On Tuesday, the head coach of the Tennessee football team, Derek Dooley, made a clumsy reference to his team's struggles being akin to the German reaction to the Allied invasion of Normandy, "Right now we're like the Germans in World War II. Here comes the boats, they're coming. You have the binoculars, and it's like, 'Oh, my God, the invasion is coming." He made some further comments, mentiong Patton, Rommel and the fact that the Germans were in general disarray at the start of the invasion.
First off, Derek Dooley's statements are clearly, to put it bluntly, stupid. Comparing sports and war is something best left to the realm of overly dramatic poetry and highlight reels, where the comparisons are known to be there only for dramatic effect and where they contain no specific historical references. Bringing a serious historical event into the realm of sports just doesn't make any sense. It only serves to create needless controversy, as there will undoubtedly be people offended by any kind of allusion to an event where people were killed or where core beliefs were at stake.
With that being said, what really bothers me about this whole situation is that it showcases the horrific historical ignorance that is rife in the U.S. This is seen in the reactions to the comments. In particular, two ESPN commentators who are also journalists, Tim Cowlishaw of the Dallas Morning News, and Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe. Tim Cowlishaw remarked that the comments were not only in poor taste but historically inaccurate, and Bob Ryan chipped in by boisteroisly proclaiming that "Rommel was in Africa!" At this time, I had what you might call a "face palm" moment.
In Bob Ryan's sad attempt at displaying his historical knowledge, he managed to make a fool out of himself. Yes, Rommel was the head of the Africa Korps, but by the time of D-Day, in 1944, the Germans and Italians had long since been driven out of North Africa (Axis activities there ceased in 1943). Rommel was recalled to Europe where he was a key commander in Northern France, working to improve coastal defences there. So no, Bob Ryan, he was NOT in Africa. If you are going to make a definitive statement like that you should be sure you are correct.
As for Tim Cowlishaw's general reference to "historical inaccuracies" in what Dooley said, this too is wrong. Examining Dooley's statements (which can be read here) shows no inaccuracies. He correctly mentions that the Germans were in disarray (they expected an invasion in the Calais region, which was closer to England), that Germans were looking for orders (in a general sense, as Rommel and other high ranking staffers were notably absent from the front at the time of the invasion) and also mentions the decoy tanks which Patton presided over in England in an attempt to further convince the Germans that the invasion was to occur at Calais.
What really bothers me about this sequence of events isn't so much Bob Ryan making a fool out of himself or Tim Cowlishaw incorrectly stating that Dooley got his historical facts wrong, It's that this kind of thing symbolic of a something that is commonplace in the U.S. Americans love to talk about how important history is in dramatic language (especially if it involves military history). Americans love to tout their historical knowledge as proof of their position. The problem is most Americans' historical knowledge is barely above that of a 1st grader. Most Americans couldn't tell you what year the civil war started and anything remotely specific, like Wilson's 14 points, would be met with blank stares. Americans lovingly talk of history when in reality they know nothing about it.
Don't get me wrong, I realize my view is slightly (greatly) slanted by the fact that I'm a history major. And I realize that specific historical knowledge can be something that's difficult to retain and is oftentimes pretty useless for day to day life. But if you don't know when the civil war started, and if you don't have even a general knowledge of how events transpired in the past, please do everyone a favor and refrain from acting as if you do have some kind of deep historical knowledge. In other words, keep your mouth shut, especially if you are criticizing others about something history related (here's looking at you Bob Ryan and Tim Cowlishaw).
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Musings from Numbers: Who are the Other 42?
So I'm watching TV, and during a commercial break a political ad comes on screen. It's for Ron Johnson, the Republican candidate for senate from my hometown of Oshkosh. He's competing for Russ Feingold's spot, who is one of my favorite politicians due to his voting record in the senate (one of the few senators who voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war) among other things, such as the fact that he went to UW-Madison.
So with that being said, it's safe to say that I don't like Ron Johnson, or what he stands for (a conservative businessman who would serve companies, not people, in the senate). But I have to hand it to Johnson and his team, his latest political ad is simply spectacular.
Here is a link to the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06NXxd_qrtQ
The premise is simple and effectively conveyed through the use of a white board. It also speaks directly to not only conservatives who will vote for him, but independents as well. This ad appeals to independents through their concerns about the economy, and also plays on what at times is a sort of populist distrust directed at academics and lawyers, which tends to not extend to businessmen due to the supreme belief in capitalism and its morality in this country (businessmen who are rich worked hard for what they have and are entitled to it, unlike lawyers and academics).
The commercial mentions 57 lawyers in congress, with 1 accountant. The first thing that sprang to my mind was "who are the other 42 senators?" So I decided to take a look. Here's the breakdown, by degree, via a pie chart:
As you can see, there are indeed 57 lawyers in the senate. Bachelor of Arts, MBA and Bachelor of Science and are the other three most plentiful degrees. Notably absent is the number of science degrees. Of the BS degrees, only one consisted of a natural science (biology).
But aside from a degree, what exactly did the senators with these degrees do before they became senators? Just because someone gets a degree in law doesn't guarentee they will practice law. Below is a chart showing senators by "previous experience", in other words, what was the main occupation or field they engaged in before becoming a senator. I've had to use some judgement here in making this chart, as some senators had very varied backgrounds.
The chart mirrors the situation found in the degrees, with some notable variation. In particular, there are 10 less senators with what one might consider "law experience" (e.g. an attorney at a private law firm, a district attorney, etc.) than there are those with a law degree (47 versus 57 with a JD). Likewise, while only 8 senators hold an MBA, 15 can be considered to have experience in business (e.g. an insurance executive, corporate executive, etc.).
Those with "political" as their experience are those that spent most if not all of their time after college in some sort of political capacity. Examples include being a mayor or serving on a state senate.
And again, there is a notable absence in scientists. In fact, there are no scientists, and only 1 engineer, Ted Kaufman, who when going on for further schooling did not pursue an advanced engineering degree but instead went on to earn an MBA. The 2 medical doctors present and the 1 veternarian are the next closest thing to a scientist in the senate.
And yes, it's Al Franken who is the senator with "comedy" as his previous experience.
So who are the other 42 senators? Well, they are mostly businessmen and holders of degrees in areas of the humanities. Beyond that, the rest of the senators are fairly diverse, both in previous occupation and degree.
One thing is for certain, it's a bit misleading for Ron Johnson, a businessman through and through, to talk about him being an outsider in the senate. There might not be an abundance of accountants or manufacturers (which he describes himself as both), but there are plenty of people whose primary experience is in business, as well as their primary education.
So is change needed? Do we need fewer lawyers in the senate? Maybe. Perhaps having a few more scientists, might, for example, help create more funding for science related areas. The subject of who should make up a government is a weighty one however, and I don't think I can do it justice in the closing of a blog post (perhaps in a future one.. but I still need to write about China and it's parallels to Imperial Germany, so maybe in the far future).
That being said, I know that we don't need more businessmen in congress, at least those like Ron Johnson. We don't need people whose interests are not the electorate but in corporations, or who would rather cut taxes for the super rich than the middle class (which hurts the middle class, the bedrock of any advanced, modern consumer economy).
So with that being said, it's safe to say that I don't like Ron Johnson, or what he stands for (a conservative businessman who would serve companies, not people, in the senate). But I have to hand it to Johnson and his team, his latest political ad is simply spectacular.
Here is a link to the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06NXxd_qrtQ
The premise is simple and effectively conveyed through the use of a white board. It also speaks directly to not only conservatives who will vote for him, but independents as well. This ad appeals to independents through their concerns about the economy, and also plays on what at times is a sort of populist distrust directed at academics and lawyers, which tends to not extend to businessmen due to the supreme belief in capitalism and its morality in this country (businessmen who are rich worked hard for what they have and are entitled to it, unlike lawyers and academics).
The commercial mentions 57 lawyers in congress, with 1 accountant. The first thing that sprang to my mind was "who are the other 42 senators?" So I decided to take a look. Here's the breakdown, by degree, via a pie chart:
As you can see, there are indeed 57 lawyers in the senate. Bachelor of Arts, MBA and Bachelor of Science and are the other three most plentiful degrees. Notably absent is the number of science degrees. Of the BS degrees, only one consisted of a natural science (biology).
But aside from a degree, what exactly did the senators with these degrees do before they became senators? Just because someone gets a degree in law doesn't guarentee they will practice law. Below is a chart showing senators by "previous experience", in other words, what was the main occupation or field they engaged in before becoming a senator. I've had to use some judgement here in making this chart, as some senators had very varied backgrounds.
The chart mirrors the situation found in the degrees, with some notable variation. In particular, there are 10 less senators with what one might consider "law experience" (e.g. an attorney at a private law firm, a district attorney, etc.) than there are those with a law degree (47 versus 57 with a JD). Likewise, while only 8 senators hold an MBA, 15 can be considered to have experience in business (e.g. an insurance executive, corporate executive, etc.).
Those with "political" as their experience are those that spent most if not all of their time after college in some sort of political capacity. Examples include being a mayor or serving on a state senate.
And again, there is a notable absence in scientists. In fact, there are no scientists, and only 1 engineer, Ted Kaufman, who when going on for further schooling did not pursue an advanced engineering degree but instead went on to earn an MBA. The 2 medical doctors present and the 1 veternarian are the next closest thing to a scientist in the senate.
And yes, it's Al Franken who is the senator with "comedy" as his previous experience.
So who are the other 42 senators? Well, they are mostly businessmen and holders of degrees in areas of the humanities. Beyond that, the rest of the senators are fairly diverse, both in previous occupation and degree.
One thing is for certain, it's a bit misleading for Ron Johnson, a businessman through and through, to talk about him being an outsider in the senate. There might not be an abundance of accountants or manufacturers (which he describes himself as both), but there are plenty of people whose primary experience is in business, as well as their primary education.
So is change needed? Do we need fewer lawyers in the senate? Maybe. Perhaps having a few more scientists, might, for example, help create more funding for science related areas. The subject of who should make up a government is a weighty one however, and I don't think I can do it justice in the closing of a blog post (perhaps in a future one.. but I still need to write about China and it's parallels to Imperial Germany, so maybe in the far future).
That being said, I know that we don't need more businessmen in congress, at least those like Ron Johnson. We don't need people whose interests are not the electorate but in corporations, or who would rather cut taxes for the super rich than the middle class (which hurts the middle class, the bedrock of any advanced, modern consumer economy).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)