I saw an interesting report about the costs of college sports on the PBS program Need to Know tonight. According to the report, the football coach at the University of Alabama earns 6 million a year, more than twice the salary of the nation’s highest paid college president. The Men’s Basketball Coach at the University of Connecticut is the highest paid employee in the state. These are both public universities, by the way.
That, alone, is shocking. It is often argued that the sports teams bring in revenue in ticket sales and merchandise licensing, but people buy plenty of merchandise from colleges that don’t play in the big tournaments. It’s also argued the sports teams bring in exposure, but Harvard and Yale don’t field NCAA teams and they seem to have little trouble attracting students. Ultimately, if a potential student has a choice between a really prestigious school that places graduates in great jobs and and a college well known for athletics, I dare say, most would pick the college that offers the better job prospects.
When I was growing up we traveled often as a family for vacations and weekends. We had a camper and took it to all kinds of interesting places, frequently our nation’s national parks and historic monuments. I remember fascinated by the history I learned visiting the birthplace of George Washington, the Yorktown Battlefield and National Cemetery, the battlefields of Gettysburg, the birthplace of Booker T. Washington, the Capitol Building, the Lincoln Memorial and so many others. Frequent visits to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Blue Ridge Parkway or the Smoky Mountains awakened my fascination with the natural wonders of the world, and the visitor centers, trails or markers were as good as any classroom. I was an inquisitive boy, so I took home the free brochures maps and field guides from these places to study more, and begged my parents, more often than not successfully, to buy me the books in the gift shops that I could read at home.
I learned a lot about our nation’s history and the natural world this way, it seems like as much as I did in school. I don’t remember being taught about Booker T. Washington before college. That’s not to say I wasn’t, but I don’t remember it like I do the visit to his birthplace. We must have learned about Thomas Jefferson, but I don’t remember that, either and my virtual obsession with him sprang out of a family visit to Monticello. While visiting the Smoky Mountains I was first exposed the the tragedy of the Native Americans and the horrors of incidents like the Trail of Tears. Most of these parks had not entry fee, paid for entirely with tax dollars. That meant that we could and would, explore something on on a whim. If it was a rainy day and we had planned to do something outside, we could tour a historic mansion, instead. In addition to the National Parks and Historic Places, there was a whole other network of state parks and sites operated by non-profits that were also free.
More recently an increasing percentage of these sites have imposed an entry fee. People want low taxes, budgets are small, and government at all levels from local to national is practicing austerity. Fee for service became a model for a lot of what government does in the 1980s, and it has been that way since. It makes sense on a certain level. Why should those of who never have any intention of visiting one of these sites pay for their upkeep and for providing services there? In fact, these properties are part of our national heritage. We, as a people, have decided that these places are an important part of our history and they need to be preserved. They are monuments that need to be visible to our fellow citizens and the world to remind us of our common heritage and who we are as a people. The White House has offered to cut $105 million from the budget of the National Park Service, and the Republican’s want more.
I wanted to post this review on Flixster, but it got too long, so here it is in its entirety.
I was bowled over by every aspect of Julie and Julia. It was masterfully directed, well staged, well costumed, well lit, etc. Meryl Streep at her worst is pretty damn good and in this she is at her best. It is great fun to see her play Julia Child, such a larger than life personality. The rest of the cast turns in rather outstanding performances as well. Jane Lynch is brilliant in her brief appearance as Julia’s sister.
That said, what I really want to talk about here, is the narrative. The biographical narrative of Julia Child is definitely the more engaging story, but it weaves together nicely with Julie Powell‘s story and the film becomes a nice study by contrast of both characters.
Though she embarks on her project several decades later, Julie is essentially a foil for Julia. I don’t know whether it made me appreciate Julia’s perseverance even more or it just made me marvel at just how spoiled, self-indulgent and impatient Julie, and let’s face it, her generation, present company included, is.
Julia is an older woman taking years to realize the dream of publishing a cookbook, one that had phenomenal cultural impact, to be sure, but she didn’t know that at the time. Julie also publishes a book, but she does so by literally following the directions set down by Julia. Both began their quest because they had reached a point where they were floundering and bored with their careers. Both succeed with the support of patient, loving husbands, but Julia spent years trying to convince publishers her project was valid. Her fate was in the hands of others. Julie picked up a computer and started a blog. The public decided its validity.
So Julie’s quest takes only a year, yet even then her frustration level is so high she almost gives up over something as simple as a dropped dish. The crises Julie encounters are small, mole hills made into mountains. Julia’s crises are mountains but she treats them like mole hills. She has breakdowns, but those that she has are over major traumas, such as the realization that she won’t be a mother in spite of her deepest desires. And yet her reaction on screen looks very much like the reaction Julie has over a ruined dish.
It is such an unbelievably poignant moment because we sense that her heart is cracking, but that she is bearing it stoically, pulling it back together like the omelet in the scene so often shown in the previews for the movies. These are private crises, shared only by her and her husband. They are the only ones in the kitchen and only they will know what happened!
So many critics have been critical of the film because they find Julie’s story less compelling than Julia’s and thus that the film is slower and less fun in those parts. I share that assessment. But I don’t think the sole purpose of the film is to entertain. Nora Ephron twined the stories together that way for a reason and it is part of what makes the film so compelling. Julie Powell knew she was following in Julia Child’s footsteps, and that is why she made the butter offering to the portrait of Julia in the end. Fibroids are common in women during their reproductive female viagra pills years. Both of these forms of pain is the http://appalachianmagazine.com/2017/11/24/old-time-appalachian-tradition-superstitions-in-child-birth/ female viagra uk body’s way of saying that acid contents are excess in the stomach. The nerves in lower back are the part of the MRP of the medicine. canada sildenafil loved that As we all know the saying that it is never really suggested to be with the problem of ED generic cialis no rx appalachianmagazine.com to act in response to sexual stimulation.
