So, Erykah Badu has a new music video that's getting some attention. (Check it out on her official site, here.) Basically, she's walking around somewhere (right out in the open) taking her clothes off, until finally she's buck-ass naked. Then, a shot rings out and she falls to the ground. (Dead? I guess?) All of which sounds like a pretty run of the mill music video (and somewhat tame, given some of what's been done. Anyone remember 'Smack My Bitch Up'?) until you realize that she's in Dallas and she's been walking around Dealey Plaza this whole time, stripping.
And she falls to the ground near where President Kennedy was shot.
I don't know. Personally, having seen the video, it's pretty tame. OK, she was walking around, taking her clothes off in the daylight, in front of children and who knows who else, but that's all she was doing. She didn't deface a monument or burn an American flag- she just got naked in Dealey Plaza and fell down near where the President was shot. I don't see that as particularly controversial to me... but, go, see the video. Decide for yourselves.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
More Scandal In Church
And the scandal in The Church continues.
I have this feeling that it's just turning off of organized religion altogether, which I don't like that much. A church is important- the sense of community you can get from being in a room full of people that shares the same faith as you, it's awesome. It's part of the experience of believing in God. And I've tried Protestant Churches, I really have- it's just that the Catholic Church is so damn clever about the rituals and the smells and sounds-- all designed to appeal to that little corner of the brain that really digs that, I guess. I can and am perfectly willing to go Methodist. But it just won't be the same for me.
To me, this is simple: the hierarchy needs to hold itself to account. Priests are held up as examples of chastity and piety to the rest of us Catholics, so it beggars belief that once you start wearing funny hats or red robes, you're somehow exempt from that. Without the laity, the hierarchy is nothing but a bunch of old men in funny hats. And unless they change right now, the Church will continue to bleed and a demographic crisis that was already bad will continue to get worse. Of course, you're dealing with an organization to whom 'openness' and 'accountability' are totally alien concepts. Despite the fact that they should be seeking to be better examples for their 'flock' they have no reason to hold themselves to account and never will, unless the laity stops giving them money. And that teat will never run fully dry, because even as the rituals of the Catholic Church get hardwired into your brain, obedience to the hierarchy is still very strong.
Underneath this all, of course, is the conservative resurgence that's going on in the Church right now. John Paul II's longevity was good for the Church, but the slow reaction against the reforms of Vatican II is slowly underway and there is a line of thinking out there that a smaller, more doctrinally 'pure' Church would be better than a bigger, more inclusive one. That's stupidity in and of itself and solves nothing. In a world-wide Church, you're going to get differences and a spectrum of beliefs and interpretations of doctrine. That won't change whether the Church is big or small. And the quiet 'counter-reformation' is probably pleasing conservatives, but it's doing nothing to address the rot and lack of accountability current rife within the hierarchy right now- and if Conservatives want to preserve their way of doing things, they need to do something drastic right now. Otherwise, it may take a Vatican III to fix this.
So, in essence:
1. Accountability. No one is above God's Law or Man's Law. Send Cardinal Law back to Boston to have him face the music- and have the Pope step aside until his name is cleared- or not, whatever the case may be.
2. End celibacy for Priests. Bill Donohue, crazy, cringe-inducing defender of Catholics that he is, blames the gays. Of course. But it's time to end celibacy for Priests. I know too many Catholic men who would be fantastic priests, but can't, because they're married. I think being a Priest and getting hitched isn't bad- but if you want to 'move up' then you should stay celibate.
Neither of these two things is ever going to happen. But I'm just sayin'
I have this feeling that it's just turning off of organized religion altogether, which I don't like that much. A church is important- the sense of community you can get from being in a room full of people that shares the same faith as you, it's awesome. It's part of the experience of believing in God. And I've tried Protestant Churches, I really have- it's just that the Catholic Church is so damn clever about the rituals and the smells and sounds-- all designed to appeal to that little corner of the brain that really digs that, I guess. I can and am perfectly willing to go Methodist. But it just won't be the same for me.
To me, this is simple: the hierarchy needs to hold itself to account. Priests are held up as examples of chastity and piety to the rest of us Catholics, so it beggars belief that once you start wearing funny hats or red robes, you're somehow exempt from that. Without the laity, the hierarchy is nothing but a bunch of old men in funny hats. And unless they change right now, the Church will continue to bleed and a demographic crisis that was already bad will continue to get worse. Of course, you're dealing with an organization to whom 'openness' and 'accountability' are totally alien concepts. Despite the fact that they should be seeking to be better examples for their 'flock' they have no reason to hold themselves to account and never will, unless the laity stops giving them money. And that teat will never run fully dry, because even as the rituals of the Catholic Church get hardwired into your brain, obedience to the hierarchy is still very strong.
Underneath this all, of course, is the conservative resurgence that's going on in the Church right now. John Paul II's longevity was good for the Church, but the slow reaction against the reforms of Vatican II is slowly underway and there is a line of thinking out there that a smaller, more doctrinally 'pure' Church would be better than a bigger, more inclusive one. That's stupidity in and of itself and solves nothing. In a world-wide Church, you're going to get differences and a spectrum of beliefs and interpretations of doctrine. That won't change whether the Church is big or small. And the quiet 'counter-reformation' is probably pleasing conservatives, but it's doing nothing to address the rot and lack of accountability current rife within the hierarchy right now- and if Conservatives want to preserve their way of doing things, they need to do something drastic right now. Otherwise, it may take a Vatican III to fix this.
So, in essence:
1. Accountability. No one is above God's Law or Man's Law. Send Cardinal Law back to Boston to have him face the music- and have the Pope step aside until his name is cleared- or not, whatever the case may be.
2. End celibacy for Priests. Bill Donohue, crazy, cringe-inducing defender of Catholics that he is, blames the gays. Of course. But it's time to end celibacy for Priests. I know too many Catholic men who would be fantastic priests, but can't, because they're married. I think being a Priest and getting hitched isn't bad- but if you want to 'move up' then you should stay celibate.
Neither of these two things is ever going to happen. But I'm just sayin'
Monday, March 29, 2010
Let The Man Piss, Already!
'24' is done after this season. I can't say I watched it a lot, but there is the perfect way to end this show:
Have Jack Bauer go to the bathroom and take the longest. piss. EVER.
After 8 'days', the man probably needs to pee.
Have Jack Bauer go to the bathroom and take the longest. piss. EVER.
After 8 'days', the man probably needs to pee.
Hot Car
...the new 2011 Ford Mustang (and a review.)
Personally, I welcome this. I look at some of the old school cars of the 70s and that, to me, was when American car making was at it's absolute best. Let the Germans have their luxury efficiency mobiles. Let the Japanese be practical and the Koreans thrifty. The American Automakers, when they stop and think about it, have got to realize that they can, if they so want to, make a truly bad-ass looking car.
So two thumbs up to the newest Mustang! It makes my list. (Along with this.)
Personally, I welcome this. I look at some of the old school cars of the 70s and that, to me, was when American car making was at it's absolute best. Let the Germans have their luxury efficiency mobiles. Let the Japanese be practical and the Koreans thrifty. The American Automakers, when they stop and think about it, have got to realize that they can, if they so want to, make a truly bad-ass looking car.
So two thumbs up to the newest Mustang! It makes my list. (Along with this.)
Back In Mankato (Only For A Day, Though)
Well, the Missus and I rolled back into Mankato Sunday afternoon just in time for a murder.
Awesome.
But despite that, the trip went pretty well. I have (depending on two professors) a clear run at getting my APP wrapped up and turned in THIS semester- bureaucracy won't get in the way and if my advisor is OK with it, I'm hoping that the other two are as well.
And it was nice to see Mankato again, I have to admit. I still hold to the idea that we done right by moving back down to the I.C. There are more opportunities here and I think the Missus and I can get ourselves set, career-wise while working full time down here in a way that we wouldn't have been able to up there. In retrospect, given my struggles getting three professors to tell me my APP is good enough and thus to turn it in, I sometimes wonder if graduate school was the right choice.
But driving back through town with the Missus in tow, I realize that it was. I met her, after all! (Screw the damn degree- she is far better than any piece of paper I can get from any college in the world...) and there are so many crazy, wonderful memories that I'll always have of the place. Can I see myself living there again? Eh, probably not. But I think it'll always be fun to roll back through and enjoy the memories again.
Cautiously Optimistic
Well, while we were in Minnesota this weekend for a wedding and a (brief, yet hopeful) tussle with graduate school bureaucracy, Iowa went and hired themselves a new Men's Basketball Coach- Fran McCaffery from Siena.
At first, I was a little taken aback. My initial thought was: 'Oh, a coach from a mid-major again? That worked out soooooo well last time, didn't it?' But I take that all back. All of it! The more I read about this dude, the more I like him. First of all, he makes no bones about the respect he has for the program, based on his prior experiences playing at Iowa and more importantly, he says he wants to get CHA 'rockin' again.' That got me liking him right away.
By all accounts, his style of play is fast and uptempo (and more than one-dimensional reliance on three point shots from beyond the arc) and he has had a good run of success at Siena. Seems like from the get-go, he wants to get this program back up and running to where it was. He wants to go out, get after it and more importantly, kick some ass. I like, like, like IT! (Plus, his wife has some fire in her belly too... even better!)
There are still some open questions to be answered: can he recruit? How much patience is the fan base going to have with him? How long does he have to show results before he gets chewed up and spit back out just like Licky and Alford were? But I think if he can manage to win more games than the football team next year, he'll be well on his way.
I'm cautiously optimistic about this. Almost can't wait for basketball season to be here again.
Almost.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Sex Abuse and The Church
As a onetime Catholic, the hardest part about the past few years has been the constant barrage of the unceasing sexual abuse scandal that seems to have embroiled the Church in a never-ending wave of disgusting, horrible revelations. As I was entering college, going to Church became 'optional' for me and I realized that I was going to Church not out of any particular devotion to God or my faith, but because it was what I did on Sundays. That didn't strike me as particularly honest- neither to myself nor to God, so I stopped going.
A couple of years and some bad patches later, I began to question my absence from the Church. Something was missing. Human beings, I feel, are fundamentally spiritual in nature. There's a need to feed the soul, whether through prayer or some other devotional aspect of one's life and at the time, I felt tugged back towards that. Then, of course-- the first wave of the sexual abuse scandal broke. I was disgusted.
The hierarchy protected abusers. They moved them around. They covered up the abuse of children and they did it because, at the time, people didn't talk about sexual abuse. At the time, it was quiet, kept hidden far, far away from the sight of anyone and everyone. But in the succeeding decades, that began to change and the full extent of the crimes of the hierarchy became clear. Did they learn from their mistakes? Of course not- the Church did what it always does, which was to circle the wagons and try and shield itself from the scandal. And so it continues- where the Church fails to hold members of the Hierarchy that covered sexual abuse scandal accountable, the faithful lose faith in the Hierarchy itself. Where they fail to make a clean break with the scandal, they only allow it room to continue, to grow and to now, it seems, lead to the Throne of St. Peter itself.
Recent allegations in Europe- and now Wisconsin have tied the Pope to the possible cover-up of sexual abuse. If that's the case, then it brings the scandal to new and dangerous heights for the Church. Making a clean break and holding their own accountable could go along way into retaining the loyalty and faith of the laity. Without the laity, the hierarchy has no Church and without listening to the Laity, the Church will continue to alienate Catholics everywhere and continue to bleed followers from the faithful.
So, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest something unprecedented: the Pope
should resign. I'm not entirely clear if that's even possible, but if it is and if he is truly implicated in the cover up of sexual abuse, then he needs to hold himself accountable- and set and example for the Church in the future. When it comes to matters such as these, with the laity lacking the means to hold the hierarchy accountable, it's up to the Pope to lead by example. To stand up and say that the Hierarchy must hold itself to a higher stander. That shrouding scandal in silence will only bring more shame to the Church.
Resign. And institute a little leadership by example.
A couple of years and some bad patches later, I began to question my absence from the Church. Something was missing. Human beings, I feel, are fundamentally spiritual in nature. There's a need to feed the soul, whether through prayer or some other devotional aspect of one's life and at the time, I felt tugged back towards that. Then, of course-- the first wave of the sexual abuse scandal broke. I was disgusted.
The hierarchy protected abusers. They moved them around. They covered up the abuse of children and they did it because, at the time, people didn't talk about sexual abuse. At the time, it was quiet, kept hidden far, far away from the sight of anyone and everyone. But in the succeeding decades, that began to change and the full extent of the crimes of the hierarchy became clear. Did they learn from their mistakes? Of course not- the Church did what it always does, which was to circle the wagons and try and shield itself from the scandal. And so it continues- where the Church fails to hold members of the Hierarchy that covered sexual abuse scandal accountable, the faithful lose faith in the Hierarchy itself. Where they fail to make a clean break with the scandal, they only allow it room to continue, to grow and to now, it seems, lead to the Throne of St. Peter itself.
Recent allegations in Europe- and now Wisconsin have tied the Pope to the possible cover-up of sexual abuse. If that's the case, then it brings the scandal to new and dangerous heights for the Church. Making a clean break and holding their own accountable could go along way into retaining the loyalty and faith of the laity. Without the laity, the hierarchy has no Church and without listening to the Laity, the Church will continue to alienate Catholics everywhere and continue to bleed followers from the faithful.
So, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest something unprecedented: the Pope
should resign. I'm not entirely clear if that's even possible, but if it is and if he is truly implicated in the cover up of sexual abuse, then he needs to hold himself accountable- and set and example for the Church in the future. When it comes to matters such as these, with the laity lacking the means to hold the hierarchy accountable, it's up to the Pope to lead by example. To stand up and say that the Hierarchy must hold itself to a higher stander. That shrouding scandal in silence will only bring more shame to the Church.
Resign. And institute a little leadership by example.
Assistant Coach or Not Assistant Coach?
Two opposing pieces on the search for a new Men's Basketball Coach. One in favor of hiring a good assistant, the other against the notion. Read and enjoy.
The Daily Iowan weighs in with their notions here.
The Daily Iowan weighs in with their notions here.
6-1
One down, two more readings to go. We're one step closer to 21-only, but again, we need a new strategy for downtown if we want it to succeed over the long term. Haven't seen any sign of that yet. But it's a good step.
WTF?
Now they want to ban smoking in cars.
First of all, how does once enforce this? Though I suppose in the UK, the land of CCTV and lots of law enforcement it may well be possible. Secondly, COME ON NOW!
I gotta shake my head at this. What will they want to do next? Wipe my ass for me?
First of all, how does once enforce this? Though I suppose in the UK, the land of CCTV and lots of law enforcement it may well be possible. Secondly, COME ON NOW!
I gotta shake my head at this. What will they want to do next? Wipe my ass for me?
Late Night Chronicles 60: The Final Word On Health Care
Hot of the presses from Facebook a couple of hours ago...
This time of year, where the weather cycles up and down between warm and cold tends to leave me with bad head colds that migrate between my head (leaving me with horrible sinus pressure) and my chest (leaving me staggering around, wheezing like a 65 year old with emphezema) so from time to time, I use an inhaler, just so I can, you know, breathe. So, when the day after the Health Care Bill passed I found myself in the Walgreens drive-through trying to get a refill for my inhaler, I was somewhat astonished to be told that I had to wait two days to get the inhaler if I wanted insurance to cover it. Now, I'm a big boy, so I can suck it up for two days, take an allergy pill or two and hope for the best, but the thought stayed with me: what if I wasn't such a big boy? What if I was working three jobs, barely scraping by and the inhaler wasn't for me, it for my kid? I could have, if I was desperate, paid the 48 bucks and gotten the inhaler. As it was, I decided to wait two days and pay 5 bucks, but my choice was easy. For other people, it may not be that easy, in fact, it may be damned difficult.
All of which stuck in my head: something has to be done about health care. In a country as rich and as prosperous as this one, no one should have to choose between housing and medical care. No one should have to choose between food, rent or health care. People should have access to quality, affordable health care. Unfortunately, once we move beyond that basic tenet, things get complicated. And despite the fact that I have serious misgivings about this bill that doesn't make me some kind of narrow-minded, gun-toting red neck. And because I think we need comprehensive health care reform of some kind, that doesn't make me a card-carrying member of some vast left wing conspiracy to turn this country into Cuba either. If I'm sick and tired of anything, it's of being asked to choose between the extreme left and the extreme right. Both choices are anything but palatable and I refuse to 'pick a team', especially if those are my choices.
But what do we do? Do we let the free market have its day or do we move to a single payer, purely government run system? Other than my Walgreen encounter the other day, I can't say I've had many negative experiences with insurances companies over here. On the other hand, being from the UK and having family in the UK I have seen what government run health care looks like up close and personal. I've never been treated by the NHS, but I've had grandparents who have. My Grandad was forced to wait for months to treat what was a fairly minor prostate condition. Over here, it would have been a simple outpatient procedure that would have been covered under the most basic health insurance. There, he was made to wait. And when you're getting on in years, a few months of having to get up and pee every few minutes or so is more of a task than it used to be and drastically impacts your quality of life.
When my Grandma's health began to decline, the family wanted to get her into a long term care facility, but was again forced to wait for a place to open up. That summer, we went to visit her and it was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. The temporary facility where she was was tiny, understaffed and criminally overpopulated- the idea of 'care' if it could be called that was to wheel the old people out into the living room, turn on the television and pretty much leave them there. These experiences may not be an accurate reflection of what life is like under a single payer, government run system, but they left a very bad taste in my mouth and make me extremely uneasy about a purely government run system. Governments, wherever they are breed bureaucracy and inefficiency- they are not good at 'running' much of anything. And if you don't believe me, call me and tell me how it goes next time you go to the DMV.
Basically, what it comes down to for me is this: I don't trust the government, I don't trust corporations, I don't trust insurance companies and I don't have any faith in the magical powers of unrestrained capitalism. Given these four basic tenets, how then can I get a health care bill that works for me? For me, two things need to happen- first, this Bill needs a massive clean-up and trim down. Secondly, we need political leaders who are willing to work towards a true transformational moment in the early decades of the 21st Century.
But first- let's clean this bill up. I'll accept that political realities may have caused proponents of reform to make any number of crappy deals just to get something passed. But now that something is passed, the work shouldn't stop. In every way, every day, the fight should go on to make this a better bill. That means ending the payoffs for Big Pharma, for the Unions, for the states of Louisiana and Nebraska, closing the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies and forcing them to compete and some kind of tort reform so that Doctors aren't forced to charge everyone up the butt just so they can afford medical malpractice insurance to cover their own butts. As was pointed out to me, this is a start. Yes, it is a start and starts are good- but it wasn't the start I wanted and it sure as hell doesn't feel like a particularly auspicious start to me- and this whole big-ass mess of a health care bill has a long way to go before it's enthusiastically supported by me and certainly palatable to me.
The second thing we need to do is we need a national conversation about the true transformation that needs to take place as we dig further into the 21st Century. Everywhere I look, I see media accounts describing this as the most significant piece of social legislation in almost a century. And as the crowning jewel of the New Deal, it would be a brilliant piece of legislation- if this was the Johnson Administration. What do I mean by that? Well, the foundations of the modern welfare state- or the social safety net, whatever the hell you want to call it- for us and for most other Western Democracies, those foundations were established in the 30s and 40s during and after the Depression and World War II. Unfortunately, those economic foundations are increasingly irrelevant in today's fast-paced global economy. Our safety net was built around the idea that people go to college and then get a job they keep for thirty years until they retire.
And that's just not true anymore. In fact, the foundations things like the New Deal were built on are going to be increasingly unsustainable over the course of the coming decades- and herein lies the true transformational moment that the President missed. The opportunity to restructure and redefine the social safety net for the 21st Century economy we live in today. The opportunity to ensure that the promises of the last century will be available to generations to come- because as it stands right now, I'm not expecting Social Security, Medicare or anything when I retire. Such a moment would have ensured the President's legacy for centuries to come and would have given American Liberalism a much needed shot of intellectual vitality that would enable it to move beyond the dessicated corpse of the New Deal and actually into the future for once. It's time to end the reactionary strain that's infected the left. It's time to move into the future, once and for all and ensure that when the government makes promises, it can actually keep them.
But at the end of the day, something has to be done with health care. And Republicans, please note- I will not vote for any of you if you're pushing for a full repeal. I want to know how you're going to clean this up for the American people. I want to know that you want to excise the special interest kickbacks and give aways and actually work towards meaningful reform that's sustainable in the long term.
Yes, this was a start. It wasn't the one I wanted, it wasn't a super-good one, but it was a start and things like this need to start somewhere. We need to clean this thing up and make it better- and that needs to start right now.
So, who wants to get to work?
This time of year, where the weather cycles up and down between warm and cold tends to leave me with bad head colds that migrate between my head (leaving me with horrible sinus pressure) and my chest (leaving me staggering around, wheezing like a 65 year old with emphezema) so from time to time, I use an inhaler, just so I can, you know, breathe. So, when the day after the Health Care Bill passed I found myself in the Walgreens drive-through trying to get a refill for my inhaler, I was somewhat astonished to be told that I had to wait two days to get the inhaler if I wanted insurance to cover it. Now, I'm a big boy, so I can suck it up for two days, take an allergy pill or two and hope for the best, but the thought stayed with me: what if I wasn't such a big boy? What if I was working three jobs, barely scraping by and the inhaler wasn't for me, it for my kid? I could have, if I was desperate, paid the 48 bucks and gotten the inhaler. As it was, I decided to wait two days and pay 5 bucks, but my choice was easy. For other people, it may not be that easy, in fact, it may be damned difficult.
All of which stuck in my head: something has to be done about health care. In a country as rich and as prosperous as this one, no one should have to choose between housing and medical care. No one should have to choose between food, rent or health care. People should have access to quality, affordable health care. Unfortunately, once we move beyond that basic tenet, things get complicated. And despite the fact that I have serious misgivings about this bill that doesn't make me some kind of narrow-minded, gun-toting red neck. And because I think we need comprehensive health care reform of some kind, that doesn't make me a card-carrying member of some vast left wing conspiracy to turn this country into Cuba either. If I'm sick and tired of anything, it's of being asked to choose between the extreme left and the extreme right. Both choices are anything but palatable and I refuse to 'pick a team', especially if those are my choices.
But what do we do? Do we let the free market have its day or do we move to a single payer, purely government run system? Other than my Walgreen encounter the other day, I can't say I've had many negative experiences with insurances companies over here. On the other hand, being from the UK and having family in the UK I have seen what government run health care looks like up close and personal. I've never been treated by the NHS, but I've had grandparents who have. My Grandad was forced to wait for months to treat what was a fairly minor prostate condition. Over here, it would have been a simple outpatient procedure that would have been covered under the most basic health insurance. There, he was made to wait. And when you're getting on in years, a few months of having to get up and pee every few minutes or so is more of a task than it used to be and drastically impacts your quality of life.
When my Grandma's health began to decline, the family wanted to get her into a long term care facility, but was again forced to wait for a place to open up. That summer, we went to visit her and it was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. The temporary facility where she was was tiny, understaffed and criminally overpopulated- the idea of 'care' if it could be called that was to wheel the old people out into the living room, turn on the television and pretty much leave them there. These experiences may not be an accurate reflection of what life is like under a single payer, government run system, but they left a very bad taste in my mouth and make me extremely uneasy about a purely government run system. Governments, wherever they are breed bureaucracy and inefficiency- they are not good at 'running' much of anything. And if you don't believe me, call me and tell me how it goes next time you go to the DMV.
Basically, what it comes down to for me is this: I don't trust the government, I don't trust corporations, I don't trust insurance companies and I don't have any faith in the magical powers of unrestrained capitalism. Given these four basic tenets, how then can I get a health care bill that works for me? For me, two things need to happen- first, this Bill needs a massive clean-up and trim down. Secondly, we need political leaders who are willing to work towards a true transformational moment in the early decades of the 21st Century.
But first- let's clean this bill up. I'll accept that political realities may have caused proponents of reform to make any number of crappy deals just to get something passed. But now that something is passed, the work shouldn't stop. In every way, every day, the fight should go on to make this a better bill. That means ending the payoffs for Big Pharma, for the Unions, for the states of Louisiana and Nebraska, closing the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies and forcing them to compete and some kind of tort reform so that Doctors aren't forced to charge everyone up the butt just so they can afford medical malpractice insurance to cover their own butts. As was pointed out to me, this is a start. Yes, it is a start and starts are good- but it wasn't the start I wanted and it sure as hell doesn't feel like a particularly auspicious start to me- and this whole big-ass mess of a health care bill has a long way to go before it's enthusiastically supported by me and certainly palatable to me.
The second thing we need to do is we need a national conversation about the true transformation that needs to take place as we dig further into the 21st Century. Everywhere I look, I see media accounts describing this as the most significant piece of social legislation in almost a century. And as the crowning jewel of the New Deal, it would be a brilliant piece of legislation- if this was the Johnson Administration. What do I mean by that? Well, the foundations of the modern welfare state- or the social safety net, whatever the hell you want to call it- for us and for most other Western Democracies, those foundations were established in the 30s and 40s during and after the Depression and World War II. Unfortunately, those economic foundations are increasingly irrelevant in today's fast-paced global economy. Our safety net was built around the idea that people go to college and then get a job they keep for thirty years until they retire.
And that's just not true anymore. In fact, the foundations things like the New Deal were built on are going to be increasingly unsustainable over the course of the coming decades- and herein lies the true transformational moment that the President missed. The opportunity to restructure and redefine the social safety net for the 21st Century economy we live in today. The opportunity to ensure that the promises of the last century will be available to generations to come- because as it stands right now, I'm not expecting Social Security, Medicare or anything when I retire. Such a moment would have ensured the President's legacy for centuries to come and would have given American Liberalism a much needed shot of intellectual vitality that would enable it to move beyond the dessicated corpse of the New Deal and actually into the future for once. It's time to end the reactionary strain that's infected the left. It's time to move into the future, once and for all and ensure that when the government makes promises, it can actually keep them.
But at the end of the day, something has to be done with health care. And Republicans, please note- I will not vote for any of you if you're pushing for a full repeal. I want to know how you're going to clean this up for the American people. I want to know that you want to excise the special interest kickbacks and give aways and actually work towards meaningful reform that's sustainable in the long term.
Yes, this was a start. It wasn't the one I wanted, it wasn't a super-good one, but it was a start and things like this need to start somewhere. We need to clean this thing up and make it better- and that needs to start right now.
So, who wants to get to work?
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Five Random Nuggets on HCR.
1. It's too damn big.
2. It gives too much power to special interests, insurance companies and the government. Fuck that.
3. Individual mandates: I find it somewhat cheap of the President to get elected on the backs of the youth vote (for the first time EVER) only to turn around and penalize us with this individual mandate bullshit. Sure, you can stay on your parents' insurance longer, which is awesome- but the problem for people entering the workforce is that it takes a little bit of doing to find that job with the kick-ass insurance YOU don't have to pay for. Which isn't addressed (at least not where I've seen it) by this bill. Pretty much, us young folks voted for Prez O and he turned around and well, screwed us. You ain't getting my vote in 2012, buddy.
4. No competition. Rep. John Shaddeg and his angry finger of DOOM appeared on MSNBC this morning and he made a good point: turn on the television and you'll see Lord only knows how many commercials for car insurance and yet none for health insurance. Plus, do you know how insane it is to pay for insurance yourself? Talk about getting bent over. This bill does nothing to break the monopoly of power and force competition amongst insurance companies.
5. See #1
To summate: this thing blows. Sure, people can argue that doing something is better than doing nothing, but that's exactly what Dubya argued when he passed 'No Child Left Behind' and the American Left LOST ITS DAMN MIND. So if you want to pass this health care bill, feel free. But it's too damn big, no one can tell me what's in it and the President is taking a huge shit all over people my age who voted for him. I don't disagree that something has to be done, but if what they pass makes the situation worse, I don't see how that's helping matters any.
In short, when Congress passes a bill that's a million pages long, turns to the country and says 'Hey, trust us' my initial response is something along the lines of 'uh-oh.' However you break it down though, the Labour Party of the UK can now rest easy. Their 1984 Party Platform was once described as 'the longest suicide note in history' and if this bill passes (or even if it doesn't) it will undoubtedly surpass that turd of a document for the title- as it is, it has the potential to take down both houses of Congress and the President. That's the kind of political suicide that would give Jim Jones pause.
But, I'll watch from my perch here in the boonies and laugh occasionally. Maybe I'll even learn the fiddle, that way I'll have something to do when the country starts to burn.
2. It gives too much power to special interests, insurance companies and the government. Fuck that.
3. Individual mandates: I find it somewhat cheap of the President to get elected on the backs of the youth vote (for the first time EVER) only to turn around and penalize us with this individual mandate bullshit. Sure, you can stay on your parents' insurance longer, which is awesome- but the problem for people entering the workforce is that it takes a little bit of doing to find that job with the kick-ass insurance YOU don't have to pay for. Which isn't addressed (at least not where I've seen it) by this bill. Pretty much, us young folks voted for Prez O and he turned around and well, screwed us. You ain't getting my vote in 2012, buddy.
4. No competition. Rep. John Shaddeg and his angry finger of DOOM appeared on MSNBC this morning and he made a good point: turn on the television and you'll see Lord only knows how many commercials for car insurance and yet none for health insurance. Plus, do you know how insane it is to pay for insurance yourself? Talk about getting bent over. This bill does nothing to break the monopoly of power and force competition amongst insurance companies.
5. See #1
To summate: this thing blows. Sure, people can argue that doing something is better than doing nothing, but that's exactly what Dubya argued when he passed 'No Child Left Behind' and the American Left LOST ITS DAMN MIND. So if you want to pass this health care bill, feel free. But it's too damn big, no one can tell me what's in it and the President is taking a huge shit all over people my age who voted for him. I don't disagree that something has to be done, but if what they pass makes the situation worse, I don't see how that's helping matters any.
In short, when Congress passes a bill that's a million pages long, turns to the country and says 'Hey, trust us' my initial response is something along the lines of 'uh-oh.' However you break it down though, the Labour Party of the UK can now rest easy. Their 1984 Party Platform was once described as 'the longest suicide note in history' and if this bill passes (or even if it doesn't) it will undoubtedly surpass that turd of a document for the title- as it is, it has the potential to take down both houses of Congress and the President. That's the kind of political suicide that would give Jim Jones pause.
But, I'll watch from my perch here in the boonies and laugh occasionally. Maybe I'll even learn the fiddle, that way I'll have something to do when the country starts to burn.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Frappacino of Passion
6AM brings the frappacino of a new day: I don't read for pleasure anymore. I seem to be drowning in the minutia of television and while a lot of it is quality stuff, it sort of bothers me. Is my brain slowly leaking out of my ears while I'm not noticing it? Like Lisa that one episode of 'The Simpsons' I begin to worry that I have a distinct lack of passion for anything at all these days. So, for my two days off, I resolve to do the following:
1. Make an appointment to finish my tattoo.
2. Write one of my (two) papers.
3. Footnote my APP. (All of it, would be nice.)
4. Pick a book and start reading it.
5. Start using my camera again. Complete w/tripod.
Frappacino done. And one hour and twenty minutes until my weekend begins...
1. Make an appointment to finish my tattoo.
2. Write one of my (two) papers.
3. Footnote my APP. (All of it, would be nice.)
4. Pick a book and start reading it.
5. Start using my camera again. Complete w/tripod.
Frappacino done. And one hour and twenty minutes until my weekend begins...
The Case for Pat
Iowa needs a new basketball coach and I have an idea. It's a radical, game-changing, outside-the-box idea that would attract national attention, massive media attention and get the fan base talking- and whether they're talking smack or lovin' the idea one thing will be for certain: they'll show up to see how this goes.
There's a lot of talk about Bruce Pearl from Tennessee and Keno Davis from Providence (probably the most likely candidate. The Quiet Man makes a compelling case) but I think there's another coach in Knoxville that would be a better hire. Yes, I'm talking of the great Pat Summitt. She's won 8 national titles, 15 SEC titles and 14 SEC tournaments. She's an 8 time SEC Coach of the Year and a 7 time NCAA Coach of the Year and the Naismith Coach of the 20th Century and she is the winningest coach in Division I basketball and let's face it: if we're gonna splurge and hire a big name Coach, then why not go for the best out there?
Sure, you can argue that there are fundamental differences between the Men's Game and the Women's Game. You can even make bad jokes about 'fundamentals' versus the 'physical, dunking type of game' but I defy anyone out there to name me a person that knows more about basketball than Pat Summitt. I think it's a proven fact by now that she can coach a team. In fact, she's so hardcore, she makes her team practice against a boys practice squad (I believe so, anyway) to toughen them up and she's got the record to prove it.
After three dismal seasons of Lickliter and Alford's public relation disaster (had he dismissed Pierce from the team from the get-go he might still be here) and the titanic stupidity of firing Dr. Tom Davis, Iowa is in desperate need of a game-changer, so to speak. Basketball has ceased to become a revenue generating sport. People don't want to go and watch Iowa lose to teams like Duquesne, in fact, they don't really want to go at all. At this point, we could clone Lisa Bluder and probably get better results. Kirk Ferentz could double up and I'm willing to bet he could get more than 10 wins out of them. We need a massive, earth-shattering, game changing new Coach- and Pat Summitt would be about as out-of-the-box as we can get.
First of all, there'd be the media attention: plenty of men coach D-I women's teams, but so far, no women have gone the other direction. Iowa, if they hired Summitt (and if she came) would be the first D-I Men's Program to be coached by a woman. There's a quiet and determined love for women's basketball out there amongst the Hawkeye faithful- the excitement this move would generate would be palpable, immediate and whether people loved it or hated it, people would show up just to see what happens. All of which translates into more dinero for the Athletics Department and a fan base that would be interested and dare I say even a little excited once again.
Second of all, what can anyone offer Summitt in Women's Basketball? I mean, seriously- every D-I women's program out there would kill for a Coach like Summitt, but what possible reason does she have to leave Tennessee? She's won every title, amassed every honor you can think of and coached some of the best women the game has ever seen. She is the Naismith Coach of the 20th Century for cryin' out loud- other than maintaining her level of excellence year after year (which, with very few exceptions she has maintained fairly well) what is there left to challenge her?
Iowa has the one thing she hasn't done yet: revive and Coach a D-I Men's Basketball program. Screw Bruce Pearl. Let him slather orange paint all over himself and stalk the sidelines- if we're going to send Barta to Tennessee and he doesn't even offer her the job- seriously, then we need a new AD.
After all, if you want to be the best, it would help if you make the effort to go out and get the best.
(Though this whole idea is probably a massive pipedream, I'd say the Quiet Man has the right of it. Keno may be a little new to head coaching, but he'd be a solid choice. If you can get him away from Providence.)
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Late Night Chronicles 59: The Great Coming Conference Re-Alignment
Published on Facebook TODAY!
You can tell it's the first Saturday of Spring Break, because I'm wide awake and have nothing to do other than to indulge in idle and completely unfounded speculation about the future of Athletic Conferences across the country. The any number of very sexy permutations of Big 10 expansion have tickled my brain on and off for months now, but with the Pac-10 rumored to want a 2 team expansion in order to keep pace with the Big 10, an interesting scenario could take place that could lead to a major re-shuffle in a lot of the power conferences. This scenario is based on the following notions:
1. The Pac-10 wants (and gets 2)
2. The Big 10 goes for broke and gets 5.
3. Money talks.
4. Preservation of the BCS status quo.
The way I see it breaking down is something like this: the Big 10 wants to expand to at minimum 12 teams, but is open to going to 14 or 16 teams as well. Assuming that money is the root of all evil and the Big 10 wants more cash, I'm going to say they go for broke and go for the full 5 teams to make us into the Big 16. I can't see them wanting to skew the conference geographically too far to the east, so that means a double expansion, to the East and to the West, picking up the following 5 schools:
1. West Virginia
2. Pitt
3. Syracuse
4. Mizzou
5. Nebraska
The three from the Big East are football and basketball schools and although the Big 10 isn't too hot on sharing stadiums (Pitt) or domes (Syracuse) there's no denying that these three schools play (or in the case of 'Cuse played) the type of football that would fit very well in the Big 10. From the point of view of the west, there has been buzz around Mizzou for awhile now- and the pipe dream silliness of wanting Texas of all places aside, there's a juicier plum much closer- Nebraska. Why though, would Big Red and Mizzou want to bolt the Big 12? Well, for one thing, they wouldn't be stuck in such a shit division. The Big 12 North, even when Nebraska is good is the stunted little division in that Conference. Being second fiddle, even when you win the Conference title isn't a sexy prospect and Nebraska isn't as good as it used to be. Going from a sub-par division in the Big 12 North to a vigorous new Big 10 West could be enough. I'm sure there might be more money in it as well.
So there's that little earthquake. But, let's not forget our west coast partners in crime: the Pac-10. They are rumored to be looking to pick up two teams and thus become the Pac-12. There are rumors swirling about BYU and Utah, but Colorado is also mysteriously in the mix. And picking up Utah would give the Pac-10 the geographical continuity (almost) to pick up Colorado as well. So let's assume that:
1. Utah
2. Colorado
If the Big 10 picks up 5 and the Pac-10, 2, then the Big 12 is suddenly down to 9 teams and the Mountain West Conference is down to 8. Then, this sexy scenario goes down: the Big 12 grabs TCU to bring themselves back into double digits again and the Mountain West merges with the WAC to create a new 16 'MWAC Conference'- essentially a new power conference that would obviously expect a BCS berth due to its new heft.
So what's left? The SEC, ACC and the newly reduced Big East. The SEC has no reason to expand (though perhaps a combo of Arkansas and/or LSU might bolt for the Big 12 in the right circumstances, which would open up the possibility of the SEC poaching 2 teams from the ACC or Big East and the ACC and Big East even potentially merging, but I think that's a long shot.) But under this scenario, the Big East suddenly has a problem. An odd combo of football/basketball and 'just' basketball schools to begin with, the lost of 'Cuse, Pitt and WVU will leave them with 5 football schools and 7 basketball schools. And that's assuming that Notre Dame decides to take it's basketball ball and go home ignoring the shifting and shaking of the conferences. With Notre Dame as just a basketball school, they have 13 members- 8 basketball and 5 football. And still an odd number of teams in their conference.
The SEC won't budge (at least I don't think so. They are way too rich for that) and so that leaves the possibility of the ACC and Big East shifting somehow. But the real losers under this re-alignment scenario would be the Big East. They'd be stuck (unless they boot Notre Dame entirely) with 13 members: 5 for football/basketball, 8 for basketball. Which would pose an interesting problem: do they seek parity between the just basketball schools and the FB/BB schools or do they just become a basketball conference?
This overall scenario could be (and probably is) a long shot, but I do think one thing is abundantly clear- if the Big 10 and the Pac-10 get their way and expand, then the possibility of a merger of the MWC and the WAC is there. A new conference with more teams- some of whom (like Boise State in football and New Mexico in basketball) are fast becoming national players (props to Fresno State and Nevada as well. They may not win much against the big boys, but Fresno at least will take on all comers, regardless of outcome) will want (and probably get) a share of the BCS pot. Another seat at the table for the 'have-nots' that regularly get left out of the BCS picture will undoubtedly quiet a lot of the criticism of the current set-up, at least from the smaller schools and keep the cash cow that is the BCS producing milk, so to speak for quite some time to come.
You can tell it's the first Saturday of Spring Break, because I'm wide awake and have nothing to do other than to indulge in idle and completely unfounded speculation about the future of Athletic Conferences across the country. The any number of very sexy permutations of Big 10 expansion have tickled my brain on and off for months now, but with the Pac-10 rumored to want a 2 team expansion in order to keep pace with the Big 10, an interesting scenario could take place that could lead to a major re-shuffle in a lot of the power conferences. This scenario is based on the following notions:
1. The Pac-10 wants (and gets 2)
2. The Big 10 goes for broke and gets 5.
3. Money talks.
4. Preservation of the BCS status quo.
The way I see it breaking down is something like this: the Big 10 wants to expand to at minimum 12 teams, but is open to going to 14 or 16 teams as well. Assuming that money is the root of all evil and the Big 10 wants more cash, I'm going to say they go for broke and go for the full 5 teams to make us into the Big 16. I can't see them wanting to skew the conference geographically too far to the east, so that means a double expansion, to the East and to the West, picking up the following 5 schools:
1. West Virginia
2. Pitt
3. Syracuse
4. Mizzou
5. Nebraska
The three from the Big East are football and basketball schools and although the Big 10 isn't too hot on sharing stadiums (Pitt) or domes (Syracuse) there's no denying that these three schools play (or in the case of 'Cuse played) the type of football that would fit very well in the Big 10. From the point of view of the west, there has been buzz around Mizzou for awhile now- and the pipe dream silliness of wanting Texas of all places aside, there's a juicier plum much closer- Nebraska. Why though, would Big Red and Mizzou want to bolt the Big 12? Well, for one thing, they wouldn't be stuck in such a shit division. The Big 12 North, even when Nebraska is good is the stunted little division in that Conference. Being second fiddle, even when you win the Conference title isn't a sexy prospect and Nebraska isn't as good as it used to be. Going from a sub-par division in the Big 12 North to a vigorous new Big 10 West could be enough. I'm sure there might be more money in it as well.
So there's that little earthquake. But, let's not forget our west coast partners in crime: the Pac-10. They are rumored to be looking to pick up two teams and thus become the Pac-12. There are rumors swirling about BYU and Utah, but Colorado is also mysteriously in the mix. And picking up Utah would give the Pac-10 the geographical continuity (almost) to pick up Colorado as well. So let's assume that:
1. Utah
2. Colorado
If the Big 10 picks up 5 and the Pac-10, 2, then the Big 12 is suddenly down to 9 teams and the Mountain West Conference is down to 8. Then, this sexy scenario goes down: the Big 12 grabs TCU to bring themselves back into double digits again and the Mountain West merges with the WAC to create a new 16 'MWAC Conference'- essentially a new power conference that would obviously expect a BCS berth due to its new heft.
So what's left? The SEC, ACC and the newly reduced Big East. The SEC has no reason to expand (though perhaps a combo of Arkansas and/or LSU might bolt for the Big 12 in the right circumstances, which would open up the possibility of the SEC poaching 2 teams from the ACC or Big East and the ACC and Big East even potentially merging, but I think that's a long shot.) But under this scenario, the Big East suddenly has a problem. An odd combo of football/basketball and 'just' basketball schools to begin with, the lost of 'Cuse, Pitt and WVU will leave them with 5 football schools and 7 basketball schools. And that's assuming that Notre Dame decides to take it's basketball ball and go home ignoring the shifting and shaking of the conferences. With Notre Dame as just a basketball school, they have 13 members- 8 basketball and 5 football. And still an odd number of teams in their conference.
The SEC won't budge (at least I don't think so. They are way too rich for that) and so that leaves the possibility of the ACC and Big East shifting somehow. But the real losers under this re-alignment scenario would be the Big East. They'd be stuck (unless they boot Notre Dame entirely) with 13 members: 5 for football/basketball, 8 for basketball. Which would pose an interesting problem: do they seek parity between the just basketball schools and the FB/BB schools or do they just become a basketball conference?
This overall scenario could be (and probably is) a long shot, but I do think one thing is abundantly clear- if the Big 10 and the Pac-10 get their way and expand, then the possibility of a merger of the MWC and the WAC is there. A new conference with more teams- some of whom (like Boise State in football and New Mexico in basketball) are fast becoming national players (props to Fresno State and Nevada as well. They may not win much against the big boys, but Fresno at least will take on all comers, regardless of outcome) will want (and probably get) a share of the BCS pot. Another seat at the table for the 'have-nots' that regularly get left out of the BCS picture will undoubtedly quiet a lot of the criticism of the current set-up, at least from the smaller schools and keep the cash cow that is the BCS producing milk, so to speak for quite some time to come.
Don't Know Much About History
So, I won't be teaching in Texas. Far right members of that State's Board of Education won their fight to vastly re-write the history and social studies curriculum- which could potentially have an impact nationwide, as Texas buys a lot of textbooks.
Ick, ick, ick- you can read about what they did here- but this just horrifies me. History is what it is- it's not very pretty and trying to obfuscate that fact does a disservice to students and to the educational system as a whole. When curriculum falls victim to political agendas, be they of the left or the right, educational quality suffers.
But this raises an important point that I've been turning over in my head. How best to teach history? The history of any country isn't pretty- in fact, history itself isn't really all that pretty, but teaching students to differentiate between what a reliable account of history is versus one that isn't is a key component, I would think, to building reliable critical thinkers.
And people don't think enough. People talk past each other and don't bother to listen and extremists on both ends of the spectrum have, well, agendas. Me, I just want to teach some kids something. I could care less about agendas. But surely, by teaching a subject, a certain amount of bias is inevitable?
To me, the problem with the history I learned in high school is that it failed to connect with the modern world in a sane manner. The English Civil War lead to the American Revolution, which lead to the Glorious Revolution, which lead to the French Revolution. The ideas from all of those events are felt in America today. Why we needed to know the history of Europe in super-great detail, when India, China and Latin America are all far more important in the modern world is beyond me?
Making history exciting and interesting for high schoolers is going to be a huge challenge. One that I can't wait to take on! But replacing one bias with another and replacing history with hagiography?
Not a solution I want to be a part of.
Ick, ick, ick- you can read about what they did here- but this just horrifies me. History is what it is- it's not very pretty and trying to obfuscate that fact does a disservice to students and to the educational system as a whole. When curriculum falls victim to political agendas, be they of the left or the right, educational quality suffers.
But this raises an important point that I've been turning over in my head. How best to teach history? The history of any country isn't pretty- in fact, history itself isn't really all that pretty, but teaching students to differentiate between what a reliable account of history is versus one that isn't is a key component, I would think, to building reliable critical thinkers.
And people don't think enough. People talk past each other and don't bother to listen and extremists on both ends of the spectrum have, well, agendas. Me, I just want to teach some kids something. I could care less about agendas. But surely, by teaching a subject, a certain amount of bias is inevitable?
To me, the problem with the history I learned in high school is that it failed to connect with the modern world in a sane manner. The English Civil War lead to the American Revolution, which lead to the Glorious Revolution, which lead to the French Revolution. The ideas from all of those events are felt in America today. Why we needed to know the history of Europe in super-great detail, when India, China and Latin America are all far more important in the modern world is beyond me?
Making history exciting and interesting for high schoolers is going to be a huge challenge. One that I can't wait to take on! But replacing one bias with another and replacing history with hagiography?
Not a solution I want to be a part of.
Sampling...
...the good...
'Hard Knock Life' combines an unusual sample with a 'message' that blends perfectly to form Jay-Z's 'Ghetto Anthem.' The sample, in this case makes the song better.
...the bad...
Ah, the glorious 'Will 2K.' Which samples from 'Rock The Casbah.' Shudder, shudder, shudder...
...the just plain ugly...
Nelly and the hook from AC/DC's 'Back In Black.' MUST. STOP. EARS. BLEEDING. Some things you just don't do. This is one of them.
...the merely all right...
The new one from Cypress Hill, this song is like 'meh' and samples from CSNY's 'Judy Blue Eyes.' Good effort from Cypress Hill and I think it's OK to sample from somewhat obscure classics like 'Judy Blue Eyes.' Kanye did the same thing for 'Touch The Sky' laying down the horns from a Curtis Mayfield track (the one that wasn't 'Superfly').
'Hard Knock Life' combines an unusual sample with a 'message' that blends perfectly to form Jay-Z's 'Ghetto Anthem.' The sample, in this case makes the song better.
...the bad...
Ah, the glorious 'Will 2K.' Which samples from 'Rock The Casbah.' Shudder, shudder, shudder...
...the just plain ugly...
Nelly and the hook from AC/DC's 'Back In Black.' MUST. STOP. EARS. BLEEDING. Some things you just don't do. This is one of them.
...the merely all right...
The new one from Cypress Hill, this song is like 'meh' and samples from CSNY's 'Judy Blue Eyes.' Good effort from Cypress Hill and I think it's OK to sample from somewhat obscure classics like 'Judy Blue Eyes.' Kanye did the same thing for 'Touch The Sky' laying down the horns from a Curtis Mayfield track (the one that wasn't 'Superfly').
Friday, March 12, 2010
Late Night Chronicles 58: Vignt-et-Un
Originally published on Facebook, 3/11/10
The great moral crusade of our time has returned. The people are gathering their forces, marshalling their platoons on the internet and when the City Council meets on March 23rd, they have promised to come out by the hundreds to protest the gross violation of their rights that is being proposed. Power, they say, to the people! Our rights cannot be denied! The Council is flouting the will of the people!
Yes, Iowa City is once again looking to raise the bar entry age to 21 only and once again, the student body is letting itself be played for chumps both sides in this debate. On the one hand, the proponents of 21 only and many members of the community are taking this opportunity to once again denounce the hordes of students that rampage through downtown in mobs of wild drunken bands smearing and tarnishing the good name of the city they love. (These same people of course, ignore the myopic development policy that left little room for businesses other than bars to succeed downtown in the wake of the opening of the Coral Ridge Mall and coincidentally, they bitch about the students while at the same time faithfully attending football games, basketball games, shows at Hancher and giving gobs of money to the University and by extension the same student body that essentially keeps downtown Iowa City in business. Shot of hypocrisy, anyone?)
On the other side, multiple bar owners have transformed themselves into pious pillars of the community- the Martin Luther Kings and Ceaser Chavez's of Iowa City, fighting to protect the rights of the student body. But let's not fool ourselves here: bar owners don't give a shit about students. They only care about their bottom line and the money they bilk students out of.
Let's consider: what people apparently want is the right to go into such fine, wonderful and clean drinking establishments as the Third Base, Jake's, SpoCo or Summit and hang out with their friends. Because, being under 21, there's no way they're actually being served alcohol in these places right? That would be illegal. That would be the bar owners failing to do as they promised and actually police themselves... and they've got the situation totally under control, right? And since no one underage is being served alcohol in the 19 and up establishments, well then, what's the big deal? Students want the right to go into nice, clean bars and just hang out? Why then do bar owners care if they can't serve said students booze?
Cover charges! That's right- students are essentially mobilizing to demand the right to pay for admission to a bar that can't legally serve them booze. In other words, they're being played so bar owners can make (even more) money.
That nugget of wisdom should come as no real surprise to anyone. Opponents say that if banned from the bars, then house parties would become a huge problem. Samantha Miller's recent column in the Daily Iowan makes an excellent point as well- the dynamics of sexual assault on campus would surely change as well. And if the Council is so blindingly stupid as to pass a 21 only ordinance without planning for an aggressive push by all levels of law enforcement to curb house parties as well, then this will be, once again, a titanic waste of everybody's time.
But what confuses me the most is this: when I was a freshmen, lo those many moons ago, no one actually went to the bars to drink. Between cover charges and the price of drinks, it cost money to do so on a regular basis. Students by and large would drink in their dorm rooms, apartments and other residences because it was cheaper than dropping a huge chunk of change downtown. If you were under 21, bars were just where you went to hang out. You did your drinking on the sly elsewhere because it was cheaper, didn't risk getting busted with a fake or a PAULA ticket for that matter and then you stumbled downtown to 'hang out.'
So if the Council passes a 21 only ordinance, will it lead to an explosion of house parties? Probably not. (That's where student do a lot of their drinking now.) Will it be the end of the world? Nope. All it will mean is that if you're under 21, 'pre-gaming it' will become the only game in town.
The great moral crusade of our time has returned. The people are gathering their forces, marshalling their platoons on the internet and when the City Council meets on March 23rd, they have promised to come out by the hundreds to protest the gross violation of their rights that is being proposed. Power, they say, to the people! Our rights cannot be denied! The Council is flouting the will of the people!
Yes, Iowa City is once again looking to raise the bar entry age to 21 only and once again, the student body is letting itself be played for chumps both sides in this debate. On the one hand, the proponents of 21 only and many members of the community are taking this opportunity to once again denounce the hordes of students that rampage through downtown in mobs of wild drunken bands smearing and tarnishing the good name of the city they love. (These same people of course, ignore the myopic development policy that left little room for businesses other than bars to succeed downtown in the wake of the opening of the Coral Ridge Mall and coincidentally, they bitch about the students while at the same time faithfully attending football games, basketball games, shows at Hancher and giving gobs of money to the University and by extension the same student body that essentially keeps downtown Iowa City in business. Shot of hypocrisy, anyone?)
On the other side, multiple bar owners have transformed themselves into pious pillars of the community- the Martin Luther Kings and Ceaser Chavez's of Iowa City, fighting to protect the rights of the student body. But let's not fool ourselves here: bar owners don't give a shit about students. They only care about their bottom line and the money they bilk students out of.
Let's consider: what people apparently want is the right to go into such fine, wonderful and clean drinking establishments as the Third Base, Jake's, SpoCo or Summit and hang out with their friends. Because, being under 21, there's no way they're actually being served alcohol in these places right? That would be illegal. That would be the bar owners failing to do as they promised and actually police themselves... and they've got the situation totally under control, right? And since no one underage is being served alcohol in the 19 and up establishments, well then, what's the big deal? Students want the right to go into nice, clean bars and just hang out? Why then do bar owners care if they can't serve said students booze?
Cover charges! That's right- students are essentially mobilizing to demand the right to pay for admission to a bar that can't legally serve them booze. In other words, they're being played so bar owners can make (even more) money.
That nugget of wisdom should come as no real surprise to anyone. Opponents say that if banned from the bars, then house parties would become a huge problem. Samantha Miller's recent column in the Daily Iowan makes an excellent point as well- the dynamics of sexual assault on campus would surely change as well. And if the Council is so blindingly stupid as to pass a 21 only ordinance without planning for an aggressive push by all levels of law enforcement to curb house parties as well, then this will be, once again, a titanic waste of everybody's time.
But what confuses me the most is this: when I was a freshmen, lo those many moons ago, no one actually went to the bars to drink. Between cover charges and the price of drinks, it cost money to do so on a regular basis. Students by and large would drink in their dorm rooms, apartments and other residences because it was cheaper than dropping a huge chunk of change downtown. If you were under 21, bars were just where you went to hang out. You did your drinking on the sly elsewhere because it was cheaper, didn't risk getting busted with a fake or a PAULA ticket for that matter and then you stumbled downtown to 'hang out.'
So if the Council passes a 21 only ordinance, will it lead to an explosion of house parties? Probably not. (That's where student do a lot of their drinking now.) Will it be the end of the world? Nope. All it will mean is that if you're under 21, 'pre-gaming it' will become the only game in town.
Late Night Chronicles 57: Fix It (Part Two of Two)
Originally published on Facebook, 3/8/10
I'm back.
And continuing from where I left off, I think we've established that the system is broken, smoke and flames are coming out of the ship of state, the proverbial iceberg is looming dead ahead and we're in deep doo-doo. So what, as one goateed dude once asked, is to be done? Nothing too radical- and certainly nothing communistic or socialistic in nature. Part of the very long list of problems I have with the Left today is the tiresome need to frame everything in terms of varying shades of socialism, Marxism or even communism. Have you looked at the government we have? Have you listened to some of these people? Why on Earth would government be the answer to the problems we face today? It's just beyond me.
But whatever. That's an argument for another time and probably another note. Now, I just want to float some mild suggestions for things we can do to maybe fix the mess we as a nation have found ourselves in. Five of them. I have no idea if any of these things will help at all and freely admit that I am, quite possibly completely full of it. But at this point, I think every little suggestion might honestly do some good. So here goes:
1. Renegotiate the Social Contract: Or rethink it at the very least. The fundamental problem America faces is this: we want things like education, health care, medicare and social security, but we don't actually want to pay for them. So we need to fund these programs while not raising taxes to pay for them- so where do we find the money? Well, I know this may sound like 2 + 2 = 4, but you pay for 'em and find the money by reducing the bloated size and scope of the government. Programs that don't work? Screw 'em. Silly pork projects? If they don't bring some tangible benefit or jobs to your district, they shouldn't be allowed- or at the very least they should be strictly limited.
2. Reform the Senate: First of all, leave the filibuster alone. The problem with the filibuster isn't that everything is being filibustered, it's that the Republicans are threatening to filibuster. If the Democrats would grow a pair and make them actually filibuster, well, I think they may change their tune. The Senate is full of some remarkably middle aged, wrinkled politicians and if they think they can stand up and speak for 24 hours straight on nothing much at all without food or a pee break, I would love to see 'em try. They don't make Senators like they used to and the way to see if your opponent is bluffing is to, I don't know- call the bluff. Secondly, attack the real problem: end this bullshit practice of anonymous holds. No one Senator should have the power to hold anything (you should be able to break the hold with a 2/3rds majority) and it certainly shouldn't be anonymous. Their fellow Senators and every single American should be able to call them up and tell 'em what a tool they're being (or congratulate them for bravely standing on principle. Whichever is appropriate.)
3. Give Everyone $100: It's kind of frightening how, in the wake of Citizens United, people from the left end of the spectrum were so quick to propose a constitutional amendment which would have essentially undermined free speech in the name of allowing the government to regulate political speech. Scratch that- it was very frightening. Let's try a little creative thinking, shall we: ban all direct use of money for political speech (the money is the problem, not the speech) and instead, every midterm and national election year, give every citizen eligible to vote $100. Corporations, political parties, candidates and interest groups would therefore be able to solicit citizens for donations to fund their political speech. The power to fund our elections would be in the hands of individuals and no one's right to speech, whether interest group, corporation, political party or individual would be infringed. (Oh and by the by: people could just use the $100 to buy beer or something if they don't want to donate.)
4. Educational Reform: The entire concept of the American High School needs to be rethought. Probably ditto for Universities, though a good University should be able to cater to two year, four year, technical and graduate degrees and serve all comers- especially a state-funded public one. But when I think back on my high school career, I realize I was bloody lucky to go to the school I did, but there are still problems: more and more we are asking less and less of high school students. They wander into college, some of them self-assured and with a plan, others (like me) completely clueless about what to do with themselves. In high school (when it's free) people should be grabbing students by the scruffs of their necks, shaking them and saying 'Hey kid, what are you gonna do with yourself?' The emphasis should be on rigorous college preparation, to be sure- standards should be high, pay should be merit based- all to be sure, to be sure- but at the end of the day, kids should have a clue as to where their passions and strengths are. They don't have to have all the answers by the time they get to college, but they should have a good idea of what they want to do with themselves. (Oh and let's instill some critical thinking, shall we? If nothing gets challenged, nothing gets changed- and students should emerge from whatever education they get ready to figure out how to do everything- and I do mean everything better than Mom and Dad did.)
5. Political Reform: Time to break the monopoly the two parties have on power. The FEC should be replaced by an independent, non-partisan commission. The Commission on Presidential Debates should be abolished and ballot access laws need to be reformed, so they don't serve as an effective barrier to free and fair competition in the political marketplace. Does this automatically mean that we're going to be awash in political parties leading to chaos and more gridlock? Nope. The voting system we have (a single member district, first-past-the-post, Westminster style system in poli-sci speak) is not designed to support a bajillion political parties. It just doesn't happen. One can get 25% of the vote, but not 25% of the seats- reform doesn't guarantee us a better system, but it does open the door to the possibility that a main stream third party can emerge and allow voters a real alternative to the Feckless Democrats and the Obstructionist Republicans.
Voíla. My plan for America. Or my weird, strange ideas for America- whatever you like.
I'm back.
And continuing from where I left off, I think we've established that the system is broken, smoke and flames are coming out of the ship of state, the proverbial iceberg is looming dead ahead and we're in deep doo-doo. So what, as one goateed dude once asked, is to be done? Nothing too radical- and certainly nothing communistic or socialistic in nature. Part of the very long list of problems I have with the Left today is the tiresome need to frame everything in terms of varying shades of socialism, Marxism or even communism. Have you looked at the government we have? Have you listened to some of these people? Why on Earth would government be the answer to the problems we face today? It's just beyond me.
But whatever. That's an argument for another time and probably another note. Now, I just want to float some mild suggestions for things we can do to maybe fix the mess we as a nation have found ourselves in. Five of them. I have no idea if any of these things will help at all and freely admit that I am, quite possibly completely full of it. But at this point, I think every little suggestion might honestly do some good. So here goes:
1. Renegotiate the Social Contract: Or rethink it at the very least. The fundamental problem America faces is this: we want things like education, health care, medicare and social security, but we don't actually want to pay for them. So we need to fund these programs while not raising taxes to pay for them- so where do we find the money? Well, I know this may sound like 2 + 2 = 4, but you pay for 'em and find the money by reducing the bloated size and scope of the government. Programs that don't work? Screw 'em. Silly pork projects? If they don't bring some tangible benefit or jobs to your district, they shouldn't be allowed- or at the very least they should be strictly limited.
2. Reform the Senate: First of all, leave the filibuster alone. The problem with the filibuster isn't that everything is being filibustered, it's that the Republicans are threatening to filibuster. If the Democrats would grow a pair and make them actually filibuster, well, I think they may change their tune. The Senate is full of some remarkably middle aged, wrinkled politicians and if they think they can stand up and speak for 24 hours straight on nothing much at all without food or a pee break, I would love to see 'em try. They don't make Senators like they used to and the way to see if your opponent is bluffing is to, I don't know- call the bluff. Secondly, attack the real problem: end this bullshit practice of anonymous holds. No one Senator should have the power to hold anything (you should be able to break the hold with a 2/3rds majority) and it certainly shouldn't be anonymous. Their fellow Senators and every single American should be able to call them up and tell 'em what a tool they're being (or congratulate them for bravely standing on principle. Whichever is appropriate.)
3. Give Everyone $100: It's kind of frightening how, in the wake of Citizens United, people from the left end of the spectrum were so quick to propose a constitutional amendment which would have essentially undermined free speech in the name of allowing the government to regulate political speech. Scratch that- it was very frightening. Let's try a little creative thinking, shall we: ban all direct use of money for political speech (the money is the problem, not the speech) and instead, every midterm and national election year, give every citizen eligible to vote $100. Corporations, political parties, candidates and interest groups would therefore be able to solicit citizens for donations to fund their political speech. The power to fund our elections would be in the hands of individuals and no one's right to speech, whether interest group, corporation, political party or individual would be infringed. (Oh and by the by: people could just use the $100 to buy beer or something if they don't want to donate.)
4. Educational Reform: The entire concept of the American High School needs to be rethought. Probably ditto for Universities, though a good University should be able to cater to two year, four year, technical and graduate degrees and serve all comers- especially a state-funded public one. But when I think back on my high school career, I realize I was bloody lucky to go to the school I did, but there are still problems: more and more we are asking less and less of high school students. They wander into college, some of them self-assured and with a plan, others (like me) completely clueless about what to do with themselves. In high school (when it's free) people should be grabbing students by the scruffs of their necks, shaking them and saying 'Hey kid, what are you gonna do with yourself?' The emphasis should be on rigorous college preparation, to be sure- standards should be high, pay should be merit based- all to be sure, to be sure- but at the end of the day, kids should have a clue as to where their passions and strengths are. They don't have to have all the answers by the time they get to college, but they should have a good idea of what they want to do with themselves. (Oh and let's instill some critical thinking, shall we? If nothing gets challenged, nothing gets changed- and students should emerge from whatever education they get ready to figure out how to do everything- and I do mean everything better than Mom and Dad did.)
5. Political Reform: Time to break the monopoly the two parties have on power. The FEC should be replaced by an independent, non-partisan commission. The Commission on Presidential Debates should be abolished and ballot access laws need to be reformed, so they don't serve as an effective barrier to free and fair competition in the political marketplace. Does this automatically mean that we're going to be awash in political parties leading to chaos and more gridlock? Nope. The voting system we have (a single member district, first-past-the-post, Westminster style system in poli-sci speak) is not designed to support a bajillion political parties. It just doesn't happen. One can get 25% of the vote, but not 25% of the seats- reform doesn't guarantee us a better system, but it does open the door to the possibility that a main stream third party can emerge and allow voters a real alternative to the Feckless Democrats and the Obstructionist Republicans.
Voíla. My plan for America. Or my weird, strange ideas for America- whatever you like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)