Fly on the Wall

Photo: Jeroen van Oostrom, freedigitalphotos.net

Photo: Jeroen van Oostrom, freedigitalphotos.net

If eavesdropping were an Olympic sport, I would have a gold medal and a sponsorship deal with Verizon. Can you hear me now? I sure hope so! From the time I was very young I’ve been ridiculously fascinated by other people’s conversations.

One of my earliest memories is sitting in the hallway (after being sent to bed) and snooping on the adult conversation at my parent’s dinner parties. I didn’t understand half of what they were talking about-Harvey Wallbangers, Mia Farrow, Dick and Liz-but that didn’t stop me from wanting to listen.

When I read the Harriet the Spy and Nancy Drew books I started keeping an eavesdropping notebook, dotting my i’s with little hearts and writing down interesting snippets of conversation I overheard. Despite my lack of skill in martial arts and Mandarin, I think I would have been a great CIA Agent. Going on stakeouts, drinking stale coffee, cracking wise with colleagues and writing things down sounds like great fun to me. I absolutely love to observe and report.

I was once sure I had uncovered a huge murder-suicide-extortion plot at the Good Earth Restaurant, where I overheard a couple of guys in an adjacent booth talking about babes, blood and bribes-until I saw the movie on Lifetime Television. So much for my spy skills; that’s probably why I became a journalist.

I always ask people what they would want to do if they could be invisible. It floors me when people say they’ve never thought about this. Seriously? Never. I think about invisibility several times a day. It’s always been my preferred superpower and I often imagine how much fun it would be to be a fly on the wall in other people’s lives. An invisible fly with big ears.

I just like to listen to other people. Their voices, their slang, what they say and what they don’t say but so clearly communicate with their body language. I can’t get enough of it. At heart I’m a peeper, a lurker, a voyeur.

Reuters writer Christinne Muschi complains about “the social media arms race,” and bemoans that “Somehow, somewhere, we all want to know, minute by minute, what each other is doing … Do we? I can understand some of the occasional useful aspects of networking and canvassing large amounts of people instantly, but to me most twittering is voyeurism cloaked as social networking, navel gazing re-cast as information gathering.”

Where’s the downside? I find much of it fascinating.

It’s not always the content of the communication that interesting to me-I can only handle so many stories about pets and mean bosses, and most Reality TV talk bores me to tears-sometimes it’s the context. Like when members of Congress were tweeting during the middle of the President’s last State of the Union address-apparently they need to have that movie theater reminder posted: “Please refrain from the use of cell phones during the following presidential presentation.”

The new-ish phenomenon of paying for tweeting puts this kind of communication in another light entirely. The Daily Beast reported that Kim Kardashian (who is famous for being uh, famous I guess) commands $10,000 per post on Twitter. At 71 bucks a character I would think she’d be able to come up with something more interesting than, “Have u guys ever tried Popchips? They are kind of amazing!” and “Look who joined me for my Carls Jr Facebook lunch!!!”

That’s almost enough to make me swear off Twitter the same way I did live television, since now I can time shift via DVR and skip through commercials with my TV remote.

I guess I’m saying they need to invent a social media where people don’t know that they’re posting bits of their lives. And I’m exempt from participating, but still get to watch and listen. And I’m an invisible fly who dots her i’s with hearts. And there’s a gold medal for me. That’s all I’m saying.

Do you think Twitter’s only for twits? Share your thoughts with Leslie@LeslieDinaberg.com. For more columns visit www.LeslieDinaberg.com. Originally published in the Santa Barbara Daily Sound on January 15, 2010.

Playing to Win

© Amysuem | Dreamstime Stock Photos & Stock Free Images

© Amysuem | Dreamstime Stock Photos & Stock Free Images

When did playing to win become politically incorrect? While there are certainly buckets full of residual benefits from playing sports, THE OBJECT OF THE GAME IS TO WIN.

Look it up if you don’t believe me.

The object of basketball is to score the most baskets. The object of football is to score the most touchdowns. The object of baseball is to bring the most batters in. THE OBJECT OF THE GAME IS TO WIN.

Which is precisely why the steam bursting out of my ears is enough to propel my entire body through a series of hoops every time I hear a phrase like “the score is fun to fun.”

The game should be fun, but the score is supposed to be a number! And part of learning to play a game, possibly the most important part for many kids, is learning to lose-which is something you can’t do when “the score is fun to fun.”

I can’t tell you how thrilled I was to go to a scorekeeper’s clinic for my son’s basketball league this week. It wasn’t that the three-point play of tapping my foot, doing the homework handoff and my buzzer-beater run out of the house the instant my husband got home from work was particularly elegant. Nor was the explanation of when to hit the buzzer, and why fouls require a slash and free throws a circle all that scintillating. I was just happy to see that in basketball you keep score and the results are right up there on the light board for all to see.

Believe me, I’m not advocating bad sportsmanship, but I think they’re missing an important point when the youth basketball league sends out a beginning of season letter to parents saying we should redefine the word “winner.”

Merriam-Webster defines a winner as “one that wins; one that is successful especially through praiseworthy ability and hard work; a victor especially in games and sports.”

There is nothing wrong with that definition, but the league insists-with the best of intentions I am sure-on redefining the word “winner.”

“To help our children get the most out of competitive sports, we need to redefine what it means to be a ‘winner,'” the letter states. “Winners are people who make maximum effort, continue to learn and improve, refuse to let mistakes (or fear of making mistakes) stop them.”

These are all certainly worthy goals to teach our children, and definitely a good reminder to the coaches. But losing graciously is also an important part of life that I fear may get lost on the playing field when winners are defined as people who try hard, persist in their efforts and ultimately improve.

I’m a huge fan of good sportsmanship (which is what our league is really defining), fair play, improvement, effort, and learning – but none of those things have anything to do with winning and losing. I’d be the first to tell you that I’ve had plenty of “moral victories” against bad sports, but that’s not always what the win/loss column looks like.

In our house (and not coincidentally the houses that both my husband and I grew up in) the rule is that sometimes you win, sometimes you lose-it’s all part of playing the game-and if you can’t be a considerate winner or a gracious loser then you don’t get to play at all.

When our son was very young it wasn’t unusual for a game to be called on account of tears or tantrums, but he learned quickly that if you can’t behave like a good sport then you don’t get to play at all. It seems to me that rather than redefining winning, this is a much better lesson for youth sports to be teaching our kids.

What’s so bad about playing to win? Share your thoughts with Leslie@LeslieDinaberg.com. For more columns visit www.LeslieDinaberg.com. Originally published in the Santa Barbara Daily Sound on January 8, 2010.