The 10 Most Corrupt Politicos of 2009 and 9 Missed Stories of 2009... (courtesy of Fox News, so make of that what you will...)
Top 10 Movies from Ain't It Cool, here- the worst, here.
25 Best Albums of 2009 from Rolling Stone, here.
...make of them what you will!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
No Vote in 2010
Iowa's Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has said that there will be no vote on gay marriage during the 2010 session. Republicans have 80 days to try and wiggle something through--
--I agree with Gronstal on this one. First of all, both parties should heed the dictum 'it's the economy, stupid' especially this year. As a state employee, despite having (relative) job security in the grand scheme of things, I will take a very dim view of Republicans if they lead with gay marriage. And by dim view, I mean I'll vote straight ticket Democrat- at least on a state level in response- even if it does stick us with Culver for another four years.
Republicans should play it cool. Attack Culver on the economy, say what you would do different- make noise about gay marriage to pacify your base, but for the love of mike, don't get bogged down in it! (Oh, and if Gronstal's promise holds up, the earliest gay marriage can get to Iowa voters would be 2014.)
--I agree with Gronstal on this one. First of all, both parties should heed the dictum 'it's the economy, stupid' especially this year. As a state employee, despite having (relative) job security in the grand scheme of things, I will take a very dim view of Republicans if they lead with gay marriage. And by dim view, I mean I'll vote straight ticket Democrat- at least on a state level in response- even if it does stick us with Culver for another four years.
Republicans should play it cool. Attack Culver on the economy, say what you would do different- make noise about gay marriage to pacify your base, but for the love of mike, don't get bogged down in it! (Oh, and if Gronstal's promise holds up, the earliest gay marriage can get to Iowa voters would be 2014.)
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
New Mayor for IC?
Council Member Matt Hayek seems to be the front runner. Don't know much about him, but he's fairly new, seems to have a good head on his shoulders and will be a fresh face in the job. I'm not the biggest fan of current mayor Regina Bailey, so this is a nice change (should it happen.)
Bigger question: why can't the voters of IC pick their own mayor?
Bigger question: why can't the voters of IC pick their own mayor?
HAH!
The Mediacom-Sinclair fight is sending people back to rabbit ears and leading people to dishes. It's Christmas for Direct TV!
My parents have a dish, so I at least have a place to watch the Orange Bowl, but if Mediacom doesn't figure this out, I will be pricing out dishes- and I will be asking the City Council to end the monopoly Mediacom has in the Iowa City cable market and bring in some competition that actually serves customers instead of their own corporate interests.
(In an aside: this raises all kinds of issues for me- given the fact that we are a country of free-speech absolutists, how free can speech be if it's controlled by giganto-corporations like Sinclair? How free can it be when you have to pay for it? Speech and entertainment aren't the same thing and I'm willing to pay for cable channels, but the issues raised by the fight are still the same-- and they're growing daily.)
My parents have a dish, so I at least have a place to watch the Orange Bowl, but if Mediacom doesn't figure this out, I will be pricing out dishes- and I will be asking the City Council to end the monopoly Mediacom has in the Iowa City cable market and bring in some competition that actually serves customers instead of their own corporate interests.
(In an aside: this raises all kinds of issues for me- given the fact that we are a country of free-speech absolutists, how free can speech be if it's controlled by giganto-corporations like Sinclair? How free can it be when you have to pay for it? Speech and entertainment aren't the same thing and I'm willing to pay for cable channels, but the issues raised by the fight are still the same-- and they're growing daily.)
And Then There Were...
...one less anyway. State Senator Jerry Behn of Boone has ended his campaign for Governor and endorsed Terry Branstad. He's not a major player in the Republican race, as far as I can tell- this is the first time I've heard the name, but one less in the horse race and an endorsement for Branstad is significant.
Move Your Money in 2010?
Arianna Huffington has a New Year's Resolution worth getting behind, here. In sum: given the excesses and the rip-offs forced on taxpayers by the bailed out big boys on Wall Street, why not help out community banks and move your money there.
I like this. It is, as Huff notices, 'populism at its best' but more importantly, it's a way for people to register their protest at the administration's craptacular policy of rewarding their corporate sponsors by giving them gobs of free taxpayer money. I'd also write to Senators Cantwell and McCain and express your support for reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act (which basically separates traditional banks from investment and retail banking, thus avoiding the 'too big to fail problem.') Either way, the 'move your money' thing is more realistic than the national mortgage strike idea that was floating around awhile back.
I like this. It is, as Huff notices, 'populism at its best' but more importantly, it's a way for people to register their protest at the administration's craptacular policy of rewarding their corporate sponsors by giving them gobs of free taxpayer money. I'd also write to Senators Cantwell and McCain and express your support for reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act (which basically separates traditional banks from investment and retail banking, thus avoiding the 'too big to fail problem.') Either way, the 'move your money' thing is more realistic than the national mortgage strike idea that was floating around awhile back.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Thoughts on 'Avatar'
Feministing has some thoughts on 'Avatar' worth reading, here. I tried to assemble my thoughts on the movie into a coherent, well-written review, but failed somewhat. Reading the piece, I can't say any of the criticisms are incorrect per say- and whatever you think of 'Avatar' itself, James Cameron has certainly produced a movie that's thought-provoking at best.
Personally, I just thought it was a bad movie. I didn't go see it in 3D for which I'm glad, because I wasn't dazzled by the special effects. The plot was crap, it was plodding and predictable and generally if you take 'Pocahantas' and cross it with 'The Smurfs' you won't be too far off the general idea.
Personally, I just thought it was a bad movie. I didn't go see it in 3D for which I'm glad, because I wasn't dazzled by the special effects. The plot was crap, it was plodding and predictable and generally if you take 'Pocahantas' and cross it with 'The Smurfs' you won't be too far off the general idea.
What Whiskey To Buy, Part II?
So, a quick perusal of the selection at Dirty John's has put two new candidates in the running-
1. Dalwhinnie
2. Glengoyne
I've had Talisker before, but apparently Robert Louis Stevenson thought Talisker was bad-ass, so that intrigues me (maybe RLS' favorite whiskey will rub off me and give me some writing mojo? I don't know...) Ardbeg is also still in the running- it'd be interesting to compare the taste of another Islay with the Lagavulin I've already tried.
Hmm. We shall see, we shall see...
1. Dalwhinnie
2. Glengoyne
I've had Talisker before, but apparently Robert Louis Stevenson thought Talisker was bad-ass, so that intrigues me (maybe RLS' favorite whiskey will rub off me and give me some writing mojo? I don't know...) Ardbeg is also still in the running- it'd be interesting to compare the taste of another Islay with the Lagavulin I've already tried.
Hmm. We shall see, we shall see...
No Deal!
Sinclair and Mediacom remain at an impasse over a pay dispute that threatens to remove both Fox and CBS from the local cable line-up, leaving Iowa fans who don't have dishes no way of watching the Hawks in the Orange Bowl on the 5th.
Despite pleas from University Presidents, the Governor and Iowa's Congressional Delegation and bringing in a mediator, the two sides remain deadlocked.
I don't like Mediacom- and I don't like their defacto monopoly of the Iowa City cable market even less. We pay higher fees because of a lack of competition in the market- at the very least, if Mediacom doesn't back down, they should open the cable market. At the very least, if the Orange Bowl ain't on my television, I'll be pricing out a dish and thinking about dropping my cable altogether.
Despite pleas from University Presidents, the Governor and Iowa's Congressional Delegation and bringing in a mediator, the two sides remain deadlocked.
I don't like Mediacom- and I don't like their defacto monopoly of the Iowa City cable market even less. We pay higher fees because of a lack of competition in the market- at the very least, if Mediacom doesn't back down, they should open the cable market. At the very least, if the Orange Bowl ain't on my television, I'll be pricing out a dish and thinking about dropping my cable altogether.
Monday, December 28, 2009
The Great Boxing Day Martini Extravaganza of 2009!
This was born out of a trip to Outback Steakhouse for dinner with my parents a few weeks ago. Ali had just gotten a new job and we wanted to take the 'rents out for a nice dinner to celebrate that- and as a 'thank you' for letting us and all our stuff stay at their house for six months earlier in the year. The bloomin' onion was excellent, the steak as good as advertised- and for dessert: a Gingerbread Cookie Martini!
And that was so good, we decided to buy a bunch of booze, get on the old interweb and find 'holiday' martinis to make and sample in the spirit of Yuletide! Thus was born The Great Boxing Day Martini Extravaganza of 2009!
Carrot Cake Martini
1/2 oz Bailey's
1/2 oz Butterscotch Schnapps
1/4 oz Cinnamon Schnapps
Tasting Notes: This was my contribution to the line-up and there's a little bit of a story behind it-- a couple of years ago, I sampled one of these at Giovanni's downtown and it tasted so delish that when we tailgating for a game (whom we were playing has long since slipped my mind) I made up a whole Nalgene bottle of the stuff, drank it and was completely smashed by about 8 AM that morning. The next day, I woke up having slept through most of the game, having no clue who had won, having seen 'Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang' and in ownership of a size XXXL neon pink t-shirt that said in big, black letters on the front: 'Whose Buckman?' Who Buckman is and why he was on a t-shirt is still a mystery to me- and I'm also a bit fuzzy on just how I got the t-shirt as well.
This was not a bad way to start things out- I would, however, recommend doubling the amounts listed above, because as you can see from the pic, it didn't produce a large martini. We also used Goldschläger for our cinnamon schnapps- which imbalanced the flavors a bit, as the higher proof of Goldschläger gives the cinnamon more of kick than regular schnapps does.
Grades:
Tom: B+
Ali: B- (little too much cinnamon)
Mother Nixon: B-/C+
Gingerbread Martini Take I
1 shot Bailey's
1 shot vodka
1 shot Gingerbread liqueur
(because instructions are for suckaz!)
Tasting Notes: The vodka was a bit strong with this version- we all agreed that the proportions needed to be re-jiggered a bit, primarily because the gingerbread liqueur we found was extremely bland and got overwhelmed by the vodka and to some degree the Bailey's. We decided that better proportions would be:
1/2 oz vodka
1 1/2 oz gingerbread liqueur
1/2 Bailey's (and add more if necessary)
But overall, not a bad martini.
Grades:
Tom: B+
Ali: B+
Mother Nixon: B+ (but with less vodka, an A-)
Yuletini
2 parts Creme de Cacao
1 part Goldschläger
Float cream on top, sprinkle cinnamon dust on top of that. Drink.
Tasting Notes: Probably the least favorite of the line-up, this turned out to be a mish-mash of flavors that just didn't produce anything in the least bit appetizing. We did add more half and half and it helped, but pretty much nothing could save this one.
Grades:
Tom: C
Ali: C
Mother Nixon: C
Cocoa Candy Candy Martini
1/2 oz creme de cacao
1/2 oz peppermint schnapps
1/2 oz vodka
Tasting Notes: The overwhelming favorite of the line-up, this thing tasted like a candy cane, smelled like a candy cane and was just generally awesome!
Grades:
Tom: A
Ali: A
Mother Nixon: A
Amanda (who had joined us by then): A
Gingerbread Martini Take II
1 1/2 oz Gingerbread liqueur
1/2 oz vodka
1/2 oz Bailey's
Tasting Notes: Turns out our hunch was entirely correct- better proportions made for a much better drink. The ingredients were more balanced- and although it could maybe use just a touch more Bailey's, it was another solid winner, edging out the Coco Candy Cane Martini for the title of overall winner!
Grades:
Tom: A+
Ali: A+
Mother Nixon: A-
And that was so good, we decided to buy a bunch of booze, get on the old interweb and find 'holiday' martinis to make and sample in the spirit of Yuletide! Thus was born The Great Boxing Day Martini Extravaganza of 2009!
Carrot Cake Martini
1/2 oz Bailey's
1/2 oz Butterscotch Schnapps
1/4 oz Cinnamon Schnapps
Tasting Notes: This was my contribution to the line-up and there's a little bit of a story behind it-- a couple of years ago, I sampled one of these at Giovanni's downtown and it tasted so delish that when we tailgating for a game (whom we were playing has long since slipped my mind) I made up a whole Nalgene bottle of the stuff, drank it and was completely smashed by about 8 AM that morning. The next day, I woke up having slept through most of the game, having no clue who had won, having seen 'Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang' and in ownership of a size XXXL neon pink t-shirt that said in big, black letters on the front: 'Whose Buckman?' Who Buckman is and why he was on a t-shirt is still a mystery to me- and I'm also a bit fuzzy on just how I got the t-shirt as well.
This was not a bad way to start things out- I would, however, recommend doubling the amounts listed above, because as you can see from the pic, it didn't produce a large martini. We also used Goldschläger for our cinnamon schnapps- which imbalanced the flavors a bit, as the higher proof of Goldschläger gives the cinnamon more of kick than regular schnapps does.
Grades:
Tom: B+
Ali: B- (little too much cinnamon)
Mother Nixon: B-/C+
Gingerbread Martini Take I
1 shot Bailey's
1 shot vodka
1 shot Gingerbread liqueur
(because instructions are for suckaz!)
Tasting Notes: The vodka was a bit strong with this version- we all agreed that the proportions needed to be re-jiggered a bit, primarily because the gingerbread liqueur we found was extremely bland and got overwhelmed by the vodka and to some degree the Bailey's. We decided that better proportions would be:
1/2 oz vodka
1 1/2 oz gingerbread liqueur
1/2 Bailey's (and add more if necessary)
But overall, not a bad martini.
Grades:
Tom: B+
Ali: B+
Mother Nixon: B+ (but with less vodka, an A-)
Yuletini
2 parts Creme de Cacao
1 part Goldschläger
Float cream on top, sprinkle cinnamon dust on top of that. Drink.
Tasting Notes: Probably the least favorite of the line-up, this turned out to be a mish-mash of flavors that just didn't produce anything in the least bit appetizing. We did add more half and half and it helped, but pretty much nothing could save this one.
Grades:
Tom: C
Ali: C
Mother Nixon: C
Cocoa Candy Candy Martini
1/2 oz creme de cacao
1/2 oz peppermint schnapps
1/2 oz vodka
Tasting Notes: The overwhelming favorite of the line-up, this thing tasted like a candy cane, smelled like a candy cane and was just generally awesome!
Grades:
Tom: A
Ali: A
Mother Nixon: A
Amanda (who had joined us by then): A
Gingerbread Martini Take II
1 1/2 oz Gingerbread liqueur
1/2 oz vodka
1/2 oz Bailey's
Tasting Notes: Turns out our hunch was entirely correct- better proportions made for a much better drink. The ingredients were more balanced- and although it could maybe use just a touch more Bailey's, it was another solid winner, edging out the Coco Candy Cane Martini for the title of overall winner!
Grades:
Tom: A+
Ali: A+
Mother Nixon: A-
What Whiskey To Buy?
The Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban was delicious, but now it's done- and with 2010 fast upon us, I need to figure out what malt to get next. I also need to get a whiskey guide, so I can start to this properly, but for now- we'll work on figuring out where to go next in my whiskey odyssey. Early candidates:
1. Isle of Jura
2. Auchentoshan
3. Ardbeg
I'm leaning towards the Jura, but the Auchentoshan interests me as well. Ardbeg is an Islay Malt, and I've already tried Lagavulin, which was deliciously hardcore- but extremely smokey. (Islay Malts get their smokey taste from the peat used in the distillation process.) Jura is from the Islands and I'm not sure what their region has in the way of flavoring and the Auchentoshan is from Lowlands- but Michael Jackson (the beer and whiskey guy) described it as a lighter tasting whiskey and I'm thinking I want some hardcore flavor. Yet, it's also one of the few malts that is triple distilled.
Hmmm... will have to visit Dirty John's today and see what they got.
1. Isle of Jura
2. Auchentoshan
3. Ardbeg
I'm leaning towards the Jura, but the Auchentoshan interests me as well. Ardbeg is an Islay Malt, and I've already tried Lagavulin, which was deliciously hardcore- but extremely smokey. (Islay Malts get their smokey taste from the peat used in the distillation process.) Jura is from the Islands and I'm not sure what their region has in the way of flavoring and the Auchentoshan is from Lowlands- but Michael Jackson (the beer and whiskey guy) described it as a lighter tasting whiskey and I'm thinking I want some hardcore flavor. Yet, it's also one of the few malts that is triple distilled.
Hmmm... will have to visit Dirty John's today and see what they got.
Late Night Chronicles 37: Bah, Humbug!
This was originally published on Facebook, November 6th, 2009
What happened to Walt Disney? When did they become so incredibly lame? Maybe it's just part and parcel of growing up, but I remember, back in the day, a new Disney movie was an event. No, by and large it was the event of whatever particular season their new movie was released in. That string of movies in the early 90s- 'Beauty and the Beast,' 'Aladdin,' 'The Lion King,' 'Pocahantas' one could, if one was feeling generous, include the excremental and massive inaccurate 'Hercules' in that picture as well. (Mythology buffs will know what I'm talking about, but Hercules was Roman. Heracles was Greek- which is what the movie portrays-- oh and Hades was never, ever, EVER a bad guy. Just king of the dead.)
But now... the banner release for Disney's holiday movie slate is the 100,000th version of that timeless and now extremely well-worn Christmas classic 'A Christmas Carol.' Oh, but it's in 3D so that makes it special- and like Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor, it's got Jim Carrey playing about twenty different roles all at the same time. And if that weren't bad enough, it's directed by Robert Zemeckis, who continues his tradition of that creepy, 'people look like dolls/zombies/just plain creepy and not at all lifelike' animation that he began with 'The Polar Express.'
So my previous question stands: what happened to Walt Disney? Why did it become so incredibly lame? And more to the point, what marketing genius thought that another version of 'A Christmas Carol' would be a good idea. I mean, does anyone care at this point? Is there a human being alive on the planet right now that hasn't seen 'A Christmas Carol' somewhere, somehow during their existence? I mean, shit- I'm sure even Somali Pirates gather together and watch 'It's A Wonderful Life' and 'A Christmas Carol' on their pirated sattelite feeds on a boat somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Everyone has seen 'A Christmas Carol' everyone knows the story- since Hollywood seems intent on flogging it to death, so what, if anything is going to bring people flooding to multiplexes everywhere this time?
Well, as I've already mentioned, it's in 3D. Oooooooooh. 3D. Now 'Avatar' is a movie I'm looking forward to seeing in whatever kick-ass 3D thing James Cameron has in store for movie-goers. 'A Christmas Carol' not so much. I mean, at this point, who the hell cares really? Everyone has seen some version of the damn thing anyway- and I don't know about everyone else, but I can practically recite the plot in my sleep. Pale imitations and attempts to modernize or change up the classic tale have popped up from time to time over the years- ranging from the forgettable Bill Murray tale 'Scrooged' to Matthew Mconoughey (however you spell that) in 'Ghosts of Girlfriends Past' which is better referred to as 'A Man Whore Carol' There's been some version with Vanessa Williams, a Muppet Christmas Carol- this Christmas Carol, that Christmas Carol... in fact a search of IMDB.com turns up 26 results for 'A Christmas Carol' alone. That doesn't include God knows how many title derivations or other versions their are out there.
The endless parade of sequels and ill-advised remakes in recent years has drawn criticism from many that Hollywood is entering some kind of creative desert. No one seems to have a truly original idea anymore- either that, or Hollywood is just getting incredibly lazy- one of the two. Either way, it's an undeniable fact that retread and pale sequels and the general quality of movies seems to have taken a nose-dive. And Hollywood actually wonders why? They wonder why people won't pay through the nose to go see a movie that they've already sort of seen before anyway... I can sympathize, to a degree. The endless parade of academic papers and general chaos of life appears to have sapped my own creativity more than just a little bit. I can't remember the last time I wrote good fiction, so I keep doing what Hollywood does- coming back to fragments of useless prose, maybe with a compelling character or two, but prose that I ultimately just cannot get to work in a way that I like. It's incredibly frustrating and makes me want to tear my hair out in frustration, especially lately.
But maybe frustration isn't the answer. Maybe we need to get off the hamster wheel and take a breath. The fact is that some stories are told enough. And need to be taken out of circulation for at least a decade before someone brings them back to the big screen again, and 'A Christmas Carol' is no exception- in fact, it should be the reason for the above suggestion to begin with. We don't need more movie versions of a 'A Christmas Carol' we need less. We don't need family movie directors sitting around and thinking 'Hey, I'm bored, let's do 'A Christmas Carol' that may make a buck or two.' We need them creating quality movies- new ideas (see: Pixar, Hollywood) and actually giving us a reason to go to the movies in these times of economic woe.
And to anyone who is actually delusional enough to think that they can top the wonder, magic and sheer awesomeness of 'A Muppet Christmas Carol' I have only two words to say to you:
Bah, Humbug!
What happened to Walt Disney? When did they become so incredibly lame? Maybe it's just part and parcel of growing up, but I remember, back in the day, a new Disney movie was an event. No, by and large it was the event of whatever particular season their new movie was released in. That string of movies in the early 90s- 'Beauty and the Beast,' 'Aladdin,' 'The Lion King,' 'Pocahantas' one could, if one was feeling generous, include the excremental and massive inaccurate 'Hercules' in that picture as well. (Mythology buffs will know what I'm talking about, but Hercules was Roman. Heracles was Greek- which is what the movie portrays-- oh and Hades was never, ever, EVER a bad guy. Just king of the dead.)
But now... the banner release for Disney's holiday movie slate is the 100,000th version of that timeless and now extremely well-worn Christmas classic 'A Christmas Carol.' Oh, but it's in 3D so that makes it special- and like Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor, it's got Jim Carrey playing about twenty different roles all at the same time. And if that weren't bad enough, it's directed by Robert Zemeckis, who continues his tradition of that creepy, 'people look like dolls/zombies/just plain creepy and not at all lifelike' animation that he began with 'The Polar Express.'
So my previous question stands: what happened to Walt Disney? Why did it become so incredibly lame? And more to the point, what marketing genius thought that another version of 'A Christmas Carol' would be a good idea. I mean, does anyone care at this point? Is there a human being alive on the planet right now that hasn't seen 'A Christmas Carol' somewhere, somehow during their existence? I mean, shit- I'm sure even Somali Pirates gather together and watch 'It's A Wonderful Life' and 'A Christmas Carol' on their pirated sattelite feeds on a boat somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Everyone has seen 'A Christmas Carol' everyone knows the story- since Hollywood seems intent on flogging it to death, so what, if anything is going to bring people flooding to multiplexes everywhere this time?
Well, as I've already mentioned, it's in 3D. Oooooooooh. 3D. Now 'Avatar' is a movie I'm looking forward to seeing in whatever kick-ass 3D thing James Cameron has in store for movie-goers. 'A Christmas Carol' not so much. I mean, at this point, who the hell cares really? Everyone has seen some version of the damn thing anyway- and I don't know about everyone else, but I can practically recite the plot in my sleep. Pale imitations and attempts to modernize or change up the classic tale have popped up from time to time over the years- ranging from the forgettable Bill Murray tale 'Scrooged' to Matthew Mconoughey (however you spell that) in 'Ghosts of Girlfriends Past' which is better referred to as 'A Man Whore Carol' There's been some version with Vanessa Williams, a Muppet Christmas Carol- this Christmas Carol, that Christmas Carol... in fact a search of IMDB.com turns up 26 results for 'A Christmas Carol' alone. That doesn't include God knows how many title derivations or other versions their are out there.
The endless parade of sequels and ill-advised remakes in recent years has drawn criticism from many that Hollywood is entering some kind of creative desert. No one seems to have a truly original idea anymore- either that, or Hollywood is just getting incredibly lazy- one of the two. Either way, it's an undeniable fact that retread and pale sequels and the general quality of movies seems to have taken a nose-dive. And Hollywood actually wonders why? They wonder why people won't pay through the nose to go see a movie that they've already sort of seen before anyway... I can sympathize, to a degree. The endless parade of academic papers and general chaos of life appears to have sapped my own creativity more than just a little bit. I can't remember the last time I wrote good fiction, so I keep doing what Hollywood does- coming back to fragments of useless prose, maybe with a compelling character or two, but prose that I ultimately just cannot get to work in a way that I like. It's incredibly frustrating and makes me want to tear my hair out in frustration, especially lately.
But maybe frustration isn't the answer. Maybe we need to get off the hamster wheel and take a breath. The fact is that some stories are told enough. And need to be taken out of circulation for at least a decade before someone brings them back to the big screen again, and 'A Christmas Carol' is no exception- in fact, it should be the reason for the above suggestion to begin with. We don't need more movie versions of a 'A Christmas Carol' we need less. We don't need family movie directors sitting around and thinking 'Hey, I'm bored, let's do 'A Christmas Carol' that may make a buck or two.' We need them creating quality movies- new ideas (see: Pixar, Hollywood) and actually giving us a reason to go to the movies in these times of economic woe.
And to anyone who is actually delusional enough to think that they can top the wonder, magic and sheer awesomeness of 'A Muppet Christmas Carol' I have only two words to say to you:
Bah, Humbug!
Bleeding Red Ink
Chicago Trib has some thoughts on our exploding debt, here.
I don't like it, I hate it- I think the fact that other countries are buying up our debt opens us up to the worst kind of economic warfare imaginable down the road. Sure, it may benefit China to maintain the status quo, because they're making money- but what if their economy takes a shit and they call in the money we owe them? What then? Can we pay it back? Can we even come close?
Something needs to be done about this- we can't keep spending like a drunk sorority girl out for a fresh pair of Jimmy Choos.
I don't like it, I hate it- I think the fact that other countries are buying up our debt opens us up to the worst kind of economic warfare imaginable down the road. Sure, it may benefit China to maintain the status quo, because they're making money- but what if their economy takes a shit and they call in the money we owe them? What then? Can we pay it back? Can we even come close?
Something needs to be done about this- we can't keep spending like a drunk sorority girl out for a fresh pair of Jimmy Choos.
More Protests In Iran
The peak of the Shia religious festival Ashura has seen new protests erupt across Iran, some coverage here.
I have literally all of my digits crossed on this one. Iran is a foreign policy headache for the United States primarily because it's trying to get nukes (which would destabilize the region) and we can't storm in their like we did Iraq (because it would give the Islamic Regime a new thirty year propaganda lease on life.) So essentially, we have to be quietly supportive of the opposition and hope like hell the government hangs itself.
Which it tentatively looks like it might slowly be doing. The disputed Presidential election in June pissed off a lot of Iranians and six months later, they haven't stopped being pissed off. Hopefully 2010 will mark the year they take their government back.
I have literally all of my digits crossed on this one. Iran is a foreign policy headache for the United States primarily because it's trying to get nukes (which would destabilize the region) and we can't storm in their like we did Iraq (because it would give the Islamic Regime a new thirty year propaganda lease on life.) So essentially, we have to be quietly supportive of the opposition and hope like hell the government hangs itself.
Which it tentatively looks like it might slowly be doing. The disputed Presidential election in June pissed off a lot of Iranians and six months later, they haven't stopped being pissed off. Hopefully 2010 will mark the year they take their government back.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Late Night Chronicles 34: The Report Card
This was originally published on Facebook on November 3rd, 2009
Well, gang- it's been roughly a year or so since President Obama was elected, which to me is time enough for people to settle in, figure out where they keep the extra xerox paper and toner and actually get some stuff done. In other words- it's about the right amount of time to issue our first report card here at the LNC for the new administration. Keep in mind that when I do this, I'm not locked in stone on anything. I get accused of being a Republican or a Conservative all the time, for reasons passing understanding, but really- and I mean this really and truly- I'm not. If anything my tendency is to bust through conventional political labels and be my own sort of radical. If I thought anarchism would actually work in the real world, I'd probably sign up. So in setting these grades, please keep in mind two very important things:
1. I am open to persuasion.
2. Nothing is set in stone.
This is far from my final verdict on the Obama Administration- in fact, the Report Card will probably be a yearly thing for as long as I keep doing the LNC. I voted for Obama and I was happy to do so, given the alternatives. It was and will forever be an amazing moment in American history as it's probably going to be the only time I'll hear people actually celebrating a Presidential election outside my window. And furthermore- yes, I am aware that change takes time. I'm not expecting anything monumental or epic in a hurry- so I'm willing to cut the man some slack. But only some. My vote, like everyone else's is the most important thing that I, as a citizen have to give in this country- and President Obama, if he wants another one of my votes is going to have to earn it- just like everyone else.
So, without further ado-- The Report Card!
Domestic:
Health Care: Given that his domestic agenda is centered around the success or failure of health care reform, it's no surprise that it is eating up so much of his domestic political capital and agenda. I myself would have preferred a more proactive approach on health care reform on the part of the President instead of this sort of 'behind the scenes we'll talk but let Congress fight about it' thing that he is doing, but incredibly, slowly but surely, it seems like the President will get something on his desk. Of course, this is the United States Congress we're talking about here, so it could all fuck up at anytime, but even getting this far is a concrete political achievement. So kudos to Pres. O for that.
However, where I have issues is with the size and the scope of the whole project. It's not that I disagree with the idea that we need Health Care reform, because I think we do- but there needs to be a careful balance between the existing system and new government programs. If someone tells me that a government plan is going to help cover the uninsured- I tend to have doubts at that point. To me, government programs aren't necessarily a good thing. One just has to look at the bureaucratic mess that is Britain's NHS to see that. Michael Moore failed to mention the insane waiting lists for the simplest of procedures- and people don't stop to take into account that just because it's free, doesn't mean that it's good.
Both parties, however, get a massive EPIC FAIL for not talking more about health care portability. The Republican Party gets a double EPIC FAIL for this as they could have outflanked the Democrats in a major way in the 2008 campaign by making this front and center and they didn't... portability is sexy, given the fact that your average American is going to change careers about 4-5 times in a lifetime-- we should be able to take retirement plans and health care with us when we do! On balance though, my feeling is this: help the people that need the help and leave everyone else the hell alone. If health care reform can accomplish this, I'll be ok with it in the end-- and it may be an initial cost burden on the taxpayer, but it seems to me (from what I can tell) that it may equal savings in the long run-- only question is, given the demographic pressures paying for the Baby Boomers is going to put on the system- can we afford it? (Or should, given the mess they've made of America, the Baby Boomers be exempt from all changes and reforms in the health care system as they don't really deserve them? Oooooh, that's a naughty little thought, lol...)
Grade: If it gets done- A+, if not D+
Social Issues: Massive EPIC FAIL for President O here. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still policy, DOMA is still on the books, weed is still illegal, the public education system is still a mess. Pronounce me unimpressed, but having heard Sec. of Education Arne Duncan give a few interviews here and there, I gotta say, I have hope for the future- that guy is smart and impressive. So...
Grade: D+ and only because I find Arne Duncan articulate and impressive.
The Economy: Meh. It's limping towards a bloated, inefficient recovery. We're still here- so I guess they can't have effed it up too badly. I worry about the continued weakness of the dollar and I really worry about our spiralling debt. Especially as more and more of it is being financed by countries like China and Japan, who one day could have enough leverage to bring us to our knees if they want to stop financing our debt and call in their loans. Mortgaging America to other countries makes me nervous. Controlling the debt- and job growth should be priority #1 for Pres. O from here on out. In a big-ass way. One term or two, the goal should be to get us back to a surplus by the time you leave office, mmm-kay?
Grade: C+ they haven't crashed the ambulance, but there's room for improvement.
Bailouts/Stimulus: The true threat to Pres O's chances in 2012 is here. Continuing the Bush policies of bailout was stupid in the extreme and someone needs to bite the bullet and break up these gargantuan banks so they aren't too big too fail. Oh and I'm sorry, but if I'm the government and a company comes to me hat in hand, asking for an 'ass-saving loan', of course your execs DON'T GET BONUSES! If you effed your company up enough to ask the government for a loan, do you deserve a bonus? I don't think so- and I'm unsure why that's a hard concept for people to grasp in D.C. But more than that, it's looking increasingly like Washington bailed out the rich people that finance their re-election campaigns and let the rest of us out here in the boonies go spit, so to speak. Which is why we saw signs of recovery on Wall Street first and Main Street--- well, we're still waiting. This whole mess has me increasingly convinced that like China, we need to divorce our economic system from our political system once and for all. How to do that is another question...
Grade: D angry populist Tom SMASH!
Foreign:
Honduras:EPIC FAIL. Let's do Chavez more favors shall we? I'm happy there's a peaceful solution, but from what I can tell, Zelaya was removed for breaking the law. And we got our panties in a bunch and said 'no, that's not cool.' Not a good precedent to set in Latin America. Very disappointing.
Grade: F
Gitmo: Still open. EPIC FAIL again. 'Nuff said.
Grade: F
Afghanistan: Gets even messier now that Abdullah Abdullah dropped out of the run-off. Do we send more troops to support a corrupt government? Is that worth our blood and time? There are no good options here, but I'm happy that there's a debate going on- and no, I don't think it's dithering. This is a tough, tough spot to be in- time should be taken to try and get it right and settle on the least bad option for our national interests.
Grade: A careful forethought. Me likey. So far.
Iran: Meh. I don't have a lot of faith in sanctions, but it beats full on military options that would entrench a weak regime for fifty more years. Sanctions need to be tough, produce results and satisfy Israel so they don't do something pre-emptive. Best we can do for now, I think.
Grade: B+ best we can do for now. I can take this.
The Intangibles:
Chicago 2016: Stupid, stupid, stupid. Someone didn't read the play right and as a result, the Pres got sacked for a loss. Personally, I think the verdict out there was 'what were you thinking' and 'don't send in the Pres unless you're sure of a win.' No one was thinking and the Pres didn't get a win. Everyone looks dumb.
Grade: C amateur hour at the White House. Not pretty.
Nobel Peace Prize: The LNC has already made their feelings clear on this, but the Pres missed an opportunity to turn it down. He's new in town, wants to actually earn the thing, etc. Would have looked so damn good doing that, but now, he's got three years to do something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize- otherwise, it's just going to look like some big-ass thing he got out of a Cracker Jack Box somewhere.
Grade: C doesn't help, doesn't hurt. Best kind of intangible.
The Final Verdict
GRADE: C Pres O has annoyed me, infuriated me, pissed me off and made me question my sanity at several points over the past year, but strangely enough, I still believe. A year is a long time in politics- and there is plenty of room to improve or to completely eff things up. His grade is somewhat incomplete as Health Care is still up in the air and he could move swiftly on all those social issues and closing Gitmo and improve his scores there. But, that said: I need to be persuaded. The opening symptoms of buyer's remorse are starting to creep in- nausea that I actually compromised my principles to vote for what I thought was a 'different' mainstream politician, but who turned out to be just another fool in D.C. is also present. I need the legislative equivalent of Tums. I need two blocked field goals. Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe.
Problem is that one year in, it's getting harder and harder to do so.
Well, gang- it's been roughly a year or so since President Obama was elected, which to me is time enough for people to settle in, figure out where they keep the extra xerox paper and toner and actually get some stuff done. In other words- it's about the right amount of time to issue our first report card here at the LNC for the new administration. Keep in mind that when I do this, I'm not locked in stone on anything. I get accused of being a Republican or a Conservative all the time, for reasons passing understanding, but really- and I mean this really and truly- I'm not. If anything my tendency is to bust through conventional political labels and be my own sort of radical. If I thought anarchism would actually work in the real world, I'd probably sign up. So in setting these grades, please keep in mind two very important things:
1. I am open to persuasion.
2. Nothing is set in stone.
This is far from my final verdict on the Obama Administration- in fact, the Report Card will probably be a yearly thing for as long as I keep doing the LNC. I voted for Obama and I was happy to do so, given the alternatives. It was and will forever be an amazing moment in American history as it's probably going to be the only time I'll hear people actually celebrating a Presidential election outside my window. And furthermore- yes, I am aware that change takes time. I'm not expecting anything monumental or epic in a hurry- so I'm willing to cut the man some slack. But only some. My vote, like everyone else's is the most important thing that I, as a citizen have to give in this country- and President Obama, if he wants another one of my votes is going to have to earn it- just like everyone else.
So, without further ado-- The Report Card!
Domestic:
Health Care: Given that his domestic agenda is centered around the success or failure of health care reform, it's no surprise that it is eating up so much of his domestic political capital and agenda. I myself would have preferred a more proactive approach on health care reform on the part of the President instead of this sort of 'behind the scenes we'll talk but let Congress fight about it' thing that he is doing, but incredibly, slowly but surely, it seems like the President will get something on his desk. Of course, this is the United States Congress we're talking about here, so it could all fuck up at anytime, but even getting this far is a concrete political achievement. So kudos to Pres. O for that.
However, where I have issues is with the size and the scope of the whole project. It's not that I disagree with the idea that we need Health Care reform, because I think we do- but there needs to be a careful balance between the existing system and new government programs. If someone tells me that a government plan is going to help cover the uninsured- I tend to have doubts at that point. To me, government programs aren't necessarily a good thing. One just has to look at the bureaucratic mess that is Britain's NHS to see that. Michael Moore failed to mention the insane waiting lists for the simplest of procedures- and people don't stop to take into account that just because it's free, doesn't mean that it's good.
Both parties, however, get a massive EPIC FAIL for not talking more about health care portability. The Republican Party gets a double EPIC FAIL for this as they could have outflanked the Democrats in a major way in the 2008 campaign by making this front and center and they didn't... portability is sexy, given the fact that your average American is going to change careers about 4-5 times in a lifetime-- we should be able to take retirement plans and health care with us when we do! On balance though, my feeling is this: help the people that need the help and leave everyone else the hell alone. If health care reform can accomplish this, I'll be ok with it in the end-- and it may be an initial cost burden on the taxpayer, but it seems to me (from what I can tell) that it may equal savings in the long run-- only question is, given the demographic pressures paying for the Baby Boomers is going to put on the system- can we afford it? (Or should, given the mess they've made of America, the Baby Boomers be exempt from all changes and reforms in the health care system as they don't really deserve them? Oooooh, that's a naughty little thought, lol...)
Grade: If it gets done- A+, if not D+
Social Issues: Massive EPIC FAIL for President O here. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still policy, DOMA is still on the books, weed is still illegal, the public education system is still a mess. Pronounce me unimpressed, but having heard Sec. of Education Arne Duncan give a few interviews here and there, I gotta say, I have hope for the future- that guy is smart and impressive. So...
Grade: D+ and only because I find Arne Duncan articulate and impressive.
The Economy: Meh. It's limping towards a bloated, inefficient recovery. We're still here- so I guess they can't have effed it up too badly. I worry about the continued weakness of the dollar and I really worry about our spiralling debt. Especially as more and more of it is being financed by countries like China and Japan, who one day could have enough leverage to bring us to our knees if they want to stop financing our debt and call in their loans. Mortgaging America to other countries makes me nervous. Controlling the debt- and job growth should be priority #1 for Pres. O from here on out. In a big-ass way. One term or two, the goal should be to get us back to a surplus by the time you leave office, mmm-kay?
Grade: C+ they haven't crashed the ambulance, but there's room for improvement.
Bailouts/Stimulus: The true threat to Pres O's chances in 2012 is here. Continuing the Bush policies of bailout was stupid in the extreme and someone needs to bite the bullet and break up these gargantuan banks so they aren't too big too fail. Oh and I'm sorry, but if I'm the government and a company comes to me hat in hand, asking for an 'ass-saving loan', of course your execs DON'T GET BONUSES! If you effed your company up enough to ask the government for a loan, do you deserve a bonus? I don't think so- and I'm unsure why that's a hard concept for people to grasp in D.C. But more than that, it's looking increasingly like Washington bailed out the rich people that finance their re-election campaigns and let the rest of us out here in the boonies go spit, so to speak. Which is why we saw signs of recovery on Wall Street first and Main Street--- well, we're still waiting. This whole mess has me increasingly convinced that like China, we need to divorce our economic system from our political system once and for all. How to do that is another question...
Grade: D angry populist Tom SMASH!
Foreign:
Honduras:EPIC FAIL. Let's do Chavez more favors shall we? I'm happy there's a peaceful solution, but from what I can tell, Zelaya was removed for breaking the law. And we got our panties in a bunch and said 'no, that's not cool.' Not a good precedent to set in Latin America. Very disappointing.
Grade: F
Gitmo: Still open. EPIC FAIL again. 'Nuff said.
Grade: F
Afghanistan: Gets even messier now that Abdullah Abdullah dropped out of the run-off. Do we send more troops to support a corrupt government? Is that worth our blood and time? There are no good options here, but I'm happy that there's a debate going on- and no, I don't think it's dithering. This is a tough, tough spot to be in- time should be taken to try and get it right and settle on the least bad option for our national interests.
Grade: A careful forethought. Me likey. So far.
Iran: Meh. I don't have a lot of faith in sanctions, but it beats full on military options that would entrench a weak regime for fifty more years. Sanctions need to be tough, produce results and satisfy Israel so they don't do something pre-emptive. Best we can do for now, I think.
Grade: B+ best we can do for now. I can take this.
The Intangibles:
Chicago 2016: Stupid, stupid, stupid. Someone didn't read the play right and as a result, the Pres got sacked for a loss. Personally, I think the verdict out there was 'what were you thinking' and 'don't send in the Pres unless you're sure of a win.' No one was thinking and the Pres didn't get a win. Everyone looks dumb.
Grade: C amateur hour at the White House. Not pretty.
Nobel Peace Prize: The LNC has already made their feelings clear on this, but the Pres missed an opportunity to turn it down. He's new in town, wants to actually earn the thing, etc. Would have looked so damn good doing that, but now, he's got three years to do something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize- otherwise, it's just going to look like some big-ass thing he got out of a Cracker Jack Box somewhere.
Grade: C doesn't help, doesn't hurt. Best kind of intangible.
The Final Verdict
GRADE: C Pres O has annoyed me, infuriated me, pissed me off and made me question my sanity at several points over the past year, but strangely enough, I still believe. A year is a long time in politics- and there is plenty of room to improve or to completely eff things up. His grade is somewhat incomplete as Health Care is still up in the air and he could move swiftly on all those social issues and closing Gitmo and improve his scores there. But, that said: I need to be persuaded. The opening symptoms of buyer's remorse are starting to creep in- nausea that I actually compromised my principles to vote for what I thought was a 'different' mainstream politician, but who turned out to be just another fool in D.C. is also present. I need the legislative equivalent of Tums. I need two blocked field goals. Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe.
Problem is that one year in, it's getting harder and harder to do so.
Late Night Chronicles 33: Alone In The Stadium
This was originally published on Facebook on October 30, 2009
When asked if I wanted to do it, I volunteered right away. I mean, who wouldn't want to do it? I grew up in Iowa City- Hawkeye sports, whether it be football or basketball have been a part of my life since childhood- and really, let's face it- the place is almost tranquil without any people in it. Yes, I got Kinnick Stadium all to myself for ten lovely hours- and it was the closest thing to one of those perfect nights that you can get. It was late October- but it was warm- and it was raining on and off, so it smelled like fall and fresh rain- and it was just me and 70,000 or so empty seats, alone in the night.
Perfect.
It took me most of the night, but I finally put my finger on it at about seven thirty this morning. Although I'd been to Kinnick a few times before, I think regular visits- albeit work-related and therefore not as much fun as booze-fueled visits to actually watch the game- have finally and strangely made an actual college football fan out of me and convinced me just how incredibly cool Kinnick really is. The secret lies in two ingredients, I think: the bricks and the arches.
So many stadiums today are overpriced obscene palaces of excess (Yankees, Cowboys I'm lookin' at you) and without question, the trend seems to be naming even college stadiums after corporate sponsors. It makes perfect fiscal sense- especially if said corporate sponsors are willing to pay top dollar for the rights, but you have to admit TCF Bank Stadium just doesn't really have the iconic ring to it that 'Kinnick Stadium' does. There's a sense of history about the place that convinces you of the concentrated vitality of the place, even at night. Even with no fans in the stands, if you just stand there at one of the corners of the stadium and look--- you can feel it. I talked to one of my homies last night a bit before I really dug in and started checking the place and he said he always felt a little sad that we just use it for about six Saturdays out of the year and that's it- but those six Saturdays, well, anything can happen. And that palpable feeling that this place, empty though it may be and dark and damp though it may be, stays with the place year round I think. You can just stand there, look, feel the emptiness of the place and just know--- this is where anything can happen.
But the bricks... I'm really convinced that the secret to Kinnick's success as one of the iconic stadiums of college football lies in the bricks. Bricks to me, scream classy. They scream style. They say, 'we are old school and we are cool.' And the sheer number of bricks tells a story as well. If you think about it- back in the day, each of those bricks had to be laid individually, one at a time by the workers that built the Stadium. The history of Kinnick Stadium- in fact of Iowa City is to be found in the bricks. Those bricks were there long before the Hospital became the soul-sucking monster of a complex that it is. They were there long before Coralville, University Heights and Iowa City had begun to run together. Once upon a time, Kinnick was the west edge of town. And the City and the University, amazingly, grew up around it. Can't say that about many stadiums out there.
The second secret: arches. Jesus, I wish I was better at math, because I would so totally be an architect. Just walking around last night, I was struck by the amount of arches scattered throughout the structure of the stadium. In today's modern world, it seems like you never see a good arch anymore. Or if you do, there's usually a fast-food restaurant attached to it, but again, as with the bricks, arches as an architectural feature practically drip with an 'old school' feel that I just love. Arches are dead sexy. No really-- modern architects should take note and stop being all angular about things. Bring back the arch! It's old school and kids, there's no school like the old school.
Ten long, lonely hours in Kinnick convinced me: it belongs in the any top 25 list of the Greatest College Football Stadiums of all time. And if they haven't made one of those yet, they need too... in fact, I honestly think you could go one step further and expand it to 100 Greatest Stadiums and Kinnick to me would make the top 50 easy. I haven't been to many of the so-called 'iconic stadiums' of the world- or even the country. But it'd be interesting to compare and contrast a lot of them. Wembley, Maracanã, Fenway, Wrigley, Lambeau, The Rose Bowl, the Big House, The Horeshoe, Rocky Top, Death Valley... I am now convinced that Kinnick, as a stadium can compete with the best of them. At night, you can feel the history of the place and feel the vitality in the empty dark.
This is a place where anything can happen.
When asked if I wanted to do it, I volunteered right away. I mean, who wouldn't want to do it? I grew up in Iowa City- Hawkeye sports, whether it be football or basketball have been a part of my life since childhood- and really, let's face it- the place is almost tranquil without any people in it. Yes, I got Kinnick Stadium all to myself for ten lovely hours- and it was the closest thing to one of those perfect nights that you can get. It was late October- but it was warm- and it was raining on and off, so it smelled like fall and fresh rain- and it was just me and 70,000 or so empty seats, alone in the night.
Perfect.
It took me most of the night, but I finally put my finger on it at about seven thirty this morning. Although I'd been to Kinnick a few times before, I think regular visits- albeit work-related and therefore not as much fun as booze-fueled visits to actually watch the game- have finally and strangely made an actual college football fan out of me and convinced me just how incredibly cool Kinnick really is. The secret lies in two ingredients, I think: the bricks and the arches.
So many stadiums today are overpriced obscene palaces of excess (Yankees, Cowboys I'm lookin' at you) and without question, the trend seems to be naming even college stadiums after corporate sponsors. It makes perfect fiscal sense- especially if said corporate sponsors are willing to pay top dollar for the rights, but you have to admit TCF Bank Stadium just doesn't really have the iconic ring to it that 'Kinnick Stadium' does. There's a sense of history about the place that convinces you of the concentrated vitality of the place, even at night. Even with no fans in the stands, if you just stand there at one of the corners of the stadium and look--- you can feel it. I talked to one of my homies last night a bit before I really dug in and started checking the place and he said he always felt a little sad that we just use it for about six Saturdays out of the year and that's it- but those six Saturdays, well, anything can happen. And that palpable feeling that this place, empty though it may be and dark and damp though it may be, stays with the place year round I think. You can just stand there, look, feel the emptiness of the place and just know--- this is where anything can happen.
But the bricks... I'm really convinced that the secret to Kinnick's success as one of the iconic stadiums of college football lies in the bricks. Bricks to me, scream classy. They scream style. They say, 'we are old school and we are cool.' And the sheer number of bricks tells a story as well. If you think about it- back in the day, each of those bricks had to be laid individually, one at a time by the workers that built the Stadium. The history of Kinnick Stadium- in fact of Iowa City is to be found in the bricks. Those bricks were there long before the Hospital became the soul-sucking monster of a complex that it is. They were there long before Coralville, University Heights and Iowa City had begun to run together. Once upon a time, Kinnick was the west edge of town. And the City and the University, amazingly, grew up around it. Can't say that about many stadiums out there.
The second secret: arches. Jesus, I wish I was better at math, because I would so totally be an architect. Just walking around last night, I was struck by the amount of arches scattered throughout the structure of the stadium. In today's modern world, it seems like you never see a good arch anymore. Or if you do, there's usually a fast-food restaurant attached to it, but again, as with the bricks, arches as an architectural feature practically drip with an 'old school' feel that I just love. Arches are dead sexy. No really-- modern architects should take note and stop being all angular about things. Bring back the arch! It's old school and kids, there's no school like the old school.
Ten long, lonely hours in Kinnick convinced me: it belongs in the any top 25 list of the Greatest College Football Stadiums of all time. And if they haven't made one of those yet, they need too... in fact, I honestly think you could go one step further and expand it to 100 Greatest Stadiums and Kinnick to me would make the top 50 easy. I haven't been to many of the so-called 'iconic stadiums' of the world- or even the country. But it'd be interesting to compare and contrast a lot of them. Wembley, Maracanã, Fenway, Wrigley, Lambeau, The Rose Bowl, the Big House, The Horeshoe, Rocky Top, Death Valley... I am now convinced that Kinnick, as a stadium can compete with the best of them. At night, you can feel the history of the place and feel the vitality in the empty dark.
This is a place where anything can happen.
Best Saturday EVER (Semi-Live Blog)
6:25:40 PM, Central Standard Time.
It's my day off.
There's football all day.
I have (or had, rather) pizza.
...and, despite a tragic accident in which the bottom of one of my six packs opened up and destroyed 3 beautiful beers on the driveway, I have beer.
So far: I'd say that Cincy v. Pitt has been the marquee matchup of the day. Cincy was down 31-10 at the Half, Tony Pike was all over the place and yet somehow, when Pitt scored (what they thought was) the go ahead touchdown in the 4th and then missed the extra point, Tony Pike and Cincy got their collective groove back, marched down the field with pretty much a minute left and scored to win the game 45-44. It was a game for the ages and a lot of fun to watch. Much 'spect for the Big East.
Florida and 'Bama are heading towards the end of the game as well. 'Bama is up and looking dominant on both sides of the ball- Florida needs about 3 touchdowns to get a lead, so it's not looking good. (And more to the point, they look beat. Cincy never quit even a little bit and came back to win. Florida just looks beat.) And if anyone watching is wondering what Bible verse is under Tebow's eyes, John 16:33 is as follows:
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
He may have overcome the world, but he's gonna need to overcome the 'Tide in a hurry if he wants to cap his college career with a national title...
MORE LATER, I PROMISE... 10:09:15 PM, Central Standard Time
Well, the Big 12 title game is hum-drum, yet close. While the ACC Title game is boring, yet somewhat exciting. An interesting dichotomy.
Facebook Status Update as of Now: I'd like Texas to start playing like the #3 team in the country now please. (And wow, they're driving pretty well now. They must have heard me. WEIRD.)
...attempted a beer tasting tonight as well. Might save that for the Bowl Selection show tomorrow-- do a little research on what to look for as well.
It's my day off.
There's football all day.
I have (or had, rather) pizza.
...and, despite a tragic accident in which the bottom of one of my six packs opened up and destroyed 3 beautiful beers on the driveway, I have beer.
So far: I'd say that Cincy v. Pitt has been the marquee matchup of the day. Cincy was down 31-10 at the Half, Tony Pike was all over the place and yet somehow, when Pitt scored (what they thought was) the go ahead touchdown in the 4th and then missed the extra point, Tony Pike and Cincy got their collective groove back, marched down the field with pretty much a minute left and scored to win the game 45-44. It was a game for the ages and a lot of fun to watch. Much 'spect for the Big East.
Florida and 'Bama are heading towards the end of the game as well. 'Bama is up and looking dominant on both sides of the ball- Florida needs about 3 touchdowns to get a lead, so it's not looking good. (And more to the point, they look beat. Cincy never quit even a little bit and came back to win. Florida just looks beat.) And if anyone watching is wondering what Bible verse is under Tebow's eyes, John 16:33 is as follows:
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
He may have overcome the world, but he's gonna need to overcome the 'Tide in a hurry if he wants to cap his college career with a national title...
MORE LATER, I PROMISE... 10:09:15 PM, Central Standard Time
Well, the Big 12 title game is hum-drum, yet close. While the ACC Title game is boring, yet somewhat exciting. An interesting dichotomy.
Facebook Status Update as of Now: I'd like Texas to start playing like the #3 team in the country now please. (And wow, they're driving pretty well now. They must have heard me. WEIRD.)
...attempted a beer tasting tonight as well. Might save that for the Bowl Selection show tomorrow-- do a little research on what to look for as well.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Late Night Chronicles 32: It's Complicated
If the United States was in a Facebook relationship with Afghanistan, it’s status would undoubtedly be the now infamous tagline: ‘It’s Complicated.’ I personally love that term- it covers all manner of dirty little sins and it’s a neat summation of the excruciatingly difficult foreign policy challenge facing the Obama Administration. If, kids, you thought Iraq was a maddening mess to untangle, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet when it comes to Afghanistan. Happily, the widespread fraud in the August Presidential Elections has forced the government of President Hamid Karzai to accept a runoff- which has bought the Obama Administration some time to ponder the options it faces in regards to cleaning up Afghanistan- none of which are palatable, none of which are good and none of which will solve the mess we currently find ourselves in.
I want to try and write about this because it's incredibly important- we're about to make the most important foreign policy decision of the new century and to be frank, not enough people are going to be paying attention- and too many people are going to be willing to believe whatever the media tells them. (More and more, I'm thinking that courses on media manipulation should be required at the elementary, high school and college levels. People have simply got to stop eating up the bullshit we get spoon-fed by the media.) The problem I'm finding is that the complexity of the situation doesn't make for very entertaining reading. So, please, gang- bear with me as I try to dissect this:
The infuriating difficulty of our foreign policy in the post 9-11 age is that the quality of regimes we support now matters more than the quantity. This is a fundamental change from the Cold War equation we had been working under- where containment of communism was an overriding national priority and the quantity of regimes in the world that would do our bidding mattered more to us than what policies they pursued. September the 11th proved conclusively that in the 21st Century, we cannot turn a blind eye to the potential shortcomings of any 'allies' we support out there. It is not just that we need allies in the Middle East- we need good ones, that won't oppress their people, who won't, in turn, resent us for bankrolling their oppressors.
The neo-conservative thesis of freedom, liberty, democracy and spreading the blessings of the United States of America is nauseating horse crap that belongs on a Hallmark Card instead of in serious foreign policy discussion. Whenever there's another war and some President, either Democrat or Republican spins us all some bullcrap about 'all the good we're doing' and 'liberating the oppressed people of Whachamacallitstan' don't believe it. Realism, although I can't stand it, holds true. Nations act in their long-term interests and nothing else-- and guess what, our long-term interests in the region have nothing to do with terrorism. No, gang, it's much, much more complicated than that: we have to discredit Islamism as a political force in the Middle East- and as a bonus, just because that won't be hard enough, we have to get the people of the Middle East to do it themselves- this change cannot be imposed from above or from the outside.
Kids, the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan weren't aimed at those countries specifically. Instead our real targets were Iran and Pakistan. Iran, because if the Ayatollah and all his merry men are forced from power, it will be a political earthquake the region hasn't seen since 1979, when the Ayatollahs took over Iran and Islamism became a serious political force in the region. Pakistan because we need to fundamentally alter Pakistan's state identity so that it's state institutions can function free of the need to co-opt Islamic fundamentalists for support.
Now do you see why this stuff is so complicated? In the long-term, George W. Bush (brace yourselves, my liberal friends) might just be remembered as a genius. I know that's probably hard for many people to accept right now, but it's true. The tiresome debates over how we got into Iraq and Afghanistan should end. I could care less, personally- and if you're an informed citizen, you shouldn't care either. The wars are what they are and we now have to craft a policy that will disentangle us while furthering our national interests (because that's what countries act on- none of this blessings of liberty or 'let freedom reign' crap, neo-cons. Puh-leez.) and not leaving a bigger mess behind. The real consequences of both invasions and both wars will not become clear for another decade at minimum. (This is why I come across as Republican to a lot of my more liberal friends-- not because I think Bush was necessarily right, but because I'm deferring judgment on his actions until the verdict is in. And it isn't yet. Where I tend to line up with my liberal friends is on his infuriating incompetence in prosecuting the war in Iraq. For that, I devoutly hope that he will be (metaphorically speaking) hanged from the yardarm of history when the dust settles.)
The ripple effects of Iraq should be obvious- once a competent (it took awhile, but we got one) war policy was decided upon, stabilization and relative security followed. This being a remnant of Dubya's foreign policy, it's fair to say that it could all go tits up at any time (hence my deferred judgement), but for now at least, Iraq is moving in the right direction. And look what happened in both Lebanon (with the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and a firm re-assertion of Lebanese sovereignty) and Iran (where the Ayatollah has alienated a whole generation of young people following the brutal crackdown in the wake of June's Presidential elections.) For the people of the region, seeing the messy birth of a functioning democratic state has got a lot of people thinking. And what that means is anyone's guess. (Hence, my deferred judgement!)
Afghanistan is even more messy, because none of the options under discussion are going to work. 45,000 more troops may indeed rollback the Taliban and give the Afghani government room to breathe, but until you can secure the border with Pakistan, it won't do a damn thing. The Taliban can (and probably will) run back across the border and keep right on fighting. The opposing school of thought (calling for a more surgical war directed primarily against Al-Qaeda) would be even more disastrous. Emboldening the Taliban is not the answer. If we run and scale down our war in Afghanistan, the government we've spent blood and money putting into place will fall. Pakistan (given the audacity of some of the recent attacks) will also be under threat (as they'll have no reason to stop co-opting and cooperating with Islamic Fundamentalists to act as a bulwark to the cohesiveness of their state itself.)
The real policy challenge confronting us then, is this: Pakistan is a completely artificial entity (there's never been a Pakistan before '47) and with the untimely death of Jinnah, it had no strong national leader to help formulate a coherent state identity about what exactly it means to be Pakistani, so one sort of had to be made up on the fly. An evil enemy to get people to rally around the flag (India), a Cold War superpower to give them a fancy military to defend the people from aforementioned ugly enemy (the United States) and what, kiddies, is the glue that holds it all together? That's right- Islam!
So how do you a convince a country whose state identity for the past fifty years has involved a closer and closer embrace of increasingly fundamentalist Islamic political forces to well, stop hugging so you can secure and stabilize the country next door and bring your troops home without an early (precipitous) and potentially disastrous withdrawal leaving chaos in your wake? (And oh, as a super-cool bonus, ending this 'embrace' will also keep a nuclear arsenal out of the hands of Islamic fundamentalists- something I think we can all agree would be a super-good thing.)
And kids, if you have an answer to the above problem, please let the President know as soon as possible. As for me, well, I've come to the following conclusion:
Eh, it's complicated.
I want to try and write about this because it's incredibly important- we're about to make the most important foreign policy decision of the new century and to be frank, not enough people are going to be paying attention- and too many people are going to be willing to believe whatever the media tells them. (More and more, I'm thinking that courses on media manipulation should be required at the elementary, high school and college levels. People have simply got to stop eating up the bullshit we get spoon-fed by the media.) The problem I'm finding is that the complexity of the situation doesn't make for very entertaining reading. So, please, gang- bear with me as I try to dissect this:
The infuriating difficulty of our foreign policy in the post 9-11 age is that the quality of regimes we support now matters more than the quantity. This is a fundamental change from the Cold War equation we had been working under- where containment of communism was an overriding national priority and the quantity of regimes in the world that would do our bidding mattered more to us than what policies they pursued. September the 11th proved conclusively that in the 21st Century, we cannot turn a blind eye to the potential shortcomings of any 'allies' we support out there. It is not just that we need allies in the Middle East- we need good ones, that won't oppress their people, who won't, in turn, resent us for bankrolling their oppressors.
The neo-conservative thesis of freedom, liberty, democracy and spreading the blessings of the United States of America is nauseating horse crap that belongs on a Hallmark Card instead of in serious foreign policy discussion. Whenever there's another war and some President, either Democrat or Republican spins us all some bullcrap about 'all the good we're doing' and 'liberating the oppressed people of Whachamacallitstan' don't believe it. Realism, although I can't stand it, holds true. Nations act in their long-term interests and nothing else-- and guess what, our long-term interests in the region have nothing to do with terrorism. No, gang, it's much, much more complicated than that: we have to discredit Islamism as a political force in the Middle East- and as a bonus, just because that won't be hard enough, we have to get the people of the Middle East to do it themselves- this change cannot be imposed from above or from the outside.
Kids, the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan weren't aimed at those countries specifically. Instead our real targets were Iran and Pakistan. Iran, because if the Ayatollah and all his merry men are forced from power, it will be a political earthquake the region hasn't seen since 1979, when the Ayatollahs took over Iran and Islamism became a serious political force in the region. Pakistan because we need to fundamentally alter Pakistan's state identity so that it's state institutions can function free of the need to co-opt Islamic fundamentalists for support.
Now do you see why this stuff is so complicated? In the long-term, George W. Bush (brace yourselves, my liberal friends) might just be remembered as a genius. I know that's probably hard for many people to accept right now, but it's true. The tiresome debates over how we got into Iraq and Afghanistan should end. I could care less, personally- and if you're an informed citizen, you shouldn't care either. The wars are what they are and we now have to craft a policy that will disentangle us while furthering our national interests (because that's what countries act on- none of this blessings of liberty or 'let freedom reign' crap, neo-cons. Puh-leez.) and not leaving a bigger mess behind. The real consequences of both invasions and both wars will not become clear for another decade at minimum. (This is why I come across as Republican to a lot of my more liberal friends-- not because I think Bush was necessarily right, but because I'm deferring judgment on his actions until the verdict is in. And it isn't yet. Where I tend to line up with my liberal friends is on his infuriating incompetence in prosecuting the war in Iraq. For that, I devoutly hope that he will be (metaphorically speaking) hanged from the yardarm of history when the dust settles.)
The ripple effects of Iraq should be obvious- once a competent (it took awhile, but we got one) war policy was decided upon, stabilization and relative security followed. This being a remnant of Dubya's foreign policy, it's fair to say that it could all go tits up at any time (hence my deferred judgement), but for now at least, Iraq is moving in the right direction. And look what happened in both Lebanon (with the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and a firm re-assertion of Lebanese sovereignty) and Iran (where the Ayatollah has alienated a whole generation of young people following the brutal crackdown in the wake of June's Presidential elections.) For the people of the region, seeing the messy birth of a functioning democratic state has got a lot of people thinking. And what that means is anyone's guess. (Hence, my deferred judgement!)
Afghanistan is even more messy, because none of the options under discussion are going to work. 45,000 more troops may indeed rollback the Taliban and give the Afghani government room to breathe, but until you can secure the border with Pakistan, it won't do a damn thing. The Taliban can (and probably will) run back across the border and keep right on fighting. The opposing school of thought (calling for a more surgical war directed primarily against Al-Qaeda) would be even more disastrous. Emboldening the Taliban is not the answer. If we run and scale down our war in Afghanistan, the government we've spent blood and money putting into place will fall. Pakistan (given the audacity of some of the recent attacks) will also be under threat (as they'll have no reason to stop co-opting and cooperating with Islamic Fundamentalists to act as a bulwark to the cohesiveness of their state itself.)
The real policy challenge confronting us then, is this: Pakistan is a completely artificial entity (there's never been a Pakistan before '47) and with the untimely death of Jinnah, it had no strong national leader to help formulate a coherent state identity about what exactly it means to be Pakistani, so one sort of had to be made up on the fly. An evil enemy to get people to rally around the flag (India), a Cold War superpower to give them a fancy military to defend the people from aforementioned ugly enemy (the United States) and what, kiddies, is the glue that holds it all together? That's right- Islam!
So how do you a convince a country whose state identity for the past fifty years has involved a closer and closer embrace of increasingly fundamentalist Islamic political forces to well, stop hugging so you can secure and stabilize the country next door and bring your troops home without an early (precipitous) and potentially disastrous withdrawal leaving chaos in your wake? (And oh, as a super-cool bonus, ending this 'embrace' will also keep a nuclear arsenal out of the hands of Islamic fundamentalists- something I think we can all agree would be a super-good thing.)
And kids, if you have an answer to the above problem, please let the President know as soon as possible. As for me, well, I've come to the following conclusion:
Eh, it's complicated.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What To Do About Afghanistan?
A decision on Afghanistan is coming. I'm assembling thoughts on that myself- and when I get them in order, I'll share 'em with you. But first of all:
The NY Times has a piece worth reading, here.
And Frontline ran a documentary called "Obama's War" this past Tuesday that should required viewing for everyone. And I do mean everyone.
Thoughts, comments, concerns?
The NY Times has a piece worth reading, here.
And Frontline ran a documentary called "Obama's War" this past Tuesday that should required viewing for everyone. And I do mean everyone.
Thoughts, comments, concerns?
Runaway Balloon
An experimental balloon got away in Colorado today, apparently with a 6 year old passenger aboard. They've got the balloon down, but there's no sign of the boy.
**UPDATE: OH SNAP, turns out Balloon Boy was in the garage the whole damn time!
**UPDATE: OH SNAP, turns out Balloon Boy was in the garage the whole damn time!
Become A Fan of Auschwitz on Facebook!
So, Auschwitz (yes, that Auschwitz) has a Facebook page- the perils of which should be aptly illustrated by the title of this post. I get the idea- reaching out and educating people is important, but social networking is a tool primarily for communication, not education. An Auschwitz Facebook page? (There are 3 I've found, crazily enough) it just seems tacky to me.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Christie Vilsack for Senate?
Former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack is being floated/considering a run for Senate against Chuck Grassley next year.
Honestly not sure what to think of this. I suppose it's better than someone that no one has every heard of.
Thoughts, anyone?
Honestly not sure what to think of this. I suppose it's better than someone that no one has every heard of.
Thoughts, anyone?
Branstad Is (Almost) Officially In
Well, it's fast becoming a foregone conclusion- Terry Branstad is seeking a political comeback. He's officially formed a gubernatorial campaign committee.
I still maintain that if he gets the nod, he's the best shot the Republicans have. So if I was Governor Culver-- I'd be getting a little nervous. (But only a little.)
I still maintain that if he gets the nod, he's the best shot the Republicans have. So if I was Governor Culver-- I'd be getting a little nervous. (But only a little.)
No Snowementum
Despite the fact that Maine Senator Olympia Snowe (one of the GOP's so-called Ladies of Maine) voted in favor of the Baucus Bill in the Senate Finance Committee today- Politico.com is reporting that Centrists Democrats still have their doubts on healthcare reform.
I struggle with Health Care reform. I have issues with the idea of the government being involved with Health insurance in any way, shape or form. This is after all, the United States Government we're talking about here. But at the same time, I have bigger issues with the thought that people in America- the United States of America today, right here, right now may actually die because of lack of money or inability to get themselves covered.
People should die from heart attacks. They should die from diseases or natural causes. They shouldn't die from lack of money or inability to get insurance. To me, the fact that this is the situation we face every day in America is the greatest indictment of modern capitalism that I can think of. The problem that I come back to again and again is that 20 years after the Revolutions of 1989, the American left still can't seem to figure out that socialism doesn't work. Command economies are dead dessicated corpses of the failed Soviet experiment and the European welfare state will implode over lack of money and no birthrates to help them through the demographic crunch that's coming.
The fact that money is tied so tightly to medical care is just symptomatic again of the problems of the American system: we are the opposite of China. Our political and economic systems are fast becoming one in the same. And so we find ourselves staring at Health Care costs that are out of control and a political system saddled with an inability to take on the vested economic interests that are stacked against meaningful reform. And if we don't get meaningful reform, what then?
I view socialism as dead. Capitalism as decaying. Libertarianism too cold. Anarchism too out of reach. There's nothing left, but the conclusion that if we do not reform- and not just health care, everything-- our national priority should be to disentangle our politics and economics once and for all- then the rich will continue to get richer and the middle-class and the lower classes will continue to bankroll their largess.
At the end of the day, I have an inherent distrust of any government to do anything efficiently. Governments and bureaucracies are by their very nature paragons of inefficiency. But I think we can get meaningful health care reform. We can get a foundation for future reforms and consumer protections that are badly needed. When I think of living in an America where you need money to save your health or even your life I get mad, I get said and I honestly think about emigrating. No one should have to pay to live.
But as I said: I struggle with Health Care reform.
I struggle with Health Care reform. I have issues with the idea of the government being involved with Health insurance in any way, shape or form. This is after all, the United States Government we're talking about here. But at the same time, I have bigger issues with the thought that people in America- the United States of America today, right here, right now may actually die because of lack of money or inability to get themselves covered.
People should die from heart attacks. They should die from diseases or natural causes. They shouldn't die from lack of money or inability to get insurance. To me, the fact that this is the situation we face every day in America is the greatest indictment of modern capitalism that I can think of. The problem that I come back to again and again is that 20 years after the Revolutions of 1989, the American left still can't seem to figure out that socialism doesn't work. Command economies are dead dessicated corpses of the failed Soviet experiment and the European welfare state will implode over lack of money and no birthrates to help them through the demographic crunch that's coming.
The fact that money is tied so tightly to medical care is just symptomatic again of the problems of the American system: we are the opposite of China. Our political and economic systems are fast becoming one in the same. And so we find ourselves staring at Health Care costs that are out of control and a political system saddled with an inability to take on the vested economic interests that are stacked against meaningful reform. And if we don't get meaningful reform, what then?
I view socialism as dead. Capitalism as decaying. Libertarianism too cold. Anarchism too out of reach. There's nothing left, but the conclusion that if we do not reform- and not just health care, everything-- our national priority should be to disentangle our politics and economics once and for all- then the rich will continue to get richer and the middle-class and the lower classes will continue to bankroll their largess.
At the end of the day, I have an inherent distrust of any government to do anything efficiently. Governments and bureaucracies are by their very nature paragons of inefficiency. But I think we can get meaningful health care reform. We can get a foundation for future reforms and consumer protections that are badly needed. When I think of living in an America where you need money to save your health or even your life I get mad, I get said and I honestly think about emigrating. No one should have to pay to live.
But as I said: I struggle with Health Care reform.
A Breakthrough in Honduras?
Everyone's favorite telenovela may be coming to an end... there's been some kind of an agreement reached to settle (or 'get an exit') to the Honduran Crisis, but it's not quite clear what exactly it entails just yet...
To Tweet or Not To Tweet?
I'm considering taking the plunge and getting the Cigar a Twitter Account. To be honest though, it's more of a balancing act for me: do I want to immerse myself in Twitter and learn its secrets and ways? Or is it just going to turn into something massively lame that I never bother checking or using anyway?
This is the debate I'm currently having with myself. When I first heard of Twitter some months ago, I didn't understand the appeal. To be frank, it seemed like a program devoted to posting what amounted to Facebook status updates for all the world to see. Few, if any people care about my Facebook status updates, so I thought why bother with Twitter?
Then came the Iranian Presidential Elections in June- and the protests that followed transformed Twitter into a lame platform for weird-ass notifications into what had the potential to be a micro-news organization. You could log on to the Iran Election stream and watch hundreds of instantaneously updated Tweets from around the region and around the world. It was a fascinating demonstration of the true potential of Twitter and made me sit back and ponder it some more.
But I still don't know... is it worth it? Would people care? Do people even really read the Cigar that much? (I know there must be a few of you and for that, dear readers I thank you...)
I'll open it up to whomever's out there: is Twitter lame and should I not bother? Or is Twitter super-cool and I should hook into it to push the blog out there a bit?
This is the debate I'm currently having with myself. When I first heard of Twitter some months ago, I didn't understand the appeal. To be frank, it seemed like a program devoted to posting what amounted to Facebook status updates for all the world to see. Few, if any people care about my Facebook status updates, so I thought why bother with Twitter?
Then came the Iranian Presidential Elections in June- and the protests that followed transformed Twitter into a lame platform for weird-ass notifications into what had the potential to be a micro-news organization. You could log on to the Iran Election stream and watch hundreds of instantaneously updated Tweets from around the region and around the world. It was a fascinating demonstration of the true potential of Twitter and made me sit back and ponder it some more.
But I still don't know... is it worth it? Would people care? Do people even really read the Cigar that much? (I know there must be a few of you and for that, dear readers I thank you...)
I'll open it up to whomever's out there: is Twitter lame and should I not bother? Or is Twitter super-cool and I should hook into it to push the blog out there a bit?
Dow@10,000
The Dow has closed above 10,000 for the first time in a year. This is being trumpeted as a good thing and a sign that we're moving 'in the right direction.' Yet unemployment is about to hit 10% and more and more of the costs of these idiotic bailouts and bloated stiumulus packages are being passed on to the states. Iowa is under the gun-- California's much vaunted new budget is already in the red...
So, put the champagne down. This is no reason to celebrate, just another signal that the rich have gotten richer by getting together with the politicians and screwing the rest of us over.
Put. The. Champagne. Down.
So, put the champagne down. This is no reason to celebrate, just another signal that the rich have gotten richer by getting together with the politicians and screwing the rest of us over.
Put. The. Champagne. Down.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Late Night Chronicles 31: WTF, Man?
The Late Night Chronicles is pleased to announce that we believe that we should reduce and completely rid the world of all nuclear arms and moreover, we also think that we should all just be groovy to one another and get along.
Hopefully, the Nobel Prize Committee is going to read this, because I'll be waiting for my kroner and my big, fancy, medallion. Put in the mail, first class please- because I don't want it to get broken or anything. And if you could send the kroner in dollars instead? That'd be totally awesome...
I started my last break in front of a television in Stanley this morning mildly pleased with myself. Thursday night had been fairly quiet, for a change- Burge failed to be the pit of chaos and mayhem that it often is. I finished up my paperwork, sat down and flipped on MSNBC to discover that we were bombing the moon. (NASA carried the one and used the right units this time, so they managed to hit the moon on target!) Oh, and our Glorious President has won the Nobel Peace Prize for reasons passing understanding.
That annoyed me. It really chaps your ass when a bunch of old Scandanavians manage to ruin your morning before it's even really started. I was mildly irritated I got stuck with unlocking a shit-ass ton of buildings, but only mildly. The Nobel Committee managed to reduce me to incoherent rage in the space of about five minutes. Let's be clear: I voted for Obama and I'm really trying very, very, very hard to like him and to find reasons to keep liking him, but WTF, MAN? REALLY? Seriously?
I would be thrilled beyond belief if President Obama had actually done something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, but not to put too fine a point on it, he really hasn't. Not being George W. Bush isn't worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Saying you want a nuclear free world and everyone to get along is a splendid sentiment, but it's not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Changing the international climate is an awesome thing- being more multilateral and respectful of everyone else's feelings in the world- also a good thing. But not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
Perusing the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia, we see that the majority of Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded for past achievement, not some made up bullshit about the stuff our Glorious President has supposedly done in the past nine months and the hope that he'll do something totally kick-ass in the future. I mean, obviously, it'd be great if he does do something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize in the future-- but he should, therefore get it in the future. You know, when he's actually done something!
And I know, I'm being a really cynical bastard- and I'm probably coming across as a right-wing firebrand of the worst kind, but I'm really not. I'm a solid independent who can't stand the Republican Party and has seen invertebrate creatures in petri dishes that have more spine than your average Democratic Politician-- but the justification I've seen thus far is that Obama's made everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside, because 'America is back.' 'Bush is gone.' The justification seems to be that because he's not George W. Bush we should give him a Nobel Peace Prize, which is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard, because let's be totally honest with each other, kids- we could have elected 'Dave The Methhead from the Trailer Court Down the Street' President and the World would have gotten a serious case of the warm and fuzzies. We could have elected Paris Hilton and achieved the same affect.
Not being George W. Bush is one of the chief reasons I voted for Obama in the first place. But does that qualify him for a Nobel Peace Prize? Not in the slightest... look at the list of laureates- and hell, let's start with the US Presidents- the sitting ones who got it: they both got it for doing something! Teddy Roosevelt negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War and Woodrow Wilson- Woodrow Effing Wilson got it for forming a useless international organization (The League of Nations) and crafting what ultimately proved to be a terrible peace treaty (the Treaty of Versailles, that we didn't even sign!)
The official justification: "In its surprise choice, the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament, even though he is just nine months into his presidency." (That's straight from the AP article, by the by...) Ah, so the official justification is that he's not George W. Bush and his supposed work on nuclear disarmament. Can anyone tell me how many nukes we've gotten rid of since he's taken office? Have the Russians signed on? Because if they have and it's been kept a secret- please share, so I can be mildly pleased by this.
The most similar Nobel Peace Prize Laureate I've been able to find who matches the vagueness and incoherence of President Obama's win is Philip Noel-Baker of the UK who won in 1959 for being a 'lifelong ardent worker for international peace and cooperation.' If you've never heard of Mr. Noel-Baker, don't worry, neither have I. A cursory glance at his wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) page reveals that he was awarded the Prize at the age of 70, with a lifetime of work behind him. So it seems that the standard has been for past achievement not just waving and looking pretty and talking a lot, like our Glorious President has done thus far.
Personally, I think he should decline it. That'd be smart politics to me- say thanks, but no thanks- there are more deserving people out there this year and I'd like the chance to actually do something wonderfully kick-ass that's worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Then our President looks very Presidential and very humble, because he had the nuts to turn down a Nobel Peace Prize- which is like the equivalent to an Oscar for a head of state. (Would you really say no to an Oscar? Really? If you weren't terribly bad-ass like Peter O'Toole, who initially turned down an honorary one.) I'd have more respect for the man if he did turn it down and then proceeded to knock heads together in the Middle East and get a peace treaty or something. The fact that he's going to apparently accept it means that he's now got to actually justify getting the damn thing, which is something that could seriously come back to bite him in the ass.
"So soon," said former Polish President Lech Walesa (who won in 1983) "Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage."
Kids, Lech don't sound to happy about this- and neither am I.
Hopefully, the Nobel Prize Committee is going to read this, because I'll be waiting for my kroner and my big, fancy, medallion. Put in the mail, first class please- because I don't want it to get broken or anything. And if you could send the kroner in dollars instead? That'd be totally awesome...
I started my last break in front of a television in Stanley this morning mildly pleased with myself. Thursday night had been fairly quiet, for a change- Burge failed to be the pit of chaos and mayhem that it often is. I finished up my paperwork, sat down and flipped on MSNBC to discover that we were bombing the moon. (NASA carried the one and used the right units this time, so they managed to hit the moon on target!) Oh, and our Glorious President has won the Nobel Peace Prize for reasons passing understanding.
That annoyed me. It really chaps your ass when a bunch of old Scandanavians manage to ruin your morning before it's even really started. I was mildly irritated I got stuck with unlocking a shit-ass ton of buildings, but only mildly. The Nobel Committee managed to reduce me to incoherent rage in the space of about five minutes. Let's be clear: I voted for Obama and I'm really trying very, very, very hard to like him and to find reasons to keep liking him, but WTF, MAN? REALLY? Seriously?
I would be thrilled beyond belief if President Obama had actually done something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, but not to put too fine a point on it, he really hasn't. Not being George W. Bush isn't worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Saying you want a nuclear free world and everyone to get along is a splendid sentiment, but it's not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Changing the international climate is an awesome thing- being more multilateral and respectful of everyone else's feelings in the world- also a good thing. But not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
Perusing the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia, we see that the majority of Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded for past achievement, not some made up bullshit about the stuff our Glorious President has supposedly done in the past nine months and the hope that he'll do something totally kick-ass in the future. I mean, obviously, it'd be great if he does do something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize in the future-- but he should, therefore get it in the future. You know, when he's actually done something!
And I know, I'm being a really cynical bastard- and I'm probably coming across as a right-wing firebrand of the worst kind, but I'm really not. I'm a solid independent who can't stand the Republican Party and has seen invertebrate creatures in petri dishes that have more spine than your average Democratic Politician-- but the justification I've seen thus far is that Obama's made everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside, because 'America is back.' 'Bush is gone.' The justification seems to be that because he's not George W. Bush we should give him a Nobel Peace Prize, which is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard, because let's be totally honest with each other, kids- we could have elected 'Dave The Methhead from the Trailer Court Down the Street' President and the World would have gotten a serious case of the warm and fuzzies. We could have elected Paris Hilton and achieved the same affect.
Not being George W. Bush is one of the chief reasons I voted for Obama in the first place. But does that qualify him for a Nobel Peace Prize? Not in the slightest... look at the list of laureates- and hell, let's start with the US Presidents- the sitting ones who got it: they both got it for doing something! Teddy Roosevelt negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War and Woodrow Wilson- Woodrow Effing Wilson got it for forming a useless international organization (The League of Nations) and crafting what ultimately proved to be a terrible peace treaty (the Treaty of Versailles, that we didn't even sign!)
The official justification: "In its surprise choice, the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament, even though he is just nine months into his presidency." (That's straight from the AP article, by the by...) Ah, so the official justification is that he's not George W. Bush and his supposed work on nuclear disarmament. Can anyone tell me how many nukes we've gotten rid of since he's taken office? Have the Russians signed on? Because if they have and it's been kept a secret- please share, so I can be mildly pleased by this.
The most similar Nobel Peace Prize Laureate I've been able to find who matches the vagueness and incoherence of President Obama's win is Philip Noel-Baker of the UK who won in 1959 for being a 'lifelong ardent worker for international peace and cooperation.' If you've never heard of Mr. Noel-Baker, don't worry, neither have I. A cursory glance at his wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) page reveals that he was awarded the Prize at the age of 70, with a lifetime of work behind him. So it seems that the standard has been for past achievement not just waving and looking pretty and talking a lot, like our Glorious President has done thus far.
Personally, I think he should decline it. That'd be smart politics to me- say thanks, but no thanks- there are more deserving people out there this year and I'd like the chance to actually do something wonderfully kick-ass that's worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Then our President looks very Presidential and very humble, because he had the nuts to turn down a Nobel Peace Prize- which is like the equivalent to an Oscar for a head of state. (Would you really say no to an Oscar? Really? If you weren't terribly bad-ass like Peter O'Toole, who initially turned down an honorary one.) I'd have more respect for the man if he did turn it down and then proceeded to knock heads together in the Middle East and get a peace treaty or something. The fact that he's going to apparently accept it means that he's now got to actually justify getting the damn thing, which is something that could seriously come back to bite him in the ass.
"So soon," said former Polish President Lech Walesa (who won in 1983) "Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage."
Kids, Lech don't sound to happy about this- and neither am I.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
10% Cut
Governor Culver has ordered an immediate across the board 10 percent budget cut. Layoffs, freak-outs and program freezes and shutdowns to follow.
If you work for the state of Iowa, update your resumes, kids.
If you work for the state of Iowa, update your resumes, kids.
Legalize It!
Efforts to legalize pot are gathering pace in California, where as many as 3 ballot initiatives could be set for voters in 2010...
...and here in Iowa, the push for medical marijuana is getting more play, with public hearings held in front of the Iowa board of Pharmacy...
...I am in favor of this. Not because I think it'd be nice to someday go out with the Missus and get baked to the gills in a perfectly legal manner, but also because I think we can make a shit-ass ton of money off of weed. The Fed can tax the shit out of it, the states can tax the shit out of it, local governments can tax the shit out of it. Weed = $ to me and given our rapidly growing national debt, it may be our ticket out of the doghouse- at least partially.
I'm not immune to the concerns of law enforcement and parents for that matter, but having worked security in a high school I can safely say this: alcohol (which is behind a counter in a grocery store) is harder for kids today to get than weed. It's not impossible for them to get both if they really want too, but booze is harder to get ahold of. Weed, if legalized and tightly controlled could be harder for kids to get ahold of as well, which I think we can all agree would be a good thing.
P.S. Enjoy the Peter Tosh. Play it for your friends...
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Party Like Its 1991...
He's apparently taking the first step towards 'being back.' Former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad that, is... he's filed paperwork today creating a campaign committee which most people view as the first step towards capturing the Republican nomination for Governor.
What do I think about this?
1. There are worse Republicans to be saddled with.
2. If I were Governor Culver, I'd be starting to sweat a little.
3. Of all the Republicans in a crowded field, I think he could win.
If the Republicans want to win the Governor's mansion back though, they've got to be careful. I'm increasingly convinced that if they make it about the economy and spending, they've got a good shot. If they get bogged down over gay marriage (I really gots to wonder just how many people in this state care about it, but it's hard to tell from where I'm sitting here in I.C. If anyone out there has a clearer picture, please leave a comment) it'll get messy and they could lose.
What do I think about this?
1. There are worse Republicans to be saddled with.
2. If I were Governor Culver, I'd be starting to sweat a little.
3. Of all the Republicans in a crowded field, I think he could win.
If the Republicans want to win the Governor's mansion back though, they've got to be careful. I'm increasingly convinced that if they make it about the economy and spending, they've got a good shot. If they get bogged down over gay marriage (I really gots to wonder just how many people in this state care about it, but it's hard to tell from where I'm sitting here in I.C. If anyone out there has a clearer picture, please leave a comment) it'll get messy and they could lose.
Guilty Pleasure Wednesdays #2: Goober
Behold! Some more evidence of the existence of a higher power... Goober. This is why I don't really understand atheism, because atheists will probably say something dry and boring about how the mind is perfectly capable of making intuitive leaps such as this one and there's really nothing that special about designing and more to the point, manufacturing something so wildly crazy- and yet oddly logical all at the same time.
I disagree. I think with things such a Cheez-Whiz and Goober, one has to wonder just how the hell the person who came up with the idea made the intuitive leap to begin with. Dr. Whiz didn't just suddenly say 'Hey, let's put cheese in a can, man-- and make it spreadable!' The idea had to come from somewhere. And so it is with Goober. On the face of it, it seems totally crazy and more than a little disgusting, at least potentially. After all, peanut butter and jelly make good sandwiches- but who thinks of putting them both in one jar? Who does that? It's intuitive leaps like these that make me believe in the existence of a higher power- albeit one with a twisted sense of humor. (Or, conversely, it could just be that a lot of people who design foods like these smoke a shit-ass ton of reefer. Take your pick.)
But Goober... oh Goober. How dost I love thee? Let me count the ways: first of all, this shit is delicious. I myself don't bother with bread and just use a spoon (the best way of eating it, methinks...) and well, it's just delicious. I could literally eat a whole jar of this stuff, but then I looked at the calorie count on the food label and decided that might not be such a good idea. As with all delicious foods, this one is massively unhealthy for you in large quantities.
It comes in two flavors- strawberry and grape and I'm torn between which tastes better, but I'd have to say maybe strawberry by a nose hair. This, primarily because I've just never been that big into grape jelly. Really. I don't know why... I'm just not diggin' the grape flavor that much. But there's something about the combination of jelly and peanut butter all into one gooey mess that just goes down perfectly, even without the benefit of bread.
And Goober is the perfect 'recession-proof' spread! Think about it: you could get PB and jelly at separate prices for different costs or you could just get both- in one jar. For one, fairly low price... it's the perfect money saver, especially if you have kids that like PB&J or are just a weird freak that eats Goober straight out of the jar with a spoon.
Either way, it's one helluva delicious guilty pleasure.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Twins 6, Tigers 5 (12th Inning)
So, the Twins won the tiebreaker, take the AL Central and step forward to meet the waiting NY Yankees. Go Twins!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Twins 13, Royals 4
The Twins have forced a tiebreaker with Detroit in the AL Central to decide the division on Tuesday!
Today's game was the last regular season game in the Metrodome and the Missus and I were tentatively planning to go- but she's going to get her CNA so she can hopefully get a better job and be on her way to doing something she wants to do and her first class starts tomorrow. And what with me coming off shift at 0700 this morning-- that would have been a shit-ass load of driving we'd have to do. All in one day. And we just decided that it wasn't worth it. (The tickets were for the cheap seats in the 'Dome so we didn't have to eat a lotta cash.)
And wouldn't you know it? The one game we were gonna go to this year is the game that forces a tiebreaker in the whole damn division!
Ah well. Next year at the new ballpark! (Though given the track record of the Timberwolves, I think calling it 'Target Field' is asking for trouble.)
Oh- and of course, Go Twins!
Fareed Zakaria Rocks My Face Off
...he's got a new column on the Iranian Nuclear Situation that's worth reading- and for what it's worth, I think he's got a fairly solid take on things. Military action would only strengthen the regime and there's no guarantee we could hit everything we need to. Engagement has been rebuffed by the Iranians several times, so that only leaves-- as Zakaria points out, tough containment.
This has actually come up in my American Foreign Policy class quite a bit. After all, who are we to say who has nuclear weapons and who can't? And why can Israel have nukes and Iran can't? Are we the ones who judge who's responsible enough to handle nukes?
All good questions- the problem, I think, is that in the post-Cold War era, the old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction no longer holds true- because in the two potential nuclear hot spots on the globe, there's no parity between the conflicting parties. Consider India and Pakistan and Iran and Israel. Both India and Iran are bigger than Pakistan and Israel respectively. If you try and apply MAD to these potential conflicts, Pakistan and Israel get wiped off the map.
Back in the day, MAD worked because there was a rough sort of parity between the USA and the USSR. We could launch nukes at each, take out some launch sites and there was a good chance that something would be left standing (although not much) after all was said and done. India and Pakistan could launch all their nukes at each other and India would still have something left. Pakistan would be ash.
Same thing with Israel and Iran. Given the fact that Israeli foreign policy has been rooted in the one core principle of preserving the Jewish state no matter the costs, its easy to see why a nuclear Iran makes Tel Aviv very, very nervous. They could launch everything they had at Iran and still not wipe 'em out. Iran could do the same back to them and that'd be it. No more Israel.
The power imbalance between today's nuclear rivals necessitates a new security doctrine of some kind, but damned if I know what it could be. Every country has a right to self-defense and a right to exist- but how do you ensure sane and sensible behavior of your enemies if they can wipe you out and you can't do the same in return? Truly, it's the death of MAD.
Plus- if someone accidentally pressed a button during the Cold War, there was a decent chance someone could make a phone call and try and convince the other guy that it really was an accident. If someone in Islamabad or Tel Aviv presses the wrong button, no one's will know until after the dust is settling. (Plus, why are we freaking out about Iran maybe getting weapons. Pakistan is a totally basket case of a country and already has them. Little bit of a policy disconnect there, I think.)
However you slice and dice it, it's a tricky situation for the Obama Administration- and one that could turn into a truly EPIC FAIL if they're not careful.
This has actually come up in my American Foreign Policy class quite a bit. After all, who are we to say who has nuclear weapons and who can't? And why can Israel have nukes and Iran can't? Are we the ones who judge who's responsible enough to handle nukes?
All good questions- the problem, I think, is that in the post-Cold War era, the old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction no longer holds true- because in the two potential nuclear hot spots on the globe, there's no parity between the conflicting parties. Consider India and Pakistan and Iran and Israel. Both India and Iran are bigger than Pakistan and Israel respectively. If you try and apply MAD to these potential conflicts, Pakistan and Israel get wiped off the map.
Back in the day, MAD worked because there was a rough sort of parity between the USA and the USSR. We could launch nukes at each, take out some launch sites and there was a good chance that something would be left standing (although not much) after all was said and done. India and Pakistan could launch all their nukes at each other and India would still have something left. Pakistan would be ash.
Same thing with Israel and Iran. Given the fact that Israeli foreign policy has been rooted in the one core principle of preserving the Jewish state no matter the costs, its easy to see why a nuclear Iran makes Tel Aviv very, very nervous. They could launch everything they had at Iran and still not wipe 'em out. Iran could do the same back to them and that'd be it. No more Israel.
The power imbalance between today's nuclear rivals necessitates a new security doctrine of some kind, but damned if I know what it could be. Every country has a right to self-defense and a right to exist- but how do you ensure sane and sensible behavior of your enemies if they can wipe you out and you can't do the same in return? Truly, it's the death of MAD.
Plus- if someone accidentally pressed a button during the Cold War, there was a decent chance someone could make a phone call and try and convince the other guy that it really was an accident. If someone in Islamabad or Tel Aviv presses the wrong button, no one's will know until after the dust is settling. (Plus, why are we freaking out about Iran maybe getting weapons. Pakistan is a totally basket case of a country and already has them. Little bit of a policy disconnect there, I think.)
However you slice and dice it, it's a tricky situation for the Obama Administration- and one that could turn into a truly EPIC FAIL if they're not careful.
Late Night Chronicles 30: Pink (Is My New Obsession)
I love boobs. I'm a guy, so I'm a fan-- in fact, I've always been a fan- and now have (along with the perfect wife) a very nice set of boobs to enjoy forever (if I've been a good boy and the wife is feeling nice-)- so life, needless to say, is wonderful. So I can get behind the concept of supporting Breast Cancer Awareness Month without any hesitation whatsoever. I even have a t-shirt somewhere that proudly declares: 'Save The Ta-Ta's!' And yea, verily, I think they should be saved.
And you know what? I like my moobs too. They're there, they're not gross and droopy and they haven't gotten any bigger lately- so I'm a fan of my moobies. I'd like to preserve them as well, if it all possible. (Lest we forget, gentlemen- breast cancer isn't just for the ladies.) What I have to scratch my head and wonder about is just how much support can one give to the idea of breast cancer awareness- and more importantly, where is this money going?
The whole 'pink' for breast cancer awareness seems to have taken on a life of its own. Back in the day, when I was younger and more foolish, you saw people with ribbons, maybe an earlier precursor to a Livestrong bracelet and, of course, YoPlait and their pink lids. Today, however, pink has exploded. Not only can one get a pink upright vacuum (an Oreck no less.) to support breast cancer, but you can get Kitchen Aid brand kitchen ware and Target apparently has pink gloves and tool sets- and there are even pink upright brooms you can get. And it's been awhile, but I'd swear blind the last time I was in Hy-Vee, I saw something that could very well have been a pink accented case of Bud Light. All to support breast cancer awareness.
And then, there's today... if you're watching an NFL game today, surely you've noticed. Pink accented gloves, pink armbands, pink caps-- pink everywhere. Sure, they tried to 'man it up' a little bit by making it a 'darker, cooler' shade of pink- but nevertheless, it's still pink. And yes, kids, it too it to support breast cancer awareness.
Now, I may be a horrible person for asking this question- but I feel like somebody should: why? I mean, I think it's great the amount of work the NFL does for things like the United Way and the general concept for getting children off of their asses and running around- but breast cancer awareness? Really? Plus- how much pink shit do we really need? And how much of that money is going to actual, real-live breast cancer research? Is a buying a Pink Oreck going to save a life somehow? These are all pressing questions in my mind currently... because I think the issue of breast cancer awareness is a good thing. Breast cancer kills a lot of our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, daughters- and even husbands, fathers, sons and brothers every year. We should be raising money to find a cure for this thing. Absolutely.
But the over-consumerization (yea, that's right- I wrote that word, suckas!) of the issue risks, I think a couple of things: first of all, burnout. I'm sorry, but pink vacuum cleaners just piss me right off. Do these people think that I've forgotten about breast cancer? Really? There's a risk, if you assault the senses too much that people will just stop giving a shit, because they've now got Shermin-Williams Brand Pink paint in every single room of their house, pink Martha Stewart furnishings and draperies and a pink Tempur-Pedic Mattress to boot. And I'm willing to bet, if we let pink run amuck long enough we could actually get to that situation someday. (Oh and P.S.- I have a sneaking suspicion that if we do get to that point, all that money still won't have found a cure for breast cancer!)
Secondly, there's the itching, burning question: where does all this money go? A cursory google search reveals that there's a wonderful website out there call Think Before You Pink (http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org) that asks some hard questions about where your money goes! Everyone out there who wants to support this issue seriously should peruse this website-- the info on it may surprise you.
FInally, I got end with these two little nuggets of thought that are swirling around in my brain: first, although again, yay to the NFL for caring- I gotta ask: given the paucity of breasts in the NFL, would it not perhaps make a little more sense to give a shout-out to a cancer that does affect men- although not in anywhere near the same ways as breast cancer- give a shout out for testicular cancer! After all, one of the first rules of football is that if you've got the ball on offense, then you've got to protect the ball, er, balls... something like that.
Secondly, the thought wanders through my brain: if breast cancer killed more men than women, who wants to bet that we'd have a cure for it already?
And you know what? I like my moobs too. They're there, they're not gross and droopy and they haven't gotten any bigger lately- so I'm a fan of my moobies. I'd like to preserve them as well, if it all possible. (Lest we forget, gentlemen- breast cancer isn't just for the ladies.) What I have to scratch my head and wonder about is just how much support can one give to the idea of breast cancer awareness- and more importantly, where is this money going?
The whole 'pink' for breast cancer awareness seems to have taken on a life of its own. Back in the day, when I was younger and more foolish, you saw people with ribbons, maybe an earlier precursor to a Livestrong bracelet and, of course, YoPlait and their pink lids. Today, however, pink has exploded. Not only can one get a pink upright vacuum (an Oreck no less.) to support breast cancer, but you can get Kitchen Aid brand kitchen ware and Target apparently has pink gloves and tool sets- and there are even pink upright brooms you can get. And it's been awhile, but I'd swear blind the last time I was in Hy-Vee, I saw something that could very well have been a pink accented case of Bud Light. All to support breast cancer awareness.
And then, there's today... if you're watching an NFL game today, surely you've noticed. Pink accented gloves, pink armbands, pink caps-- pink everywhere. Sure, they tried to 'man it up' a little bit by making it a 'darker, cooler' shade of pink- but nevertheless, it's still pink. And yes, kids, it too it to support breast cancer awareness.
Now, I may be a horrible person for asking this question- but I feel like somebody should: why? I mean, I think it's great the amount of work the NFL does for things like the United Way and the general concept for getting children off of their asses and running around- but breast cancer awareness? Really? Plus- how much pink shit do we really need? And how much of that money is going to actual, real-live breast cancer research? Is a buying a Pink Oreck going to save a life somehow? These are all pressing questions in my mind currently... because I think the issue of breast cancer awareness is a good thing. Breast cancer kills a lot of our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, daughters- and even husbands, fathers, sons and brothers every year. We should be raising money to find a cure for this thing. Absolutely.
But the over-consumerization (yea, that's right- I wrote that word, suckas!) of the issue risks, I think a couple of things: first of all, burnout. I'm sorry, but pink vacuum cleaners just piss me right off. Do these people think that I've forgotten about breast cancer? Really? There's a risk, if you assault the senses too much that people will just stop giving a shit, because they've now got Shermin-Williams Brand Pink paint in every single room of their house, pink Martha Stewart furnishings and draperies and a pink Tempur-Pedic Mattress to boot. And I'm willing to bet, if we let pink run amuck long enough we could actually get to that situation someday. (Oh and P.S.- I have a sneaking suspicion that if we do get to that point, all that money still won't have found a cure for breast cancer!)
Secondly, there's the itching, burning question: where does all this money go? A cursory google search reveals that there's a wonderful website out there call Think Before You Pink (http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org) that asks some hard questions about where your money goes! Everyone out there who wants to support this issue seriously should peruse this website-- the info on it may surprise you.
FInally, I got end with these two little nuggets of thought that are swirling around in my brain: first, although again, yay to the NFL for caring- I gotta ask: given the paucity of breasts in the NFL, would it not perhaps make a little more sense to give a shout-out to a cancer that does affect men- although not in anywhere near the same ways as breast cancer- give a shout out for testicular cancer! After all, one of the first rules of football is that if you've got the ball on offense, then you've got to protect the ball, er, balls... something like that.
Secondly, the thought wanders through my brain: if breast cancer killed more men than women, who wants to bet that we'd have a cure for it already?
Friday, October 2, 2009
Felicitações!
Rio De Janeiro has been awarded the 2016 Summer Olympics, beating out Tokyo, Madrid and Chicago to do so. This was despite last minute pitches from President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama (and former IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch and King Juan Carlos for Madrid)-- in the end though, it was Pele and President Lula Da Silva that got the job done and got South America its first Olympic Games.
Although I'm a little disappointed that the games won't be coming to the Midwest, I do think Rio was the perfect choice. About time that South America got the games- and what better place to do it than beautiful Rio De Janeiro. Even as Beijing was China's 'coming out party' to the world- I think Rio could be Brazil's. There will be some problems to overcome (especially security ones) but I think Brazil is going to put on quite the party. We'll just have to see in what, seven years or so?
I also think Chicago's elimination in the first round was a serious bitch slap to the President, who is NOT having a good week- or, for that matter a good year. But I'll save my thunder for a 'LNC One Year Report Card' next month!
But Felicitações a Rio!
CHS Homecoming Parade 2009
This was held on Wednesday, but am just getting the photos up now. Sorry for the delay. I was very, very impressed by how much this event has grown since I was in high school. They had just re-started it when I was a senior and it was a piddling little sight to see- but now, this qualifies as a full on parade. Quite the sight and quite the event for the East Side!
The line up...
Parade watching fuel... plus, this thing went right in front of our house, so we (or I, at least- the Missus was still at work.) had the best seats in the house!
The Pep Band!
A shout-out for The Quiet Man's friend the Mervgatti-- his favorite teach and the rest of the World Languages Department. (Sorry it's blurry, Merv...)
Some more of the parade...
City High plays CR Kennedy for their homecoming game tonight and the Missus and I were toying with the idea of going, but the weather today is truly miserable. It's going to be a soupy mess at Bates Field and a chilly home stand for the Little Hawks. (Their QB AJ Derby has made a verbal commitment to Iowa-- and by all accounts he's pretty awesome to watch, so maybe later in the season.)
The line up...
Parade watching fuel... plus, this thing went right in front of our house, so we (or I, at least- the Missus was still at work.) had the best seats in the house!
The Pep Band!
A shout-out for The Quiet Man's friend the Mervgatti-- his favorite teach and the rest of the World Languages Department. (Sorry it's blurry, Merv...)
Some more of the parade...
City High plays CR Kennedy for their homecoming game tonight and the Missus and I were toying with the idea of going, but the weather today is truly miserable. It's going to be a soupy mess at Bates Field and a chilly home stand for the Little Hawks. (Their QB AJ Derby has made a verbal commitment to Iowa-- and by all accounts he's pretty awesome to watch, so maybe later in the season.)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Late Night Chronicles 29: An Editorial
Should the UI Build A New Dorm? The headline in the DI was predictable and the point/counterpoint that followed was also sadly predictable- though I really didn't know what else I expected. This is the DI we're talking about here. (And while I'm here, what's with these Regents? I never remember them being this crazy-talking. First one wants to sell the Pollack and now one wants a new dorm and a tuition increase. Yummy!) But the debate about new dorms has been flaring up now and again for years now- usually on slow news days or, in this case, when Regent Robert Downer declared that the UI should build a new dorm, apropos of pretty much nothing.
I live in the dorms. Well, not literally- but every night when the students are tucked away safely in bed (or if it's a weekend, if they're puking in the halls, shitting and pissing in the halls and/or passing out in the halls) I'm checking every floor and rattling every door and looking in all the dark corners for things amiss- and I do so in every single dorm on campus. And I can say with certainty that Regent Downer's concerns are admirable- but ultimately misplaced.
What do I mean by that? Well- for a start, there are good dorms and there are bad dorms. There are dorms that are well designed and easy to check (Slater, Rienow) and then there are dorms that are horrifically bad design mazes, rabbit warrens of hell that I hate to check (Burge, I'm lookin' at you...) there are dorms out in the middle of nowhere (Mayflower that's you-) and dorms that are no longer dorms but, for reasons passing understanding used to be dorms- (Parklawn, which looks like the 1970s threw up all over it on the inside. Trust me on this.) We've got a good complement of dorms going- and they're pretty full.
Sure I can hear you say- we should build a new dorm and get students out of temp housing- they need the room. Well, maybe is what I say to that. There are always students in temp housing- there were when I was a freshman at Hillcrest and I think there always will be. What's a credit to the University Housing Services is that they get students in temp housing placed very, very quickly. One just has to go through Slater and Rienow to see that the numbers of students crammed into lounges has dropped dramatically.
We should build a new dorm because a new dorm would be shiny and new and a good recruiting tool. Um, what? (This contention came from Michael Dale-Stein in the DI yesterday) A new dorm would look good, but if students base their decision to come to Iowa on the quality of the dorm, then they're dumb and they shouldn't be coming here. College should be based on the quality of academics not whether or not you've got a swish new flashy dorm to go home to at the end of the day.
It'll break the apartment monopoly in Iowa City. No, it won't. If people honestly believe that a new dorm is going to break down the entrenched landlords in this City, they're on some seriously good drugs. And I want some. Landlords will always be powerful in this city, because once you're past your freshmen year, you usually don't want to stay in the dorms. I know I didn't-- and therein lies the real problem. If we're going to build a shiny new dorm, then you have to figure out a way to keep some sophomores and juniors in the dorms. The biggest customers of the residence halls are freshmen and after that, there's usually an exodus out to off-campus housing-- hence, the so-called apartment monopoly. Upper classmen just want to be out on their own.
Lest we forget, there's also the economic arguments to think of. Although University Housing is self-sustaining, these aren't exactly times of plenty for anyone. Should we be embarking on mad quests for new dorms that could cost up to $60 million? Even if the project would be self-sustaining over the course of the long term? At the present time, that doesn't strike me as the most responsible course of action.
So what should we do? Well, kids- I'm glad you asked, because I have a small proposal of my own to float. A new dorm would be overkill- but expanding and renovating an existing dorm might be in order. I don't know why, when everyone talks about new dorms, they always hate on Quadrangle, but they do-- personally, I find Quad to be a treat. It's older, sure- and it does need a makeover, but it's linear, it's a breeze to check and it's got a classy, historic feel that is lacking in a lot of other dorms. Plus- and here's the kicker- it's not actually a quandrangle anymore.
So why not restore the Quadrangle? Make Quad quandrangular again! The northeast chunk, where the Volleyball Courts are now was razed in the mid-70s because the University couldn't afford the upkeep and it was 'an insurance drain.' If there's a demand for more housing, expansion and renovation would seem to be a more fiscally responsible course of action than building a whole new building.
People may not know it, but Quad is actually one of the oldest dorms on campus- only parts of Currier are older and it's been a model for residence life since it was built in the 1920s. It was largely self-governing by the 20s and 30s and the residences had some of the highest GPAs on campus at the time. In other words- there's a lot of history there and if there's one thing we can fault ourselves for in this country, it's the lamentable tendency to look at an old, classy lookin' building and saying to ourselves 'It's old, let's rip it down and build a strip mall.'
Renovating and restoring Quad to it's former glory would solve everyone's problems. Increased capacity for the dorms- modernization for a dorm that sorely needs it. (And if the University can makeover the Old Music Building from it's former shitheap status into something the Psychology Department actually wants to move into, they can work their magic on Quad)-- and we'd be preserving one of the oldest buildings on campus. Even the medical campus, which seems to grow like some giant sea monster, exponentially with every passing year (Kinnick in 2050 will be surrounded by the UIHC. I'm totally calling it) managed to resist the urge to rip down the original hospital tower- and the Gothic Tower hidden away amongst the modern skyline of the West Campus is a little bit of randomness that reminds us all of how far we've come and just where we've been.
I live in the dorms. Well, not literally- but every night when the students are tucked away safely in bed (or if it's a weekend, if they're puking in the halls, shitting and pissing in the halls and/or passing out in the halls) I'm checking every floor and rattling every door and looking in all the dark corners for things amiss- and I do so in every single dorm on campus. And I can say with certainty that Regent Downer's concerns are admirable- but ultimately misplaced.
What do I mean by that? Well- for a start, there are good dorms and there are bad dorms. There are dorms that are well designed and easy to check (Slater, Rienow) and then there are dorms that are horrifically bad design mazes, rabbit warrens of hell that I hate to check (Burge, I'm lookin' at you...) there are dorms out in the middle of nowhere (Mayflower that's you-) and dorms that are no longer dorms but, for reasons passing understanding used to be dorms- (Parklawn, which looks like the 1970s threw up all over it on the inside. Trust me on this.) We've got a good complement of dorms going- and they're pretty full.
Sure I can hear you say- we should build a new dorm and get students out of temp housing- they need the room. Well, maybe is what I say to that. There are always students in temp housing- there were when I was a freshman at Hillcrest and I think there always will be. What's a credit to the University Housing Services is that they get students in temp housing placed very, very quickly. One just has to go through Slater and Rienow to see that the numbers of students crammed into lounges has dropped dramatically.
We should build a new dorm because a new dorm would be shiny and new and a good recruiting tool. Um, what? (This contention came from Michael Dale-Stein in the DI yesterday) A new dorm would look good, but if students base their decision to come to Iowa on the quality of the dorm, then they're dumb and they shouldn't be coming here. College should be based on the quality of academics not whether or not you've got a swish new flashy dorm to go home to at the end of the day.
It'll break the apartment monopoly in Iowa City. No, it won't. If people honestly believe that a new dorm is going to break down the entrenched landlords in this City, they're on some seriously good drugs. And I want some. Landlords will always be powerful in this city, because once you're past your freshmen year, you usually don't want to stay in the dorms. I know I didn't-- and therein lies the real problem. If we're going to build a shiny new dorm, then you have to figure out a way to keep some sophomores and juniors in the dorms. The biggest customers of the residence halls are freshmen and after that, there's usually an exodus out to off-campus housing-- hence, the so-called apartment monopoly. Upper classmen just want to be out on their own.
Lest we forget, there's also the economic arguments to think of. Although University Housing is self-sustaining, these aren't exactly times of plenty for anyone. Should we be embarking on mad quests for new dorms that could cost up to $60 million? Even if the project would be self-sustaining over the course of the long term? At the present time, that doesn't strike me as the most responsible course of action.
So what should we do? Well, kids- I'm glad you asked, because I have a small proposal of my own to float. A new dorm would be overkill- but expanding and renovating an existing dorm might be in order. I don't know why, when everyone talks about new dorms, they always hate on Quadrangle, but they do-- personally, I find Quad to be a treat. It's older, sure- and it does need a makeover, but it's linear, it's a breeze to check and it's got a classy, historic feel that is lacking in a lot of other dorms. Plus- and here's the kicker- it's not actually a quandrangle anymore.
So why not restore the Quadrangle? Make Quad quandrangular again! The northeast chunk, where the Volleyball Courts are now was razed in the mid-70s because the University couldn't afford the upkeep and it was 'an insurance drain.' If there's a demand for more housing, expansion and renovation would seem to be a more fiscally responsible course of action than building a whole new building.
People may not know it, but Quad is actually one of the oldest dorms on campus- only parts of Currier are older and it's been a model for residence life since it was built in the 1920s. It was largely self-governing by the 20s and 30s and the residences had some of the highest GPAs on campus at the time. In other words- there's a lot of history there and if there's one thing we can fault ourselves for in this country, it's the lamentable tendency to look at an old, classy lookin' building and saying to ourselves 'It's old, let's rip it down and build a strip mall.'
Renovating and restoring Quad to it's former glory would solve everyone's problems. Increased capacity for the dorms- modernization for a dorm that sorely needs it. (And if the University can makeover the Old Music Building from it's former shitheap status into something the Psychology Department actually wants to move into, they can work their magic on Quad)-- and we'd be preserving one of the oldest buildings on campus. Even the medical campus, which seems to grow like some giant sea monster, exponentially with every passing year (Kinnick in 2050 will be surrounded by the UIHC. I'm totally calling it) managed to resist the urge to rip down the original hospital tower- and the Gothic Tower hidden away amongst the modern skyline of the West Campus is a little bit of randomness that reminds us all of how far we've come and just where we've been.
Gordon Brown IS burnin' down...
This is a ways off yet, but predictions of doom for the Labour Party in the UK are everywhere. They're in 3rd Place in the Polls for the first time since 1982 and although the election's a ways off, it's still not good news.
Don't see how they could survive but I'm not convinced the Tories are quite ready for prime time yet, but they could prove me wrong. David Cameron hasn't been a complete idiot.
So stay tuned!
Don't see how they could survive but I'm not convinced the Tories are quite ready for prime time yet, but they could prove me wrong. David Cameron hasn't been a complete idiot.
So stay tuned!
Chicago 2016
First Lady Michelle Obama has arrived in Copenhagen ahead of the IOC vote Friday on which city to award the 2016 Summer Games too--- she's stumping hard for the Windy City and the President is heading out there tomorrow.
Madrid, Tokyo and Rio De Janeiro are in the mix, though word on NPR this morning was that Madrid and Tokyo are fading and it's fast becoming a Rio De Janeiro vs. Chicago rope-a-dope for the title.
I think it'd be fab for Chicago to get the games in 2016. The location would be beautiful and if they put together the right kind of bid, it could really put the Windy City and by extension, the Midwest on the map. So I'm hoping they get it.
Rio could be an interesting choice, but there would be security concerns there- how many I'm not sure, but I think, as FIFA's doing this continent rotating thing for the World Cup now that Brazil could get a consolation prize with hosting the World Cup sometime soon, but I'm not totally sure on that.
Either way, exciting! Go Chicago, Go!
Madrid, Tokyo and Rio De Janeiro are in the mix, though word on NPR this morning was that Madrid and Tokyo are fading and it's fast becoming a Rio De Janeiro vs. Chicago rope-a-dope for the title.
I think it'd be fab for Chicago to get the games in 2016. The location would be beautiful and if they put together the right kind of bid, it could really put the Windy City and by extension, the Midwest on the map. So I'm hoping they get it.
Rio could be an interesting choice, but there would be security concerns there- how many I'm not sure, but I think, as FIFA's doing this continent rotating thing for the World Cup now that Brazil could get a consolation prize with hosting the World Cup sometime soon, but I'm not totally sure on that.
Either way, exciting! Go Chicago, Go!
Piss On That, Part IV
Are these people trying to script a telenovela? Seriously now! I can totally sell this to Univision-- [insert deep basso profoundo voice] Este Sabado! Amor! Guerra! Presidentes! Muerte! Traícion! Todos en... HONDURAS!
It'd totally rock, right?
Anyway-- the latest: 50 Zelaya supporters were arrested in a pre-dawn raid carried out under a new controversial (gasp!) law that suspended (at least temporarily) civil liberties. The Interim Government has indicated that it could be lifted soon (there are elections set for November 29th) and the head of the Armed Forces has urged a negotiated settlement to the crisis (read: we don't want none your silly civilian mess) and Congress has said if President Micheletti doesn't repeal his decree suspending civil liberties they will.
So despite a pretty dumb move it seems that common sense is still stalking the halls of government in Tegucigalpa. Tune in soon for more, because I'm sure something else crazy is gonna happen. Oh and for your viewing pleasure:
The man himself, Zelaya. Despite my distaste for this certified card-carrying member of the Latin American Loony Left, I have to admit: that's one kick-ass shitkicker of a hat.
It'd totally rock, right?
Anyway-- the latest: 50 Zelaya supporters were arrested in a pre-dawn raid carried out under a new controversial (gasp!) law that suspended (at least temporarily) civil liberties. The Interim Government has indicated that it could be lifted soon (there are elections set for November 29th) and the head of the Armed Forces has urged a negotiated settlement to the crisis (read: we don't want none your silly civilian mess) and Congress has said if President Micheletti doesn't repeal his decree suspending civil liberties they will.
So despite a pretty dumb move it seems that common sense is still stalking the halls of government in Tegucigalpa. Tune in soon for more, because I'm sure something else crazy is gonna happen. Oh and for your viewing pleasure:
The man himself, Zelaya. Despite my distaste for this certified card-carrying member of the Latin American Loony Left, I have to admit: that's one kick-ass shitkicker of a hat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)