Family Learning Channel: February 2008

Thursday, February 28, 2008

A Letter to Rolling Stone

One of the most exciting moments in my life was when I saw my name in Rolling Stone magazine. I had part of a letter I wrote to the editors published in the "Letters to RS" section regarding the magazine's recent choice of covers. I wrote the letter after Fall Out Boy had the cover, which had belonged to Panic! At the Disco the issue before. I told myself that if there was one more cover featuring one of "those" bands (despite everything I love about the magazine), I would cancel my subscription. I composed a letter to inform the editors of my feelings on the matter, and I like to think that it has since had an small effect (miniscule as it may be) on their decisions regarding who they put on their covers. Below is the letter in its entirety, unedited from when I wrote it nearly one year ago. The majority of the third paragraph is what was published. If you care to investigate, look for the issue with Pink Floyd on the cover (issue 1023 from March 22, 2007). While this may not be the best thing I have written, it is one of my personal favorites, and I have a sense of pride attached to it because . . . How many people can say they've been published in Rolling Stone?

When I pulled the March 8^th issue of Rolling Stone from my mailbox, I did a double take. I felt my heart stop for a moment, similar to the feeling one gets when they receive a nasty shock (in this case, it was seeing Pete Wentz without a shirt). Once I caught my breath, I managed a soft chuckle of contempt and disdain for the “men” on the cover.

Giving Panic! At the Disco your cover was one thing. Calling them a “rock” band was another. But stopping there wouldn’t torment me enough. So, the very next week, you give Fall Out Boy your cover. While the Guitar Gods of Feb. 22 managed to compensate you for the first aforementioned gaffe, I don’t think that even the whole Mt. Olympus team can save you from this howler (there may have been hope, had Pete kept his shirt on).

As a 17-year-old female, I am a non-consenting and rancorous member of the “Punk/Pop/Emo/Rock” scene that you, my dear RS editors, have suddenly become very interested in. By putting bands of the Panic! and Fall Out Boy sort on your cover, you show support for and advocate the type of music that I find appalling, atrocious, and down right abysmal; and quite frankly, I always thought you felt the same way. To see my favorite magazine go the way of the “12 Billion Makeup Tips” and “Hot-Boy Alert” publications is not only heartbreaking, but unexpected.

While there have been more “Wahoos!” than “Boo-hoos” as reactions to your covers since my subscription, the recent selection of cover stories has pushed me to the border of despair.

Whether you are aware of it or not, there are many bands and solo artists out there who are more worthy of your esteemed cover than the over-rated, over-played, and under-talented replacements of the Backstreet Boys and ‘Nsync. A slew of amazing actors and actresses wait with them in the ranks. Elijah Wood is more than a hobbit and a penguin, as his performance in Everything Is Illuminated clearly illustrates. Lady in the Water may have sucked, but Paul Giamatti certainly didn’t. And where the hell are the Running with Scissors and Angels in America casts? Out of these countless and remarkable acts and talents, you choose Kiefer, Fergie, Snoop, Panic!, and the Fall Out Boys.

I mean, really?

I’ll be the first to say that I don’t know the first thing about journalism, or what is required of a band or individual to make a cover story; but may I suggest that you try looking behind some corners, instead of always right in front of you at the classics and/or the biggest and best of the month? Not everything you put on your cover has to be the hottest and most popular. You’re Rolling Stone. You’re allowed to push the envelope and shine the light on those less well known (and infinitely more deserving) than some of your recent choices.

Thank you to anyone who took the time to read the entirety of this letter, as it stretched on a little longer than I had originally planned. I appreciate your time and your attention, and thank you for allowing me to enjoy an amazing magazine on a regular basis, even if the covers don’t always fit.

Your avid and loyal reader,

Sara R.

Cincinnati, OH

A Friendly Reminder

Listen to Galaxie 500.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Open Thread: How Did Brittany Spears Change Popular Culture?

Sara and I were having this discussion earlier. She didn't make any argument but she said multiple times that Brittany Spears deserves her star in Hollywood because she changed popular culture. This is an open thread. Please comment.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

A Poem

Context:

Sara: I'll buy you lunch tomorrow.

Dave: It's okay.

Sara: You have money?

Dave: Yeah, I whored myself out over the weekend while you were out of town.

Result:

While the girlfriend's away,

Boyfriend will play,

And the girlfriends pay.

Measuring the Efficiency of the National Highway System Via Google Maps

In the interests of cataloging the tremendous feats of engineering pioneered by past generations, I have taken it upon myself to conduct a short and meaningless study. It works like this:

1) Use Google Maps to plan spring break trip with significant other.

2) Pick a significantly distant city. For my study, I've used Philadelphia (to Miami University).

3) Note the drive time and quantity of turns you've been instructed to make. For my example, I got ~19.5 hours and 33 turns.

4) Now, turn on the 'Avoid Highways' option and note the drive and turn numbers again: 31 hours and 146 turns.

5) Rinse and repeat.

Some things to consider:

• Imagine highways didn't exist. How would your life be different?

• Each time a car makes a turn, it has to (essentially) stop, execute the turn, and re-accelerate. Each of these loses efficiency.

• Not all turns or merges have this qualification.

• Highways are more expensive to build and require different maintenance than surface streets.

• The speed limit is higher on highways than on surface streets.

• Congestion on highways often eliminates, at least periodically and somewhat substantially, some of their benefits.

• Cars often are more efficient at higher speeds.

• Highways are often funded federally.

• Surface streets are oftentimes more 'personal' than highways. (ie: You can't stop at a neighborhood diner on a spur of the moment when you drive on a highway unless you are previously aware of its location.)

• Some have preferences one over the other that are difficult to quantify here.

Just a thought I had.