Burnettiquette

Cheese and Crackers!

According to a new study, swearing can give you a higher tolerance for pain.

Lots of theories abound, but the one that makes the most since to me is that most people who are on a sincere swearing fit are amped up when they're doing it. And maybe the elevated heart rates drive up adrenaline levels or something, lowering your sensitivity to pain.

And in case someone slow is reading this, by "sincere" I don't mean good or pure or any of those other secondary definitions. I'm talking about people who swear and mean it.

I try to maintain a clean tongue, and I'm not always successful at it. But I still have some catching up to do. If I want to be pain free, "fudge it," and "son of a biscuit eater" ain't gonna work anymore.

One question though: does this cussing-dampens-pain theory apply to internal pain too, like sadness, heartbreak, etc? I'm gonna guess not.

BTW, follow me: http://twitter.com/jamesburnett.

So,

Miss California, Perez Hilton, Gay Marriage & Honesty

If you were one of the 295 million Americans who did not watch the Miss USA Pageant on NBC Sunday night, then you missed a sparkler of an incident that has since been blown up to a full fireworks show.

Celebrity-gossip blogger Perez Hilton, a pageant judge, was tasked with asking a question of one of the five finalists. He drew Carrie Prejean, Miss California.

Hilton's question was "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

Prejean's answer was "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman."

Hilton was clearly disappointed in Prejean's answer. Some members of the audience even booed (shame on them). And Prejean ultimately was runner up to Miss North Carolina who won the pageant.

Later Hilton referred to Prejean as "a dumb bitch" for her answer and said that had she won the Miss USA title he'd have stormed the stage and ripped the tiara from her head.

I'm gonna say this several times, so pay attention: This spat is not about gay marriage or any other civil rights debate.

In a softball interview with Larry King tonight, Hilton insisted he had no regrets, insisted that Prejean's was the dumbest answer in pageant history, insisted that Prejean's answer was the wrong answer, insisted that he didn't want Prejean's opinion but rather the answer a representative of all Americans would have given, and tried to spin the controversy into a referendum on gay marriage and civil rights.

News Flash: Several News Flashes:

• When you ask someone an opinion, there is no right or wrong answer to the question. Unless you ask the question with pre-conditions on the answer then you risk receiving an answer that you might not like.
• Miss California did absolutely nothing wrong. She gave an honest answer to a straight-forward question. Whether her answer was popular or not is a different issue altogether.
• Hilton told Larry King how he would have answered the question. But Hilton wasn't a Miss USA contestant, so how he would have answered the question doesn't matter.

Again, this isn't about gay marriage rights. Beneath the hype the reaction to Prejean's answer by Hilton and the numbnuts in the audience who booed her is the latest example of dishonesty by some folks who say they want an open dialogue with people who are different than them.

Hilton's logic to Larry King was that Miss USA represents the whole USA and that Prejean's answer made it clear she wouldn't have represented gay people if she'd won. The Miss USA Pageant is a for profit business. So had she won, Prejean would have been representing the entity paying her bills: the pageant.

Hilton's logic in this case makes him no different from the yahoos who insist that Barack Obama isn't their president because they didn't vote for him. Al Gore supporters said the same about George Bush. But I digress.

One more time: this Miss USA mess is not about gay marriage.

It's about being able to swallow the fact that sometimes no matter how strongly you feel about something, some folks just are not going to agree with you.

But let's not think this sort of passive aggressiveness is limited to debates about sexual orientation. I've seen people on all sides of race relations debates say they want to talk, talk, talk, talk, talk...until the person they're listening to offers an opinion different than their own. Then they want to flip out.

Same goes for "national conversations" about religion, abortion, and capital punishment, to name a few topics.

After Hilton's harsh words for Miss California, who uttered not one negative word to or about him or gay people in general, he later apologized for calling her "a dumb bitch," explaining that he was so angry 'cause he felt she was so wrong...for having her opinion. He also invited her to coffee, presumably to explain to Prejean the error of her ways.

If you want something advocate for it. Make a case. You're either gonna convince the majority and/or the authorities, or you're not.

In the meantime, it's been my experience that the best way to convince someone that your opinion counts more than theirs is not to call them "a dumb bitch." If I ask a stranger if he approves of me being ebony and Mrs. B being ivory and he answers "no," I can't get mad at the answer. I can get angry over my belief that the stranger is closed-minded. But calling him a Nazi or something and berating him for being stupid pretty much guarantees that he will never hear me out and will never give consideration to my opinion.

So let this be a lesson: don't ask questions of strangers if you've already made up your mind what their answer should be.

That's not to say that you can't try to persuade those strangers that you're right and they're wrong. But that's another post on another day. For now, let's turn this "national conversation" into a real multi-directional chat, and not a pout fest.

Oh, and the real dumbest pageant answer ever? A tie between the following:

• Miss Arizona's response Sunday night to being asked if universal healthcare should be a right of citizenship in the U.S. - "I think this is an issue of integrity, regardless of which end of the political spectrum I stand on. I've been raised in a family to know right from wrong, and politics, whether or not you fall in the middle, the left, or the right, it's an issue of integrity - whatever your opinion is. And I say that with the utmost conviction."
• and Miss Teen South Carolina 2007's response to being asked why she thought a fifth of Americans couldn't locate the U.S. on a map - "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so… because… uh…some … people out there in our nation don’t have maps and…. uh, I believe that our, ah, education like such as… in South Africa, and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like…such as… and I believe that they should, uh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., or should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries… so we will be able to build up our future…for our children.”

BTW, follow me at http://twitter.com/jamesburnett. 

Kanye West has been cured!

And all it took was a cartoon.

I'm not a celebrity hater. But I do believe some of them are not familiar with the philosophy: to whom much is given much is required.

About those who've forgotten, I ask: how often have you seen an insanely egotistical celebrity act out in public so much that they make you wanna hate them, in spite of their talent?

Say, all the time?

How often do you see such a person called out for his behavior?

Not often enough.

So it was frickin' hilarious last night when South Park went after rapper/producer/fashionisto Kanye West with a punchline involving West not getting a nationally popular joke about a gay fish. At the end of the episode, West "sees the light," ackowledges that he actually is a gay fish and not human. The episode closes with West rapping like Sponge Bob on the ocean floor and making out with a male fish that he finds sexy.

If none of this sounds funny to you, the back story is that in recent months, as he's added fashion designer and fashionisto to his repertoire, West and his entourage have dressed in public a number of times like a bunch of dandies.

Dandy isn't a gay bash. I've been called dandy. But I've been called dandy the way Bertie Wooster was called dandy: for wearing pocket squares with my neck ties, or wearing brightly colored socks with a bow tie.

West and his crew have dressed in a manner that would fairly be called feminine: Think Steven Tyler meets Steve Urkel meets Pete Burns meets Alex Vanderpool.

Anyway, some not so bashful fashion critics have said that rather than being innovative in their dress, West and his crew appear to be trying too hard to mimic how they think gay men dress.

The result has been repeated and increasingly angry denials on West's part that he's gay.

Of course, his denials have just fueled critics to take even more digs at him. Most of those digs have had nothing to do with West's sexual orientation though. Most have been about his incredibly huge ego and occasional rash of hoof-in-mouth disease.

So all that leads to question number three: How often have you heard of an egotistical celebrity getting his comeuppance and expressing humility from it?

Can't speak for you. But my answer is never!

Until now.

Following last night's South Park, West was so humbled that he took to his blog and said the episode hurt his feelings but was funny and was something he deserved. Surprisingly, he even has a YouTube copy in his blog post of the "Gay Fish" music video "he" made in the South Park episode last night. He went on to insist that he's making a genuine effort to subdue the ego. He apologized for having spent so much time talking publicly about how great he thinks he is, and said he plans to let his music speak for itself and the public decide for itself.

Maybe there's hope for Hollywood yet!

Friendliness vs. Nosiness

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but for at least the third time in the past week or so I encountered a stranger who asked too many questions.

In keeping with my total sellout to technology that has not improved my life in any way I Tweeted about this earlier today.

Anyway, when I meet a friendly stranger I expext the first minute or so of conversation to consist of "hello" and some small talk about weather or the economy or the Miami Heat or the Dolphins...or the lovely headline on the Miami Herald I'm reading when the stranger says hi.

After that, if the conversation carries on another 10 or 20 or 30 minutes it can get gradually more personal if both parties are comfortable with it.

Those are the unwritten - except for here - rules, right? They're reasonable, no?

So why last weekend when I was browsing the clearance rack at my favorite top secret men's clothier, did a guy approach and overdo it?

And no, Sarcasticynic, before you even speculate, he wasn't hitting on me.

He started with hello, followed not 10 seconds later with "nice sun glasses," followed not 10seconds after w/ you live around here?" And so on.

In the course of three minutes he wanted to know where I lived, rent or own, what I did for a living, what my wife did...

I dodged some of the questions but eventually had to stop him and ask questions of my own: Do I know you? Why are you asking so many personal questions? Are you writing a book? If so could you leave out the chapter about me? You a cop?

He seemed flustered and hinted that he was slightly offended at my reaction to his frielndliness. I thought he crossed the bound of friendliness.

What do you think?

I learned later my instincts were sorta on. Turns out he was feeling me out to see if I might be interested in selling Amway or bowling balls or vacuum cleaners or something.

It happened again, minus the sales pitch, a couple days later in the grocery, and then again a couple hours ago at the dog park. This morning the "offender" wanted to know my neighborhood, street, rent/own status, and what state I'm from, among other things. This was all in about one minute's time.

I don't think I'm overreacting.

Friendliness is like flirting: gotta go slow or you're gonna spook the object of your attention.

Community Outrage: Same old song

I have mad respect for the Miami Police Department, and any other law enforcement agency making an effort to do its job. And I would never speak disrespectfully of an honest, legitimate, member of the clergy.

But frankly, I'm not that interested in what either has to say about the latest violent crime tragedy to hit Miami. Last week, nine people hanging out, playing dice in an uptown neighborhood were gunned down by a masked man - or woman; who knows, since a mask was worn? - toting an AK-47.

Two teenagers died from their injuries. The gunman is still at large.

I understand the political and practical reasons for why the police want assault weapons bans. And I understand why the clergy led marches, and public prayers, and called on the government to help fix things with jobs, and better housing, and programs for idle youth.

And there's nothing wrong with any of that stuff. Far be it from me to tell the clergy to stop with the activism. Without activist clergy there may have never been a Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. back in the day. And far be it from me to tell the police they're wrong about assault weapons. I love my guns. But then again, I have enough good sense that I wouldn't use 'em for any reason but self defense or target practice.

Never say never, right? I could be so broke and desperate one day that I feel armed robbery is my only way out, right? That'd be good logic, except this shooting wasn't about robbery. Neither are most like it.

For the umpteenth time, the solution to this kind of senseless violence is old-school home training.

The clergy here is demanding that gunmen stop it, programs be created, and and neighbors come forward.

What about demanding that parents and legal guardians of these kids - and yes, many of these gunmen turn out to be kids or barely older - start manhandling them and putting them on a regimine and getting in their face when they break a small rule, so they don't break a big one later?

Yeah, "the system" is bad, and people are poor and increasingly desperate, and kids are rasing kids, etc. Nevertheless, money and a better "system" won't stop this stuff. The idea that nicer housing and more money for all will end violent criminal behavior is nuts.

I recall, when I was a crime writer back in the day, visiting the home of a 15-year-old murder victim - a girl who'd been shot and dumped out of a car at like 3 a.m. - and sitting down with her mom.

My heart ached for the family. But mom, in spite of her grief, wanted to know when the system would change. She had lots of opinions on the horrible world around us.

And I didn't disagree with her. But when I asked her if she knew why her 15-year-old was out of the house at 3 a.m. on a week night (or any night, for that matter), she replied to the effect that she didn't know and assumed maybe the girl was with friends. Assumed?

Old-school home training dictates that girl should have been at home, in bed, sleeping in preparation for school the next day. That sort of governance is free and can be imposed a hell of a lot faster than change to "the system."

I covered another homicide, in which an 11-year-old girl visiting her grandmother and minding her own business, was struck in the head by a stray bullet and killed. Where'd the bullet come from? A young man and his buddies on the street outside her home. He and his pals were running down the street chasing another young man, guns blazing. Thirty-three shots were fired in that barrage. And those crooked-shooting fools didn't even hit the guy they were aiming at, if I remember right. Instead they killed the girl, a couple of parked cars, and some vinyl siding.

But here's the best part. Once captured, the gunmen, who are all in prison today, told police that they were chasing the other guy and shooting at him, because they "thought" he "might" have been involved in the shooting of one of their friends at a party the night before. It gets better, actually. At least one of these fools offered police a different motivation: that their intended victim had stepped on one of their girlfriend's expensive shoes at the party, the night before, and scuffed the shoe. They didn't like his attitude and didn't think his apology was sincere enough. So their solution to this injustice was to shoot and presumably kill him.

That, my friends, was not an action that was caused 'cause these young men didn't have jobs or a nice home. That was an action that resulted from these young men growing up in a way that left them with no respect for human life. Again, respect is free.

I want to round up local clergy and tell them that they don't have to stop fussing at killers, authorities and government officials, and neighbors who bite their tongues when they've witnessed crime. But maybe they should start using their pulpits to also fuss at the people raising violent killers. Point a few fingers and ask parents when was the last time they did homework with their kid and whether they know where their kids are at night. They might lose a few parishioners at first, but in the end, even the people who leave the church will be better off for having heard the blunt truth.

Home training. It's good for what ails ya.

Airing of Grievances

In the spirit of Festivus, I have a few things to get off my chest.

Yes, I want my neighbor to quit blasting Freebird from his pickup truck everyday when he arrives home from work. And yes, I want a certain co-worker who loves nature to start loving deodorant. And it is true that I'd like to get hit up less for coin when I walk to the Starbucks down the block from my house. And there is no doubt that I wish my one buddy would quit pretending to be straight and just come out of the closet. And I'm annoyed that a copy editor misspelled my name on an article I wrote last week.

But most of all, I wish Mrs. B would be less tolerant.

No, I'm not asking for my wife to become a jerk. But she is too nice.

That's a cliche, right? We've all heard it, and we've probably all applied it to someone we know.

But niceness is like any other meld of attitude, emotion, and behavior, including sternness, anger, etc.: there can be too much of it.

Mrs. B is so nice that at times she inadvertently becomes an apologist to mean people, justifying her nice behavior to them, while they sulk without cause.

We were just at the dog park with Dog B., and we encountered a mean guy whose overly aggressive dog was pissing off a couple of other dogs, including Dog B., and the other dogs were starting to snarl at his overly aggressive dog to tell that dog to back off. That dog's owner was slow to act, risking an all out doggy rumble. Plus he had a foul attitude. So I called him out, and that made him angrier. And Mrs. B tried to shoosh me, embarrassed that I was snapping on the guy. But you know what? His anger subsided, or he subdued it, and it was replaced with sheepishness. And he got his dog under control.

Mrs. B, ever the diplomat, proceeded to say nice things to calm the situation.

But sometimes that's not the nicest thing to do. Mean people must be checked. And sometimes you have to growl at 'em to check 'em 'cause it's the only language they understand. If you let them go unchecked they won't learn anything.

Plus, mean people have a tendency to be so blind to their own behavior and attitude that if you're too nice to them, they grow accustomed to it and in a weird way start to feel entitled to it. Seriously, too nice equals expected coddling.

When I was 16 and in driver's ed, my instructor was a jerk and a bully. He picked on everyone and regularly tried to humiliate people. Out of habit, when he addressed me I always answered him sir - yes sir, no sir, etc. It was something my dad had required of me since I was a kid. Don't suppose that had anything to do with the military atmosphere?

Anyway, the other kids all answered this instructor yep, nope, yes, no, or with shrugs and nods and shakes of the head. He never said a word to anyone about how we talked to him until the day that I answered him yes, not yes sir, but plain old yes. Know what he did? He pulled me in front of the class and demanded that I say "yes sir" to him. When I asked why, he said because it's what I had always done, and he didn't want it to stop. So I stood my ground. Since he'd called me on the carpet in front of the class, I told him in front of the class that he was a bully who hadn't earned the "sirs" I'd given him before and that until he started showing me some respect he wouldn't get anymore from me, regardless of his age and gray hair. He stopped bullying me after that. He still bullied some of the kids in my class, but not me.

I know Jesus reportedly turned the other cheek. But I turned all four of mine a long time ago. Now, just like I pick and choose my battles, I pick and choose when to present a humble front to a mean person and when to give 'em a dose of their medicine...in a nice way of course.

That's what I want for Mrs. B. She's too nice and has earned the right to answer mean people in kind and do it with no apologies.

Happy Festivus!

Iraqi Shoe-thrower

You know the story. An Iraqi journalist hurled his brogans at Pres. Bush a few days ago.

I've seen all the late night jokes. Some of 'em even made me laugh.

But even though I haven't been a fan of the outgoing president's work, this whole incident bugged me.

I mean no disrespect to the office of the presidency, when I make this analogy: But I view elected officials like my siblings in the sense that I can snap at my sibling and say things and do things to get under my sibling's skin that you can't do. And if you tried to do or say those things to my sibling, I'd strongly rebuke you. May even knock you the hell out, and my displeasure with you wouldn't necessarily be about the reasons you were angry with my sibling. We may agree on the reasons. But my sibling. Leave the scolding to me.

When I lived in Sicily as a kid, just outside Palermo, young Sicilians with whom I became friends, would make anti-American jokes. They'd poke fun of the sailors and airmen stationed on nearby U.S. Naval and Air Force bases. They'd dog the servicemen's uniforms and pick on their funny haircuts. The thing is I'd poked fun at the servicemen too. I'd made cracks about the haircuts, and so on. But my young Sicilian friends? They were knocking these guys and making more generalized anti-American jokes even as they bragged about the summer homes their parents were able to buy in Taormina, thanks to lucrative contracts they'd signed for work on those military bases.

My own sister and I did it. She's five years older than me. And when I was a kid and she was a slightly older kid she and my older cousin who lived with us at the time would torture me mercilessly. You think of the cruel nickname; they used it on me. I don't think it's a stretch to say that my sister and cousin bullied me. They won't mind me saying so. It's true. But it probably helped toughen me up.

But I digress. My point is when some other kid, some kid who wasn't family, tried to jump in the fray and bully me, my sister and cousin would put that kid in check and tell him things to the effect of "We know James is a snot nose and has cooties, but he's not your brother. We'll deal with him."

Goofy? Yes. But I'm sure you get my point. If that journalist dude wanted to yell at President Bush or stage a protest outside the hall where the president spoke, fine. But even if we weren't all informed that in Arab cultures tossing shoes is a put-down, I'd still have seen that journalist's shoe-toss as out of line.

Unpopular or not, I give Pres. Bush a few points on this one. I think I might've tried to force that guy to eat those shoes.

Diversified Holiday Guest List

I couldn't make this up if I wanted to.

According to Gawker, clients of a certain anonymous New York public relations firm have been ordering the firm to find "desirable" black people to attend their holiday parties this year, because they - the clients - are predicting that black folks will be the new, cool party accessory (as opposed to Scotty dog sweaters or mistletoe) thanks to...the election of Barack Obama.

Seriously, they're calling it the "Diversified Holiday Guest List."

I suppose there are worse ways to get invited to a party, like to cook, or serve drinks, or park cars.

But what I'd like to know is why I'm not on this list. I mean I'm not saying I should be top 10. But hell, there's a journalist on their top 10 list. I could fill that spot.

So if you're a highfalutin' New York company...perhaps with offices in Miami and you need a black person for your over-the-top holiday party, I'm for rent. And I'm an ideal choice for the following reasons:

1. I'm pretty, waaaaay prettier than I'm given credit for usually.
2. As long as the sun is up, white people don't fear me, except for that one time...
3. I own at least two pairs of calf-skin cap-toed shoes that are fit for a banker.
4. I have a collection of pocket squares that admirably compliments my collection of neckties. And I know how to knot a bow-tie - no clip-ons for me.
5. I'm aware that those squat glasses in which Cognac and other throat-warming spirits are served are called snifters.
6. I read the New Yorker, and I don't believe for a minute the allegation made on Family Guy that people who work at the New Yorker are missing an orifice.
7. I wasn't raised in poverty or turmoil, but I can pretend I was for the sake of conversation.
8. I've never been arrested, and I've never been ticketed for anything but parking violations.
9. I've never appeared on a reality TV show, especially not one whose burning question was "Is he or isn't he the father?" or "Was he born a man?"
10. And I do know the secret handshake, but I promise not to use it in your presence.

There's love n the air between Democrats & Republicans

I forgot to post sooner the article I had in yesterday's paper.

Dogs and Dinner

Big props to Mrs. B as we walked our dog this evening.

During one particular stretch of the stroll, where we passed through a busy block of downtown in our fair city, she had control of Leo the Lab/Pointer's leash. And we had to pass through a gauntlet of other strollers, diners, drinkers, etc.

A bunch of the places have sidewalk tables set up.

And as we started to pass the tables, Mrs. B moved to the middle of the sidewalk to keep Leo, who is still being taught manners, from getting too friendly.

Not a big deal, you say?

Tell me that next time some clueless dog walker's otherwise cute pooch gets on its hind legs and in your face, as you're trying to eat at a sidewalk table, and the only response you can get from the dog's owner is a burst of inexplicable pride, a stupid grin, and a lame attempt at a pun like "Wiggles must really like what you're eating!"

I speak from experience, my friends.

So, yes, I'm biased. But Mrs. B gets props. Common courtesy is not dead. And no sidewalk diner's food was corrupted by fur or dog breath on our account today.