I really appreciated all the different people that were interviewed giving their stories and thoughts. It drove home the fact that sports for young children should be fun, first and foremost. They all agreed the yelling and screaming does no good. A perfect example: The defensive coach of my son’s Pop Warner football team screamed in many of the kids’ faces, “You’re weak” as they came off the field after giving up a touchdown. It demoralized them into losing badly. Until then, they were competitive and having fun.
Reading this story also brought back memories of seeing parents fighting in the stands when I was a kid. That is the last thing you want to see when you are playing ball with your friends.
This story was not the typical “topic-of-the-day story” that I can see on TV or read in a major paper, i.e., CEOs make too much money, politicians are scammers, the housing crunch, etc. Thanks!
My name is Brittany. I was chosen for the “Say What?” column (January 10). I did not say what was printed. That is not okay with me.
The Reader regrets the error. — Editor
In response to your January 10 article titled “Global Warming in a Nutshell,” the first paragraph contains an error. It’s not global warming people deny. Global warming is happening. Global warming is good. The alternative is to slip into another ice age, which would be bad. You see, climate changes. That’s what it does. You cannot stop it — you have to simply accept it, adapt to it.
The second paragraph contains an error. The Keeling Curve and Keeling’s work in general did not show “beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans were causing carbon dioxide to increase.” It shows that carbon dioxide is increasing and says nothing of the cause. Further, as carbon dioxide continues to increase, since 1998 temperatures have at best remained somewhat constant if in fact they have not cooled off. Those wishing to continue to fool themselves regarding the fact nature dominates man, not the other way around, say that 2007 was the seventh-warmest year on record. If the planet is experiencing rampant warming, don’t you think it would be first, second, or third instead of seventh?
There are many more errors in the article. Among the worst is the claim that “polar ice sheets ‘form from snow falling on land and then being compacted.’ ” The north polar ice cap sits not on land but on the Arctic Ocean. It does not form from snow falling on land. In fact, it’s essentially too cold and dry for snow or other precipitation to fall there — the ice there forms by freezing water from the ocean, not from falling snow. And if “the snow never melts in the polar regions,” why were Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Catastrophe Alarmists (CACCA) so upset about the fact the Northwest Passage may be open again soon. Don’t worry, the last time it was, the polar bears survived. Plus they aren’t as vocal about how the north polar ice refroze at record rates this winter or about how the southern ice has been setting new records for its extent. Of course not — that tends to disprove their favorite myth — that we’re experiencing a climate catastrophe. They’re depending on it to keep us interested in their plan to create a massive transfer of wealth much like the oil-for-food program. Why? Well, when you have trillions changing hands for no good reason, who’s going to notice a billion or two that’s gone missing here or there?
Your article raises the issue of increased desertification even though geological evidence suggests that a warmer world (with the continents in their current configurations) tends to be a wetter world. More warmth tends to produce more evaporation, which in turn leads to higher humidity and greater precipitation, not less. Deserts get a boost when evaporation rates decrease, and what moisture there is available gets stored in ice and snow — like during an ice age.
Climate change is inevitable. The Earth has been warmer. It has warmed faster. Besides, warmer temperatures mean a longer thong season. How can anyone be against that?
I thought Jeff Smith and I had settled the matter of his bashing the Old Globe’s 2007 production of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. Yet here he goes again, taking a “year in review” opportunity to bash it anew (Theater Review, January 10). So again I must come to its defense.
Those who, like Jeff Smith, believe that Shakespeare wrote “problem plays” refuse to accept the vision the playwright offers because it is not grist for their mill of moral confusion and psychic ambiguity. In fact, Measure for Measure is a great (non-problem) play about the universal human effort to harmonize the apparently antithetical values of justice and mercy — great because it offers a brilliant (and yes, crowd-pleasing) resolution of the conflict.
Paul Mullins did not “cookie-cut the script as a comedy.” He bucked a hundred-year tradition of seeing problems where they aren’t — a tradition in which Jeff Smith continues to be a true believer — and with his production achieved the reconciliation Shakespeare intended the play to represent. The real enemy of Shakespeare is not the crowd but the critic’s sarcastic implication that only what threatens comedy and tidy endings is real. That Shakespeare might have been offering some insight into how to transcend those threats continues to be inadmissible in Jeff Smith’s critical universe.
In fact, the Globe’s Measure was Shakespeare for people who love productions that serve Shakespeare’s healing intentions. Jeff Smith’s review of that play, by contrast, was Shakespeare criticism for people who want Shakespeare to be doing nothing but reinforcing their own lust for unsolved problems.
My dear Jeff: If you can’t enjoy what Shakespeare meant, leave him and the people who love him alone. Go write your own damn problem play.