While on Jekyll Island in early June at the annual Georgia Press Association convention, a colleague asked a group whether we would prefer to be a member of the 21st century middle-class or among the upper class of the 19th century when Jekyll Island was in its heyday. Seeing the restored “cottages” as they called them that the likes of William Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Joseph Pulitzer and Richard Crane Jr. built on the island, one might have chosen to be in the upper-class of the late 1800s. While they may have had servants to wait on them hand and foot, yachts and mansions (their “cottages”), we all voted solidly to be in today’s middle class.
The reasoning? Air conditioning. Regardless of how many people you could afford to pay to bring you lemonade to cool you down or wave hand-held fans around you all day, it doesn’t beat the ability to sit comfortably in our temperature-controlled homes and offices during August.
The man who invented modern day air conditioning, Willis Carrier, is a genius. While most people may not know his name, it is one to remember and applaud.
As we head into August with what feels like constant 100 percent humidity coupled with 90 degree days, you can see why some historians have argued that the air conditioner was an essential pre-requisite for development in the South.
Carrier, a young engineer in the summer of 1902, was sitting in a foggy Pittsburgh train platform when he realized he could dry air by passing it through water to create fog. Doing so, according to Carrier.com, would make it possible to manufacture air with specific amounts of moisture in it.
Within a year, he completed his invention to control humidity – the fundamental building block for modern air conditioning.
Early on his invention was called a “weathermaker” and it changed the world, especially for those of us in the American South. That one invention morphed into something that allowed us, mere humans, to control the weather – at least the weather inside - by simply pushing a button or adjusting a dial. Talk about far-reaching and unexpected effects. While we’ve always been able to handle frigid north Georgia winters by warming ourselves by the wood fire, cooling down wasn’t so easy until Carrier’s invention took off.
Back in the day it was only flour mills and places like the Gillette corporation, where excessive moisture rusted the razor blades, that used Carrier’s invention. Later on, movie theatre owners figured out they could install air conditioning and it was as much of a selling point as the movies themselves. Imagine sitting in a windowless, hot, body-filled room in the summer months prior to air conditioning. Not happening and not surprisingly, most theatres shut down in the summer. Today, it’s almost essential to take a light sweater when temps inside a cinema are near-Arctic.
Thankfully for us in the South, today most everybody gets to enjoy chilled, humidity-free air inside their homes, offices and cars. It’s a luxury tycoons in the early 1900s never even imagined.
Lots of people say prolonged exposure to A/C erodes our natural ability to deal with the heat and that may be the case, especially if you talk to anyone over the age of 85 who may not have had A/C their entire lives.
Being without cool air from a vent makes us temperamental and edgy, not to mention it takes the fun out of sleeping, forcing us to toss and turn all night.
So J.P Morgan can have his yacht and mansions. We’ll take air conditioning any day because it’s the best since thing since BEFORE sliced bread.
A couple of decades ago, being involved in sports meant playing football in the backyard, pick-up basketball games or baseball with whatever you could find for bases and foul lines that depended on certain trees.
Kids played football in the fall, basketball in the winter and baseball or softball in the spring. Kids switched it up and sports was just fun and games.
The trend now is for kids to specialize in one certain sport in the hopes of garnering a college scholarship. All kids dream of being discovered by a pro scout; the difference is that now it’s the parents dreaming for the kids (and spending and driving and reordering lives) to make it more likely to happen.
Kids are starting at younger ages, joining travel sports teams as early as middle school, seeking higher-level competition so they can get better at their chosen sport. Rec. leagues alone don’t cut it if you think you are raising the next John Smoltz.
Time magazine last year reported that “kids of all skill levels, in virtually every team sport, are getting swept up by a youth sports economy that increasingly resembles the pros at increasingly early ages.” Kids sports leagues, the magazine said, has turned into a $15 billion industry.
Neighborhood little leagues, town recreation departments and church basketball squads whose goals are to bond kids together, make friends and have fun, have fallen to the wayside. Privatized team clubs have nudged them aside to eat up the money and time of athletes and their families. Fees for many travel teams cost more than a month’s house payment not to mention the cost of traveling to different towns, and occasionally other states, for competition.
At some point, it becomes simply too much time, money and effort devoted to turning a 12-year-old into a sports machine.
Quarterback great Tom Brady only started playing football as a freshman in high school. When he was a kid, he said, “There were no travel teams. My parents always exposed us to different things, different sports. It was basketball when it was basketball season. It was baseball when it was baseball season. I played a lot of soccer. There were some camps, but I just played in the neighborhood on our street with all the kids we grew up with. I’m experiencing it with my own kids (now) with all the organized activities that you put them in. It’s just hard, because all the parents are doing it, it seems, and the competition feels like it starts so early for these kids.”
Parents want to be supportive of their kids - some going as far as working a second or third job to pay for the travel and fees that allow their kids to play on these teams - and are to be commended for all they sacrifice. Some families spend more than 10 percent of their income on registration fees, travel, camps and equipment, according to Time. The child’s sport pursuit becomes the all-consuming determination of what the family does.
From the craziness of family life revolving around a 13-year-old’s sporting event, the financial obligations, the excessive competition, and simply the burnout factor, Tom Brady is right (as much as we hate to admit it): Let student athletes enjoy their childhood years with all kinds of sports in a fun, backyard environment.
The chance of a pro career is unlikely and childhood only comes once -- value the time you have with your kids.
By Christie Pool
Last week I finished season two of Amazon’s Goliath starring Billy Bob Thornton and before the final credits were rolling I was already thinking: “How could I have just invested eight hours of my life watching this?”
Like many Americans, I spend some down time plugged in to Netflix and Amazon Prime and, of course, big time sporting events like the NBA finals and the FIFA World Cup. From sporting events to comedies to dramas, we Americans like our television shows. Critics and regular viewers say streaming television is where it’s at – more so than movies – for the smartest, deepest storytelling and most nuanced and morally complex characters.
But in this golden age of television it seems every show is engaged in a race to see which can have the meanest, sickest character.
Your main character skins his rivals like Ramsay Bolton on Game of Thrones? No worries, our main character beat a stroke victim to death with an aluminum chair (Scandal) and another show’s main villain shows-off by beating one of the most popular characters to death with a barbed-wire baseball bat (The Walking Dead).
So when I realized, at the end of Goliath that I really had sat through a show where one character had a fetish with amputated stumps and another enjoyed playing surgeon, chopping off limbs of people who crossed him, I was aghast.
And to be honest, the entire premise of a show like that makes me wonder just exactly what we’re all doing watching this twisted material and what effect it might have on us? Americans watch on average five hours of TV a day (that’s a lot). And this is the stuff we’re watching? These shows I reference are among the most popular, not something you have to seek out on the dark corners of the internet. Not too long ago shows that filled our screens considered it inappropriate to show two married people sleeping in the same bed (I Love Lucy, Dick Van Dyke).
How have we gone from Leave it to Beaver and Andy Griffith to our current top shows like House of Cards (where First Lady Claire Underwood kills her own mother for voter sympathy). Game of Thrones, is filled with so many despicable acts that it would take the whole paper to detail them.
Cop shows have always been popular. And someone had to be killed for Sherlock Holmes to have a case, but television is escalating the crimes to ever more elaborately gruesome and strange. Even on shows like CSI, Criminal Minds, it’s never just a serial killer. He has to also be depraved in some outlandish way.
The best shows, the ones we want to commit to watching full seasons of, should be challenging with great performances, snappy scripts and well-developed themes. We want compelling plots that develop naturally by putting characters into a difficult or interesting situation, then allowing them to behave authentically, like real people -- even the bad guys. Why does the drug dealer go to elaborate length to torture by playing surgeon?
When we flip on our TVs we want to be entertained but we also want to be connected and fight for the hero. We love shows that inspire and characters who grow and mature, or are crazy funny and for just plain bad guys.
So give us more funny, more genuine human drama and less torture and horror.
Georgia GOP voters deciding their governor candidate have been able to cast ballots in the race for 10 days by the time this paper comes out. And they still have until July 20th to vote early before the option of showing up in person to vote on July 24th.
It’s great idea that Georgia and other states do whatever they can to make voting convenient. But it’s unclear that the efforts have paid off in any substantive gains in turnout and there are solid reasons so much early voting time is detrimental to elections.
Georgia political magazine James in their May/June issue had a well-researched article questioning whether the excessively-long early voting hurts turnout. The article noted, “While voters may find early voting more convenient, turnout data show that early voting may actually decrease turnout, not increase it.”
Making voting so easy, like picking up a gallon of milk, makes it seems trivial. In the words of Revolutionary-era pamphleteer Thomas Paine, “that we obtain too easily we esteem to lightly.”
The James article by Hans von Spakovsky reported that Texas was the first state to adopt early voting in 1988. Thirty-seven states now offer some form of early voting.
A study from American University looked at the 2008 presidential election. The 2008 turnout was up 2.4 percent over the 2004 election. But seven of the 13 states with the highest turnouts had no form of early voting and 10 of 12 states that saw a decline in participation had some form of early voting. The magazine notes a similar study in 2013 from the University of Wisconsin came to the same conclusion -- states offering convenience voting don’t see much, if any, participation benefit.
In Pickens County, early voting totals are generally below election day totals. In the spring primary, 3,160 waited until election day, while 1,917 cast early ballots. The highest number to vote on any single early voting day was 243 (the last day of early voting), while several days saw only about 85 people voting early during the primary. Our local election office says in a presidential election, more people will cast early ballots (almost equal to the number of election day voters), possibly out of fear of lines on election day. It should be noted that there are 12 regular polling places open on election day and only one early voting location, meaning the lines can be longer for early voting than on election day, when we are spread out across the county.
Aside from the cost of running the early polls, there are real problems we see in the long voting period. The extra days throw off mobilization attempts by candidates and public groups. When do you run your best ads or most urgent appeal? When do you rally your troops? At the start of early voting or right before election day? If you wait on election day, then a sizeable chunk of ballots have already been cast and you miss those voters entirely.
On the other hand, the extended voting time makes the election drag on too long and voter apathy increases as people tire of hearing the campaign news/ads every day from the start of early voting to election day. The constant cycle may leave voters ignoring campaign appeals entirely and fewer voters participating out of a backlash to the intended convenience.
A related problem is when news develops between the time early ballots are cast and the final count. Once a vote is cast it is cast. You can’t change it later if something really earth-shattering comes to light. An example cited by James magazine was in 2016, GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio dropped out of the race a week before the Arizona primary. He still finished third as many people had already cast ballots.
The James article concluded by quoting the American University poll saying the lack of voter participation is a real problem but “it’s not procedural, it’s motivational.”
We do recognize that many people need a couple of chances to get to the polls but surely a week of early voting, including the Saturday prior to election, is sufficient.
By Angela Reinhardt
My father-in-law was at my house a few days ago, telling stories like he likes to do. He reminisced about a guy most people know as “Smiley.”
This “Smiley” character was the latest in a War and Peace-sized list of nicknames I’d heard him and others bring up over the years, so many so that I wondered if anyone here went by their birth name. Monikers on the list include: Codeye, Birdhead, Tiny, Slapface (also referred to as “Ol” Slapface), Lager, Squirrel, Lambhead, Doodle, Sod, Brush, Red, Buzz, Hutch, and on and on. My father-in-law has two himself.
I didn’t recall the nickname phenomenon where I grew up, or within my own family for that matter. Was this a regional thing? A rural thing? And why don’t I have one?
The issue is explored in an episode of Cartoon Network’s Uncle Grandpa. Uncle Grandpa, a magical grandpa who travels the world helping people, lands his flying RV in a neighborhood and kids gather. He goes down the line excitedly high-fiving “Larry Picture,” “Blondie,” “Duck Head Tony,” “Spaghetti Legs,” and gets to the boy at the end.
“And who are you?” Uncle Grandpa asks.
“No, I meant your nickname.”
Eric lowers his head despondently.
“Oh that. I don’t have one.”
The downtrodden Eric said he guessed he’s too boring to have a nickname.
Uncle Grandpa dished out some wisdom. He tells Eric he can’t just get a nickname.
“You gotta' earn it,” he says. “You have to do something legendary.”
You also can’t give yourself one.
I agree some nicknames are the result of legendary acts (i.e. “The Great Bambino,”), but the origins of a nickname are many and varied. They range from commentary on physical traits (“Curly” for someone with curly hair); to ironic nicknames for physical traits (“Shorty” for someone who is tall), to riffs on occupation (“Bones” for a doctor), and many others.
[Note: Some don’t count. Occasionally I’m referred to as “Ang” or “Reinhardt,” but variations on your name don’t cut the mustard].
While a legendary act might not be required to get your own, Uncle Grandpa is still onto something, the certain sine qua non that nicknames have.
In his book The Means of Naming, author Stephen Wilson says nicknames are common in small groups or communities where they can represent a hierarchy of power in which it “more than any other type of personal name reflects the social power the namer holds over the named,” or that they can “stigmatize anything uncommon – heritage, accent, appearance, attitudes.” But nicknames also exist in a friendly, affectionate sense, and are used respectfully and signal membership into a group.
All of this makes sense. I’d argue most people get their nickname in high school or college, or in tight-knit groups like the military. They are also a decidedly a male phenomenon and seem to have a strong relationship to hazing.
Still, I’ve lamented not having my own. Maybe I’m boring like Eric. I wrote an article about biscuits last year and friends called me “Biscuit” a couple times, but it didn’t stick. Another friend called me “Tangelo” one night several years ago, but that one didn’t stick either.
I was discussing this at the office and a guy who helps us deliver papers on Wednesday (and who goes by ‘Big-D’) said, “Oh, no. We all call you ‘Rhino.’”
For a split-second I got excited at the thought of having a nickname I didn’t know about. I was in the club!
Then he told me, “No, not really.”
Oh well. But for all you lucky folks out there, all you Maddogs and Papa Smurfs and Bruisers, enjoy being part of a chummy subculture me, and many others, may never know.
(really trying to make this one stick)