had a full night of sleep in weeks.
“By the time I was actually hospitalized, I was kind of f---ed up,” she admits with a slight laugh. “I wanted more weight loss—that was one reason for taking it—but I also had become psychologically dependent on it. I really loved it.” 

Even more disturbing is the Times' story of the Rocafort family, who put their 12-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son on Adderall even after observing that it made their son Quintn suicidal (and have hallucinations).
For doctors and teachers to knowingly put young children at risk where there is no medical need just so parents can take pride in their children's academic performance is unacceptable.
Both the Crimson and Times article neglected to include examples of people who actually had ADD or ADHD and did not abuse their prescriptions. I have decided not to argue for or against the use of these drugs by children and teens with medical needs, as I lack the medical knowledge to do so.
That being said, I will comment on the faulty nature of the diagnoses Dr. Anderson administers as they are "teacher reports [that] almost invariably come back as citing the behaviors that would warrant a diagnosis, a decision he called more economic than medical." Since teachers are not medical professionals, I take issue with Dr. Anderson using their descriptions of children's behavior as a substitute for more rigorous undertakings to understand the brains of these students. I also take fault with teachers looking to doctors to "teach" their students.
Moreover, I am disturbed by the way children and teens with real ADD and ADHD could be lumped into a group with students with other study issues, thereby hindering their ability to have their medical needs addressed properly.
2. Doctors and teachers have very different jobs, and they should not be confused.
In the opening paragraph of the Times article, Alan Schwarz links this trend to suffering schools:

“I don’t have a whole lot of choice,” said Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, north of Atlanta. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”

While I agree that there are major problems in the inequality of education in America, I would disagree with Schwarz's argument that he doesn't have a choice. As a doctor, his job is to treat his patients' health, not their report cards. All he needs to do is state his job description to these parents. They have no choice but to understand. Instead, Dr. Anderson is trying to stretch his influence too far and to control things that really aren't under his domain. And by refusing to prescribe drugs to students with As and Bs, he is medically manipulating the academic hierarchy of the schools his patients attend.
The role of teachers is not articulated as thoroughly in this article. No teachers are interviewed, and for that reason, I can't develop a strong opinion on what I think of them. If teachers really are looking towards doctors to solve their students's academic needs rather than devote their own attention to them, that is of course problematic. But it is also possible that teachers know that they don't have the medical knowledge to diagnose specific cases and in the interest of helping any students who might need it, they are reporting any symptoms to doctors assuming that these doctors will be thorough enough to distinguish between medical condition and academic issue. In the latter scenario, teachers would likely be highly disturbed to hear that their qualitative descriptions of kids (kids for whom they have genuine concern) are essentially drug prescriptions.
Now I don't think it's fair to vilify most of these parents: they want to see their children succeed and they trust their doctors to make informed decisions that will not endanger their kids.
That being said, I think the incentives to solving falling grades with drugs need to be examined.
A. Have these parents considered the possibility that by medicating their kids to succeed in one area, they may be missing an opportunity for their children to find a different and unique passion?
B. What other methods did you try before resorting to medicine to solve these studying needs?
C. What will happen if these kids switch doctors and the new doctor finds a lack of medical need? How will these kids adjust to no longer studying with the assistance of drugs?
D. What good are the opportunities good grades afford if children will be too busy reeling from drug side effects to embrace them?

I would like to note that I have utmost respect for doctors and teachers and don't mean to degrade these professions in any way. Rather, I am a firm believer in the good both can do and in the responsibility that both hold.

My heart goes out to all of these kids, and my hope is that there will be more rigor and integrity in understanding kids' academic, personal, and medical needs both so that people with genuine ADD and ADHD will not be trivialized and so that children's health will not be ignored, especially by the doctors who have sworn to protect it.

Were the 1995 Cleveland Browns the Freaks and Geeks of Football?

The 1995 Cleveland Browns weren't a very successful football team. Freaks and Geeks was not a very successful tv show. But what talent they both produced!
Critically acclaimed if not financially lucrative, cult favorite Freaks and Geeks  has obtained posthumous famous and now the Browns are getting attention with the NFL Network's "Cleveland '95: A Football Life".
Now the fact that there are highly successful alumni from two separate failed business ventures doesn't necessarily mean that the members of each group have coordinates in the other. But since I thought the world would be more fun if they did, I decided to make some comparisons. Some of then, okay all of them, are pretty far-fetched, but here we go.
Judd Apatow and Bill Belichick:  Belichick was fired from Cleveland in '95, just like Apatow's Freaks and Geeks was cancelled. Both did better in their new locales--Belichick in New England and Apatow in film. Apatow is Belichick's closest comparison not only because they were the two men in charge at the time, but also because making Belichick into an actor seems taboo even if I'm more than willing to compare other serious football figures with guys who appear in Knocked Up and Pineapple Express. But like Apatow has worked behind the scenes as a producer (and director and screenwriter), Belichick would loom ominously in his hoodie and terrify his actors into great performances. Just don't expect any stoner flicks.
Jason Segel and Nick Saban: Okay so maybe Segel is more successful as a movie actor than Saban was as an NFL coach. But both of these guys have established themselves in a different industry than the rest of their famous co-workers (even if Segel made his name in both). While most of this list of football braniacs hold court in the NFL whether as coaches, GMs, or analysts, Saban dominates the college circuit instead and has won three BCS titles one at LSU and two at Alabama. My choice of Segel as a tv actor and not a movie actor is pretty much all personal bias, I'll admit. I've watched Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and I prefer How I Met Your Mother. Besides, TV gets my vote because they're on season eight, making Marshall Eriksen Segel's main time commitment. And of the three most best-known actors from that show--Segel, James Franco, and Seth Rogen--Segel is the outlier as the one in a sitcom.
Side note #1: the title of the NFL Network's special, "Cleveland '95" is misleading: Saban was a defensive coordinator for the Browns in 1994 and coached at Michigan State for the '95 season. But if Saban can be used in promotion for the tv documentary, I can use him in my blog post too. Congratulations Nick, you are now an honorary member of the 1995 Cleveland Browns football team. No, they weren't good.
Side note #2: Jason Segel is an ordained minister.
Seth Rogen and Ozzie Newsome: You probably get a good vibe from both of these guys. In the Baltimore GM's case, it's probably because he was a 7xAll Pro and 3xPro Bowl selection at tight end and winner of the 1986 Ed Block Courage Award and 1989 "Whizzer" White NFL Man of the Year Award. With Rogen, it's probably because you liked Knocked Up and felt like Ben Stone seemed like a generally well-meaning guy, because you're a Dr. Seuss fan and appreciate that he did work in "Horton Hears a Who", or because you appreciate him raising Alzheimer's awareness. Either way, these are guys you probably like.
James Franco and Scott Pioli: After Belichick and Apatow, these are your smart guys. Or at least the guys who try to appear that way (clearly Saban and Newsome are pretty smart too). Pioli was the General Manager of the New England Patriots for three Super Bowls and the 16-0 season (one which I, a Patriots fan, always acknowledge grudgingly). Franco, meanwhile, has received a Golden Globe for James Dean in the fittingly titled 2001 movie James Dean and has appeared in movies such as Milk and 127 Hours that focus on real people and real events. But neither of them have been that exciting lately, making counterparts. The Kansas City Chiefs haven't been especially threatening, which has put Pioli's managerial skills under question, and Franco has taken a lower profile by doing volunteer work and teaching at NYU (both great things but for better or worse not as buzz-inducing as starring in movies).
John Francis Daly and Steve Crosby: While these guys live in the shadow of their colleagues, at the time of the show/season, they were actually the stars. And while they may not be the biggest names, both are journeymen who have been able to consistently make a living. Daly has ventured into screenwriting and is a drummer in a band, but his main money maker has been his role as Dr. Lance Sweets on Bones (coincidentally, a show I watch frequently). Crosby has similarly bounced around, with most of his career in the NFL. Having won the 2007 Special Teams Coach of the Year, Crosby is a little more decorated that Daly. But both of them found their niche and got the job done.
Linda Cardellini and Rick Venturi: Like Daly and Crosby, both are relatively obscure after being the stars at the time of Freaks and Geeks/the 1995 season, but Cardellini and Venturi aren't quite as accomplished. I give Daly the edge over his former tv sister because his show is currently airing whereas ER finished in 2009 (and, also, I like Bones). And unlike Crosby, Venturi never won a coaching award and "coached the beginning segment the Northwestern Wildcats' NCAA Division I record 34-game losing streak." And besides...
Offense = Geeks. Defense = Freaks. Compare Ray Rice to Ray Lewis. Both tremendously talented. But who would you be more freaked out to face? In its preview for Super Bowl XLI, Sports Illustrated argued "This isn't brains vs. brawn" when comparing Peyton Manning and Brian Urlacher. Nonetheless, Manning has earned his reputation as a thinking quarterback and as the humble dorky guy in commercials, whereas Urlacher is simply terrifying. In The Blind Side, Michael Lewis tries to argue this about coaching the two sides as well, saying that offense is about thinking creatively and finding new ways to use seemingly athletically limited quarterbacks like Virgil Carter and on defense you either have talent like Lawrence Taylor or you don't. I happen to think this is a huge oversimplification of coaching defense which clearly takes a lot of talent. (Dick LeBeau, anyone?) But, whether accurately or not, offense is often perceived as the more cerebral discipline. I don't know if it's actually nerdy to enjoy watching Arian Foster. But there's certainly nothing intellectual about Jacked Up.

My definition of feminist female characters and Dr. Temperance Brennan

One of my favorite shows is Bones. And Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan and has a lot to do with that. While some (very few) have taken issue with her character because of her social awkwardness, I think one of the show's strengths is that is presents us with complicated characters and that it shows the people, both women and men, do not have to be perfect in order to be effective at their work and capable of having a positive influence on the world.
My intent is not to pretend like there's some sort of revolt against Bones (there's not), but rather to use a show I really like to demonstrate one example of what a strong female character can look like.

I believe that for characters to be passably feminist (by my definition, not any kind of official one), they need to be consistently shown to be as smart as the men around them, as independent of thought, as complex in character, and as strong willed. For them to be actively feminist, they need to be better than the men around them in at least one category. I don't, however, believe women need to be especially powerful in their societies to be feminist. Otherwise, it would be impossible to write a feminist narrative set in a male-dominated society. For example, even though women are not included in the business world of The Godfather, I would consider Kay Adams to be a feminist character though I won't say why here because I don't want to spoil the movies (though I will say so here; also, watch the movies). Similarly, while I haven't seen The Help (though I've heard I really should), I would imagine that the characters would satisfy most feminists based on what I've heard about it.

From the get-go, Dr. Brennan is portrayed as the smartest and most respected person at the lab. While there's a chance that Zack Addy may be smarter, he is less developed in his skills and is intimidated by Dr. Brennan, as are most of the characters in the show. Bones is "hyper-rational", and her thoughts are always coherent. She is consistently capable of separating her own bias from an investigation and seeing it objectively, even when understanding why evidence would point to her as the perpetrator of a crime. Bones is knowledgeable of many fields (if not pop culture) and is a trained martial artist, but, more importantly, she is shown as a tireless worker who can consistently get things done.

The main argument I have seen as to why Dr. Brennan is not a feminist character is that she is not socially adept. One writer has argued:

Dr. Brennan is depicted as being almost robotic or emotionless in the show, which could very well be due to the perception of women as being unable to posses both intelligence/a high career drive and have empathy. It is almost as if she sacrificed her emotions in place of her intelligence and career, making her undesirable.

Wouldn't it be more robotic and generic if Dr. Brennan somehow managed to be perfect in every way? She is someone who deals with recently murdered victims for a living. It seems like the kind of career that would require someone to be able to control their emotions rigorously, and in the first season's "A Boy in a Bush", both Angela and Zack struggle emotionally to deal with the sight of a young child's corpse, and the episode shows how objective and, yes, emotionless they have to become to be able to handle the job. To me, this is not anti-feminist but realistic. As one commenter writes here, Dr. Zack Addy "was the male version of Bones, and had virtually the same personality characteristics, so I don’t think that showing her as socially out of step is a statement on intelligent women." Moreover, each major character in the show has visible flaws and shortcomings. The show doesn't say that a woman, specifically, can't have everything together but rather that no one can.
In Bones, all of the characters have flaws and shortcomings that are essential to the understanding of their character. Identity is a very important issue in Bones. By solving crimes, the Jeffersonian allows victims to get their identities back. Brennan, meanwhile, is firmly committed to the idea of individuality and expresses her strong opposition to the changing on one's physical features.
On plastic surgery, she says:

"It's barbaric. It's painful. It's wrong. This murder victim may never be identified because this glorified barber with a medical degree had the arrogance to think that he could do better than millenia of evolution." 

"What this young woman did to herself. It's like she completely removed her identity." 

Plastic Surgeon: "I made her beautiful."
Brennan: "You mean you took what was unique and particular about her and destroyed it."

"She did everything she could to make herself beautiful. And all she did was make herself more invisibile."

"We are born unique. Our experiences mold and change us...I feel like we should be arresting these doctors because whether they killed her or not, they still erased her."

Isn't that kind of commitment to individuality enough to justify someone's awkwardness in the minds of viewers?
Besides, it's not as if the show is suggesting that all smart women have social issues. Cam and Angela are both portrayed as very intelligent and seem much more at ease in social settings than Dr. Brennan. And when Agent Seeley Booth has a serious girlfriend Hannah, who serves as Bones's romantic rival, she is portrayed as smart, intelligent, and driven, and she and Dr. Brennan have a substantial amount of respect for each other.
I have a lot of appreciation for how the creators of the show have managed to create full-bodied, interesting characters and have managed to create strong female characters whose supposed weaknesses come across as human and individual rather than indicative of female incapability.

The Gov 1310 Cheating Allegations Do Not Prove Athlete Privilege

The news could reignite a contentious decades-old debate about athletes and academic integrity in the Ivy League. --Bill Pennington

What would be more accurate to say is that Pennington himself wants this debate to be reignited, which is why he has opened his argument about an incidence of alleged academic cheating by citing two very different events: Harvard basketball's Top 25 ranking and NCAA tournament appearance.
The segue was made available to Pennington by what he refers to as "published reports [that] implicated the co-captains of the basketball team in a widespread academic cheating scandal."
All we know for a fact is that co-captains Kyle Casey and Brandyn Curry have chosen to withdraw. In other words, we know that they accepted the punishment, while it has not yet been determined whether or not they committed the crime.
And just because Casey and Curry are the only names to have been released doesn't mean that they are the only ones implicated. In fact, it was a shared typo by members of a different team that led to the investigation in the first place (if you greatly desire to know which one, the internet is at your fingertips).
Anyway, a couple thoughts:
Wrongdoing is not a sign of privilege. Only getting away with wrongdoing is. And Harvard's athletes are not getting away with anything.
When news leaked that athletes were among those being investigated, many responded with admonitions of Harvard's supposedly overprivileged athletes. But it doesn't take great privilege to make a mistake--which I believe is what students did--or to do something while knowing that it was morally wrong. Unfortunately, these are two areas where there really is equal opportunity (if only that were so for other more aspirational fields).
Now if Harvard decided that punishment shouldn't apply for the athletes, that would mean that privilege has gone too far.
Instead, we are seeing just the opposite: athletes are essentially being punished more than non-athletes. First of all, their absences are much easier to notice publicly, especially when they are well-known athletes such as Casey and Curry. Secondly, the price of being wrong--on betting on one's innocence and then being found guilty--is much higher for athletes. Non-athlete students forced to withdraw will take a year off from college and will be able to return to the same place they left. There is no NCAA governing student organizations, no losing of one's final year of eligibility, no missing out on the last chance (for many) to compete in the defining (for many) part of one's college career. Athletes, here, are not privileged.
Now, part of this article suggests that athletes act entitled, a claim which is highly subjective. In my experience with Harvard's athletes, which includes four years of varsity rowing and writing for The Crimson on many sports (football, baseball, women's hockey, men's crew, skiing and men's golf were my beats, and I wrote stories for many others), I have never found that to be the case. But again, this is highly subjective, so if you want to believe that athletes act with a sense of entitlement, I can't really prove you wrong. If you believe that cheating on a test qualifies as acting with a sense of entitlement, that's more than fair. But acting in a privileged manner is very different from having actual privilege conferred upon you. And the difference is critical.
If you have a problem with athletes taking certain courses, you should first object to Harvard offering these courses.

"Some athletes are here working hard, but others avoid academic challenges. You know you won’t find them in a deductive logic course, but you will find them in a much less taxing sociology course. They sometimes exist apart, and collectively gravitate to the same majors, like sociology or government. It’s known." --Patrick Lane, a senior

Now, this part is largely personal opinion, but if you find it problematic that certain students are taking certain classes, shouldn't you instead be upset that the University is offering these courses in the first place? When courses and concentrations are created, it's presumably because the institution considers the study of these things to be a valuable use of time. Are students at fault for agreeing? One of the things I loved about Harvard is its breadth of course offerings and the relative freedom it allows students to study what they want from Folklore and Mythology to Government to History and Literature to Engineering. As a concentration, Government has embraced this philosophy. Government has often been faulted for its relatively loose requirements, but I don't see this as a flaw because it allows students to find what interests them and pursue those things. Many of my favorite classes were challenging and rewarding ones I found in the Government department, which is why I took four government classes my senior year despite having filled my requirements the year before. (In addition to Introduction to Congress, I took Political Psychology, Social Policy in Brazil, and Contemporary British Politics.) Harvard considers students mature enough to make their own decisions about courses, including how difficult they want their academic schedule to be. If this is a problem, take it up with the University and explain to them why these courses should not be taught on campus. Don't fault students for taking advantage of what is already there.

Acknowledging my inherent biases, I have no interest in discussing whether or not I consider any of the Government 1310 students to be guilty or what I think the punishments should be. That's not my job. Similarly, I will not use this space to argue over the merit of recruited athletes. It's an issue with which I am more than willing to engage, but not here. Because this is an issue of academics, not athletics.

Kyle Casey's Wise Decision to Withdraw

Given the circumstances--a large, highly public cheating scandal at one of the most famous universities in the world--Kyle Casey made the best possible decision: to withdraw from the school.
Casey and fellow co-captain Brandyn Curry are the first names to be made public, a dubious title. But here's why I respect this decision:
1. It's damage-minimizing: Were Casey to stay in school and then be forced to withdraw, he would have lost his final year of eligibility. That scenario may have helped cushion the media-blow for Casey somewhat as his guilt would have been released at the same time as other names. But it would mean that the Harvard basketball program would never have had has talents again. And Casey's NBA dreams would have to be pursued elsewhere. Assuming guilt, this is the only way he can finish his Harvard education and continue to pursue his basketball games. When I say "assuming guilt", this does not mean that I am declaring him guilty, but rather that Casey is probably looking at things from a worst-case scenario perspective which, as a student-athlete, is the vantage point he has to take.
By stepping aside now, Casey has given his teammates a chance to adjust. New players have time to step up in practice now, rather than being thrown into the fire at a moment's notice. While he will certainly represent a big loss for the Crimson, at least now Harvard has a chance to plan, and the team can enjoy his talents next year.
Moreover, by the time the investigation is completed, should Casey be found guilty, he's old news whereas the other athletes (no, I do not think the scandal is only athletes) will have forced their teams to pay much steeper prices because they waited until withdrawal was forced upon them.
Somewhere down the road, Casey will be glad he made this decision at this time.
2. I appreciate someone owning up and taking the consequences rather than anonymously whining to The Crimson and threatening a lawsuit. Casey is voluntarily accepting the consequences of his actions. He messed up (assuming he did, which withdrawal seems to suggest), and he's paying for it. Pretty straightforward. He will be maligned, he will be taunted when he comes back, but eventually it will blow over. Sure, when he's discussed, years down the road, it will taint his legacy (though by what degree I don't know). But it doesn't have to define him. He's still young (or at least, I'd like to think so, since I'm only one year older). When this incident is examined in the future, people will say that Casey may have made a mistake--a bad mistake--but he assumed full responsibility and owned up to it.
3. Please don't make Kyle Casey the face of academic dishonesty. Now, I'm not trying to excuse cheating, and I'm not calling the university punishments unfair. But I would caution against the vilifying of Casey specifically. I know there are going to be people who use this incident to call into question the practice of recruiting athletes, who fault Harvard's basketball program for its academic index issues, and who are going to use this occasion to vilify athletes, particularly those in popular sports such as basketball or football. I urge people not to do that.
If Casey is guilty, he did something up to 124 other students also did. I am almost positive not all of them are athletes, and The Crimson reported that not all of them are basketball or football players. I am almost positive that cheating occurs among nonathletes in other classes, though I don't have the evidence to prove it, just things I've heard offhand. When I explained the cheating scandal to people, they commented that cheating was to be expected given the circumstances. That doesn't make it right, but I don't think this scandal is indicative only of Harvard behavior. Rather, I agree with undergraduate dean Jay Harris's statement that “This is not a unique student problem. It’s certainly not a Harvard problem. It’s a national and international problem.”
I think that's pretty well established, in fact (though I do not have exact statistics). As I recall, cheating was plentiful in the revered Harry Potter books (which I read feverishly back in the day) both in academics and in the "Triwizard Tournament". In my various internet searches I came across "The Harvard Writers" (NOT affiliated with Harvard University), a term paper service. I kept perusing the website, looking for redeeming qualities, wondering if I was mischaracterizing it as a cheating database, but it was as it appeared to be: a place where you can pay people to do your school work for you. (And if you're paying someone to write a dissertation, why are you working on a dissertation in the first place?) If cheating can be condoned in popular culture and essay writers can advertise openly on Google, the problem goes a lot deeper than Kyle Casey. It's fine with me if you want to criticize students for cheating. Just remember that a lot of other people (allegedly) did the same thing as Casey; they just aren't athletic enough to get on Sports Center for it.

Full Disclosure: I graduated from Harvard in May with a degree in Government. I was a student in Government 1310 and a four year rower. Pretty much the definition of conflict of interest.