Since Apple launched it's tablet computer, known as the iPad a couple of days ago, the internet has exploded with the inevitable jokes about feminine hygiene products. However, the good folks at tamponcrafts.com (Yes, it's a real website) have gone one step further.
Click here to find out more.
Excuse me, I have to go wrap my head around the wonderous notion that there is a website called tamponcrafts.com.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
BCS Antitrust?
I hate the BCS- so does pretty much every College Football fan I can think of, but the news that the Justice Department may start investigating the potential legality of the system?
I hate that even more. Don't we have more important things to be doing right now?
I hate that even more. Don't we have more important things to be doing right now?
Did They Miss A Penalty?
Were the Vikings hosed out of a trip to the Super Bowl? Well, broadly speaking, what's done is done, but I'm gonna take the opportunity to reiterate my dislike for the pro rules of overtime. Ending a whole season on a measly kicked field goal is anti-climactic and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because it's just so blah. The college game, for all it's faults at least lets both teams' offenses have a shot at the end zone. It just seems fairer to me, somehow.
Of course, the counter-argument to that is this: if you don't want your season ending on a field goal, play some damn defense.
Of course, the counter-argument to that is this: if you don't want your season ending on a field goal, play some damn defense.
The $6.4 Billion Question
I'm baffled. The US is selling Taiwan $6.4 billion in arms, weapons and other such things, which I suppose is all well and good, but I remain baffled. The US does in fact have a treaty obligation to 'provide Taiwan with the means to defend themselves.' The Shanghai Communique acknowledges that US is interested in the Chinese resolving the question of Taiwan themselves. We don't want none of that, at least on paper.
Selling Taiwan $6.4 billion worth of weapons is gonna piss China off. Given the chess-like dance the US performs with China over the question of Taiwan in a good year, I'm wondering why we decided to put what amounts to a bag of dog s--t on their doorstep and light it on fire right at the present time.
So, I remain, baffled.
Selling Taiwan $6.4 billion worth of weapons is gonna piss China off. Given the chess-like dance the US performs with China over the question of Taiwan in a good year, I'm wondering why we decided to put what amounts to a bag of dog s--t on their doorstep and light it on fire right at the present time.
So, I remain, baffled.
'Avatar': The Alternative Alternative View
Having read this in the Daily Iowan and now this in the Star Tribune, allow me to retort:
It was a bad movie. It looked sexy as hell, but other than that it was a jumble of the worst kind of derivative science-fiction schlock that combined elements of the Smurfs, Pocahantas and Aliens into a too long bloated epic whose last act was utterly predictable.
It was a bad movie.
It was a bad movie. It looked sexy as hell, but other than that it was a jumble of the worst kind of derivative science-fiction schlock that combined elements of the Smurfs, Pocahantas and Aliens into a too long bloated epic whose last act was utterly predictable.
It was a bad movie.
$40 Million For New Museum
A new Art Museum for the University of Iowa now has an estimated price tag of $40-50 million according to estimates from the final report of the envisioning committee that wrapped up it's work yesterday with plans to present a final report to University President Sally Mason on Tuesday.
The initial summary in the Press-Citizen looks extremely promising- the Envisioning Committee hit the nail right on the head by calling for a central location for the new Museum. It's long past time that the world-class collection we have the U gets a central location for the entire community and more importantly a facility to match. $40 million seems about right, even if the bulk of it does have to come from private donors.
They wisely excluded a location near Hancher- and the other sites sound promising as well. The first, East of the Linquist Center between Clinton and Capitol Streets confused me, because that's pretty much the Old Capitol Mall. Which perhaps would be awesome, but only if they can carve out a specific space for themselves. I don't think it'd work if they had to share with other University offices, etc. (Though if they remodeled and took over the Second Floor? Hmmm...)
The second, on the block of Starbucks and the Mill Restaurant would be excellent. It's own space, a nice compliment to the (hopefully) new Music Building across the street. Starbucks with it's overpriced coffee I can do without, but making the Mill move would be a wrench. Their pizza is GOOD.
The third sounds slightly bizzare: above a new four story parking ramp across from the Iowa Memorial Union. I'm not sure I can even picture what that looks like. Unless they move the Dance Department to the Old Museum Building (which I think the Dance Department wants to do anyway) and built a new four story ramp and stuck the Museum on top of it... I'm really not sure how to feel about it. I guess I'd have to see a visual representation or something.
Either way- this is an awesome piece of good news! Hopefully they can get a plan in short order and start fundraising as quickly as possible!
The initial summary in the Press-Citizen looks extremely promising- the Envisioning Committee hit the nail right on the head by calling for a central location for the new Museum. It's long past time that the world-class collection we have the U gets a central location for the entire community and more importantly a facility to match. $40 million seems about right, even if the bulk of it does have to come from private donors.
They wisely excluded a location near Hancher- and the other sites sound promising as well. The first, East of the Linquist Center between Clinton and Capitol Streets confused me, because that's pretty much the Old Capitol Mall. Which perhaps would be awesome, but only if they can carve out a specific space for themselves. I don't think it'd work if they had to share with other University offices, etc. (Though if they remodeled and took over the Second Floor? Hmmm...)
The second, on the block of Starbucks and the Mill Restaurant would be excellent. It's own space, a nice compliment to the (hopefully) new Music Building across the street. Starbucks with it's overpriced coffee I can do without, but making the Mill move would be a wrench. Their pizza is GOOD.
The third sounds slightly bizzare: above a new four story parking ramp across from the Iowa Memorial Union. I'm not sure I can even picture what that looks like. Unless they move the Dance Department to the Old Museum Building (which I think the Dance Department wants to do anyway) and built a new four story ramp and stuck the Museum on top of it... I'm really not sure how to feel about it. I guess I'd have to see a visual representation or something.
Either way- this is an awesome piece of good news! Hopefully they can get a plan in short order and start fundraising as quickly as possible!
Friday, January 29, 2010
Iowa River Whitewater Park?
There's a seedling of an idea floating around out there to create a whitewater park along the Iowa River by the Marriot in Coralville. Not a lot of details yet, but it's an intriguing idea- and hey, anything's got to be better than a fake rainforest, right?
'That's Not True'
The internet has exploded in outrage and counter-outrage because when the President decided to slap around the Supreme Court over Citizens United, Justice Alito looks to have done something really funky with his tongue and then mouthed 'That's Not True.' Let me dissect this:
Those who are outraged: feel that the Supreme Court should sit their like stones, as tradition and decorum supposedly dictate that they do (the Joint Chiefs also are just supposed to sit there and try not to get caught snoozing) when the President decides to slap them around.
Those who are outraged at the outrage: feel that it was the height of bad taste to slap the Supreme Court around at the State of the Union to begin with. (My favorite comment I've seen thus far: “Obama chose to call out the only 9 guys in the room that did their homework in law school. And the rest who ended up settling for politics stood and and cheer[ed] it. That’s the embarrassment.” (Courtesy of Instapundit/Althouse.)
The more time passes after Citizens United, the more I feel that the Supremes had a fairly coherent point to make. The Government stepped beyond it's scope- regulate money, sure- but they were dipping their toes into regulating content- which is a clear infringement on the First Amendment. There's a column that I think everyone should read (here) which notes the distinction between the two emerging schools of thought (the left and the right) on this- the left is pushing to roll back the First Amendment to control special interests. The right just wants less government so there's less to lobby/about spend money on.
The Supreme Court was right, but their solution totally blows. When I figure out how to create a political system free of legalized bribery, corruption and special interests without ripping up the First Amendment, I'll let you know.
5.7%
We grew! The economy grew by 5.7% in the fourth quarter, which is a serious dose of good news- but:
1. Jobs?
2. What happens when the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to lapse? (And is that a good thing or a bad thing?)
3. And of course, Congress/The President/The Government in general are still spending money like it's going out of style.
However, I'll take a shot of optimism about the economy wherever I can get it.
1. Jobs?
2. What happens when the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to lapse? (And is that a good thing or a bad thing?)
3. And of course, Congress/The President/The Government in general are still spending money like it's going out of style.
However, I'll take a shot of optimism about the economy wherever I can get it.
Late Night Chronicles 54: On Literature, With Ennui
Originally published on Facebook...
Kids, I have a small confession to make. This may not come as a galloping shock to anyone, but I was probably one of the weirdest teenagers in the United States of America. Leaving aside my social awkwardness and complete lack of anything remotely resembling fashion sense, my love of Star Trek, science fiction and escapist high fantasy I was an aberration. Why?
I hated 'The Catcher in The Rye.' Absolutely loathed every single word of that damn book and thought it was a massive waste of my time and left me wondering just what, if anything I was supposed to take away from it. As teenagers, you're told that this is some kind of fantastic novel that 'really speaks to people your age' and 'it's an icon for rebellious adolescents everywhere' and other such bullshit- but I have a sneaking suspicion English teachers everywhere are given a set of talking points saying this in order to excite high schoolers everywhere about reading this short little turd of an icon of American literature.
I think Holden Caulfield is one of the most irritating characters in literature. All he does is whine about how much life sucks and how everyone is a 'phony.' I've never read a book where I've come away thinking 'damn, I could seriously punch that guy in the mouth for no discernable reason at all!' That's how annoying I found him. He gets kicked out of school, has a frankly creepy relationship with his little sister Phoebe and spends I don't know how much time deciding to get a prostitute and then doesn't do anything with her other than talk. (Which I suppose is fine, but at the time, my sex-starved teenaged self thought that was a massive waste of words and paper. I suspect I wanted to read something lurid involving breasts.)
Perhaps I'm being unfair to Mr. Caulfield. Perhaps I just didn't get it- it wouldn't be the first time that's happened to me when it comes to so-called icons of American literature. I suspect it has something to do with sitting in a pale, industrial classroom in bad lighting being told you have to read these books in order to get an 'A'. (It's worth noting that in American Literature, I didn't get an 'A' and almost earned myself my first failing grade in the field of language arts thanks to an assignment for 'The Color Purple' which I didn't care about and my friend and I totally blew off/didn't fully understand.) 'The Great Gatsby' I found to be groaning under the weight of it's own symbolism (every little damn thing means something! So annoying!)-- 'The Color Purple' well, to be fair, I need to read that again. 'The Catcher In The Rye' I've already expressed myself about- and 'On The Road' well that I can at least appreciate from a purely sociological standpoint. That did speak to a generation and it's an interesting snapshot of life at the time, even if all the characters do is float around the country and do mescaline at jazz clubs. Plus, having seen the fabled scroll it was written on for myself- unrolled in all its glory (the University of Iowa was one of the few places it was unrolled entirely, so that was cool) I'm willing to give it some props.
And despite loathing 'The Catcher In The Rye' and being the aberrant, frankly weird teenager that I was, it is with some ennui and melancholy that I have note the passing of the reclusive J.D. Salinger yesterday. Having had such a bad experience with 'Catcher' I can't say that I've read any of his other works, but writers of quality literature are hard to come by, so even if they produce the most mind-numbingly difficult works of literature that you may loath, reading them is worthwhile and noting their contribution to literature as a whole is also worthwhile- and even though I loathed 'Catcher', I have to officially give props to Salinger. He wrote a book that affected the lives of whole generations of Americans- from teenagers to serial killers and writing that one iconic work that lives on for decades is something that aspiring writers everywhere I think secretly would love to do. Personally, I'd like to finish something and get it published, but if I can get the hang of that, well then something iconic might be nice.
Or maybe that one iconic work is a twist of fate. Maybe you just write.
I struggle with Faulkner. Hemingway makes me roll my eyes, but can certainly write. Fitzgerald gave me a headache, Heinlen made me think, Rand gave me a migraine- but also made me think- Graham Greene is a true artist, Steinbeck blew my mind with 'East of Eden', Kerouac, I can appreciate his impact, but just didn't speak to me- and despite loathing 'The Catcher in The Rye' I can acknowledge the passing of a literary icon when I see one.
Even if I couldn't stand his master opus.
Kids, I have a small confession to make. This may not come as a galloping shock to anyone, but I was probably one of the weirdest teenagers in the United States of America. Leaving aside my social awkwardness and complete lack of anything remotely resembling fashion sense, my love of Star Trek, science fiction and escapist high fantasy I was an aberration. Why?
I hated 'The Catcher in The Rye.' Absolutely loathed every single word of that damn book and thought it was a massive waste of my time and left me wondering just what, if anything I was supposed to take away from it. As teenagers, you're told that this is some kind of fantastic novel that 'really speaks to people your age' and 'it's an icon for rebellious adolescents everywhere' and other such bullshit- but I have a sneaking suspicion English teachers everywhere are given a set of talking points saying this in order to excite high schoolers everywhere about reading this short little turd of an icon of American literature.
I think Holden Caulfield is one of the most irritating characters in literature. All he does is whine about how much life sucks and how everyone is a 'phony.' I've never read a book where I've come away thinking 'damn, I could seriously punch that guy in the mouth for no discernable reason at all!' That's how annoying I found him. He gets kicked out of school, has a frankly creepy relationship with his little sister Phoebe and spends I don't know how much time deciding to get a prostitute and then doesn't do anything with her other than talk. (Which I suppose is fine, but at the time, my sex-starved teenaged self thought that was a massive waste of words and paper. I suspect I wanted to read something lurid involving breasts.)
Perhaps I'm being unfair to Mr. Caulfield. Perhaps I just didn't get it- it wouldn't be the first time that's happened to me when it comes to so-called icons of American literature. I suspect it has something to do with sitting in a pale, industrial classroom in bad lighting being told you have to read these books in order to get an 'A'. (It's worth noting that in American Literature, I didn't get an 'A' and almost earned myself my first failing grade in the field of language arts thanks to an assignment for 'The Color Purple' which I didn't care about and my friend and I totally blew off/didn't fully understand.) 'The Great Gatsby' I found to be groaning under the weight of it's own symbolism (every little damn thing means something! So annoying!)-- 'The Color Purple' well, to be fair, I need to read that again. 'The Catcher In The Rye' I've already expressed myself about- and 'On The Road' well that I can at least appreciate from a purely sociological standpoint. That did speak to a generation and it's an interesting snapshot of life at the time, even if all the characters do is float around the country and do mescaline at jazz clubs. Plus, having seen the fabled scroll it was written on for myself- unrolled in all its glory (the University of Iowa was one of the few places it was unrolled entirely, so that was cool) I'm willing to give it some props.
And despite loathing 'The Catcher In The Rye' and being the aberrant, frankly weird teenager that I was, it is with some ennui and melancholy that I have note the passing of the reclusive J.D. Salinger yesterday. Having had such a bad experience with 'Catcher' I can't say that I've read any of his other works, but writers of quality literature are hard to come by, so even if they produce the most mind-numbingly difficult works of literature that you may loath, reading them is worthwhile and noting their contribution to literature as a whole is also worthwhile- and even though I loathed 'Catcher', I have to officially give props to Salinger. He wrote a book that affected the lives of whole generations of Americans- from teenagers to serial killers and writing that one iconic work that lives on for decades is something that aspiring writers everywhere I think secretly would love to do. Personally, I'd like to finish something and get it published, but if I can get the hang of that, well then something iconic might be nice.
Or maybe that one iconic work is a twist of fate. Maybe you just write.
I struggle with Faulkner. Hemingway makes me roll my eyes, but can certainly write. Fitzgerald gave me a headache, Heinlen made me think, Rand gave me a migraine- but also made me think- Graham Greene is a true artist, Steinbeck blew my mind with 'East of Eden', Kerouac, I can appreciate his impact, but just didn't speak to me- and despite loathing 'The Catcher in The Rye' I can acknowledge the passing of a literary icon when I see one.
Even if I couldn't stand his master opus.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
In Praise of Duralex!
Famed French glass makers Duralex have been pulled back from the brink of extinction by new owners and is once again crawling back up the ladder of the chique, the cool and the just plain unbreakable icon of glassware.
Personally, I think anyone who has kids should get their hands on some Duralex glasses- these things are flippin' amazing. My mother brought a set of tumblers and bigger glasses what seems like years ago and we still have the vast majority of them today- probably the best investment she ever made. I think maybe, over the years we may have lost two to breakage- and when one does break, it's like a family event. Everyone has to come and look, point and say 'WOW.'
Because the things just don't break! I've seen 'em fall off tables, out of cabinets-survive things that would have seen any other glass shattered into a thousand pieces. And plus- how cool is this!
The Duralex brand-name was imprinted on the minds of French boys and girls from the day that they learned to read. For decades, a game has been played in French school canteens. Every child at a table would read out the serial number stamped with the Duralex logo on the bottom of their water glass. The number – anything between 1 and 48 – became that child's "age" for that lunchtime. The "youngest" had to fetch the water for the rest of the table.
While we didn't quite do this when we were kids we TOTALLY compared the 'ages' we found on the bottom of the glass! (So awesome when you find connections of universality with other people you didn't even know about.)
Anyway- I'm glad to hear they're coming back. When the Missus and I get around to popping out a kid or two, we're totally going to have to snag a set of these, I think.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Late Night Chronicles 53: Corporations United
Originally published on Facebook...
I had been expecting the decision for sometime- dreading it almost, hoping that the Supreme Court would take a minute and think about it, but now that's it here and I've digested it for a couple of days, there's a silver lining to the massive cloud of corporate money that the Supreme Court unleashed over our democracy with its decision in Citizens United v. FEC
In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down a ban on corporations spending their own money on political campaigns- and moreover said they could do so without any limits whatsoever. Conservatives (broadly speaking) have hailed the decision as a victory for free speech, but that's where I (very quickly) began disagreeing with Justice Kennedy's majority opinion. To me, this is a very simple issue: the Constitution is there to guarantee the rights of individuals, not groups or corporations- my rights should not now, nor should they be ever predicated on how much money I have. By saying that corporations have no limits on how much they can spend on political speech, the Supreme Court has essentially disenfranchised me and every other American. Exxon Mobil with its billions in profits can essentially buy a politician or an election, while individuals are effectively denied any real means to influence the political process.
Even with the rise of a small dollar donation model, as pioneered initially by Ron Paul in the 2008 Republican Primaries and perfected by Barack Obama and more recently Scott Brown, individuals are still effectively denied a means to influence the political process. (Billion dollar corporations far outweighing the abilities of the small dollar model to influence elections.) The more money one has, the more political speech one can buy. And I'm sorry, but my right to free speech is not for sale!
That aside- the decision also ignores the reality of the political system we have now. Noted law blogger Ann Althouse made this point:
That's the way it's supposed to work, but it doesn't. Everyone knows that it doesn't work this way- but rather, special interest group/corporation/lobbying firm X, gives Congressperson A a hefty donation to their re-election campaign and whether the understanding is implicit or explicit, the idea is when legislation either detrimental or benefitial to said special interest group comes up, Congressperson A will do them a favor and vote the way they want. Voters have very little to do with it- sure the idea may be to persuade voters, but the act of persuading them benefits whom exactly? Congressperson A!
Justice Kennedy's decision is also reprehensible in the fact that it makes no mention whatsoever of foreign corporations and limits on their donations. Corporations, as the court has ruled are made up of individuals and therefore have the same rights as individuals- but Justice Kennedy fails to note that in today's capitalist world corporations are entities that transcend national boundaries. What, if anything, is there to stop other countries from setting up perfectly legal corporations in this country and essentially buying our elections? So far- nothing at all and it could take several years for a court to decide the legality of this open question.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing a blistering dissent gets in some excellent shots at the majority, questioning the precedent that in a very real sense grants corporations the same rights as individuals- what's next, he wonders- will corporations be granted the right to vote? He mounts a stirring defense of the prior laws that the majority overturned, re-affirming the notion that corporations are artificial entities that emanate from the state and therefore can be regulated (to a certain degree) by the state to ensure they do not engage in corrupt activities or activities detrimental to consumers at large.
More interestingly though, is the idea established by the majority: the if corporations are made up of individuals and therefore cannot be denied constitutional rights- as a group, what does that mean for any number of issues? If 'groups' of people have the same rights as individuals, what does that mean for affirmative action? For gay marriage? For things like pay equity or the right to choose? By establishing the fact that groups of individuals (in the form of corporations, at least) have the same constitutional rights as individuals, the groundwork is laid for all kinds of interesting things. (Another open question: are labor unions the same as corporations? Justice Kennedy apparently uses the two terms interchangeably at various points throughout his opinion, but never specifically touches on it. If it turns out that labor unions are the same as corporations, then you can bet that any Democratic objections to the decision will evaporate quickly.)
The majority, despite the many flaws in Kennedy's opinion, is on firm ground with regards to one point and one point alone: the current mess of campaign finance regulations we have essentially means that in order to avoid the risk of criminal sanctions, whichever group of people wishes to engage in political speech has to essentially check with the government to make sure it's ok- which is wrong on I don't know how many levels. So score at least one for the majority on that alone...
Having digested the bulk of this news, I have to say, I am now firmly of two minds about it- at first, I was outraged at the idea that my constitutional rights would be tied into the idea of how much money I could contribute to the political process- I was outraged that the Supreme Court had essentially put the government up for rent to the highest bidder- and felt that honestly and truly, in another country, where people gave a damn and weren't so freakin' apathetic, people would be literally lighting s--t on fire!
But now- I'm not so sure. Another noted blogger, Glen Reynolds of Instapundit fame wrote a book called 'The Army of Davids' which looked at the trends of individual empowerment and horizontalization of power of all kinds, whether political or entepreneurial or whatever due to the increasing influence of the internet. I'm not entirely sold on the magical power of the internet to affect real political change, but the fact is this: with increased access to the internet, the citizenry of this country has the ability to be more political aware than at any previous time in American history- given the disclosure laws about campaign financing, any corporately sponsored Senators, Congresspeople or Presidential Candidates would surely be found out and subjected to the whim of the electorate. (Which as Martha Coakley found out this week, can be very punishing indeed.)
In other words- can we trust the voters to police this new environment of corporate-free-for-all-ism that the Supreme Court has just ushered in? Ron Paul was incredibly popular and raised a lot of money from small dollar donations in '08- so did President Obama and more recently Senator Elect Scott Brown ran a credible campaign that didn't attract money or attention from the National Republican Party until the closing weeks of his campaign. The recent trends seem to indicate that a small dollar model is becoming increasingly influential and effective in American politics, which makes the idea of voters policing the post Citizens United political realm more credible.
Given the corruption endemic in the current system, it's a safe bet that neither Republicans nor Democrats currently embedded in Washington will 'look a gift horse in the mouth' so to speak and do anything much about this- if, as recent trends suggest, the mobilizing power of the Internet in our political system is refined and perfected and voters can go toe to toe with special interests in the electoral sphere, then Citizens United may well be a big, juicy piece of bait dangled in front of the two parties...
And if they take it, it could be the end of the political system as we know it in the United States. And that's a notion I could get behind.
I had been expecting the decision for sometime- dreading it almost, hoping that the Supreme Court would take a minute and think about it, but now that's it here and I've digested it for a couple of days, there's a silver lining to the massive cloud of corporate money that the Supreme Court unleashed over our democracy with its decision in Citizens United v. FEC
In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down a ban on corporations spending their own money on political campaigns- and moreover said they could do so without any limits whatsoever. Conservatives (broadly speaking) have hailed the decision as a victory for free speech, but that's where I (very quickly) began disagreeing with Justice Kennedy's majority opinion. To me, this is a very simple issue: the Constitution is there to guarantee the rights of individuals, not groups or corporations- my rights should not now, nor should they be ever predicated on how much money I have. By saying that corporations have no limits on how much they can spend on political speech, the Supreme Court has essentially disenfranchised me and every other American. Exxon Mobil with its billions in profits can essentially buy a politician or an election, while individuals are effectively denied any real means to influence the political process.
Even with the rise of a small dollar donation model, as pioneered initially by Ron Paul in the 2008 Republican Primaries and perfected by Barack Obama and more recently Scott Brown, individuals are still effectively denied a means to influence the political process. (Billion dollar corporations far outweighing the abilities of the small dollar model to influence elections.) The more money one has, the more political speech one can buy. And I'm sorry, but my right to free speech is not for sale!
That aside- the decision also ignores the reality of the political system we have now. Noted law blogger Ann Althouse made this point:
"But the political speech that the Supreme Court was talking about — advertising and a full-length movie about a candidate — isn't aimed at legislators and trying to influence their votes. It's trying to persuade voters. Why are we calling that lobbying?"
That's the way it's supposed to work, but it doesn't. Everyone knows that it doesn't work this way- but rather, special interest group/corporation/lobbying firm X, gives Congressperson A a hefty donation to their re-election campaign and whether the understanding is implicit or explicit, the idea is when legislation either detrimental or benefitial to said special interest group comes up, Congressperson A will do them a favor and vote the way they want. Voters have very little to do with it- sure the idea may be to persuade voters, but the act of persuading them benefits whom exactly? Congressperson A!
Justice Kennedy's decision is also reprehensible in the fact that it makes no mention whatsoever of foreign corporations and limits on their donations. Corporations, as the court has ruled are made up of individuals and therefore have the same rights as individuals- but Justice Kennedy fails to note that in today's capitalist world corporations are entities that transcend national boundaries. What, if anything, is there to stop other countries from setting up perfectly legal corporations in this country and essentially buying our elections? So far- nothing at all and it could take several years for a court to decide the legality of this open question.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing a blistering dissent gets in some excellent shots at the majority, questioning the precedent that in a very real sense grants corporations the same rights as individuals- what's next, he wonders- will corporations be granted the right to vote? He mounts a stirring defense of the prior laws that the majority overturned, re-affirming the notion that corporations are artificial entities that emanate from the state and therefore can be regulated (to a certain degree) by the state to ensure they do not engage in corrupt activities or activities detrimental to consumers at large.
More interestingly though, is the idea established by the majority: the if corporations are made up of individuals and therefore cannot be denied constitutional rights- as a group, what does that mean for any number of issues? If 'groups' of people have the same rights as individuals, what does that mean for affirmative action? For gay marriage? For things like pay equity or the right to choose? By establishing the fact that groups of individuals (in the form of corporations, at least) have the same constitutional rights as individuals, the groundwork is laid for all kinds of interesting things. (Another open question: are labor unions the same as corporations? Justice Kennedy apparently uses the two terms interchangeably at various points throughout his opinion, but never specifically touches on it. If it turns out that labor unions are the same as corporations, then you can bet that any Democratic objections to the decision will evaporate quickly.)
The majority, despite the many flaws in Kennedy's opinion, is on firm ground with regards to one point and one point alone: the current mess of campaign finance regulations we have essentially means that in order to avoid the risk of criminal sanctions, whichever group of people wishes to engage in political speech has to essentially check with the government to make sure it's ok- which is wrong on I don't know how many levels. So score at least one for the majority on that alone...
Having digested the bulk of this news, I have to say, I am now firmly of two minds about it- at first, I was outraged at the idea that my constitutional rights would be tied into the idea of how much money I could contribute to the political process- I was outraged that the Supreme Court had essentially put the government up for rent to the highest bidder- and felt that honestly and truly, in another country, where people gave a damn and weren't so freakin' apathetic, people would be literally lighting s--t on fire!
But now- I'm not so sure. Another noted blogger, Glen Reynolds of Instapundit fame wrote a book called 'The Army of Davids' which looked at the trends of individual empowerment and horizontalization of power of all kinds, whether political or entepreneurial or whatever due to the increasing influence of the internet. I'm not entirely sold on the magical power of the internet to affect real political change, but the fact is this: with increased access to the internet, the citizenry of this country has the ability to be more political aware than at any previous time in American history- given the disclosure laws about campaign financing, any corporately sponsored Senators, Congresspeople or Presidential Candidates would surely be found out and subjected to the whim of the electorate. (Which as Martha Coakley found out this week, can be very punishing indeed.)
In other words- can we trust the voters to police this new environment of corporate-free-for-all-ism that the Supreme Court has just ushered in? Ron Paul was incredibly popular and raised a lot of money from small dollar donations in '08- so did President Obama and more recently Senator Elect Scott Brown ran a credible campaign that didn't attract money or attention from the National Republican Party until the closing weeks of his campaign. The recent trends seem to indicate that a small dollar model is becoming increasingly influential and effective in American politics, which makes the idea of voters policing the post Citizens United political realm more credible.
Given the corruption endemic in the current system, it's a safe bet that neither Republicans nor Democrats currently embedded in Washington will 'look a gift horse in the mouth' so to speak and do anything much about this- if, as recent trends suggest, the mobilizing power of the Internet in our political system is refined and perfected and voters can go toe to toe with special interests in the electoral sphere, then Citizens United may well be a big, juicy piece of bait dangled in front of the two parties...
And if they take it, it could be the end of the political system as we know it in the United States. And that's a notion I could get behind.
Late Night Chronicles 52: What Can Brown Do For You?
Originally posted on Facebook...
The reaction was immediate. Facebook, always a lively barometer of the mood of my contemporaries was suddenly spotted with variations on a single theme: somewhere in heaven, Ted Kennedy was crying. Some were sad for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the World- some were so outraged by stunning Democratic incompetence to be entertaining offers from the Green or Socialists Parties in an attempt to find a new, more comfortable political home for themselves.
Whatever the platitude- the Liberals, the Lefties, the entire left end of the American political spectrum was suddenly awash with ennui and melancholy the likes of which I haven't seen since Senator John Kerry failed to win the 2004 Presidential Election.
What happened, did you say? What titanic event could have plunged the Platoons of the Left into gloom and despair? Well, Scott Brown, Republican- managed to get himself elected to a seat in the United States Senate in the deep, deep blue State of Massachusetts. Stop the Presses, because I think the sky might just be falling...
So what does the election of Scott Brown mean for me personally? Well, I have finally abandoned my brief foray into political conformity. Yeah, I was one of those die-hard independents that hated both Republicans and Democrats with a passion and wanted a new, more representative system with parties that actually stood for what I believed in and didn't just whore themselves out to rich corporations or special interests. Then Senator Obama, however captured my attention. (At the time) he represented a true break with the previous eight years of Republican catastrophe- the wars aside, the out of control spending of Bush The Younger, combined with the criminal inability of the Republican Congress to do their damn job and act as a check on executive power had done incalcuable damage to the system. Obama seemed new, different- and an actual, honest-to-goodness change.
One year later- not so much. So, I'm heading back to the barricades and declaring myself open to socially libertarian and fiscally conservative candidates who want to make a pitch to me about getting my vote. I offer no campaign contributions, no quid-pro-quo, no special interest giveaways- just one honest vote. Up for grabs to the whomever persuades me, the informed citizen, that they've got my back more. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Whatever.
The finger-pointing has already begun- and here's what I take away from that: yes, Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign, full of the arrogant presumption that she was going to take this thing in a walk. When she noticed she actually had a real race on her hands, it was far too late. She got the drubbing she deserved.
Secondly, is this the death of health care reform? I doubt it- everyone knows that something needs to be done, it's just a question of what. I'm not saying I like Republican alternatives that I've seen vaguely floating around out there any better- but let's face it- when you slap together a 2,000 page bill that messes with 1/6th of the American economy and will affect absolutely everyone and pass it, while simultaneously asking the American people to 'trust you' don't be surprised if they turn around and ask you, 'Well ok, but what's in this 2,000 page bill?'
When your answer is: 'We don't know, we haven't read it.' It neither inspires confidence nor trust and it seriously pisses people off. It seems like driving a school bus blindfolded after doing a line of shots at the local watering hole.
Thirdly (and perhaps the most tiresome point of all): how much trouble is President Obama in? The short answer is that we don't know yet- but the election of Mr. Brown seems to be a harbinger of a potential return to divided government- and the true political genius of his Democratic Predecessor Bill Clinton did not truly emerge until the voters forced the cause of bipartisanship upon both him and the Republicans in Congress. Perhaps President Obama will rise to the occasion, perhaps not- but the opportunity is his for the taking. Either way, I have a feeling that come November, we'll have to see if the Republicans can do any better. (And I say 'better' in the comparative sense- the way chlamydia could be seen as being perhaps better than herpes.)
In the end, as we emerge, blinking into the aftermath of the latest political earthquake to shake the establishment we can take some comfort: Mr. Brown seemed to go out of his way to emphasize that this was 'the people's seat.' He seems, at first blush to know exactly who he's beholden too- whether he'll continue in that vein once he reaches Washington D.C. is another matter entirely. People may also be willing to dismiss the Tea Party Movement as 'cranks and coots' funded by the Right Wing, as some of them undoubtedly are, but this should underline a hard truth for incumbents in 2010: People are pissed. The days of cynically shaking our heads and cursing socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the rest of us poor bastards out here in the boonies are gone. People want honest-to-goodness results...
To paraphrase another famous Bay-Stater, this year may not be about what we the voters can do for whomever rises to claim the mantle of Mr. Brown in our own states, but instead, the question will probably be, what can the Mr. Browns of 2010 do for us?
The reaction was immediate. Facebook, always a lively barometer of the mood of my contemporaries was suddenly spotted with variations on a single theme: somewhere in heaven, Ted Kennedy was crying. Some were sad for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the World- some were so outraged by stunning Democratic incompetence to be entertaining offers from the Green or Socialists Parties in an attempt to find a new, more comfortable political home for themselves.
Whatever the platitude- the Liberals, the Lefties, the entire left end of the American political spectrum was suddenly awash with ennui and melancholy the likes of which I haven't seen since Senator John Kerry failed to win the 2004 Presidential Election.
What happened, did you say? What titanic event could have plunged the Platoons of the Left into gloom and despair? Well, Scott Brown, Republican- managed to get himself elected to a seat in the United States Senate in the deep, deep blue State of Massachusetts. Stop the Presses, because I think the sky might just be falling...
So what does the election of Scott Brown mean for me personally? Well, I have finally abandoned my brief foray into political conformity. Yeah, I was one of those die-hard independents that hated both Republicans and Democrats with a passion and wanted a new, more representative system with parties that actually stood for what I believed in and didn't just whore themselves out to rich corporations or special interests. Then Senator Obama, however captured my attention. (At the time) he represented a true break with the previous eight years of Republican catastrophe- the wars aside, the out of control spending of Bush The Younger, combined with the criminal inability of the Republican Congress to do their damn job and act as a check on executive power had done incalcuable damage to the system. Obama seemed new, different- and an actual, honest-to-goodness change.
One year later- not so much. So, I'm heading back to the barricades and declaring myself open to socially libertarian and fiscally conservative candidates who want to make a pitch to me about getting my vote. I offer no campaign contributions, no quid-pro-quo, no special interest giveaways- just one honest vote. Up for grabs to the whomever persuades me, the informed citizen, that they've got my back more. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Whatever.
The finger-pointing has already begun- and here's what I take away from that: yes, Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign, full of the arrogant presumption that she was going to take this thing in a walk. When she noticed she actually had a real race on her hands, it was far too late. She got the drubbing she deserved.
Secondly, is this the death of health care reform? I doubt it- everyone knows that something needs to be done, it's just a question of what. I'm not saying I like Republican alternatives that I've seen vaguely floating around out there any better- but let's face it- when you slap together a 2,000 page bill that messes with 1/6th of the American economy and will affect absolutely everyone and pass it, while simultaneously asking the American people to 'trust you' don't be surprised if they turn around and ask you, 'Well ok, but what's in this 2,000 page bill?'
When your answer is: 'We don't know, we haven't read it.' It neither inspires confidence nor trust and it seriously pisses people off. It seems like driving a school bus blindfolded after doing a line of shots at the local watering hole.
Thirdly (and perhaps the most tiresome point of all): how much trouble is President Obama in? The short answer is that we don't know yet- but the election of Mr. Brown seems to be a harbinger of a potential return to divided government- and the true political genius of his Democratic Predecessor Bill Clinton did not truly emerge until the voters forced the cause of bipartisanship upon both him and the Republicans in Congress. Perhaps President Obama will rise to the occasion, perhaps not- but the opportunity is his for the taking. Either way, I have a feeling that come November, we'll have to see if the Republicans can do any better. (And I say 'better' in the comparative sense- the way chlamydia could be seen as being perhaps better than herpes.)
In the end, as we emerge, blinking into the aftermath of the latest political earthquake to shake the establishment we can take some comfort: Mr. Brown seemed to go out of his way to emphasize that this was 'the people's seat.' He seems, at first blush to know exactly who he's beholden too- whether he'll continue in that vein once he reaches Washington D.C. is another matter entirely. People may also be willing to dismiss the Tea Party Movement as 'cranks and coots' funded by the Right Wing, as some of them undoubtedly are, but this should underline a hard truth for incumbents in 2010: People are pissed. The days of cynically shaking our heads and cursing socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the rest of us poor bastards out here in the boonies are gone. People want honest-to-goodness results...
To paraphrase another famous Bay-Stater, this year may not be about what we the voters can do for whomever rises to claim the mantle of Mr. Brown in our own states, but instead, the question will probably be, what can the Mr. Browns of 2010 do for us?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Late Night Chronicles 51: A Lack of Will
Cross-posted on Facebook...
A new year and a new semester has brought, once again, some more discussion about that tiresome old chestnut that Iowa City debates from time to time: what to do about the drinking problem we seem to have downtown. When I read the editorial piece by former Iowa City Mayor Ernie Lehman, I rolled my eyes. The same old crap that the City Council always talks about and then does nothing about- ignoring the underlying problems that keep downtown solely the province of students and bars. But then, I got forwarded another piece by Nick Johnson- who actually did something rather unique- he proposed a model for a solution. Mr. Lehman fails to grasp the realities of the situation in his piece, Mr. Johnson fails to expand on the key point in his- but put them together and something resembling a good idea emerges.
Teeing off the latest round of discussion was former Iowa City Mayor Ernie Lehman, who in an editorial piece to the Press-Citizen on 12/26/2009 decried what he saw as the City Council's 'moral character' problem and once again urged passage of a 21 only ordinance. Mr. Lehman's main point seems to be that not having a 21 only ordinance is seen as an open invitation to young people everywhere to come to Iowa City and drink. He cites the support of former University Presidents David Skorton and Mary Sue Coleman (and the UI College of Public Health) for such an ordinance and seems to imply that the increase in liquor licenses and bars in downtown Iowa City has a direct correlation to the exodus of retail from the downtown area. In short: per Mr. Lehman, NOT having a 21 only ordinance is an open invitation for college students to drink, the proliferation of bars is directly responsible for the exodus of retail businesses from downtown and the City Council lacks the moral character to do anything about it- and should 'step up and do what's best for our young people and for our community.'
Epic Fail, I'm afraid Mr. Lehman. We'll get to why in a minute... I was going to post a rebuttal to Mr. Lehman and leave it at that, but another round of discussion found its way into my email inbox from the Director of the University Police Department (my bosses' bosses' bosses' boss) this time written by prominent Local Citizen Nick Johnson. Unlike Mr. Lehman, who seems to recycling tiresome old talking points without actually looking for solutions, Mr. Johnson is to be commended for seeking out examples from other university towns and actually proposing a model for how to tackle this problem. He seems to conclude that the model employed by the University of Nebraska would be the best one to adapt for Iowa City. Basically, law enforcement, business owners, university and community officials got on the same team and declared a data driven 'war on drinking'- enacting a 21 only ordinance and sending out 'party patrols' on weekends to break up the more noxious house parties. The response was so blanket, Johnson says, that eventually, students began to police themselves to a certain degree- and the data backs up the fact that Lincoln and the University of Nebraska set goals for themselves and got the job done.
Mr. Johnson concludes that with the right levels of cooperation from University, City and Business Leaders a similar approach could well bear fruit here in Iowa City. But the key point is achieving that cooperation and will to tackle the problem. And here Mr. Johnson (although he does not address the problem directly) touches on what Mr. Lehman fails to mention- that it isn't that people don't want to solve the problem of excessive drinking here in Iowa City- it's just that as it stands now, it isn't in everyone's benefit to tackle the problem with the level of cooperation that's needed.
What do I mean by that? Well, this question has always been tough for me. I have to be careful to step back and look at things objectively, because although I myself don't enjoy going out and drinking a fifth of Jack and being completely stupid, other people do. What Mr. Lehman fails to grasp however, is that merely enacting a 21 only ordinance will not stop college students from drinking. In fact, it's arguable whether any law will stop college kids from drinking, since I imagine that young people getting drunk and ending up achieving varying levels of stupidity is something that's been going on since time began. The larger problem is one of culture- and legislating changes in culture can't work. We as a community, as a nation, in general just because of common sense need to de-emphasize the evils of alcohol and emphasize responsible drinking habits. Booze is out there, it's inevitable that young people are going to come into contact with it- yet it's still, to a certain degree demonized and treated as a moral 'evil.' There needs to be a wider change for this problem to be truly ameliorated- one that a 21 only ordinance will not provide. It may curb some drinking downtown, but it will also push the problem of underage drinking out to neighborhoods near campus.
The second point ties in both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Lehman's pieces- Mr. Johnson is correct- for a concerted effort to be made to tackle this problem- University, City and Business Leaders need to be onboard. And right now, there is no compelling interest for bar or to some degree business owners downtown to join in such an effort- it's the same reason that bar owners helped to mobilize students against the 21 only ordinance the last time a serious effort was made to pass one- and it's why when Mr. Lehman suggests that the increase in bars downtown is tied into the exodus of business from downtown, he couldn't be more wrong.
With the opening of the Coral Ridge Mall in 1998, there was a large exodus of major retail outlets from downtown Iowa City. JC Penny's and Younkers both went to the Coral Ridge Mall and the undeniable fact is that the overall retail climate downtown was adversely affected- and, over the course of the next decade, whether implicity or explicity, downtown Iowa City pivoted hard in the direction of speciality retail stores. From my point of view, prior to the opening of Coral Ridge, there was a healthier retail mix downtown- general retails, locally owned and speciality stores rubbed shoulders with restaurants and bars. Removing one major element in that equation left us with an unbalanced economic model for downtown whose efficacy has deteriorated over the course of the preceding decade.
Why? Well, simply put- the problem with basing your downtown off of speciality stores is that it doesn't bring people downtown on a regular basis. The only businesses left downtown that do are bars-- curb their business by enacting a 21 only ordinance and some of them would fall by the wayside- to be replaced with what? With rents and property values so cripplingly high downtown it would be difficult if not impossible to bring back general retail chains, but we need to do something to correct this imbalance. If members of the community don't have a reason to shop downtown everyday, then business owners will have no reason to help curb what amounts to the only game in town, business wise- bars.
Mr. Johnson's proposed solution has never been tried in Iowa City, but for the necessary will to be achieved, the City Council needs to take a hard look at how to broaden the business climate downtown. We need more than just bars if business leaders are going to get onboard with tackling this problem- there is a distinct lack of variety that's been emerging downtown and to be frank, students are the only ones that have a reason to go downtown everyday. If we are to push back against the entrenched culture of drinking here at the University of Iowa we need to craft a strategy to bring the community back downtown--
--the problem isn't one of moral character, right now, it's merely a lack of will.
A new year and a new semester has brought, once again, some more discussion about that tiresome old chestnut that Iowa City debates from time to time: what to do about the drinking problem we seem to have downtown. When I read the editorial piece by former Iowa City Mayor Ernie Lehman, I rolled my eyes. The same old crap that the City Council always talks about and then does nothing about- ignoring the underlying problems that keep downtown solely the province of students and bars. But then, I got forwarded another piece by Nick Johnson- who actually did something rather unique- he proposed a model for a solution. Mr. Lehman fails to grasp the realities of the situation in his piece, Mr. Johnson fails to expand on the key point in his- but put them together and something resembling a good idea emerges.
Teeing off the latest round of discussion was former Iowa City Mayor Ernie Lehman, who in an editorial piece to the Press-Citizen on 12/26/2009 decried what he saw as the City Council's 'moral character' problem and once again urged passage of a 21 only ordinance. Mr. Lehman's main point seems to be that not having a 21 only ordinance is seen as an open invitation to young people everywhere to come to Iowa City and drink. He cites the support of former University Presidents David Skorton and Mary Sue Coleman (and the UI College of Public Health) for such an ordinance and seems to imply that the increase in liquor licenses and bars in downtown Iowa City has a direct correlation to the exodus of retail from the downtown area. In short: per Mr. Lehman, NOT having a 21 only ordinance is an open invitation for college students to drink, the proliferation of bars is directly responsible for the exodus of retail businesses from downtown and the City Council lacks the moral character to do anything about it- and should 'step up and do what's best for our young people and for our community.'
Epic Fail, I'm afraid Mr. Lehman. We'll get to why in a minute... I was going to post a rebuttal to Mr. Lehman and leave it at that, but another round of discussion found its way into my email inbox from the Director of the University Police Department (my bosses' bosses' bosses' boss) this time written by prominent Local Citizen Nick Johnson. Unlike Mr. Lehman, who seems to recycling tiresome old talking points without actually looking for solutions, Mr. Johnson is to be commended for seeking out examples from other university towns and actually proposing a model for how to tackle this problem. He seems to conclude that the model employed by the University of Nebraska would be the best one to adapt for Iowa City. Basically, law enforcement, business owners, university and community officials got on the same team and declared a data driven 'war on drinking'- enacting a 21 only ordinance and sending out 'party patrols' on weekends to break up the more noxious house parties. The response was so blanket, Johnson says, that eventually, students began to police themselves to a certain degree- and the data backs up the fact that Lincoln and the University of Nebraska set goals for themselves and got the job done.
Mr. Johnson concludes that with the right levels of cooperation from University, City and Business Leaders a similar approach could well bear fruit here in Iowa City. But the key point is achieving that cooperation and will to tackle the problem. And here Mr. Johnson (although he does not address the problem directly) touches on what Mr. Lehman fails to mention- that it isn't that people don't want to solve the problem of excessive drinking here in Iowa City- it's just that as it stands now, it isn't in everyone's benefit to tackle the problem with the level of cooperation that's needed.
What do I mean by that? Well, this question has always been tough for me. I have to be careful to step back and look at things objectively, because although I myself don't enjoy going out and drinking a fifth of Jack and being completely stupid, other people do. What Mr. Lehman fails to grasp however, is that merely enacting a 21 only ordinance will not stop college students from drinking. In fact, it's arguable whether any law will stop college kids from drinking, since I imagine that young people getting drunk and ending up achieving varying levels of stupidity is something that's been going on since time began. The larger problem is one of culture- and legislating changes in culture can't work. We as a community, as a nation, in general just because of common sense need to de-emphasize the evils of alcohol and emphasize responsible drinking habits. Booze is out there, it's inevitable that young people are going to come into contact with it- yet it's still, to a certain degree demonized and treated as a moral 'evil.' There needs to be a wider change for this problem to be truly ameliorated- one that a 21 only ordinance will not provide. It may curb some drinking downtown, but it will also push the problem of underage drinking out to neighborhoods near campus.
The second point ties in both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Lehman's pieces- Mr. Johnson is correct- for a concerted effort to be made to tackle this problem- University, City and Business Leaders need to be onboard. And right now, there is no compelling interest for bar or to some degree business owners downtown to join in such an effort- it's the same reason that bar owners helped to mobilize students against the 21 only ordinance the last time a serious effort was made to pass one- and it's why when Mr. Lehman suggests that the increase in bars downtown is tied into the exodus of business from downtown, he couldn't be more wrong.
With the opening of the Coral Ridge Mall in 1998, there was a large exodus of major retail outlets from downtown Iowa City. JC Penny's and Younkers both went to the Coral Ridge Mall and the undeniable fact is that the overall retail climate downtown was adversely affected- and, over the course of the next decade, whether implicity or explicity, downtown Iowa City pivoted hard in the direction of speciality retail stores. From my point of view, prior to the opening of Coral Ridge, there was a healthier retail mix downtown- general retails, locally owned and speciality stores rubbed shoulders with restaurants and bars. Removing one major element in that equation left us with an unbalanced economic model for downtown whose efficacy has deteriorated over the course of the preceding decade.
Why? Well, simply put- the problem with basing your downtown off of speciality stores is that it doesn't bring people downtown on a regular basis. The only businesses left downtown that do are bars-- curb their business by enacting a 21 only ordinance and some of them would fall by the wayside- to be replaced with what? With rents and property values so cripplingly high downtown it would be difficult if not impossible to bring back general retail chains, but we need to do something to correct this imbalance. If members of the community don't have a reason to shop downtown everyday, then business owners will have no reason to help curb what amounts to the only game in town, business wise- bars.
Mr. Johnson's proposed solution has never been tried in Iowa City, but for the necessary will to be achieved, the City Council needs to take a hard look at how to broaden the business climate downtown. We need more than just bars if business leaders are going to get onboard with tackling this problem- there is a distinct lack of variety that's been emerging downtown and to be frank, students are the only ones that have a reason to go downtown everyday. If we are to push back against the entrenched culture of drinking here at the University of Iowa we need to craft a strategy to bring the community back downtown--
--the problem isn't one of moral character, right now, it's merely a lack of will.
Johnson County BoS!
In today's special election for the vacant seat on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, the Cigar is going to endorse (and vote for) Janelle Rettig. Why? Well, I'm not exactly wild about the thought of voting for a Democrat in this race, but the alternatives are worse- let's consider:
Exhibit A: Lori Cardella, Republican, Tea Partier, etc. It's not that I'm immune to the anti-incumbent mood currently sweeping the country, it's just that I don't trust Ms. Cardella's motives. She says she wants to 'ensure the citizens' voices are heard in the final decision' yet her husband owns a wildly successful telemarketing firm and the two of them are richer than God, have their own suite in Kinnick and gave a hefty donation to help complete the Pomerantz Center on the UofI campus. So why does she want to be on the Board of Supervisors?
Hmm- perhaps this: lower the cost of living in the county with tax cuts to citizens and private business (Those last two words perhaps being key, given her husband's current occupation.) I'm not sold.
Exhibit B: Jim Knapp- whose letter to the Press-Citizen seems nicely sane and sensible, yet this morning's letter in the Daily Iowan (which I'll post as soon as it appears online) was not so much. More on that later.
In short: Ms. Rettig appears to be the least bad choice of the three. I'm gonna vote for her as a result- and kids, you should too!
**UPDATE: Found it! Here's the letter Knapp wrote that was in this morning's DI. It's got several classic 'WTF?' moments, so I thought I'd reprint it verbatim:
It was no surprise when I opened my paper and saw that the Press-Citizen had decided to support Democrat Janelle Rettig in today’s Board of Supervisors special election. She expresses herself well and has some points that are certainly valid. What hurts is that the PC continuously supports, recommends, and nominates people almost exclusively from the gay community. I have no problem with gays, but there are other people here who also want to serve. Nothing Janelle said or campaigned on has to do with reducing taxes by any significant amount. After I indicated that the jail can be renovated and added to for substantially less money, she said, “Revisit the jail.”
So, Janelle, how often have you visited the jail? What do you think of home release? What would you do to help reduce the need for a jail? Let us face it: Juvenile crimes and truancy are real problems. Some of this can be handled by education, but mentoring is also in great need. I want to set up four $1,000 scholarships for the kids in jeopardy through Kirkwood Community College. All the child would have to do is stay out of trouble, attend school, and graduate. This would be directed at the minority community because they have the greatest disadvantages. I have already communicated with Amy Correia regarding this matter and would be happy to share it with anyone interested.
Janelle was instrumental in the $20 million bond issue for conservation, and that is a noble thing that passed by 61 percent of the voters, she will tell you again and again, ad absurdum. I think it should have encompassed more benefits for all people of the county. Elevated trails could be constructed to contain the potential flooding, as well as possibly serving as the road bed for a narrow-gauge railroad that would enable all people of the county to visit the natural areas regardless of their physical condition. Not just the Sierra Club but the people in wheelchairs or needing walkers. Visit the Silverton and Durango website for more inspiration. Eventually all the small communities of the county could be linked with each other to the extent of even commuter transportation.
Janelle even talked about the county information system and its need for improvement. Personally, I think the records and the links to all the other necessary information are very up to date and accessible. Just visit the various pages by the supervisors, auditor, treasurer, and recorder, and you will be overwhelmed with up-to-date information. They spend substantial funds to do this, and it is state of the art. A couple of key strokes, and the entire budget including comparisons are right there for your perusal.
In closing, I want the people of Johnson County to know that I do not think love is a sin. Neither is riding a bicycle a sin. I do think that ignoring the needy is a sin, and they deserve more than Janelle Rettig carrying their issues forward. Taxpayers, believe me: The choice is still yours, and you should vote in today’s special election.
I don't know where to start with this- first of all- who cares about Ms. Rettig's sexual orientation? Up until reading this I know I hadn't given it a second thought and while perhaps not openly homophobic, it certainly has the nauseating tinge of heading in that direction. Her sexuality is her business and it's certainly not business of yours, Mr. Knapp to bring it up.
Second of all: OK, so the Press-Citizen endorses 'the gays' a lot. First of all- just what town do you think you've been living in all this time? Hate to break it to you, but Iowa City is pretty damn gay, demographically speaking. It'd only stand the reason there'd be more political active gay people here, a lot of whom run for office. But you think the Press-Citizen's over endorsing of 'the gays' is a bad thing, because 'there are other people who want to serve.' Hmmmm, so you're fighting for us vanilla straight people here in Johnson County? What? (Speaking as a straight person: please stop.)
Mr. Knapp- you almost had my vote. But then, I read this letter and it sorta creeped me out- hence, my vote for Ms. Rettig. Just so you know!
cheers,
The Cigar
Exhibit A: Lori Cardella, Republican, Tea Partier, etc. It's not that I'm immune to the anti-incumbent mood currently sweeping the country, it's just that I don't trust Ms. Cardella's motives. She says she wants to 'ensure the citizens' voices are heard in the final decision' yet her husband owns a wildly successful telemarketing firm and the two of them are richer than God, have their own suite in Kinnick and gave a hefty donation to help complete the Pomerantz Center on the UofI campus. So why does she want to be on the Board of Supervisors?
Hmm- perhaps this: lower the cost of living in the county with tax cuts to citizens and private business (Those last two words perhaps being key, given her husband's current occupation.) I'm not sold.
Exhibit B: Jim Knapp- whose letter to the Press-Citizen seems nicely sane and sensible, yet this morning's letter in the Daily Iowan (which I'll post as soon as it appears online) was not so much. More on that later.
In short: Ms. Rettig appears to be the least bad choice of the three. I'm gonna vote for her as a result- and kids, you should too!
**UPDATE: Found it! Here's the letter Knapp wrote that was in this morning's DI. It's got several classic 'WTF?' moments, so I thought I'd reprint it verbatim:
It was no surprise when I opened my paper and saw that the Press-Citizen had decided to support Democrat Janelle Rettig in today’s Board of Supervisors special election. She expresses herself well and has some points that are certainly valid. What hurts is that the PC continuously supports, recommends, and nominates people almost exclusively from the gay community. I have no problem with gays, but there are other people here who also want to serve. Nothing Janelle said or campaigned on has to do with reducing taxes by any significant amount. After I indicated that the jail can be renovated and added to for substantially less money, she said, “Revisit the jail.”
So, Janelle, how often have you visited the jail? What do you think of home release? What would you do to help reduce the need for a jail? Let us face it: Juvenile crimes and truancy are real problems. Some of this can be handled by education, but mentoring is also in great need. I want to set up four $1,000 scholarships for the kids in jeopardy through Kirkwood Community College. All the child would have to do is stay out of trouble, attend school, and graduate. This would be directed at the minority community because they have the greatest disadvantages. I have already communicated with Amy Correia regarding this matter and would be happy to share it with anyone interested.
Janelle was instrumental in the $20 million bond issue for conservation, and that is a noble thing that passed by 61 percent of the voters, she will tell you again and again, ad absurdum. I think it should have encompassed more benefits for all people of the county. Elevated trails could be constructed to contain the potential flooding, as well as possibly serving as the road bed for a narrow-gauge railroad that would enable all people of the county to visit the natural areas regardless of their physical condition. Not just the Sierra Club but the people in wheelchairs or needing walkers. Visit the Silverton and Durango website for more inspiration. Eventually all the small communities of the county could be linked with each other to the extent of even commuter transportation.
Janelle even talked about the county information system and its need for improvement. Personally, I think the records and the links to all the other necessary information are very up to date and accessible. Just visit the various pages by the supervisors, auditor, treasurer, and recorder, and you will be overwhelmed with up-to-date information. They spend substantial funds to do this, and it is state of the art. A couple of key strokes, and the entire budget including comparisons are right there for your perusal.
In closing, I want the people of Johnson County to know that I do not think love is a sin. Neither is riding a bicycle a sin. I do think that ignoring the needy is a sin, and they deserve more than Janelle Rettig carrying their issues forward. Taxpayers, believe me: The choice is still yours, and you should vote in today’s special election.
I don't know where to start with this- first of all- who cares about Ms. Rettig's sexual orientation? Up until reading this I know I hadn't given it a second thought and while perhaps not openly homophobic, it certainly has the nauseating tinge of heading in that direction. Her sexuality is her business and it's certainly not business of yours, Mr. Knapp to bring it up.
Second of all: OK, so the Press-Citizen endorses 'the gays' a lot. First of all- just what town do you think you've been living in all this time? Hate to break it to you, but Iowa City is pretty damn gay, demographically speaking. It'd only stand the reason there'd be more political active gay people here, a lot of whom run for office. But you think the Press-Citizen's over endorsing of 'the gays' is a bad thing, because 'there are other people who want to serve.' Hmmmm, so you're fighting for us vanilla straight people here in Johnson County? What? (Speaking as a straight person: please stop.)
Mr. Knapp- you almost had my vote. But then, I read this letter and it sorta creeped me out- hence, my vote for Ms. Rettig. Just so you know!
cheers,
The Cigar
Interweb Issues...
Kids, the interweb Chez Cigar is being stupid again, so I'm penning this quicky from an email express station in the main hall at Quad on the UofI campus. Thought I'd be ruminated a little about the Johnson County Supervisors race (election today, go VOTE, kiddies...) but apparently not.
Fingers crossed that my interwebs are working when I get home!
Fingers crossed that my interwebs are working when I get home!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Finally, An Answer On Hancher!
The verdict on what to do with Hancher is in- and surprise, surprise- Hancher is staying where it is (only up the hill a little further away from the River)- and Voxman and the rest of the Music Complex is moving downtown! (At least that's what the U of I wants to do...)
I like this. Putting Hancher downtown would have been a logistical nightmare (and despite prominent peeps in the community saying that the U could just cite eminent domain and grab whatever land they need, it'd probably be a legal headache as well.) Plus, we have several local theaters downtown. A big honkin' one like Hancher would only serve to produce a 'Wal-Mart' effect of adversely impacting the local arts scene.
If they can get this done: good move.
Now, the question becomes- what to do with the rest of the Arts Campus! And when are we getting the Museum of Art back?
I like this. Putting Hancher downtown would have been a logistical nightmare (and despite prominent peeps in the community saying that the U could just cite eminent domain and grab whatever land they need, it'd probably be a legal headache as well.) Plus, we have several local theaters downtown. A big honkin' one like Hancher would only serve to produce a 'Wal-Mart' effect of adversely impacting the local arts scene.
If they can get this done: good move.
Now, the question becomes- what to do with the rest of the Arts Campus! And when are we getting the Museum of Art back?
Earthquake In Haiti
The news from Haiti just gets worse and worse with every passing day-- this is a country that just can't seem to catch a break and the earthquake has apparently left them without much of a government at all. We (as in the USA) are getting a massive relief effort underway and, in an interesting aside, Tiger Woods is sending help, presumably so people can talk about something other than his wandering penis.
If you want to help, here are a few links...
Google's Crisis Response
Red Cross
Doctors Without Borders
Catholic Relief Services
If you want to help, here are a few links...
Google's Crisis Response
Red Cross
Doctors Without Borders
Catholic Relief Services
Friday, January 8, 2010
Deal!
Wonderful. Mediacom and Sinclair have reached a one-year deal to keep CBS and Fox on my television screen just in time for the NFL playoffs. (YAY!) But, subscribers will end up paying more as a result and in all odds, they're gonna get into a pissing match again just in time for Bowl Season next year.
Awesome. Wonderful. Excellent. If it's cheaper to do just internet w/Mediacom and get a dish, I am SO doing it.
Awesome. Wonderful. Excellent. If it's cheaper to do just internet w/Mediacom and get a dish, I am SO doing it.
Scandal In Belfast
There is a rapidly expanding scandal that's breaking in Northern Ireland that has real political implications for the upcoming elections and the wider peace process as a whole. All the details are here-- but the cliff notes version:
First Minister Peter Robinson has a wife, Iris- who once upon a time had a 19 year old lover, whom she helped set up a business. Mr. First Minister Robinson failed to disclosed that she had used the funds and what she had used them for.
Result: BOOM! An ever-expanding scandal that threatens to fracture the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) and could potentially hand power to Sinn Fein and allow them to nominate their own First Minister. Which could be very interesting indeed.
First Minister Peter Robinson has a wife, Iris- who once upon a time had a 19 year old lover, whom she helped set up a business. Mr. First Minister Robinson failed to disclosed that she had used the funds and what she had used them for.
Result: BOOM! An ever-expanding scandal that threatens to fracture the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) and could potentially hand power to Sinn Fein and allow them to nominate their own First Minister. Which could be very interesting indeed.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Epic (Coup D'Etat) Fail
...yet another attempt by Labour MPs to dump Prime Minister Gordon Brown ahead of the upcoming UK elections went precisely nowhere.
Why would you bother doing this? If the election is set for May- you've got to have a leadership contest, get the new person in, get their team set up and THEN get set for the election. All the while, the Tories and the LibDems will be banging away about the chaos in the Labour ranks-- (and it's a leadership fight, there would be chaos.)
Although I'm not a huge fan of Brown, dumping his now would be extremely stupid politics (and whether I support your party or not, I'm not a fan of stupid politics, no matter who practices them.) It's easier to lose your majority, dump him, get a new person and start hammering Cameron (or if hell freezes over Clegg and the LibDems) and getting yourself set for the next election.
The writing is on the wall, peeps: Gordon Brown has to prove he's worth a damn at the ballot box- and if he can't hold onto power, then dump his ass.
Why would you bother doing this? If the election is set for May- you've got to have a leadership contest, get the new person in, get their team set up and THEN get set for the election. All the while, the Tories and the LibDems will be banging away about the chaos in the Labour ranks-- (and it's a leadership fight, there would be chaos.)
Although I'm not a huge fan of Brown, dumping his now would be extremely stupid politics (and whether I support your party or not, I'm not a fan of stupid politics, no matter who practices them.) It's easier to lose your majority, dump him, get a new person and start hammering Cameron (or if hell freezes over Clegg and the LibDems) and getting yourself set for the next election.
The writing is on the wall, peeps: Gordon Brown has to prove he's worth a damn at the ballot box- and if he can't hold onto power, then dump his ass.
Epic (Marriage) Fail
The New Jersey State Senate has shot down a gay marriage bill- they needed 21 votes to pass it and got 14 and activists were pushing especially hard to get a bill through before the new Republican Governor takes office.
New Jersey does have civil unions, so gay couples have at least something- but making the pill just a little less bitter doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
The struggle continues...
New Jersey does have civil unions, so gay couples have at least something- but making the pill just a little less bitter doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
The struggle continues...
Epic (Late Night) Fail
Jay Leno is coming back to 10.30 PM? That's what TMZ is saying and whether Leno gets a half-hour, followed by Conan or whether NBC will dump Conan entirely is still an open question...
Personally, it was always kind of a dodgy move to me that NBC kept Leno around in what was essentially an earlier version of 'The Tonight Show.' I never bothered watching it, but it'd be interesting to see if Conan's ratings would be better without Leno's pale, earlier version of his show. This is like the Brett Favre Retirement Drama of Late Night TV. They need to pick a horse and go with it- not do this wishy-washy crap.
Which explains a lot about NBC's current lackluster position in the ratings.
Personally, it was always kind of a dodgy move to me that NBC kept Leno around in what was essentially an earlier version of 'The Tonight Show.' I never bothered watching it, but it'd be interesting to see if Conan's ratings would be better without Leno's pale, earlier version of his show. This is like the Brett Favre Retirement Drama of Late Night TV. They need to pick a horse and go with it- not do this wishy-washy crap.
Which explains a lot about NBC's current lackluster position in the ratings.
Epic (Intelligence) Fail
President Obama 'rues' the intelligence failure that lead to the (almost) bombing of a NWFlight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.
First of all: 'rues'? Seriously?
Second of all: We need massive reform of our intelligence community in this country. The first thing we should have done after 9/11- in fact on September 12th, 2001 is pass a bill telling the young peeps of America that if they learn Farsi, Arabic or any other language we need, pass a fluency test and agree to work for the government for a minimum of four years (or more)- they get their college paid for.
Recruiting actual agents is key- fancy toys won't do it- we need butts in seats, so to speak.
Third of all: The creation of a domestic intelligence agency charged solely with counter-terrorism and counter-espionage (a la MI-5) would be worth looking at. Whether that means bulking up and consolidating resources in the FBI or a whole new agency, I don't know.
First of all: 'rues'? Seriously?
Second of all: We need massive reform of our intelligence community in this country. The first thing we should have done after 9/11- in fact on September 12th, 2001 is pass a bill telling the young peeps of America that if they learn Farsi, Arabic or any other language we need, pass a fluency test and agree to work for the government for a minimum of four years (or more)- they get their college paid for.
Recruiting actual agents is key- fancy toys won't do it- we need butts in seats, so to speak.
Third of all: The creation of a domestic intelligence agency charged solely with counter-terrorism and counter-espionage (a la MI-5) would be worth looking at. Whether that means bulking up and consolidating resources in the FBI or a whole new agency, I don't know.
Late Night Chronicles 50: 10 For 2010
Originally published on Facebook, 1/2/10
Yeah, so a sleep-deprived brain and a very, very quiet, bitterly cold night out at Studio Arts isn't probably the best environment to try and put down some New Year's Resolutions onto, well, if not paper, then on a computer screen. I got up way, way too early to watch some excellent football games (The Outback Bowl holds the title of best game of 2010 so far- the ending especially was just plain nuts! I'm also especially happy the Big 10 is 3-2 in Bowl Games so far- hopefully Sparty can continue that trend tomorrow) and now I'm paying the price. Sleep will be the best of gifts tomorrow.
But 2010 feels important. The back half of my 20s feels especially important. That feeling in your oxcipetal- that chill you get, when you look at what kind of a life you're building and realize that even if you don't end up with something more, the belief that you are meant for something more and the ability to at least try your very best to get that are part of what defines the human existence for us all.
I want to do my level best to take these seriously. Every year people write down or make a New Year's Resolution and never both to really follow through on it, for me (and this doesn't count as a resolution, though it could) I want to make 2010 the year where I fulfill the majority of my goals for myself- and actually, for one of the first times in my life follow through with something.
So, without further ado:
10 For 2010
1. Get Inked (x2): It is past time... I have the ideas, the image in my head and I know what I want and should, in fact, get at least one tatt before the end of this month, if not a lot sooner.
2. Write, Blog, Tweet, Communicate: The more you write, the better the writer you will become- that's one part of the rationale behind this. The other is to be a better friend and just keep in touch with people on at least a semi-regular basis. Too many good friends have fallen by the wayside because I didn't make time to write a short email-- that has to change.
3. NaNoWriMo: I am going to prep for, plan and participate in National Novel Writing Month (http://www.nanowrimo.org)
4. Clear my book backlog: This will probably not happen until I'm dead, but there are a large stack of books I own that I haven't read. I'd like to cut into that this year.
5. Ambition: I'm a pretty mellow, laid back kind of guy. I have moments where I can get severely pissed off or irritated, but by and large, I'm pretty cool about the majority of stuff that life throws at me. But, my laid back personality has some drawbacks- I've never really been driven or ambitious about my life. I think that's why I succumb to overwhelming attacks of ennui a lot of the time- everyone else seems to have a plan and a place to go- I'd be happy running a coffee shop selling joints and cappacinos to peeps. (Once they make weed legal, of course.) But this year, I'd like to push myself a little bit. Reach a little higher, try a little harder. That sounds a little abstract, but it's the best way I can think of to put it.
6. Make PoliSci Work for Me: Find a candidate, volunteer/support them- or alternatively, find an issue relevant to the 2010 elections and do the same thing. Time to make all this polisci work for me.
7. Lose Weight: The classic chestnut of a resolution, I'd like to drop 30 pounds by this time next year. We live literally spitting distance from Mercer Park Pool, so I'd like to get into swimming and do it at least 3xs a week.
8. Be A Better Person: Again, another classic chestnut-- I firmly believe we can all be better people, husbands, wives, etc. Some need to be better than others, but we can all improve.
9. Live: Every day we breathe air on this planet is sort of a miracle in and of itself- I don't want to shrink from any experiences. 3 random things for 2010: go skydiving, go somewhere totally new and paint a picture on a canvas.
10. Shove The MA Over the Goal Line: My poor, poor APP/Thesis/Deluded Love Child of My Brain-- stuck in bureaucratic, long distance hell- I'm going to pretty it up and shove it over the finish line. Before May, so that I can finally, at long last, be done with it all.
So there you have it- my 10 for 2010. Stay tuned this December to see if I actually achieve any of the things I set out to do this year, or whether like so many people, New Year's Resolutions are just as futile as they always are.
Yeah, so a sleep-deprived brain and a very, very quiet, bitterly cold night out at Studio Arts isn't probably the best environment to try and put down some New Year's Resolutions onto, well, if not paper, then on a computer screen. I got up way, way too early to watch some excellent football games (The Outback Bowl holds the title of best game of 2010 so far- the ending especially was just plain nuts! I'm also especially happy the Big 10 is 3-2 in Bowl Games so far- hopefully Sparty can continue that trend tomorrow) and now I'm paying the price. Sleep will be the best of gifts tomorrow.
But 2010 feels important. The back half of my 20s feels especially important. That feeling in your oxcipetal- that chill you get, when you look at what kind of a life you're building and realize that even if you don't end up with something more, the belief that you are meant for something more and the ability to at least try your very best to get that are part of what defines the human existence for us all.
I want to do my level best to take these seriously. Every year people write down or make a New Year's Resolution and never both to really follow through on it, for me (and this doesn't count as a resolution, though it could) I want to make 2010 the year where I fulfill the majority of my goals for myself- and actually, for one of the first times in my life follow through with something.
So, without further ado:
10 For 2010
1. Get Inked (x2): It is past time... I have the ideas, the image in my head and I know what I want and should, in fact, get at least one tatt before the end of this month, if not a lot sooner.
2. Write, Blog, Tweet, Communicate: The more you write, the better the writer you will become- that's one part of the rationale behind this. The other is to be a better friend and just keep in touch with people on at least a semi-regular basis. Too many good friends have fallen by the wayside because I didn't make time to write a short email-- that has to change.
3. NaNoWriMo: I am going to prep for, plan and participate in National Novel Writing Month (http://www.nanowrimo.org)
4. Clear my book backlog: This will probably not happen until I'm dead, but there are a large stack of books I own that I haven't read. I'd like to cut into that this year.
5. Ambition: I'm a pretty mellow, laid back kind of guy. I have moments where I can get severely pissed off or irritated, but by and large, I'm pretty cool about the majority of stuff that life throws at me. But, my laid back personality has some drawbacks- I've never really been driven or ambitious about my life. I think that's why I succumb to overwhelming attacks of ennui a lot of the time- everyone else seems to have a plan and a place to go- I'd be happy running a coffee shop selling joints and cappacinos to peeps. (Once they make weed legal, of course.) But this year, I'd like to push myself a little bit. Reach a little higher, try a little harder. That sounds a little abstract, but it's the best way I can think of to put it.
6. Make PoliSci Work for Me: Find a candidate, volunteer/support them- or alternatively, find an issue relevant to the 2010 elections and do the same thing. Time to make all this polisci work for me.
7. Lose Weight: The classic chestnut of a resolution, I'd like to drop 30 pounds by this time next year. We live literally spitting distance from Mercer Park Pool, so I'd like to get into swimming and do it at least 3xs a week.
8. Be A Better Person: Again, another classic chestnut-- I firmly believe we can all be better people, husbands, wives, etc. Some need to be better than others, but we can all improve.
9. Live: Every day we breathe air on this planet is sort of a miracle in and of itself- I don't want to shrink from any experiences. 3 random things for 2010: go skydiving, go somewhere totally new and paint a picture on a canvas.
10. Shove The MA Over the Goal Line: My poor, poor APP/Thesis/Deluded Love Child of My Brain-- stuck in bureaucratic, long distance hell- I'm going to pretty it up and shove it over the finish line. Before May, so that I can finally, at long last, be done with it all.
So there you have it- my 10 for 2010. Stay tuned this December to see if I actually achieve any of the things I set out to do this year, or whether like so many people, New Year's Resolutions are just as futile as they always are.
Late Night Chronicles 49: Random Thoughts On Free Speech
Originally published on Facebook, 12/31/09
The Sinclair-Mediacom fight has brought several issues on Free Speech boiling to the top of my not-so-small head. I love the fact that the United States, thanks to the Constitution takes an absolutist position on Free Speech- I think it's one of the most important rights we have and an important in general out there in the wide world of rights, etc. But our absolutist position raises some key questions for me that I think about now and again and try and muddle through in my spare time, because, you know, I'm totally cool like that. And have way too much time on my hands and need some sort of a hobby or something. Anyway, this is a random mish-mash of an LNC, but here it is:
1. Media Conglomeration: how free is speech if the flow of information is controlled by fewer and fewer companies? The main argument against this concern is 'who cares, just use the internet?' but the problem is that the majority of people aren't responsible consumers of information. No one wants to go through the tiresome business of figuring out just what truth is- they just want to read the morning paper or scan the morning headlines on MSNBC.com or whatever. Yet the question stands: how free is speech if the majority of information outlets are controlled by fewer and fewer companies?
Part of the problem is that there's still this vague notion of objectivity hanging over the collective head of American journalism. In the UK, it's different- press laws are tighter and there's less wiggle room and more restrictions on speech, but if you want the government line, you go with the BBC, if you want more left wing news, you read the Guardian, more right wing the Telegraph-- the ideological leanings of media outlets are right out there for consumers to see and they can make choices accordingly. In this country, conservatives (ignoring the internet, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and talk radio) complain loudly about 'liberal media bias' leading to tiresome arguments about the supposed lack of objectivity in the mainstream media. But! The argument becomes even more irrelevant when you consider the fact that what conservatives consider to be 'the mainstream media' is dying slowly be degrees. (TheQuietman22 informed me that he had run into an old buddy of his from the Daily Iowan, who told him that 95% of the people who had worked with them on the DI had left journalism. Traditional outlets are looking bleak.)
If we can abandon this notion of objectivity and just ape the British model and let consumers see the political leanings of media outlets and let consumers make the choices for themselves, this may become less of an issue. But we don't encourage responsible media consumption in this country and we like to pretend that journalism is objective, but it's not. Dropping that pretense will make journalism more transparent and maybe allow consumers to see just who is controlling the news they read...
2. Tyranny of the Majority: in a country that will bite its own arm off before regulating business one inch more than necessary, it is frustrating to me that the political marketplace remains closed to fair competition. The establishment of the Commission on Presidential Debates in the wake of the 1992 and 1996 elections (fear of Perot) was a blatantly partisan move designed to protect both Democratic and Republican candidates from arguing their positions against other candidates who may have more popular positions than they themselves do. What happened to the League of Women Voters holding a debate? (Remember John Anderson in 1980? I don't, but some of you might...) The two parties hold a huge monetary advantage to the point where they can flood the media markets with blanket advertising and drown out any other points of view.
Here's the deal: say we open our political system to fair competition- we won't end up with a million parties gridlocking Congress because our system isn't designed that way- first past the post, Westminster-style voting systems can handle 3, maybe 4 parties and not much more. So the argument that opening the political marketplace will lead to political chaos is entirely incorrect- never mind the fact that you would have to have several viable third parties waiting in the wings for that to happen, which we don't.
But in the name of fairness, in the name of a healthier democracy, we should open the political marketplace to fair competition. The two major parties shouldn't be allowed to set up rules that benefit them alone- someone needs to take the responsible tack and think of the health of our democracy in the long term. I'm not going to come down on the idea of public finance for elections, but abolishing the FEC and the CPD and recognizing them for the partisan entities that they are is a damn good first step. (Oh and banning all donations larger than $100 would help too- but that is another note.)
3. Pay for Play? The Sinclair-Mediacom fight over the future of Fox and CBS Affiliates in Eastern Iowa (Fox carrying the all-important Orange Bowl this year) has had enough press coverage- but this ties in with the media conglomeration point I made earlier: why don't I, here in Iowa City have access to another cable option? Mediacom holds the monopoly in the area and as a result, can charge cut-throat prices and leave consumers the choice between cable and a dish or even rabbit ears-- with no competition, the invisible hand of the marketplace benefits no one.
The Sinclair-Mediacom fight has brought several issues on Free Speech boiling to the top of my not-so-small head. I love the fact that the United States, thanks to the Constitution takes an absolutist position on Free Speech- I think it's one of the most important rights we have and an important in general out there in the wide world of rights, etc. But our absolutist position raises some key questions for me that I think about now and again and try and muddle through in my spare time, because, you know, I'm totally cool like that. And have way too much time on my hands and need some sort of a hobby or something. Anyway, this is a random mish-mash of an LNC, but here it is:
1. Media Conglomeration: how free is speech if the flow of information is controlled by fewer and fewer companies? The main argument against this concern is 'who cares, just use the internet?' but the problem is that the majority of people aren't responsible consumers of information. No one wants to go through the tiresome business of figuring out just what truth is- they just want to read the morning paper or scan the morning headlines on MSNBC.com or whatever. Yet the question stands: how free is speech if the majority of information outlets are controlled by fewer and fewer companies?
Part of the problem is that there's still this vague notion of objectivity hanging over the collective head of American journalism. In the UK, it's different- press laws are tighter and there's less wiggle room and more restrictions on speech, but if you want the government line, you go with the BBC, if you want more left wing news, you read the Guardian, more right wing the Telegraph-- the ideological leanings of media outlets are right out there for consumers to see and they can make choices accordingly. In this country, conservatives (ignoring the internet, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and talk radio) complain loudly about 'liberal media bias' leading to tiresome arguments about the supposed lack of objectivity in the mainstream media. But! The argument becomes even more irrelevant when you consider the fact that what conservatives consider to be 'the mainstream media' is dying slowly be degrees. (TheQuietman22 informed me that he had run into an old buddy of his from the Daily Iowan, who told him that 95% of the people who had worked with them on the DI had left journalism. Traditional outlets are looking bleak.)
If we can abandon this notion of objectivity and just ape the British model and let consumers see the political leanings of media outlets and let consumers make the choices for themselves, this may become less of an issue. But we don't encourage responsible media consumption in this country and we like to pretend that journalism is objective, but it's not. Dropping that pretense will make journalism more transparent and maybe allow consumers to see just who is controlling the news they read...
2. Tyranny of the Majority: in a country that will bite its own arm off before regulating business one inch more than necessary, it is frustrating to me that the political marketplace remains closed to fair competition. The establishment of the Commission on Presidential Debates in the wake of the 1992 and 1996 elections (fear of Perot) was a blatantly partisan move designed to protect both Democratic and Republican candidates from arguing their positions against other candidates who may have more popular positions than they themselves do. What happened to the League of Women Voters holding a debate? (Remember John Anderson in 1980? I don't, but some of you might...) The two parties hold a huge monetary advantage to the point where they can flood the media markets with blanket advertising and drown out any other points of view.
Here's the deal: say we open our political system to fair competition- we won't end up with a million parties gridlocking Congress because our system isn't designed that way- first past the post, Westminster-style voting systems can handle 3, maybe 4 parties and not much more. So the argument that opening the political marketplace will lead to political chaos is entirely incorrect- never mind the fact that you would have to have several viable third parties waiting in the wings for that to happen, which we don't.
But in the name of fairness, in the name of a healthier democracy, we should open the political marketplace to fair competition. The two major parties shouldn't be allowed to set up rules that benefit them alone- someone needs to take the responsible tack and think of the health of our democracy in the long term. I'm not going to come down on the idea of public finance for elections, but abolishing the FEC and the CPD and recognizing them for the partisan entities that they are is a damn good first step. (Oh and banning all donations larger than $100 would help too- but that is another note.)
3. Pay for Play? The Sinclair-Mediacom fight over the future of Fox and CBS Affiliates in Eastern Iowa (Fox carrying the all-important Orange Bowl this year) has had enough press coverage- but this ties in with the media conglomeration point I made earlier: why don't I, here in Iowa City have access to another cable option? Mediacom holds the monopoly in the area and as a result, can charge cut-throat prices and leave consumers the choice between cable and a dish or even rabbit ears-- with no competition, the invisible hand of the marketplace benefits no one.
Late Night Chronicles 48: The Mac and Cheese of Television
Originally published on Facebook, 12/29/09 (We skipped to #48, because #47 was a review of Avatar that I just couldn't get to work.)
There are a select few television shows that make the transfer from the small screen to the big screen successfully and there are even less that translate the other way. M*A*S*H is probably the most successful example of the latter phenomenon, being a wildly successful movie first and an even more successful television show that ran for ten seasons and whose finale remains one of the true, national television events in American history- but another, often overlooked television phenomenon that had success as a movie, followed by a wild bout of success on the small screen for ten seasons that has bred several DVD movies and (so far) two spin-off shows is equally as fascinating, because although it lacks the wild popularity of M*A*S*H and other genre shows, quietly flying below the radar, the Stargate Franchise has been wildly successful and yet remains somewhat less than connected to the overall cultural zeitgeist.
This fascinates me: the original Stargate movie, with James Spader and Kurt Russell was released in 1994 and made about $141 million which was a hefty return on its initial $55 million budget. They made a television show, Stargate SG-1 which ran for ten seasons, had one spin-off Stargate: Atlantis, which ran for five and just launched another spin-off Stargate: Universe which has already been picked up for a second season by the Sci-Fi Channel (or SyFy or whatever its called now.) Despite all this wild success however (and this is sort of mind-blowing) you're still more likely to meet a Trek Fan, A Star Wars Fan or a Doctor Who fan. Stargate remains one of the most successful television franchises (never mind science fiction franchises) in television history and yet remains oddly under the radar of, as I mentioned, the cultural zeitgeist- not to mention under the radar in general.
I remain a self-confessed geek and lover of good science fiction- and a lover of good television in general. There's nothing like a show whose writing is so good it practically crackles across the screen at you (Battlestar Galactica, The West Wing, Gilmore Girls) or shows whose characters you get invested in with ease (Firefly, Doctor Who) or even shows that are comedic gems (Arrested Development, Fawlty Towers)- yet despite making no bones about the fact that they aren't out for great television, Stargate is wildly entertaining. I think I've decided that it's because sometimes, people look for foie gras, steak and a four star meal when they watch television- and sometimes, they just look for mac and cheese.
And that, I think is the secret to the success of Stargate. Critics and reviews that I've seen often accuse it of being derivative- or of not being original- and perhaps that's true. After all, you can watch an episode of Stargate SG-1 and an episode of Trek and probably see a similar format with different players. There's nothing mind-blowingly original or ground breaking about it, yet it's just comfort food for your television. To be fair: Richard Dean Anderson helps a lot. If you're trying to entertain people, who better to help you out than the crackin' wise star of MacGuyver?
(And also, in a side note, there is a short-list of people with whom I'd like to have a boozy evening of mayhem with and Mr. Dean Anderson makes that list.)
Stargate SG-1 is the vanilla, the original flavor mac and cheese- but it is Stargate: Atlantis that for some reason I just find incredible engrossing and entertaining. Again, nothing fancy, nothing eye-popping, just genuinely good television- and to this day I'm not quite sure what it is about Atlantis that I find so entertaining. I think it was the pilot episode that did it for me- the launching of an expedition to another galaxy really is portrayed by the show as a true adventure, a true exploration of something totally alien. And that theme of exploration is something that runs throughout the whole body of the show and I guess it appeals to me. The other thing about Atlantis: the bad guys look like Edgar Winter. No really, that's what the Amazon.com review says- and it's totally true: Edgar Winter + an alien vampire = the Wraith! Which I find hysterically amusing!
But as a cultural phenomenon, Stargate remains elusive. Does it qualify as a phenomenon? Is it embedded in the cultural zeitgeist? Why is such a successful show, so oddly 'below the radar'? Stargate remains the most successful television show since M*A*S*H to jump from the big screen to the small screen. It claims the title of being the 'longest running science fiction show in North American history' (something that die hard Whovians contest) and for most of the past decade, it's been quietly expanding its corner of the television universe- and as science fiction shows go, it's never reached the popularity of Trek, but it doesn't have too--
Some people want foie gras when they watch television, some people just want mac and cheese- and the entire Stargate Franchise remains just that: consistently good entertainment- the mac and cheese of television.
There are a select few television shows that make the transfer from the small screen to the big screen successfully and there are even less that translate the other way. M*A*S*H is probably the most successful example of the latter phenomenon, being a wildly successful movie first and an even more successful television show that ran for ten seasons and whose finale remains one of the true, national television events in American history- but another, often overlooked television phenomenon that had success as a movie, followed by a wild bout of success on the small screen for ten seasons that has bred several DVD movies and (so far) two spin-off shows is equally as fascinating, because although it lacks the wild popularity of M*A*S*H and other genre shows, quietly flying below the radar, the Stargate Franchise has been wildly successful and yet remains somewhat less than connected to the overall cultural zeitgeist.
This fascinates me: the original Stargate movie, with James Spader and Kurt Russell was released in 1994 and made about $141 million which was a hefty return on its initial $55 million budget. They made a television show, Stargate SG-1 which ran for ten seasons, had one spin-off Stargate: Atlantis, which ran for five and just launched another spin-off Stargate: Universe which has already been picked up for a second season by the Sci-Fi Channel (or SyFy or whatever its called now.) Despite all this wild success however (and this is sort of mind-blowing) you're still more likely to meet a Trek Fan, A Star Wars Fan or a Doctor Who fan. Stargate remains one of the most successful television franchises (never mind science fiction franchises) in television history and yet remains oddly under the radar of, as I mentioned, the cultural zeitgeist- not to mention under the radar in general.
I remain a self-confessed geek and lover of good science fiction- and a lover of good television in general. There's nothing like a show whose writing is so good it practically crackles across the screen at you (Battlestar Galactica, The West Wing, Gilmore Girls) or shows whose characters you get invested in with ease (Firefly, Doctor Who) or even shows that are comedic gems (Arrested Development, Fawlty Towers)- yet despite making no bones about the fact that they aren't out for great television, Stargate is wildly entertaining. I think I've decided that it's because sometimes, people look for foie gras, steak and a four star meal when they watch television- and sometimes, they just look for mac and cheese.
And that, I think is the secret to the success of Stargate. Critics and reviews that I've seen often accuse it of being derivative- or of not being original- and perhaps that's true. After all, you can watch an episode of Stargate SG-1 and an episode of Trek and probably see a similar format with different players. There's nothing mind-blowingly original or ground breaking about it, yet it's just comfort food for your television. To be fair: Richard Dean Anderson helps a lot. If you're trying to entertain people, who better to help you out than the crackin' wise star of MacGuyver?
(And also, in a side note, there is a short-list of people with whom I'd like to have a boozy evening of mayhem with and Mr. Dean Anderson makes that list.)
Stargate SG-1 is the vanilla, the original flavor mac and cheese- but it is Stargate: Atlantis that for some reason I just find incredible engrossing and entertaining. Again, nothing fancy, nothing eye-popping, just genuinely good television- and to this day I'm not quite sure what it is about Atlantis that I find so entertaining. I think it was the pilot episode that did it for me- the launching of an expedition to another galaxy really is portrayed by the show as a true adventure, a true exploration of something totally alien. And that theme of exploration is something that runs throughout the whole body of the show and I guess it appeals to me. The other thing about Atlantis: the bad guys look like Edgar Winter. No really, that's what the Amazon.com review says- and it's totally true: Edgar Winter + an alien vampire = the Wraith! Which I find hysterically amusing!
But as a cultural phenomenon, Stargate remains elusive. Does it qualify as a phenomenon? Is it embedded in the cultural zeitgeist? Why is such a successful show, so oddly 'below the radar'? Stargate remains the most successful television show since M*A*S*H to jump from the big screen to the small screen. It claims the title of being the 'longest running science fiction show in North American history' (something that die hard Whovians contest) and for most of the past decade, it's been quietly expanding its corner of the television universe- and as science fiction shows go, it's never reached the popularity of Trek, but it doesn't have too--
Some people want foie gras when they watch television, some people just want mac and cheese- and the entire Stargate Franchise remains just that: consistently good entertainment- the mac and cheese of television.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Almost Inked
I got my first piercing on a whim. I was a freshman in college- and although 'out on my own in the world' consisted of being on the far side of my hometown from my parents, I felt a certain amount of freedom at the time, yet was curiously reticent to push myself to do anything. But one day, I went downtown, took a deep breath and came out a few minutes later with an eyebrow ring. Which worked out just fine until economic circumstances forced me into working at the evil corporate empire that is Wal-Mart (and they aren't cool with piercings. Uncle Sam don't swing that way...)
Curiously enough, I got my second piercing- also on a whim. I had some time to kill downtown one night before I went to my Portuguese conversation hour, took a deep breath, walked in and walked out with a hoop in my left nipple. (A Frat Guy was all like 'dude, this guy's totally getting his nipple pierced!' and wanted to know all about the pain afterwards.) That one didn't want to heal up right, so after some awkward questions at airport security and a refusal to unscrew itself, it took a set of pliers in my Uncle's garden shed in the UK to get it gone.
Yet despite that, I've always been somewhat cautious when it comes to tattoos. The Missus has plenty- everyone I know with only one or two exceptions has at least one tattoo somewhere- and I knew that I wanted to do it- I just wanted to be sure about what I was going to get. Ali answered that question for me one sunny summer afternoon in Spirit Lake- getting a chili pepper, the 'symbol of our love,' (Tom and Ali = tomali! (or tamale, rather- but a dried corn husk full o'stuff doesn't make for a good tattoo, so we expropriated a chili pepper) She got hers then and so today, I went down to Nemesis Studios in Iowa City and got my chili pepper. (3 years to the day after we first met-- our 'other' anniversary...)
Almost.
It was, as Old School Jeff, my artist remarked, more uncomfortable than painful. Like someone was drawing on my back with a really sharp pencil and digging in. He started with a short line to get me used to the sensation and then we were off to the races- and for the vast majority of the time, I was totally cool. The long lines weren't that fun and for some reason, some areas of my back were more sensitive than others- so there were some lines that really made me grit my teeth, but overall- the pain wasn't unbearable- not by a long shot.
Old School Jeff told me he was almost done and just had to go back through and bold up some lines, then we'd take a break and he'd color it all in. And so, after the initial round, he went back to work- and had almost finished up, when it hit me in a rush. I got hot, then cold, then light headed- Ali said she saw me 'get really pale and then I thought 'oh shit'' He let me sit up and I proceeded to almost pass out- then puke in his garbage can.
So no color yet. But the basic outline is done and it's a big 'un- probably a little too big for the first tattoo, but overall, it looks pretty kick-ass nonetheless. I can't say I'll ever become a huge tattoo freak, but I will, at the very least, finish this one. (And hopefully not pass out/puke when I do so-- though props to Old School Jeff for taking it all in stride- guess that does happen now and again.)
Monday, January 4, 2010
UglyPeople.Com
BeautifulPeople.com has axed 5.000 'fatties' from their site. The mind boggles at the sheer mean-spiritedness of this move- but it gets better: behold, the money quote-
Holy Superficial Bullshit, Batman! How just plain ugly can you get?
"As a business, we mourn the loss of any member, but the fact remains that our members demand the high standard of beauty be upheld," said site founder Robert Hintze.
"Letting fatties roam the site is a direct threat to our business model and the very concept for which BeautifulPeople.com was founded."
Holy Superficial Bullshit, Batman! How just plain ugly can you get?
Burj Dubai Opens...
The world's tallest building has opened in Dubai- and because it's Dubai, the thing is downright insane- and out of this world! The Sears (now Willis, but I refuse on principle to call it that) Tower has been bumped down yet another notch in the rankings and you have to wonder whether or not it's a symptom of something larger.
There is, I think, a national phobia about skyscrapers now- in the aftermath of September the 11th, who can blame us? But an increasing problem for America is that in this age of security, we've tightened our borders- in this age of economic prosperity with India and China growing, fewer and fewer students want to come to America. We are losing the race for innovation in this country by degrees- and maybe white elephants like the Burj Dubai are useless status symbols, but it seems as if our greatest engineering feats belong to the past.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if we can't attract the best and brightest from around the world, we need to grow 'em here at home. Let's go to Mars and spark the imaginations of a whole new generation- let's build things the world has never seen before and make passionate engineers...
I don't know. But if we are to be 'America The Exceptional' then I feel like the world's tallest building should be here- and not in Dubai.
Late Night Chronicles 46: Your Yearly Sports Cliché
Originally published on Facebook, 12/13/2009
The end is nigh. The players have been given their awards, teams sorted into their respective bowls and inevitably, sportswriters across the country have erupted into an orgy of loathing at the final results delivered to us by the system everyone loves to hate, the Bowl Championship System or BCS. It's worth noting that since the BCS television contract runs through about 2014, I think, this years orgy of loathing is tiresome. In fact, it's fast becoming cliché and you're starting to see a new split emerge in the debate- the haters remain strong, the lovers of the BCS (all two of them) remain stalwart and now we have the jaded cynics emerging, recognizing that the BCS is more about money than sport and recognizing again that fans and common sense rarely, if ever, triumph over entrenched monetary interests- not just in sports, but all over the place.
Yet the hatred continues. Apart from 'Around the Horn' regular Tim Cowlishaw (who is mocked ceaselessly by his counterparts for his BCS love) and former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (currently pimping the BCS to all and sundry, carefully explaining to everyone why it's a good thing. Though if you worked for Bush The Younger, defending the inexplicable, indefensible and downright illogical must come easy to you by now.) I can't think of anyone who loves the BCS. In fact no less an authority than the House Energy and Commerce Committee just this last week passed a bill calling for the BCS to be replaced with a playoff system-- though why they weren't, you know, minding the people's business at the time is another note entirely- and even the President, in one of the few sensible things he's said thus far has come out against the BCS.
Everyone hates it. Yet it persists- and even with a television contract until 2014, there's been no real movement to change it, which naturally begs the question: why not?
The problem is the Bowl System itself. There is a lot of history in the Bowls, teams that know from day 1 they probably won't be playing for the national title (because they're not in the SEC, lol) have something to play for and the classic bowls like the Rose, Orange, Fiesta and Sugar have a long history embedded in the sport of college football itself. A playoff system, although sexy and logical for actually letting play on the field decide the national title would effectively be the end of the Bowl System. And conferences aside- money-grubbing university athletic departments aside, the Bowls themselves pack a powerful punch. They can pay out a lot of money to teams and therefore, schools and thus have 'heft' and will fight tooth and nail to avoid being replaced by a playoff.
However, a blindingly sexy solution came to me recently and I thought it was worth sharing with everyone: why not have your cake and eat it too?
What do I mean by this- well, why not have an 8 team playoff and the Bowls can take the best of the rest. This has the virtue of giving teams something to aim for throughout the season (if they get in the top 8, they get a shot at the title)-- it limits the number of extra games teams would have to prep for and play- (current season plus potentially 2-3 more) and keeps the playoff limited to truly the cream of college football's crop-- while still allowing teams who put together genuinely good seasons to reap the rewards of playing in a Bowl Game. The 'Elite 8 Playoff' could take place over the course of December and into early January, so the National Title Game could be timed to come at the end of the Bowl slate like it does now- the BCS and conferences across the country could create the system, market the system and make money off the system AND the bowl games, which means more money for the greedy bastards- and college football fans would get a playoff plus the Bowl traditions they know and love.
So what would my 'have your cake and eat it too' system look like this year? Well, let's look at the pairings for the 'Elite 8 Playoff' plus the usual BCS Bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) and see what we get:
The Elite 8 Playoff
1. Alabama v. 8. Ohio State (played at high seed)
2. Texas v. 7. Oregon
3. Cincy v. 6. Boise State
4. TCU v. 5. Florida
Winner of Game 1 v. Winner of Game 3
Winner of Game 2 v. Winner of Game 4
National Title Game!
The Bowls
Rose: Iowa v. Arizona (vy. sexy rematch!)
Fiesta: Nebraska v. At Large
Orange: Georgia Tech v. At Large
Sugar: LSU v. At Large
The more I look at this, the more I like it-- it has the virtue of establishing a playoff system for the national title, while preserving the Bowl System for, as I said, what would be 'The Best of The Rest'-- there are so many teams in Division 1 and such a tradition with the Bowls it'd be a shame to discard all that for a huge bloated playoff system. Good teams deserve to have something to play for as well- let the great teams make a run at the national title. The good teams can take the Bowls and work hard next season to break into that Top 8.
Instead of the tiresome debate, people should get creative with this- and more to the point, sportswriters should know better than to recycle the same tired talking points about the BCS that they write about every year. Propose solutions, start a petition and get the conversation moving somewhere useful- anything to avoid being another yearly sports cliché.
The end is nigh. The players have been given their awards, teams sorted into their respective bowls and inevitably, sportswriters across the country have erupted into an orgy of loathing at the final results delivered to us by the system everyone loves to hate, the Bowl Championship System or BCS. It's worth noting that since the BCS television contract runs through about 2014, I think, this years orgy of loathing is tiresome. In fact, it's fast becoming cliché and you're starting to see a new split emerge in the debate- the haters remain strong, the lovers of the BCS (all two of them) remain stalwart and now we have the jaded cynics emerging, recognizing that the BCS is more about money than sport and recognizing again that fans and common sense rarely, if ever, triumph over entrenched monetary interests- not just in sports, but all over the place.
Yet the hatred continues. Apart from 'Around the Horn' regular Tim Cowlishaw (who is mocked ceaselessly by his counterparts for his BCS love) and former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (currently pimping the BCS to all and sundry, carefully explaining to everyone why it's a good thing. Though if you worked for Bush The Younger, defending the inexplicable, indefensible and downright illogical must come easy to you by now.) I can't think of anyone who loves the BCS. In fact no less an authority than the House Energy and Commerce Committee just this last week passed a bill calling for the BCS to be replaced with a playoff system-- though why they weren't, you know, minding the people's business at the time is another note entirely- and even the President, in one of the few sensible things he's said thus far has come out against the BCS.
Everyone hates it. Yet it persists- and even with a television contract until 2014, there's been no real movement to change it, which naturally begs the question: why not?
The problem is the Bowl System itself. There is a lot of history in the Bowls, teams that know from day 1 they probably won't be playing for the national title (because they're not in the SEC, lol) have something to play for and the classic bowls like the Rose, Orange, Fiesta and Sugar have a long history embedded in the sport of college football itself. A playoff system, although sexy and logical for actually letting play on the field decide the national title would effectively be the end of the Bowl System. And conferences aside- money-grubbing university athletic departments aside, the Bowls themselves pack a powerful punch. They can pay out a lot of money to teams and therefore, schools and thus have 'heft' and will fight tooth and nail to avoid being replaced by a playoff.
However, a blindingly sexy solution came to me recently and I thought it was worth sharing with everyone: why not have your cake and eat it too?
What do I mean by this- well, why not have an 8 team playoff and the Bowls can take the best of the rest. This has the virtue of giving teams something to aim for throughout the season (if they get in the top 8, they get a shot at the title)-- it limits the number of extra games teams would have to prep for and play- (current season plus potentially 2-3 more) and keeps the playoff limited to truly the cream of college football's crop-- while still allowing teams who put together genuinely good seasons to reap the rewards of playing in a Bowl Game. The 'Elite 8 Playoff' could take place over the course of December and into early January, so the National Title Game could be timed to come at the end of the Bowl slate like it does now- the BCS and conferences across the country could create the system, market the system and make money off the system AND the bowl games, which means more money for the greedy bastards- and college football fans would get a playoff plus the Bowl traditions they know and love.
So what would my 'have your cake and eat it too' system look like this year? Well, let's look at the pairings for the 'Elite 8 Playoff' plus the usual BCS Bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) and see what we get:
The Elite 8 Playoff
1. Alabama v. 8. Ohio State (played at high seed)
2. Texas v. 7. Oregon
3. Cincy v. 6. Boise State
4. TCU v. 5. Florida
Winner of Game 1 v. Winner of Game 3
Winner of Game 2 v. Winner of Game 4
National Title Game!
The Bowls
Rose: Iowa v. Arizona (vy. sexy rematch!)
Fiesta: Nebraska v. At Large
Orange: Georgia Tech v. At Large
Sugar: LSU v. At Large
The more I look at this, the more I like it-- it has the virtue of establishing a playoff system for the national title, while preserving the Bowl System for, as I said, what would be 'The Best of The Rest'-- there are so many teams in Division 1 and such a tradition with the Bowls it'd be a shame to discard all that for a huge bloated playoff system. Good teams deserve to have something to play for as well- let the great teams make a run at the national title. The good teams can take the Bowls and work hard next season to break into that Top 8.
Instead of the tiresome debate, people should get creative with this- and more to the point, sportswriters should know better than to recycle the same tired talking points about the BCS that they write about every year. Propose solutions, start a petition and get the conversation moving somewhere useful- anything to avoid being another yearly sports cliché.
Late Night Chronicles 45: American Gavage
Originally published on Facebook, 12/12/09
Friday December the 4th saw another defeat for the cause of marriage equality in America, as 38 New York Senators voted against legislation that would have legalized gay marriage in New York, perhaps the bluest of blue states. Feministing.com was apparently going to have a rant about that, but instead they ran a clip of NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn's reaction to the news (which is worth watching- here.) And that got me thinking:
Like legalized marijuana, I view gay marriage as something of a historical inevitability. Just being alive and being in Iowa when the Varnum Decision was handed down by the State Supreme Court convinced me- Facebook lit up with joy and pride in the Hawkeye State for daring to do what people apparently considered to be the fundamentally right thing. And I have to admit, i don't know that many gay or lesbians. These were straight people- happy, downright proud to be Iowan because of what our Supreme Court did. It gave me so much hope for the future and convinced me that although the fight may be longer than it should be, the fight for marriage equality will eventually be won.
Yet, in the aftermath of the NY Defeat, my mind was churning. Why is it, whenever people vote on gay marriage it loses? Why should this just be left to the courts? Why isn't this a no-brainer? If you watch Quinn's remarks, you'll see that she's not asking for the moon on a string, all she wants to do is dance with her 83 year old Dad at her wedding. How can people vote against such a simple sentiment as that? First, I have to admit that the idea of voting on this issue is something I struggle with greatly- after all, we didn't ask for a show of hands after Brown v. Board. No one said 'well, it's a court decision and the people of the South deserve to have their say at the ballot box.' It was pretty much a no-brainer for people. Equality is equality. We all deserve to be equal under the law and even as the country stood up and said 'enough' to segregation, logic should dictate that if gay and lesbian couples want to get married and be equal to their heterosexual counterparts, then it should be simple. 'Enough' should indeed be 'enough.'
And yet, it's not. Part of the problem, I think lies in the campaigns that proponents of marriage equality have run in a variety of states- if you can't get gay marriage past California voters, you've done something wrong somewhere. The heart of this issue to me needs to be the people themselves- like I said earlier, it seems to me that people like Christine Quinn aren't demanding acceptance, they're not even demanding approval- all they want is a wedding- and how that threatens anyone- and how anyone could possibly deny such a simple request baffles me every single day.
We confuse 'acceptance' with 'tolerance'-- and we confuse both words with 'approval.' I think there's something in the American national character that genuinely balks at the idea of being told what to do and what to believe. It's probably what started the Revolution to begin with, but in a contemporary setting it produces knee-jerk reactions at the ballot box that don't necessarily advance causes very well. I remain convinced that Hillary Clinton's aura of 'inevitability' heading into the 2008 electoral season proved to be her undoing. Ideological hijacking of the issue of marriage equality and hysterical demands and accusations of the death of 'traditional marriage' should gay marriage be legalized provide fertile ground for distortions that seem to say if we allow marriage equality, then we have to allow x.y. and z as well.
Some people say 'civil unions' first-- but how do you ask people to wait for equality? Some people make the libertarian argument and say that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and everyone should, for legal purposes, have civil unions- but good luck selling that one to an American electoral that treat marriage as an almost sacred word in and of itself. No, to me, there is no good argument against it- my marriage certainly hasn't fallen apart and I have a sneaking suspicion no one else's has either. And debate aside- we have to ask: how sacred is something if everyone can do it? In Johnson County- thirty seconds on the internet and the ability to write your name on a piece of paper is all it takes. And to me, that brought home the fact that the only two people that matter in the marriage are the people who love each other. The state doesn't make a marriage. People do.
Yet whatever side of this issue you come down on, the ideological hijacking of the issue that occurs on both ends of the political spectrum is a symptom of a larger problem- a cancer on the American body politic that desperately needs to be addressed and thus far has not been addressed (not to my satisfaction anyway) by our new president. The problem is that of gavage.
Gavage is perhaps the perfect metaphor for this age of hyper-partisan nonsense that we currently live in. For those of you who don't know, gavage is the process by which a tube is inserted into a duck's (or goose's) esophogus and food is crammed down its throat, all in the name of producing an especially tasty liver that gets dipped in butter and other yummy things to make foie gras.
Yes, gavage is perfect. For you see, kids- we, the American people are the goose (or duck) and the two ends of our political spectrum are the ones holding the tube to shove down our throat. People like the National Organization for Marriage warn that 'a storm is coming.' Perez Hilton calls Carrie Prejean a 'dumb bitch' for 'opposing' gay marriage. The Mormon Church is vilified by the left for their role in defeating Prop 8 in California-- and Constitutional Amendment after Amendment is passed to ban gay marriage in state after state-- and this problem of gavage goes far beyond the issue of marriage equality.
Our political discourse is marred by it- no one can have a reasonable debate with each other any more. People never listen to each other- they just talk right past each other. Pressing national problems (entitlement reform, the skyrocketing debt, the costs of education for the younger generation) never get solved because no one wants to listen. The political parties and extremist ideologues on both sides of the aisle merely take turns holding the tube, hoping that whatever they cram down the throats of the American people will produce a better result for their side.
Whether you believe that hyper-partisanism was the fault of Reagen firing the opening salvo of the Conservative Revolution or Gingrich's final assault on the dessicated remains of the New Deal Coalition in 1994, the fact remains that there is apparently no leader in America with the character to rise above it. There is no leader with the authority to change, modulate or end it-- and so the long age of American Gavage continues- eating away at our democracy, doing untold damage to our national discourse. The issue of my generation has to be, must be, to break out of this age of gavage.
Kids, we've got to make like a bulimic duck and do something about this-- because it may begin with gavage and a tube shoved down the throat of a duck (or a goose), but the story never, ever, ends well for the duck.
Friday December the 4th saw another defeat for the cause of marriage equality in America, as 38 New York Senators voted against legislation that would have legalized gay marriage in New York, perhaps the bluest of blue states. Feministing.com was apparently going to have a rant about that, but instead they ran a clip of NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn's reaction to the news (which is worth watching- here.) And that got me thinking:
Like legalized marijuana, I view gay marriage as something of a historical inevitability. Just being alive and being in Iowa when the Varnum Decision was handed down by the State Supreme Court convinced me- Facebook lit up with joy and pride in the Hawkeye State for daring to do what people apparently considered to be the fundamentally right thing. And I have to admit, i don't know that many gay or lesbians. These were straight people- happy, downright proud to be Iowan because of what our Supreme Court did. It gave me so much hope for the future and convinced me that although the fight may be longer than it should be, the fight for marriage equality will eventually be won.
Yet, in the aftermath of the NY Defeat, my mind was churning. Why is it, whenever people vote on gay marriage it loses? Why should this just be left to the courts? Why isn't this a no-brainer? If you watch Quinn's remarks, you'll see that she's not asking for the moon on a string, all she wants to do is dance with her 83 year old Dad at her wedding. How can people vote against such a simple sentiment as that? First, I have to admit that the idea of voting on this issue is something I struggle with greatly- after all, we didn't ask for a show of hands after Brown v. Board. No one said 'well, it's a court decision and the people of the South deserve to have their say at the ballot box.' It was pretty much a no-brainer for people. Equality is equality. We all deserve to be equal under the law and even as the country stood up and said 'enough' to segregation, logic should dictate that if gay and lesbian couples want to get married and be equal to their heterosexual counterparts, then it should be simple. 'Enough' should indeed be 'enough.'
And yet, it's not. Part of the problem, I think lies in the campaigns that proponents of marriage equality have run in a variety of states- if you can't get gay marriage past California voters, you've done something wrong somewhere. The heart of this issue to me needs to be the people themselves- like I said earlier, it seems to me that people like Christine Quinn aren't demanding acceptance, they're not even demanding approval- all they want is a wedding- and how that threatens anyone- and how anyone could possibly deny such a simple request baffles me every single day.
We confuse 'acceptance' with 'tolerance'-- and we confuse both words with 'approval.' I think there's something in the American national character that genuinely balks at the idea of being told what to do and what to believe. It's probably what started the Revolution to begin with, but in a contemporary setting it produces knee-jerk reactions at the ballot box that don't necessarily advance causes very well. I remain convinced that Hillary Clinton's aura of 'inevitability' heading into the 2008 electoral season proved to be her undoing. Ideological hijacking of the issue of marriage equality and hysterical demands and accusations of the death of 'traditional marriage' should gay marriage be legalized provide fertile ground for distortions that seem to say if we allow marriage equality, then we have to allow x.y. and z as well.
Some people say 'civil unions' first-- but how do you ask people to wait for equality? Some people make the libertarian argument and say that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and everyone should, for legal purposes, have civil unions- but good luck selling that one to an American electoral that treat marriage as an almost sacred word in and of itself. No, to me, there is no good argument against it- my marriage certainly hasn't fallen apart and I have a sneaking suspicion no one else's has either. And debate aside- we have to ask: how sacred is something if everyone can do it? In Johnson County- thirty seconds on the internet and the ability to write your name on a piece of paper is all it takes. And to me, that brought home the fact that the only two people that matter in the marriage are the people who love each other. The state doesn't make a marriage. People do.
Yet whatever side of this issue you come down on, the ideological hijacking of the issue that occurs on both ends of the political spectrum is a symptom of a larger problem- a cancer on the American body politic that desperately needs to be addressed and thus far has not been addressed (not to my satisfaction anyway) by our new president. The problem is that of gavage.
Gavage is perhaps the perfect metaphor for this age of hyper-partisan nonsense that we currently live in. For those of you who don't know, gavage is the process by which a tube is inserted into a duck's (or goose's) esophogus and food is crammed down its throat, all in the name of producing an especially tasty liver that gets dipped in butter and other yummy things to make foie gras.
Yes, gavage is perfect. For you see, kids- we, the American people are the goose (or duck) and the two ends of our political spectrum are the ones holding the tube to shove down our throat. People like the National Organization for Marriage warn that 'a storm is coming.' Perez Hilton calls Carrie Prejean a 'dumb bitch' for 'opposing' gay marriage. The Mormon Church is vilified by the left for their role in defeating Prop 8 in California-- and Constitutional Amendment after Amendment is passed to ban gay marriage in state after state-- and this problem of gavage goes far beyond the issue of marriage equality.
Our political discourse is marred by it- no one can have a reasonable debate with each other any more. People never listen to each other- they just talk right past each other. Pressing national problems (entitlement reform, the skyrocketing debt, the costs of education for the younger generation) never get solved because no one wants to listen. The political parties and extremist ideologues on both sides of the aisle merely take turns holding the tube, hoping that whatever they cram down the throats of the American people will produce a better result for their side.
Whether you believe that hyper-partisanism was the fault of Reagen firing the opening salvo of the Conservative Revolution or Gingrich's final assault on the dessicated remains of the New Deal Coalition in 1994, the fact remains that there is apparently no leader in America with the character to rise above it. There is no leader with the authority to change, modulate or end it-- and so the long age of American Gavage continues- eating away at our democracy, doing untold damage to our national discourse. The issue of my generation has to be, must be, to break out of this age of gavage.
Kids, we've got to make like a bulimic duck and do something about this-- because it may begin with gavage and a tube shoved down the throat of a duck (or a goose), but the story never, ever, ends well for the duck.
Late Night Chronicles 44: My First Bookstore
Originally published on Facebook 12/12/09
This afternoon, I struggled. As the Missus was leaving for work, I warred between the desire to take a nap, the desire not to sleep the afternoon away and the necessity of getting a few things done around the place, including a final paper. I dragged myself off the couch and decided to emerge from the house for awhile. The siren song of 'Invictus' was calling my name and although the prospect of 'Avatar' also loomed large in my suddenly cinema hungry mind, I drove to Sycamore Mall, convinced that I could convince myself to take in an afternoon matinee.
Not so much. I had some time to kill before the movie and so wandered up past Ben Franklin and Santa's Workshop, through Von Maur and to the familiar sight of Waldenbooks. Except, it wasn't familiar. It was different- festooned with giant 'STORE CLOSING' signs everywhere and I plunged into its compact shelves for what apparently would be one of the last times with a finely tuned sense of nostalgia.
Waldenbooks at Sycamore Mall was my first bookstore. We lived a hop, skip and a jump away from the mall when I was a kid, so as I got older, trips to the mall, whether to play video games at Tilt or just to look around were increasingly common. I remember seeing The Lion King in the old Cinema I and II in Sycamore Mall. I remember buying my first cassettes at the Musicland in Sycamore Mall (The Counting Crows' 'August and Everything After'-- also a Hootie and The Blowfish and I think a Fleetwood Mac live album as well)-- and I remember Waldenbooks.
I have a love affair with bookstores- and with libraries for that matter. There's a sort of quiet serenity that covers a bookstore that I just adore. Whenever I feel really down and depressed about the state of the world, a trip to my local bookstore to peruse, to look, to drool, to thumb through random pieces of literature never fails to cheer me up. And all that knowledge- all those words, all compacted down into that one space... I feel like anything can happen in a bookstore. The smell, the peace of them-- it's like a ready-made shot in the arm, designed to rebalance your chi if needed.
Anything can happen in a bookstore. Anything can happen in a library-- but in this particular Waldenbooks, I think I really fell in love with books. (You could, as a child, find me inevitably in the science fiction/fantasy section, which is to the back of the store-- on the right.) Waldenbooks saw me through my unfortunate phase of reading every 'Star Trek' novel I could get my hands on. It saw my spread my wings ever so slightly and start exploring David Eddings and McCaffery-- maybe even the occasional work of fiction and I think, combined with a few good English teachers in high school forced me to wake up, look around and start discovering good literature for myself. Everyone remembers their first bike or their first skateboard or whatever--- me, I'm weird, so I remember my first bookstore.
And it's sad- very, very sad that it's closing, but I suppose that was inevitable. Borders (the parent company of both Waldenbooks and B. Dalton) has not been doing well for some years now and is probably headed towards extinction. Barnes and Noble and Amazon are the new faces of corporate bookstores in America, promoting their frankly evil Kindle and e-Reader (no, I do NOT approve of such things. You need to be able to pick up a book to truly appreciate it-- putting it on a glorified iPod only makes it sterile to me...) and Iowa City, the World's Third City of Literature is about to lose a bookstore.
Why isn't this a bigger deal? Maybe I'm missing something, but seriously- why isn't this a bigger deal? Why isn't the City Council doing something useful for once and filing a protest? Can we even be a City of Literature if we start losing our bookstores? Its frustrating to me, because Iowa City truly does deserve the title of 'City of Literature' even if what passes for our city government is too busy masquerading as a glorified version of a Downtown Business Association to actually use the title for some advantage. I hope there's a petition somewhere out there, begging Borders not to close the store- and I hope I can find it in time, because if I do, I'll happily sign it. Waldenbooks was my first bookstore- and it may be geeky or even cheesy, but I'm not quite ready to say goodbye just yet. It occupies that perfect sweet spot between the lousy driving distance and overly large corporate feel of the B&N out at Coral Ridge Mall and the small, compact yet slightly more expensive Indy feel of Prairie Lights downtown. It fits nicely into the local book scene, I think- and if it has reached the end of the line, then Iowa City will be poorer with its absence.
Any thoughts of movies fell away... I couldn't leave without something. One last purchase, just to show I cared. One last discount deal to say goodbye to my first bookstore... it was tricky, because although the 'Complete Bloom County Library Volume 1' was discounted, it's on my Christmas list and I'm secretly hoping someone gets it for me. There wasn't any particular novel I was after- and although I'd like to learn more about the building of the Panama Canal someday, I settled on a unique history of MI-5- rare, because it happens to be an authorized history to celebrate the centenary of the Security Service, making MI5 probably the only intelligence agency in the world to commission an authorized history of their own agency. I deliberated, I browsed and I picked it up, happy to do my part- hoping that the inevitable tides of the recession could somehow spare Waldenbooks--
My first bookstore.
This afternoon, I struggled. As the Missus was leaving for work, I warred between the desire to take a nap, the desire not to sleep the afternoon away and the necessity of getting a few things done around the place, including a final paper. I dragged myself off the couch and decided to emerge from the house for awhile. The siren song of 'Invictus' was calling my name and although the prospect of 'Avatar' also loomed large in my suddenly cinema hungry mind, I drove to Sycamore Mall, convinced that I could convince myself to take in an afternoon matinee.
Not so much. I had some time to kill before the movie and so wandered up past Ben Franklin and Santa's Workshop, through Von Maur and to the familiar sight of Waldenbooks. Except, it wasn't familiar. It was different- festooned with giant 'STORE CLOSING' signs everywhere and I plunged into its compact shelves for what apparently would be one of the last times with a finely tuned sense of nostalgia.
Waldenbooks at Sycamore Mall was my first bookstore. We lived a hop, skip and a jump away from the mall when I was a kid, so as I got older, trips to the mall, whether to play video games at Tilt or just to look around were increasingly common. I remember seeing The Lion King in the old Cinema I and II in Sycamore Mall. I remember buying my first cassettes at the Musicland in Sycamore Mall (The Counting Crows' 'August and Everything After'-- also a Hootie and The Blowfish and I think a Fleetwood Mac live album as well)-- and I remember Waldenbooks.
I have a love affair with bookstores- and with libraries for that matter. There's a sort of quiet serenity that covers a bookstore that I just adore. Whenever I feel really down and depressed about the state of the world, a trip to my local bookstore to peruse, to look, to drool, to thumb through random pieces of literature never fails to cheer me up. And all that knowledge- all those words, all compacted down into that one space... I feel like anything can happen in a bookstore. The smell, the peace of them-- it's like a ready-made shot in the arm, designed to rebalance your chi if needed.
Anything can happen in a bookstore. Anything can happen in a library-- but in this particular Waldenbooks, I think I really fell in love with books. (You could, as a child, find me inevitably in the science fiction/fantasy section, which is to the back of the store-- on the right.) Waldenbooks saw me through my unfortunate phase of reading every 'Star Trek' novel I could get my hands on. It saw my spread my wings ever so slightly and start exploring David Eddings and McCaffery-- maybe even the occasional work of fiction and I think, combined with a few good English teachers in high school forced me to wake up, look around and start discovering good literature for myself. Everyone remembers their first bike or their first skateboard or whatever--- me, I'm weird, so I remember my first bookstore.
And it's sad- very, very sad that it's closing, but I suppose that was inevitable. Borders (the parent company of both Waldenbooks and B. Dalton) has not been doing well for some years now and is probably headed towards extinction. Barnes and Noble and Amazon are the new faces of corporate bookstores in America, promoting their frankly evil Kindle and e-Reader (no, I do NOT approve of such things. You need to be able to pick up a book to truly appreciate it-- putting it on a glorified iPod only makes it sterile to me...) and Iowa City, the World's Third City of Literature is about to lose a bookstore.
Why isn't this a bigger deal? Maybe I'm missing something, but seriously- why isn't this a bigger deal? Why isn't the City Council doing something useful for once and filing a protest? Can we even be a City of Literature if we start losing our bookstores? Its frustrating to me, because Iowa City truly does deserve the title of 'City of Literature' even if what passes for our city government is too busy masquerading as a glorified version of a Downtown Business Association to actually use the title for some advantage. I hope there's a petition somewhere out there, begging Borders not to close the store- and I hope I can find it in time, because if I do, I'll happily sign it. Waldenbooks was my first bookstore- and it may be geeky or even cheesy, but I'm not quite ready to say goodbye just yet. It occupies that perfect sweet spot between the lousy driving distance and overly large corporate feel of the B&N out at Coral Ridge Mall and the small, compact yet slightly more expensive Indy feel of Prairie Lights downtown. It fits nicely into the local book scene, I think- and if it has reached the end of the line, then Iowa City will be poorer with its absence.
Any thoughts of movies fell away... I couldn't leave without something. One last purchase, just to show I cared. One last discount deal to say goodbye to my first bookstore... it was tricky, because although the 'Complete Bloom County Library Volume 1' was discounted, it's on my Christmas list and I'm secretly hoping someone gets it for me. There wasn't any particular novel I was after- and although I'd like to learn more about the building of the Panama Canal someday, I settled on a unique history of MI-5- rare, because it happens to be an authorized history to celebrate the centenary of the Security Service, making MI5 probably the only intelligence agency in the world to commission an authorized history of their own agency. I deliberated, I browsed and I picked it up, happy to do my part- hoping that the inevitable tides of the recession could somehow spare Waldenbooks--
My first bookstore.
The Book Backlog!
New Year's Resolution #4 is to clear my backlog of unread or unfinished books that litter my now many bookshelves and in the spirit of that, I went through them all today and made the big, ugly list that I'm going to try and cut into. There was the brief, fleeting hope that I could erase it entirely, but I know myself too well. There's bound to be some book that I can't live without and therefore, I'll buy sometime this year and therefore, it'll add to this never-ending list.
Where to begin? I don't know... but this is the big, ugly backlog I'm lookin' at.
1. John Phillip Santos- Places Left Unfinished At The Time of Creation
2. DH Lawrence- Lady Chatterly's Lover
3. Jane Austen- Emma
4. Mario Vargas Llosa- The War of the End of the World
5. Maria Rosa Menocal- The Ornament of The World
6. William Faulkner- Light In August
7. Antonia Fraser- King Charles II
8. Dominique LaPierre and Javier Morro- Five Past Midnight in Bhopal
9. Christopher Andrew- Defend The Realm
10. Alexandre Dumas- The Count of Monte Cristo
11. Brian Doherty- Radicals for Capitalism
12. Coleman Barks- The Soul of Rumi
13. Ken and Denise Guest- British Battles
14. William Hague- William Pitt The Younger
15. Khaled Hosseini- The Kite Runner
16. Michael Chabon- The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay
17. Jean Stien- Edie: An American Biography
18. Edgar Rice Burroughs- The Martian Tales Trilogy
19. Victor Hugo- Les Miserables
20. Gabriel Garcia Marquez- Living To Tell The Tale
21. Jon Savage- England's Dreaming: Anarchy, Sex Pistols, Punk Rock and Beyond
22. Eduardo Galeano- Genesis
23. Thomas Pakenham- The Scramble For Africa
24. Chris Salewicz- Redemption Song: The Ballad of Joe Strummer
25. Ursula K. LeGuin- The Left Hand of Darkness
26. James Feminore Cooper- The Last of the Mohicans
27. Frank Herbert- Dune
28. Ken Macleod- Dark Light
29. Michael Gartner and the Newseum- Outrage, Passion and Common Sense
30. Hunter S. Thompson- The Proud Highway
31. William Faulkner- The Sound and The Fury
32. Ross Terrill- The New Chinese Empire
33. John Nichols- The Milagro Beanfield War
34. Audrey Niffenegger- The Time Traveler's Wife
35. Virginia Woolf- The Waves
36. Sherwood Anderson- Winesburg, Ohio
37. Gabriel Garcia Marquez- The General and His Labyrinth
38. Antonia Fraser- Cromwell
39. Herman Melville- Moby Dick
40. Steven Runciman- The First Crusade/The Kingdom of Jerusalem/The Kingdom of Acre
41. Dee Brown- Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee
42. Gandhi- Autobiography
43. Bernard Cornwell- Rebel/Copperhead/Battle Flag/The Bloody Ground
44. George MacDonald Fraser- The Steel Bonnets
45. Alistair Horne- The Fall oF Paris
46. Doris Kearns Goodwin- Team of Rivals
47. John Updike- The Witches of Eastwick
48. Antonia Fraser- The Wives of Henry VIII
49. Kurt Vonnegut- Slaughterhouse Five
50. Garrison Keillor- Lake Woebegon Days
51. Ian McEwan- Atonement
52. Roy Jenkins- Gladstone
53. Gabriel Garcia Marquez- Collected Novellas
54. Sena Naslund- Abundance
55. Stephanie Meyer- New Moon
56. Colin Clifford- The Asquiths
57. Christopher De Bellaguie- In The Rose Garden Of The Martyrs
58. Toni Morrison- The Bluest Eye
Where to begin? I don't know... but this is the big, ugly backlog I'm lookin' at.
1. John Phillip Santos- Places Left Unfinished At The Time of Creation
2. DH Lawrence- Lady Chatterly's Lover
3. Jane Austen- Emma
4. Mario Vargas Llosa- The War of the End of the World
5. Maria Rosa Menocal- The Ornament of The World
6. William Faulkner- Light In August
7. Antonia Fraser- King Charles II
8. Dominique LaPierre and Javier Morro- Five Past Midnight in Bhopal
9. Christopher Andrew- Defend The Realm
10. Alexandre Dumas- The Count of Monte Cristo
11. Brian Doherty- Radicals for Capitalism
12. Coleman Barks- The Soul of Rumi
13. Ken and Denise Guest- British Battles
14. William Hague- William Pitt The Younger
15. Khaled Hosseini- The Kite Runner
16. Michael Chabon- The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay
17. Jean Stien- Edie: An American Biography
18. Edgar Rice Burroughs- The Martian Tales Trilogy
19. Victor Hugo- Les Miserables
20. Gabriel Garcia Marquez- Living To Tell The Tale
21. Jon Savage- England's Dreaming: Anarchy, Sex Pistols, Punk Rock and Beyond
22. Eduardo Galeano- Genesis
23. Thomas Pakenham- The Scramble For Africa
24. Chris Salewicz- Redemption Song: The Ballad of Joe Strummer
25. Ursula K. LeGuin- The Left Hand of Darkness
26. James Feminore Cooper- The Last of the Mohicans
27. Frank Herbert- Dune
28. Ken Macleod- Dark Light
29. Michael Gartner and the Newseum- Outrage, Passion and Common Sense
30. Hunter S. Thompson- The Proud Highway
31. William Faulkner- The Sound and The Fury
32. Ross Terrill- The New Chinese Empire
33. John Nichols- The Milagro Beanfield War
34. Audrey Niffenegger- The Time Traveler's Wife
35. Virginia Woolf- The Waves
36. Sherwood Anderson- Winesburg, Ohio
37. Gabriel Garcia Marquez- The General and His Labyrinth
38. Antonia Fraser- Cromwell
39. Herman Melville- Moby Dick
40. Steven Runciman- The First Crusade/The Kingdom of Jerusalem/The Kingdom of Acre
41. Dee Brown- Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee
42. Gandhi- Autobiography
43. Bernard Cornwell- Rebel/Copperhead/Battle Flag/The Bloody Ground
44. George MacDonald Fraser- The Steel Bonnets
45. Alistair Horne- The Fall oF Paris
46. Doris Kearns Goodwin- Team of Rivals
47. John Updike- The Witches of Eastwick
48. Antonia Fraser- The Wives of Henry VIII
49. Kurt Vonnegut- Slaughterhouse Five
50. Garrison Keillor- Lake Woebegon Days
51. Ian McEwan- Atonement
52. Roy Jenkins- Gladstone
53. Gabriel Garcia Marquez- Collected Novellas
54. Sena Naslund- Abundance
55. Stephanie Meyer- New Moon
56. Colin Clifford- The Asquiths
57. Christopher De Bellaguie- In The Rose Garden Of The Martyrs
58. Toni Morrison- The Bluest Eye
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Gophers 86, Hawkeyes 74
...and speaking of poundings- Iowa lost and lost badly yesterday at Carver-Hawkeye Arena, with Minnesota generally dominating the whole game and scoring an incredible 45 points off 25 (count them) 25 turnovers. I wasn't working the game, but I watched a bit on the Big Ten Network and listened a bit on the radio as I ran down to Hy-Vee for a few bits and bobs-- dismal doesn't even begin to describe the performance.
I'll admit to this: I'm new at the whole basketball thing- I'm sort of learning how it works, getting a feel for it- I still couldn't tell you what's a foul and what's not, but I'm trying. Working all these sporting events is making me enjoy sports (whether basketball or football) a lot more than I ever have before so when I say this, I'll freely admit that I am not a balla pundit extraordinaire, so to speak.
From what I've seen so far, I can say the following:
1. Iowa is a young team: they're going to get experience and get better with age. Re-building takes time.
2. They show flashes of real potential: with or without (leading scorer Anthony) Tucker, they've blown hot and cold for most of the season- losing to UT-San Antonio, crushing Prairie View A & M-- playing Purdue tough in a valiant loss, yet looking completely lost and clueless against Minnesota.
3. Do they have the luxury of time? College basketball is especially unfair, in many respects- players can leave ridiculously early for the pros, so it's the one sport at the collegiate level that really does demand instant results, especially from a lot of the elite programs. Did Lickliter inherit one heckuva mess? Yes he did. Does he deserve at least one, two more years to get something going? Yes he does. But he made his name at Butler championing a style of play which relies on outside shooting- which seems almost alien to the 'no-holds barred' physical style of ball that the rest of the Big 10 plays. It also demands that Iowa shoots 3's consistently- and to win games, you should have more than just a one-dimensional offense.
I never thought I'd say this, but I miss the days of Dr. Tom Davis. Maybe Lickliter can reach those heights- I sure hope he can, but after yesterday's performance, Iowa fans should dig deep and hunker down: it's gonna be a long road back.
I'll admit to this: I'm new at the whole basketball thing- I'm sort of learning how it works, getting a feel for it- I still couldn't tell you what's a foul and what's not, but I'm trying. Working all these sporting events is making me enjoy sports (whether basketball or football) a lot more than I ever have before so when I say this, I'll freely admit that I am not a balla pundit extraordinaire, so to speak.
From what I've seen so far, I can say the following:
1. Iowa is a young team: they're going to get experience and get better with age. Re-building takes time.
2. They show flashes of real potential: with or without (leading scorer Anthony) Tucker, they've blown hot and cold for most of the season- losing to UT-San Antonio, crushing Prairie View A & M-- playing Purdue tough in a valiant loss, yet looking completely lost and clueless against Minnesota.
3. Do they have the luxury of time? College basketball is especially unfair, in many respects- players can leave ridiculously early for the pros, so it's the one sport at the collegiate level that really does demand instant results, especially from a lot of the elite programs. Did Lickliter inherit one heckuva mess? Yes he did. Does he deserve at least one, two more years to get something going? Yes he does. But he made his name at Butler championing a style of play which relies on outside shooting- which seems almost alien to the 'no-holds barred' physical style of ball that the rest of the Big 10 plays. It also demands that Iowa shoots 3's consistently- and to win games, you should have more than just a one-dimensional offense.
I never thought I'd say this, but I miss the days of Dr. Tom Davis. Maybe Lickliter can reach those heights- I sure hope he can, but after yesterday's performance, Iowa fans should dig deep and hunker down: it's gonna be a long road back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)