Leftovers: All Aboard The Reading Terminal

• OMG The Reading Terminal was open yesterday! Y’know, though, I’ve always felt a Reading Terminal without the Pennsylvania Dutch wasn’t really a Reading Terminal at all. [Inquirer]

• OMG again! Phawker launches! With a big drawing of Napoleon Dynamite. And a promise to “be as dogged as the Daily News… as reliable as the Inquirer, as never-ending as KYW and as fast as stoopid TV news, faster even[.]” Phew, I was worried they were going to talk up their website or something. [Phawker]

• A Winslow, New Jersey man was sentenced to 18 months in prison for lewdness. So what’d Terrell Tucker do? Oh, nothing but masturbating in front of a 14-month-old (while her mother was cooking lunch, which is the oddest detail to include). The Assistant Camden County prosecutor said the only time he wasn’t facing lewdness charges since he was a kid was when he was in custody. Ah. [Camden Courier Post]

• What the hell is this? Dammit, when did Slate become the worst website in the universe? [Slate]

• It’s Monday. Here are some beagle-Jack Russell terrier mutts. Etc., Etc. [Daily Puppy]

Christmas In July

Put my column about snowflakes smack dab in the dead of summer, please!

Is Every Snowflake Different? [Slate]
Related: Philly Pops Christmas Concert Tickets Go On Sale

Sam Anderson For President (Or At Least Governor Of Minnesota)

It wasn’t as mean as I would have liked it to be, but this Slate piece about Garrison Keillor is fantastic. (As you can tell, you don’t really need to do much to get my vote.)

A Prairie Home Conundrum [Slate]
With apologies to the frequent commenter and college pal of mine who likes Keillor and has probably seen the new Prairie movie five times already.

Philadelphia is the New Lancaster

Last Wednesday in USA Today there was an article about how hip, young urban twentysomethings are leaving the city for rural areas.

It’s a trend story, which means it has to be taken with a grain of salt. They usually make big assumptions and use a small number of people to represent the whole. There’s nothing wrong with that — it’s journalism, after all, not science — but you just have to approach it knowing what you’re getting. (As a writer, I’ve always tried to avoid expanding my small interviews into taking on a larger issue, with varied success.) I came upon this story from Slate’s Jack Shafer, who wrote about it in his “Bogus Trendspotting” feature.

The weird thing was, the bogus trendspotting in this one wasn’t just the usual making-large-claims-out-of-small-data fallacy. No, those rural areas people are moving into? They’re cities like Philadelphia:

Young, single people usually love the excitement of big cities, from the vibrant nightlife to the noisiness and frenzied pace of urban existence. They love it so much they’re willing to pay a stiff price for cramped quarters and communal living.

For some, the price is getting too steep. The draw of the bright lights and big cities is dimming now that housing costs have hit exorbitant heights. Some who grew up fantasizing about life in the “big city” are settling in less glamorous cities and even suburbs. [...]

Philadelphia, sometimes the butt of jokes for its lack of cachet compared with nearby New York, is being marketed by some former residents of the Big Apple as the “next borough.” It is attracting small numbers of artsy young people from expensive neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

They also mention the movetophilly.com people, making it, essentially, a rehash of the Jessica Pressler article from over the summer. But this one’s quite fantastic: People are moving out of cities and into Philadelphia! Whoo! Start milking the cows, people, them city slickers are comin’ into town!

More of the young and hip fight urban urge [USA Today]
Driving a Stake Into Bogus Trends [Slate]

Stop snitchin’ not just a t-shirt fad?

As you may know, I’ve largely stayed out of commenting on the “Stop Snitchin’” t-shirt fad. (Though I did suggest a replacement fad.) You know why? Because the furor was largely over by the time I started blogging here in late August.

But, though, it still creeps up every once in a while. There was a recent piece in Slate about the stop snitchin’ tees, which covered the points that maybe these t-shirts might be sending a message instead:

Critics of the T-shirts tend to dismiss the “stop snitching” sentiment as pro-criminal and antisocial; a subcultural expression of misplaced loyalty. But the T-shirts should be heeded as evidence of a failed public policy. Snitching is an entrenched law-enforcement practice that has become pervasive due to its crucial role in the war on drugs. … But the policy has turned out to be a double-edged sword. Nearly every drug offense involves a snitch, and snitching is increasingly displacing more traditional police work, such as undercover operations and independent investigation. [...]

And while the government’s snitching policy has gone mostly unchallenged, it is both damaging to the justice system and socially expensive. Snitches are famously unreliable: A 2004 study by the Northwestern University Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions reveals that 46 percent of wrongful death penalty convictions are due to snitch misinformation—making snitches the leading cause of wrongful conviction in capital cases.

While I sincerely doubt the stop snitchin’ shirts were commenting on the study that showed 46 percent of wrongful death penalty convictions are due to lying snitches, the essay brings up some good points. But I don’t want to ask any questions about the validity of the author’s argument.

What I want to ask is: What other secret meanings to t-shirts hold? I mean, that one that just says COLLEGE, what does that mean? And those early 1990s bootleg Taz shirts? What did they mean? What did the bootleg Taz shirts with Phillies caps on them truly mean? The possibilities are endless.

Bait and Snitch [Slate]
Sept. 12: The last word on the ‘John Street hat’

The most important story of the year

Eh, you don’t have to read the article. The answer is Yes! Write your congressperson.

Are Journalists Underpaid? [Slate]

This week’s excuse to post a cute puppy

Today in Slate the lead story — at least at 9:30 — is about why you shouldn’t get a puppy for Christmas. It’s written by Jon Katz, an author who has a whole book about training doggies, and so he’s probably right.

I mean, he is: getting a living being that you have to take care of a lot (i.e., a puppy) probably shouldn’t be a surprise. (You can give somebody a fish or plant for Christmas without too many qualms, probably.) And if you’re buying a puppy for Christmas, you’re probably getting it from a pet store, which — despite their many cute puppies inside — aren’t the best place to buy pets.

But, you know what, “Jon” — if that is your real name — shush. Because discouraging people to get puppies is, frankly, just not cute. Hrumph.

Editor’s Note: If anyone is every thinking of getting a doggy — no no, not me, I’m too poor and busy — here’s the American Kennel Club’s guide for future dog owners.

The Christmas Puppy: Why you shouldn’t get one [Slate]
Photo by trentroche