Don't Mess With The Pig

Idle speculation on changing the last game of Iowa's football season has popped up on the Gazette website. The poll pushes a Penn State finale and speculates about a Nebraska finale as well- but I'm going to come down on the side of tradition on this score. Sure, Penn State will always be a marquee matchup- at least for the foreseeable future and if Nebraska comes to the Big 10, that too has the potential to be a banner matchup.

But, don't mess with the Pig!

Stop The Insanity

Apparently I didn't dream this: NPR ran a story on Talk of the Nation yesterday which had a serious discussion about whether or not criticism of Goldman-Sachs is anti-Semitic.

This is insane. Is this insane? Am I alone in this opinion? Two things stand out to me with this discussion: first, it's not just Goldman Sachs it's the whole damn system I have an issue with and I could give a damn whether the Wall Street bankers are Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Christians or whatever. Let me repeat: the whole damn system is broke! Who gives a damn about whether Jews work there or not? (And if there are people who think this is a good excuse for anti-Semitism, all I can say to that is: seek help, morons. Quickly.)

Secondly: this is a perfect example of how damaging the nexus between the media-political and business elites actually is. Goldman execs whine to Congress about anti-Semitism, the media picks it up and somehow, someway, Goldman will get off lightly, all because Congress and the Media don't want to be seen to be anti-Semitic. This story is a god-send to bad bankers on Wall Street. The rich asshole elites can play the victim and nothing ever changes.

Can someone please stop this insanity once and for all?

Gandhi-- A Review

Although it is 188 minutes, like Lawrence of Arabia, Gandhi is worth watching again and again and again. I've always really, really liked this movie and since I snagged it at Target and sat down and watched it again earlier this week I've been trying to put my finger on exactly why I like it so much. Maybe it's because this is one of those rare movies where an actor can almost perfectly inhabit the role in question- which Ben Kingsley does. The guy becomes what you'd imagine Gandhi to be. It's hard to know for sure, since I never met Gandhi, but he certainly seems to fit the bill.

The amount of effort and detail put into this film is evident from the very first minute onwards. Something like 400,000 extras were used for the funeral scene at the start of the movie- (we see Gandhi's assassination, his funeral and then the movie flashes back to South Africa) and from there, Sir Richard Attenborough takes history by the horns and just goes, goes, goes. Wisely, he starts not at the very beginning of Gandhi's life, but at a key life changing event that begins Gandhi's activism- when he, as a young lawyer was thrown off of a train in South Africa, where Indians were treated as second class citizens. From there, we follow Gandhi back to India, where he eschews the upper crust, elites that permeate the Congress Party and instead tries to learn as much as he can about the ordinary people of India.

That was key: Gandhi, historically speaking proved to be critical in linking the very limited scope of the Congress Party to the people of India as a whole. He made the Independence Movement into a mass movement, which in turn gave it the momentum to shake off British rule algoether. From that key decision, the movie takes through all the high points (the Dandi Salt March, non-cooperation) and the low points (the massacre at Amritsar, imprisonment and the decision to split India in two) of the fight for freedom from the British.

This is a sprawling, epic film about a man who is one of the titans of the 20th Century and who won't be forgotten anytime soon. It more than lives up to its billing- but the question remains- as with all historical epics: just how accurate is it?

I get the sensation that the movie itself is fairly true to history. It doesn't come across as hagiographic by any stretch of the imagination, but at the same time- my recent viewing of Rang de Basanti raises an interesting point: how come for Westerners, Gandhi is essentially the beginning and the end of the Indian independence movement? I had never really heard of Subha Chandra Bose until recently- and hadn't heard of Bhagat Singh or Lala Lajpat Rai until the day before yesterday. The one truth that Gandhi overlooks is that the fight for Indian Independence had a cast of hundreds, if not thousands and there are other figures who carried their weight in the fight, yet they get eclipsed by Gandhi. The best explanation my TA could come up with in discussion today was: 'well, he wasn't violent.' And granted, Gandhi championed the idea of non-violent resistance that had an impact far beyond India, but the picture of the independence struggle is, in my book incomplete.

I want to spend some time remedying that, when I get a minute or two to breathe, think and read a little on the topic in question.

But overall: 4 stars and then some and this is a true epic that deserved every accolade it got and comes as close to doing the life of Gandhi justice as anyone possibly could.

Epic Fail In The Making

Headline on the Press Citizen Website: Council considers allowing alcohol free sections at bars. Ah, so this is their way of saying that any resemblance the 21-only ordinance had to actually tackling the problem of underage drinking in downtown Iowa City is purely coincidental.

Iowa Deuce (A Little Taste...)

I know some recent posting has covered the DFL Convention up in the Medium White North, but I thought I'd post a little taste of how the race for Iowa's Second District is shaping up between current Congressman Dave Loebsack and a small platoon of Republicans that want a shot at him. They seem to agree that Congressional Pay Raises right now wouldn't be a good idea. (Common sense! YES!)

Not sure how this one is going to play out yet. Stay tuned for more from the Iowa Deuce...

Too Cool For Schools

Well, the Iowa City School Board wants a third high school... (yay!) And they have a new Superintendent.

Broken Wings

Buffalo Wild Wings has seen their sales numbers tank in recently, which makes me happy. Long a mainstay of my culinary explorations, lately the Missus and I have had a run of bad luck with BDubs that has yet to be broken: their wings- especially the boneless ones just seem pathetically small of late and some of them weren't sauced all that well either. It was extremely disappointing.

And of course, their booze is insanely overpriced. But despite that, I'm cheering for 'em. Fix whatever's wrong and come back strong, BDubs.

New 'Clone Balla Man

...is Fred Hoiberg. Apparently, Fred Hoiberg is a big deal, but damned if I know who he is. But the folks in Ames are pretty excited about him, so I suppose that's a good thing! Regime change at Iowa and Iowa State could make for an exciting basketball season next year- though with Ben Jacobsen staying put at UNI, we'll have to see who wins the battle of the Big 4 next year.

Late Night Chronicles 64: An Open Letter To Terry Branstad

Published on Facebook... TONIGHT!

Dear Governor Branstad,

Well, you're back. Like a generation that saw that episode of 'Bands Reunited' on VH1 and realized that liking Kajagoogoo was no longer something to be embarassed about, the good people of Iowa have decided that everything old should be new again and in the absence of Ronald Reagen and the dubious win-loss record of Walter Mondale, they've settled on bringing you out of retirement and maybe flirting with the notion of sending you back to Terrace Hill for four more years. And if you get the Republican nomination and beat Chet Culver in the fall then, strangely enough you will have been Governor of Iowa for the majority of my lifetime. Well, the overwhelming majority anyway: so far I've had 1 British Monarch, 2 Popes, 4 British Prime Ministers, 5 U.S. Presidents and only 3 Governors of Iowa.

I'll be totally honest with you: I might- might vote for you. Maybe. You have some work to do with me first- as Republicans go, you represent that old school strain of Republicanism that is tolerable, if somewhat irritating at times. You genuinely seem to want economic development, prosperity, good schools and fiscally responsible government, which is hard to argue against. And like those mildly irritating late 80s, early 90s Republicans, you know your audience well: family values are important, to be sure, but here in Iowa no one really digs a fanatic about that stuff. We're practical people- we have more important things to worry about, like paying our bills on time or watching corn grow. I disagree with your stance on gay marriage, but I'm willing to respect the fact that unlike Mr. 'I'd Like To Lose To The Democrats Yet Again' VanDerPlaats you seem to think the Constitutional Process should matter more in settling the question. That, I give you a lot of credit for.

But I'm not writing to you today to yeckle you about gay marriage or your education plan, instead, I'm writing to you to ask you to seriously consider re-branding the state of Iowa- yet again! When I was growing up, my parents would get that wanderlust in the summer, chuck us kids in the back of the car and charge incredible distances to the west and east just to get out of the state and see America for a week or two- and eventually, we'd drive some incredible distance back home again. And it never mattered whether we returned to Iowa from the east, west, north or south, whenever we crossed the border we'd see those signs: 'IOWA: You Make Me Smile' and you know what, Governor? It actually did make me smile. Without fail, every single time, because whenever I saw that sign I knew we were getting close to home.

Not to hate on Governor Vilsack's general notion of changing our slogan or anything, but it's time for another re-design, I think. At the time, Governor Vilsack probably had a good point: 'You Make Me Smile' didn't really say a whole lot about the state and it'd been around for awhile and as the first Democratic Governor in nearly 2 decades, he probably wanted to freshen things up a bit. But 'FIELDS OF OPPORTUNITIES' Are you kidding me? First of all, there's the color: 70s style autumnal shades of green and brown and even a little bit of orange I think doesn't bode well. Do we really want to give a 70s vibe to our state? Sure, the music was good back in the day, but was the country really having a great time in the 70s? (Help me out on that score, please- it was just slightly before my time.) Second of all, there's the sentiment: fields of opportunities... it usually takes anywhere from ten to thirty seconds for the average motorist to realize that the fields of 'opportunities' look a lot like corn and soybeans. And while our state's agricultural importance shouldn't be overlooked, if we're trying to attract investment, tourism- or even just keeping young people in Iowa, corn and soybeans aren't really all that sexy and exciting. (I hate to break it to you on that score.)

Every state seems to take a different approach to their 'border signs' so it's hard to really say what we should do, should we decided to change things up a little. Minnesota is probably the fanciest I can think of, with large stone sculptures in the outline of the state and the grand old sentiment "Minnesota! Welcomes you...' greeting you at the border. (Personally,the Missus thought 'Minnesota: We Put The 'Eh' in "Eh'-Merica' would be better, but I don't think they'd find that all that funny.) Nebraska seems to take a pragmatic view of their border sign, as the one on the bridge across to Omaha looks about as old as the Interstate System itself and merely proclaims that it's the Home of Arbor Day, probably because they realize that 'Nebraska: Enjoy the Next 20 Minutes, Because It's Boring As F**k for the Four Hours After That' won't really fit all that well on a sign.

But the problem is that Iowa really isn't that fancy and pretentious- and we actually care! We can't really pretend to be sexy and uber-exciting, because again, we're really not- but we're a good, solid state with more to offer than a lot of people realize. It could be time for something new and exciting, sure- but at the same time, if everything old is new again, then I think if you're wanting your old job back it might be an idea to bring that old slogan back too: 'Iowa: You Make Me Smile' Because if you're an Iowan coming home from a long trip, then seeing that sign really does make you smile- and if you're new here, then give the state a chance, because you'll find something to make you smile.

Just a thought. Like I said, I might not even vote for you- and there's probably little to no chance you'll actually read this- but if you're the hip, retro answer to all of Iowa's problems right now, then bring that old slogan back with you. Just make sure you keep the 'Miami Vice' pastel fashion thing back in the 80s where it belongs. Pale pink just really isn't my color.

Yours sincerely,
The Late Night Chronicles Guy

Late Night Chronicles 63: Playgrounds

Published tonight on Facebook...

I'm going to float a radical notion out here- just put it on the stoop, see if maybe the cat licks it up, you dig? It's not a silver bullet to all the problems America is facing, that's for sure- but if we're seeking an explanation for why educational standards seem to be slipping, why the generations younger than us seem to be more cynical, more disillusioned and populated with more of what could be charitably called 'little punks' but are more accurately called 'little shits', then I may have an explanation for the overall degradation of culture in contemporary America today. It's pretty damn ground breaking, if you're ready for it. Are you ready? Are you sure?

OK: we've dumbed down our playgrounds too much. Granted, in America today, there's far too much dumbing down going on everywhere, but the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the need and desire to dumb everything down began at some point in the late 80s and early 90s when they began to change playgrounds into these plastic, low-to-the ground, everything has rounded corners- just generally boring pieces of equipment that don't inspire anything other than a sigh of despair from even the most jaded child today.

You know what I'm talking about right? When we (my 80s generation and myself) were young, there wasn't any of this ground up tire shit underneath the monkey bars. Oh no, I'm old enough to remember when there was gravel underneath the monkey bars and that taught you a lot more about life than any time in the public education system does. What happens on the monkey bars stays with you a lot longer than any algebra class- because there's nothing like the sheer terror of being 6 years old and halfway out across the monkey bars and suddenly realizing that your arms hurt like hell and there's a long drop to sharp gravel below you. That's real life. No ground up tires to bounce you safely back up into Mom's arms- no in real life, you fall, you cut your knee up and it hurts like hell. The lesson the playgrounds of my youth taught me was that then you get right back on those monkey bars again and try it again!

See? Life really does begin and end on the playground. There's that awesome sense of accomplishment you felt as a kid when you made it across the monkey bars for the first time- or when you finally got up the nerve to swing as high as you could and then jump off into the air, just to see how high you would go. You set goals for yourself and you met those goals. Yeah, when I was young, playgrounds rocked. You got to learn about real life (it can hurt like hell sometimes) and you got to set goals (like swinging as high as you can and jumping off) and then you got to taste the glory of achieving those goals, small and insignificant as they now might seem.

Today however, playgrounds seem to have lost their magic touch. Sure, kids play on them and don't really give a shit, because, after all, they're like 5 and a playground is a playground when you're five. You don't think about the bigger picture all that much. But now, it seems like people want to keep kids in a bubble of over protectiveness to an almost unhealthy level. Everything needs to be plastic, because little Johnny can't get a splinter- that would be bad. Everything needs rounded corners, because little Jane might get a boo-boo and we can't be having that. I was somewhat astonished to learn that vaccinations for chicken pox are now increasingly common which is a shock, because when I was a kid, getting the chicken pox meant that Mom whipped out the phone tree and anyone who hadn't had it yet got to come over and play with you. Chicken pox meant you itched like hell, to be sure, but it also meant you got one helluva rockin' playdate.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating that we put a bed of rusty nails below the monkey bars in the name of toughening our kids up. I'm sure my perspective will be slightly different when I'm a parent, because I'm sure no parent like to see their kids get hurt- even a little bit. But at the same time, the biggest and best lesson I think that I learned growing up was that when you fall down, even though you might get hurt doing so, it's important to stand right back up again.

Dumbing down our playgrounds too much will let us lose the opportunity to pass that all-important lesson on to the next generation. Playground should be adventures, they should be daring monuments to the imagination. They shouldn't be earth-bound, plastic and safe. One of the travesties that marked the real death of my childhood was when the City of Iowa City (or whomever) decided that after the expansion of the Public Library downtown, they were going to replace the old playground equipment with a shiny, new, boring set. I will never, ever, ever, forgive whomever decided to do that, because that old playground by the Library? That was the best playground EVER.

This playground was a wooden palace: it had a drawbridge, a curly slide, tall fire poles for people to slide down. A super long metal slide at the very end that was damn hot in the summer. It had towers and big wooden blocks of different heights that were staggered up the side of the equipment like a mountain that you could scramble up. And it had a big yellow ladder that you could climb up to get to the drawbridge- and for some reason, I'm not sure why, underneath that (because there was a piece of wood, then the ladder) there was a ledge, tucked away that wasn't really connected to anything much.

That ledge was magical. It was bad-ass. When you were big enough to climb down there, it officially made you one of the 'cool kids' and if you had the stones to jump down from that secret ledge into the sand? Well shit man- you were a demi-God amongst mere mortals. At least for the rest of that afternoon, anyway. Yeah, playgrounds can, under the right circumstances, teach kids an awful lot about life- but we have to be careful: we want them to learn those lessons, not inadvertantly shield them from them in the name of wrapping them up tight and safe.

Dispatches From Studio Arts #3

I am having an incredibly productive night here at Studio Arts! Got oodles of writing done so far and I'm wide awake and just rockin' out all over the place- currently to an episode of 'House.' Anyway, for this edition of 'Dispatches' I racked my brain and came up with the Three Pieces of Art I'd love to see in person- this is what I came up with...


1. The Bayeux Tapestry: Anyone who has seen 'Robin Hood: Prince of Theives' will recognize this tapestry from the opening credits- currently to be found in, funnily enough Bayeux, France it tells the story of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 in beautiful, delicate form. I would love, love, LOVE to see this in person! The above YouTube clip is a slightly animated version of the Tapestry (no, the real one doesn't actually move- and again, if the embeds are all messed up, I'm sorry. I'm working on it.)



2. Guernica, Pablo Picasso: There's a story that's quoted in a movie and or television show that escapes me at the present time about an exhibit of what the Nazis considered to be degenerate art they put on in Paris. Picasso was there, Guernica was in it and when a Nazi officer saw it, he turned to Picasso and asked: 'Did you do this?' and Picasso looked at him and said, 'No, you did.' The bombing and devastation of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War at the hands of Franco's Nazi Allies should have been a wake-up call to the Allies at the growing danger of Hitler's power. It wasn't-- yet, it's hoped that this painting will memorialize it forever and stand as the most damning condemnation of the senseless devastation of war.



3. The Last Supper, Leonardo DaVinci: I can't say this gets me super-excited to the point I'd run the thing down and see it, but there's no question that this is an important piece of art- and they're having trouble preserving it, so I'd like to see it while it's still here and around.

And now... A SHAMELESS PLUG! I'm probably going to be busy (my nieces are being born this Friday- unless they show up a little earlier! So excited for that!) But if you're in Iowa City and you love Art, you should come on out to the Studio Arts Building for SAAH ArtsFest 2010 from 4-7 PM. (That's this Friday, 4.30.10!)

Rang de Basanti-- A Review

For my South Asia class, I had to trek downtown last night for a film screening. For peeps out there unfamiliar with Bollywood Cinema, it's worth exploring a bit- but be warned: the movies are long, usually about three hours or so and can be- at least from my experience, somewhat inaccessible. But this one was a pleasant surprise! (The title track is above- my apologies if the YouTube embeds are all weird- music by AR Rahman of 'Slumdog Millionaire' fame!)

This film chronicles the story of a struggling young British filmmaker, Sue (Alice Patten) who finds her grandfather’s diary, recounting his days in British India as Jailer and Interrogator to a group of four freedom fighters headed by Bhagat Singh. Inspired by his accounts, she travels to India and enlists the help of her friend Sonia (Soha Ali Khan) to make a film telling the story of Bhagat Singh and his fellow revolutionaries.

Encountering an apathetic, disillusioned generation of college students, it takes Sue and Sonia sometime to find the four right guys to play the parts, but eventually, they recruit DJ (Aamir Khan), Karan (Siddharth Narayan), Aslam (Kural Kapoor) and Sukhi (Sharman Joshi) to be in the film. The foursome has trouble relating to their characters at first, but when the deeply political and nationalist Laxman (Atul Kulkami) is recruited for the film as well, they all eventually begin to identify with the freedom fighters- their own views becoming gradually more radicalized as the film progresses.

When Sonia’s fiancée, Ajay (R. Madhavan) an ace fighter pilot in the Indian Air Force is killed in a crash of his fighter jet and governmental corruption is implicated, the friends attempt a peaceful, candlelit vigil to seek justice for Ajay. The police violently break this up, resulting in Ajay’s mother taking a blow to the head and ending up in a coma.

With the apparent failure of their protest, the friends are radicalized even further. Ultimately, they assassinate the corrupt Defense Minister (who knowingly put sub-par parts in the fighter jets, causing so many crashes) and Karan’s father (the company boss who sold the parts to the Defense Ministry.) When the media and government attempt to portray them as terrorists, in a final act of radicalism, they storm the radio station and take over the airwaves, asking India to open its eyes and demand better from their government. While they are still on the air, the police storm the radio station- and all are killed.

Structurally, this film is easy to follow- as it cuts between the past (Bhagat Singh and his revolutionaries) and the present (DJ, Sue and the friends)- and the parallels between the two epochs of history are very direct. Freedom Fighter Bhagat Singh eventually is imprisoned due to his assassination of a police officer following the death of fellow Nationalist Lala Lajpat Rai during the infamous Simon Commission Protests. (Rai famously proclaimed: “Every blow aimed at me is a nail in the coffin of British imperialism”) These historical events are paralleled when Ajay’s mother succumbs to blows from police and falls into a coma, and it is DJ who assassinates the Defense Minister in response. Both the freedom fighters and the four friends are eventually willing to sacrifice their lives for the greater cause of their country- inspiring the film’s title: the color of sacrifice.

While I can understand the narrative parallels between the past and present employed in the film, I looked askance at the casual and sudden turn from a candlelit vigil to assassination of a government minister. It seemed overly extreme and while the friends appeared to achieve their goal of getting the country to talk and take action- even at the cost of their own lives, you are left wondering: was justice really done?

The end of the film did, therefore, seem a little forced in my eyes- almost a trifle unrealistic, as well, given the cynical and apathetic nature of our own generation here in America today. However, a little digging on the interwebs reveals that Rang de Basanti inspired a social awakening across India, widespread youth activism and public anger at government corruption. This film, at the end of the day wanted to awaken a generation and it did so, entering the cultural zeitgeist and becoming a social phenomenon in and of itself.

Overall, this was one of the most accessible and enjoyable (if a little depressing) Bollywood films I have seen to date. And although I haven’t seen that many- this makes me want to see more. High quality cinema all around!

Monster Raving Loony Tuesdays #4

(In the event of a Hung Parliament, The Queen says: 'All right, boys- there's two bullets in this gun and three of you. Whichever one of you is left standing gets to form a new government. So play nice and give me a sensible coalition, please?' And seriously- is it me, or does this old lady really look like Her Majesty?)

Well, the wheels have not come off the Clegg Bandwagon- at least not yet. And despite heavy attacks from both Labour and the Tories, the polls show that this race is still firmly a three-horse race raising the possibility of a hung parliament with every passing day. The impact of the debates cannot be understated in this case: Clegg made a splash with the first debate and managed a credible, competent performance in the second (even if some people did give the edge to David Cameron, who looked and sounded much better) and the poll numbers still haven't really budged too much.

With one more debate this Thursday, the opportunities for game-changing moments for all three parties are running out quickly. Barring some kind of massive gaffe or previously unforeseen scandal emerging in the last couple of weeks of campaigning, I'm going to say a hung parliament is all but a certainty. The question is: what happens then? The Liberal Democrats seem to be keeping all options open, but certainly their fondest wish and dream has been reforming the voting system (as well as the political system to some larger degree) so you can bet, if the added clout of the polls right now translates into added seats, they will be demanding, at minimum, voting reform as a price for their participation in any coalition.

Ideologically, their closest allies are Labour. In the early to mid-90s, Paddy Ashdown, head of the LDP positioned his party further to the left, with the idea of an unspoken partnership with Labour to keep the Tories out of power. However, the downside to a Lib-Lab Coalition is that it'll probably keep Gordon Brown in power as Prime Minister and I'm not entirely sure how much patience the British electorate is going to have with keeping Gordo around. Whether the Lib Dems could demand Brown's head AND voting reform as prices for their participation in a coalition is a dicey prospect at best. I would bet they would go for the former and swallow (with noses held) the latter.

There's another bit of mathematics to consider and that's the role of independent and smaller parties in the event of a hung parliament. Currently, per the Election Seat Calculator- and the polls as of this morning on the Beeb, we get a breakdown of seats like this:

Conservatives: 244 (seats)
Labour: 276
Liberal Democrats: 101
Others: 29

The magic number the parties need to get to is 326. So as of today, the Conservatives are projected to be 82 seats short, Labour 50 seats short and the Liberal Democrats a whopping 225 seats short of an absolute majority. If the assorted collection of smaller parties breaks down in a similar way to the current Parliament, we could see negligible gains in seats for any of the major parties. Subtract the Speaker of the Commons and his 3 deputies (who are supposed to be apolitical and normally don't vote), subtract 5 seats held by Sinn Fein (that number could change) who don't take their seats in Parliament because it involves swearing fealty to the Queen, something they're for sure not hip too.

So now we're down to 20 seats of the 'other' variety- which even if they broke one way or the other, the seat totals currently aren't close enough for them to make a difference in getting a governing coalition together. In a pinch, if things were projected to be tighter, the Tories might be able to rely on the Democratic Unionists (Protestant Party) from Northern Ireland, but they shouldn't have more than 10 seats, so the race would really have to tighten for them to be a factor. Similarly, Plaid Cymuru and the SNP (Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, respectively) would probably draw similar numbers and as they have more power to play with in Edinburgh and Cardiff, I'm not sure they'd be eager about a governing coalition in London. Rather, they might thumb their noses, have a beer and watch London flail around a bit. So, either way- discount the other parties. The LibDems, if these numbers hold up, will hold the balance of power in Parliament.

Anyway, the mathematics aside, we've got the last debate Thursday and today there seems to be nothing of great import other than the three parties in a tussle on the issues of family and crime.

The Latest Polls:
Conservatives: 33%
Labour: 28%
Liberal Democrats: 30%
Others: 9%

Getting ready for the home stretch! It's going to be a bumpy ride...

Another Balla Vacancy

The Cyclones could be in the hunt for a new Men's Basketball coach as well? Rumors are swirling that Greg McDermott is heading to Creighton. DM Register Columnist Sean Keeler explains why it all makes sense... here.

Medium White North Politics

The intricacies of party politics in the Medium White North now officially confuse me: Minnesota House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (as posted earlier) did, in fact, win the endorsement of the DFL for the Governorship. I wondered aloud where Former MN Senator Mark Dayton was in all of this- as his name was conspicuously absent from the Convention coverage on the StarTrib.

Well, he was lurking all right. He just wasn't invited to the Convention, for some reason... now that Kelliher has the endorsement, she gets to go straight into a contested primary, running up against Former MN Senator Mark Dayton, former State Rep Matt Entenza and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner. All of whom have bigger pull and wallets than she does...

I think I'm going to take the opportunity to put the Governorship of the Medium White North into the 'up for grabs' category. A 14 hour endorsement convention followed by a bruising primary? Maybe a recipe for a damn good, strong candidate- or could be a recipe for wounded wolf, limping across the finish line into the waiting maw of whomever the Minny GOP picks.

Of course, if the Minny GOP has an equally bruising primary ahead all of this could be a moot point.

Things I Don't Get

1. Hashtags on Twitter.

2. Why I can't get my YouTube Embeds to work right...


Thoughts?

Um...

...this headline doesn't come across the right way: "Coralville officer 'loves' stopping impaired drivers"

Reading the article, there's nothing wrong per say with what the officer is saying or doing. He's a drug recognition expert and he loves his job. Nothing wrong with that at all- however, reading this headline, it's the kind of headline that rubs the average citizen the wrong way and leaves a bad taste/impression of law enforcement in their mouths. You shouldn't love stopping drivers. It seems to imply that you get your jollies off pulling people over. Instead, you should love being good at your job.

I don't know. Maybe I'm crazy.

Ice, Ice Baby

When did hockey start getting so good again?

Don't Hate The 'A' Students

PJ O'Rourke almost pissed me off this morning. In fact, he came this close to ruining my whole damn day. I followed the link from Instapundit to an article in The Weekly Standard, bemoaning the apparent surplus of intellectual snobs (what O'Rourke apparently feels are pretty stereotypical 'A' students) running the country in various positions of power in Washington D.C. and the assorted elite power structures clustered along the coast.

The Mayflower, per O'Rourke was full of 'C' students. Americans were trying to escape intellectually snobbery by fleeing from Europe for the untamed wild shores of Cape Cod. At this point in the article, I was about ready to start foaming at the mouth- but then, O'Rourke delivered the punchline: his daughter is an 'A' student. Thanks to the American educational system, everyone gets to overachieve now. I took a breath and remember that the dude was a satirist after all- and any guy who deconstructs Washington in a book he calls 'Parliament of Whores' is OK by me, as it's an awfully apt description of D.C. at the end of the day.

But buried beneath the razor sharp satire was an important point: there IS a surplus of intellectual snobbery crowding our elites power structures at the present time. But that's what we get for putting our capitol on the coast. Cities cluster along the coastline- and what do we find? The political, business and cultural centers of the country are actually nowhere near the center of the country- they're on the coast. The rest of us state can just go do whatever it is we do. I'm beginning to think that moving the capitol- or at least farming out some government departments so the rest of us can suck the teat of Federal Largesse would be a good idea.

I mean, think about it: the intelligentsia? Liberal or otherwise- it's mainly coastal. The media power structures? On the coast. The political power? Coastal again. We send people from the center of the country to the coast and it's like they collectively lose their minds. Proximity to the sea and expensive urban settings leech common sense from people faster than watching that 'Pretty Wild' show on E! does.

O'Rourke is right: there is a problem. But it's not 'A' students. There are plenty of intelligent, capable 'A' students in the Midwest too. The problem is that the power structures that run this country (the conflux of media-business-politics) are all on the coasts. Those people have no earthly idea what real life looks like. They haven't looked at the business end of a credit card bill or mortgage or student loan payment for years and sit high atop their Ivory Towers, making pronouncements from on high that the rest of us have to pay for.

So, it's not 'A' students. It's coastal, urban snobbery that's the problem. Any 'A' student worth their salt- and in a position to do anything about it would have shaken the dust from their feet and moved the damn capitol to Omaha.

Late Night Chronicles 62: A (Technical) Immigrant on Immigration

Published on Facebook, today...

As we speak, controversy is erupting nationwide over the tough new immigration law that was just signed by Arizona's governor. What it states is that law enforcement in Arizona can now ask to see documentation of citizenship status if they suspect that the person they're dealing with may be in the country illegally. Proponents of the bill say it's a response to the abject failure of Washington to deal with what's perceived to be a crisis at the border. Opponents of the bill fear that it will lead to Hispanic people being harassed by police due to their skin color. Protests on both sides are erupting and it seems likely that Arizona will become ground zero for a new debate on immigration reform in America.

For me, personally, its easy to understand illegal immigration. Having watched my parents go through all seven circles of bureaucratic hell just to get a green card- and then seven more circles just to get citizenship, there is no denying that the process of doing the citizenship thing legally is a helluva lot more difficult than doing it illegally. It's easier to swim (or walk) across the Rio Grande than it is to go fifty rounds with the fine people of the INS, which has all the appeal of a prostate exam- but without the healthy dollop of vaseline on the glove. It's no wonder people enter this country illegally- because this country goes out of its way to make doing it legally as difficult as humanly possible. So on that score, the government has only itself to blame. When you don't provide incentives for people to follow the law, they're going to break the law.

Pragmatically, as well, we need undocumented labor. I know, someone's probably reading this and thinking 'no we don't- those people from Mexico are taking our jobs' but really and truly, they're not. I don't see whole hosts of white people in a rush to pick avocados or strawberries for $2 an hour. I'm not seeing a lot of white folks wanting to break into the wonderful world of janitorial work or meat packing. These jobs are shit jobs- and as with all immigrants, whether legal or illegal, people coming into this country do the jobs that people who already live here are oftentimes unwilling to do. They do them extremely well, work damn hard and a lot of times do extremely well for themselves. It is essentially that whole 'American dream' thing we've been told about and they shouldn't be victimized for wanting to achieve it.

If white folks want someone to freak out about, let them look at the highly skilled immigrants taking jobs at our universities. If we must play the 'they're taking our jobs' game of slightly xenophobic fun, let's be real here: the research aspect of our universities drives innovation in this country and that is a well-paying field dominated by immigrants from India and China especially. Post 9-11, we flung up immigration controls that made it harder to get talent from there to here- and with their own countries becoming more economically attractive, many of them are staying home and working for the universities there. America loses out either way- we don't want to learn calculus and we don't want to scrub toilets with toothbrushes either. What's a nation to do?

Well, say no to amnesty for a start. I know there are many people out there in favor of some kind of amnesty, but I say no that, just on general principle. No one cut my family a break and we crossed every T and dotted every I. If we must have amnesty, let it be for absolutely everyone- and include people trying to do this legally as well. (And cut costs while you're doing it! $675 to become a citizen in this country! Let's have a discount week or something, shall we?) Any other amnesty can be seen as nothing more than a patronizing political statement, whichever party does it. It's a vote-getting mechanism, nothing more.

So if not amnesty, then what? Pragmatically, we do need to recognize that we will have illegal immigrants whether we pass draconian laws like the one in Arizona or not. So I would get behind a two-fold effort:

1. Bring back the Bracero Program: the Bracero Program ran from the early 40s to the early 60s and allowed Mexican agricultural workers to be employed legally to do work in the United States. This would be massively complicated to bring back, but could also serve as a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already here. Employers could register to participate in the program, the government could make sure said employers are paying fair wages and treating workers well. Workers could register- and say after a period of five years with no criminal record, could be automatically awarded a green card to stay legally in the United States. Provide an easier, less bureaucratic path to citizenship and residency for people and I'm sure they will bite.

2. Ease Up For Innovation: People having been warning about this for some years now, but I'm going to add my voice to the chorus- we need scientists. Until we go to Mars or something else that's big and symbolic enough to inspire a generation of kids to fall in love with math and science, we need math and science people from all over the world. The best and brightest should want to- and need to come here. We shouldn't make it more difficult for them, we should make it easier.

Basically, this issue is in sore need of some sensible pragmatism. Essentially requiring that Hispanics carry citizenship papers just in case some over zealous police officer questions their status smacks of fascism in my book and is open-ended enough to invite all kinds of abuse, despite the protests to the contrary. Enforcing the law is one thing, but we need to dis-incentivize illegal immigration if we are going to seriously tackle this problem- clean up the bureaucracy, provide people with a simple, easy to understand path to citizenship-- and then, for those who chose not to follow that path, then we can enforce the law.

At the end of the day, America needs to remember that we are a nation of immigrants. The Statue of Liberty says 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free..." we should welcome people and give them a way to become Americans- not demonize people because of the color of their skin. Citizenship should be earned- but it should be easy to earn, even if it does cost $675 to become a citizen.

'John Rabe'

I am so happy someone is bringing the story of John Rabe to the silver screen. It's past time that this man gets some recognition for what he did during World War II- and not enough people know the story of what happened in Nanking when the Japanese took the City.

When I was in high school, I took a seminar on the Holocaust and that was depressing enough. The sheer scale of the monstrous crime of the Holocaust was difficult to learn about, difficult to read about- yet important to learn about nonetheless. Some time later, I read Iris Chang's book on the Rape of Nanking and it was the hardest, most horrible thing I have ever read. The Holocaust, I think, horrifies people because of the sheer industrial scale of the horror. The Rape of Nanking was the worst of humanity in one, brutal incident the encapsulates the horror of the Holocaust without the scale of death and destruction. In many ways, I thought the brutality of Nanking was worse than what I had read about the Holocaust.

But John Rabe stayed behind and did what he could to save the people of Nanking- establishing an international safe zone that managed to keep 250,000 civilians free and safe from the horror of what was going on in the rest of Nanking. To this day, he is known as 'The Good Man of Nanking' and remembered and memorialized in China for what he did. Unfortunately, too few people outside of China know his story- and I hope that this movie changes that.

To date, the Japanese have yet to apologize for what happened at Nanking. I hope this movie changes that, as well.

Boobquake!

Monday, the Earth is going to move, shake and quake in the first ever BOOBQUAKE!

What's a Boobquake you ask? Well (there's an article and my first ever link to Fox News on The Cigar, ew...) a cleric in Iran by the name of Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi (how cool is that name? I mean, apart from being attached to a sexist authoritarian Iranian cleric, it might be cool to have a name that sounds like Hojatoeslam!) suggested that women dressing immodestly caused earthquakes. (Conviniently ignoring the fact that Tehran itself sits on a fault line.) In response, BlagHag decided to call his bluff- and the Boobquake was born. Monday, April 26th- show some cleavage, as much as possible and we'll see if any earthquakes actually do happen. (That's the general idea, anyway.)

Picking A Possible Gov

The DFL (Democrats, for the non-Minnesotans out there)- is meeting for its state convention North of the Border as we speak, trying to decide who they're going to endorse for Governor. Hot Dish Politics from the StarTrib has updates, here- and as expected, there are the usual suspects have been up to bat: RT Ryback, Mayor of Minneapolis- Margaret Anderson Keliher, Speaker of the Minnesota House, a couple of state reps I haven't heard of, perennial candidate Ole Savior (real name, I swear) and I think former Senator Mark Dayton is waiting in the wings somewhere, if memory serves.

It should be a long and complicated day at the DFL Convention. Pay some attention to this one, if you have the time. It could be one of the few pieces of good news the Democrats get in the fall. Current Governor Tim Pawlenty isn't running again (presumably to try for the Big Seat in 2012) and I think this is ripe for a pick-up. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the biggest obstacle to Tim Pawlenty running for President is the fact that not a lot of people in Minnesota like him that much. (Oh, and there's the lack of name recognition nationally and the fact that he has the personality of a two by four and all the appeal that brings to the table. But that's just me, really.)

**Why is the DFL, the DFL? Well, it came about in 1944, when the old Farmer-Labor Party merged with the Democratic Party to form the Democratic Farmer Laborer Party (DFL). Minnesota has, apparently a tradition of active and viable third parties- the FLP landing 3 Governors and a raft of Senators and Congresspeople back in the 20s and 30s before the merger- which seemed to come about when attempts to forge the FLP into a national political force came to naught. The DFL now is essentially Minnesota's name for the Democratic Party- only with a couple of extra initials attached. Fun facts for the non-Minnesotans out there!

UPDATE: Looks like they're in the 4th Ballot now and support is slowly shifting to Margaret Anderson Kelliher. At last update, they were down to 4 candidates and Rukavina withdrew, endorsing MAK as he did so, so that should get her more votes. It's gonna come down to her and RT Ryback, I think and it looks like, barring a massive shift somewhere to Ryback, she's going to get the endorsement. (Oh, and I was wrong about Mark Dayton. I thought he was running for Governor, but I guess not.)

Random Beer

I'm not a super-hardcore beer drinker. If you want a true beer fan, I suggest you turn to The Quiet Man for advice and tips, but I randomly tried New Belgium's Mighty Arrow Pale Ale yesterday and damn, is this good. It goes down smooth and has a delicious sweet aftertaste that makes me want to drink more of it. Which I think I'm gonna go ahead and do.

Kick-Ass-- A Review

This is one of the rare movies which actually lives up to its billing: 'Kick-Ass' does, in fact, kick ass. The story of a normal high schooler, who loves comic books a little too much and decides to buy a scuba suit and make himself into the titular super hero, Kick-Ass is a revelation, and more importantly, a genuinely unique addition to the genre of the 'comic-book' movie.

Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is your average teenage geek. He loves comic books, is massively socially awkward with the ladies and masturbates a lot. One day, he wonders aloud why more people don't try to be superheroes- and then, after getting mugged one too many times, gets a costume together and tries it. Attempt #1 gets him stabbed and hit by a car- and after recovering (with damage to his nerve endings that lets him take a punch a bit easier), he tries again. This time, his heroics go viral on the internet and Kick-Ass is born.

He quickly discovers that he's not the only superhero in town as he encounters a father-daughter team of Big Daddy (played remarkably well by Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (played by Chloe Moretz, who steals the whole damn movie)-- this duo is out to take down crime boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong) who was responsible for putting Big Daddy (now an ex-cop) in jail and indirectly responsible for the death of Big Daddy's wife and Hit Girl's Mom. Kick-Ass quickly realizes that this dynamic duo means business- while he's just a nice guy trying to do some good with his batons- and they make him feel pretty inadequate for awhile. But he quickly gets sucked into their fight- even as D'Amico sets up his son, (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) as another superhero to lure them into a trap. The final showdown that ensues is bloody, violent and unlike anything I've ever seen in a comic book movie.

And therein lies the appeal of Kick-Ass: it is unlike anything you've ever seen before in a comic book movie. It's becoming more and more of a problem for the genre, because with a glut of movies, you need to be able to stand out and above the crowd of other masked avengers fighting for a box office take. The Fantastic Four movies were total flops, primarily because they looked like the same old movie that people had seen a thousand times before. Kick-Ass pulls no punches: fighting bad guys is a violent, bloody affair and the good guys don't always come out unscathed- it's gritty, realistic and colorful- exactly the kind of comic book hero that Quentin Tarantino would have loved to make- and Matthew Vaughn had the genius to do it first.

It's also the first comic book movie to ask an important question: what would superheros do in the real world? What would it look like if a normal, everyday person decided to put on a costume and take out bad guys? Kick-Ass takes a fun, unflinching view of that question- making it a worthy addition to the genre. While Watchmen gets into the heads of the superhero archetypes, Kick-Ass wants to know what it would be like when placed into a brutally realistic, pulls-no-punches real world environment. The answer is questionable, to say the least.

Why? Well, most of the criticism swirling around Kick-Ass comes from the portrayal of father-daughter crime fighting duo Big Daddy and Hit Girl. Roger Ebert was especially upset with what he saw as treatment bordering on child abuse (Hit Girl, after all, being just 11)- and to be sure, when an 11 year old girl says the word 'cunt' even in a movie, you tend to sit up and take notice a little bit. When she swirls and runs through the movie like a purple-haired pint sized killing machine, you tend to wonder just how effed up her childhood has been. And for sure, with Mom dead, false imprisonment did a number on Big Daddy. As he is told, in no uncertain terms: he owns his daughter a childhood, because in his obsession for revenge, he does take his daughter and make her into anything but a normal child.

But child abuse? I don't know about that- Robin, of Batman fame was, after all, known as the Boy Wonder originally. Hit Girl fits into the role of 'Girl Wonder' quite nicely- and no one, as far as I know has raised any objections to Batman taking in a kid and turning him into a crime fighter. All the fuss, I suspect, may be due to the fact that Hit Girl is, in fact, a girl. We don't want to see little girls killing people. We don't want to see them getting shot or beaten up- they should, after all, be playing with dolls and braiding their hair. Every superhero out there is a little messed up in the head- and Hit Girl, Big Daddy and Kick Ass are no exceptions, but Hit Girl is scrappy, self-reliant, fiercely independent and can for sure take care of herself- a pint-sized package of kick-ass girl power and propelled by a revelatory performance by Chloe Moretz, she lights up the screen. And while little girls shouldn't probably get too excited about the prospect of killing bad guys- a role model which encourages independence, self-reliance and general empowerment in the way Hit Girl does is a role model I can get behind.

Overall, this movie lived up to its title and then some: Kick-Ass, KICKED ASS!

Major Buzzkill, Dude...

University of Iowa Police together with the Johnson County Drug Task Force decided to start celebrating 4/20 early last night by busting around 13 people in Currier and Mayflower Residence Halls on drug charges.

To be honest, this is probably the biggest drug bust on campus that I can recall- and really, I have little or no sympathy for those involved. The comments on the Gazette website are frankly laughable. Although I do support legalization of marijuana, it's not legal yet and I'm sorry- although people do smoke pot in the dorms, if you're not smart about it then it's far, far, too easy to get caught. Which these kids did. Life lessons all round, I guess.

And as for the tiresome complaint about the cops needing to 'find better things to do' it's worth noting two things: 1. This is what the drug task force does and 2. What do you think the University Police should be doing, if not enforcing the law on campus?

More importantly, although Iowa seems to be heading towards legalizing medical marijuana at some point- it's not legal yet. The argument that 'oh, hey, it'll legal soon' doesn't change the fact that right now, it's not legal. I can't wait for the day when it is legal- and not just for medicinal purposes- which I'm convinced will come a lot sooner than many people think, if only for the financial arguments. But it ain't legal yet.

Happy 4.20, everyone!

Monster Raving Loony Tuesdays #3

As predicted, the debate changed the nature of this election. I incorrectly predicted that it was going to break the election wide open, because as it turned out- that's what this week is for. Let me explain what I mean by that: with David Cameron and Gordon Brown throwing shots at each other during the debate last week, the door was open to Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg to first of all, introduce himself to the electorate and second of all, provide a coherent alternative to both the Labour Party and the Tories. On that score- mission very much accomplished. The latest polling data has the Liberal Democrats pushing Labour into third- and in some polls leading by just a hair as well.

The 29% mark for the Liberal Democrats that I've seen would be some of their highest poll numbers since 1983- if not ever and would definately push the election into 'hung parliament' territory- with the Liberal Democrats being major players in a coalition instead of just minor nuisances. Three problems now confront the Liberal Democrats and this is their week to either rise to the occasion or the let the opportunity they've waited decades for slip through their fingers. What do I mean by that?

Well, Nick Clegg has another debate Thursday night- and this time, you can bet that both Brown and Cameron will be paying attention and gunning for him. Their job this week is to marginalize the Liberal Democrats as much as possible. Clegg's job is to win the next debate- but more importantly, defend the policies of his party in a coherent, charming and telegenic manner. Last week he could be 'the man above the fray' but this week, he's going to be in it. Can he take a punch? Can he deliver a punch? Hopefully Monday morning, the Liberal Democrats come out hard and fast against attacks from both Tories and Labour and push back as hard as they can. If they go on the offensive fast- and if Clegg can hold his own and either win (preferably) or at least draw, then by next week, this election can truly be a three horse race, so to speak.

It's a tall order, but the Liberal Democrats run into a couple of more problems: with the first past the post voting system, the polling preference (29%) does not translate into a similar number of seats. It's a disconnect they're working to reform, but these numbers are going to have to go higher for anyone to really start putting money on Clegg forming the next government. Hand in hand with that, they have to overcome the idea that a vote for them is a wasted vote. It ain't- the British political system doesn't have 'state' levels, so it's really local and London- or local and Edinburgh or local and Cardiff, some combination of those things. And on the local level, where a lot of power is exercised- it really is a three party system. The task now is to persuade voters that what oftentimes isn't a wasted vote for them on the local level won't be on national level either.

Either way: this is their week. They need to be careful of expectations: after all, one of their leaders famously told them in '83 I believe to 'go back to their constituencies and prepare for government.' Yeah, um wrong there. But if they can defend against what's sure to be a withering barrage from Labour and the Tories and if Clegg can produce another solid performance at the debate Thursday, an election that's teetering on being a three horse race, will actually be a three-horse race.

All of this leads us into the FAMILY STRAW POLL: being the good little blogger I am, when the election kicked off, I figured I would do some digging, email all the relatives I could and actually ask them (since they live in the UK) what they thought of the quadrenniel tooth pulling that is their election cycle. The sample I got back was completely unscientific (but thanks to all who responded!), but a few trends emerged:

1. Not a lot of love for Labour.
2. Couple of votes for the Liberal Democrats. (Or maybe the Greens)
3. More for the Tories.
4. Fence-sitters, who are not enthusiastic about anyone in particular.

And that last point to me is key: there seems to be a feeling out there in the UK that no one wants Brown and Labour to continue, but people just aren't sold on the Tories quite yet (and their Chancellor George Osbourn, especially)- and if people aren't sure on the economic arguments presented by the Tories, it's going to be a huge liability- especially with the British recovery as fragile as it is. This lack of enthusiasm for the Tories could also be why the Liberal Democrats are seeing a spike: any port in a storm, after all.

The Latest Polls:
Conservatives: 33%
Liberal Democrats: 30%
Labour: 28%
Others: 9%

Anyway, it should be an increasingly exciting week. A fun ride, ahead, I think!

**For the Scots-persons who might be reading this, the SNP has launched their manifesto and is pushing their case for a hung parliament. Read all about it, here.

Late Night Chronicles 61: What Happened To MTV?

Originally published on Facebook, 4/19/10

What the hell happened to MTV? Does anyone remember when MTV actually played these strange things called music videos? They revolutionized an industry, changed pop culture in this country as we know it and now, I can't think of the last time I saw a music video on MTV. Instead, it seems to have degenerated into an endless series of laughable dating shows, occasionally interesting shows (Pimp My Ride) and excremental reality shows designed to show what idiots rich people are and to glam up teen pregnancy a bit.

Yeah, MTV is really starting to piss me off. I think it was a physicist of some variety that pointed out that the very act of observing a phenomenon, fundamentally changes it- but in the case of 'My Super Sweet 16' and '16 and Pregnant', I think the very presence of cameras undermines the message they're trying to send. Well, at least in the latter case. I just like to hate on 'My Super Sweet 16' primarily because it's guaranteed to reduce me to something resembling incoherent rage. Rich people are idiots! Unbelievable idiots and the kids on that show are worse... I swore on a stack of Bibles and every sacred text I could find that if the Missus and I ever had that much money and our kids wanted us to drop $35K on entertainment for their birthday party, we'd be the ones picking the music, not them. And all this shit about getting top of the line Range Rovers? Come on now- money or no money, kids are still 16- buy 'em a brand new car and it's bound to end up dinged up, in a ditch somewhere.

'My Super Sweet 16' is like a walking, talking ad for the most rage-inducing elements of the Republican Party's hard right wing. The collapse of anything resembling parenting, the glorification of materialism and it's utterly and totally horrible. Shit like this is the gas that keeps the ever so tiresome 'Culture Wars' in this country going on and on and on and on, with no discernable end in sight. If MTV wants to do something, they'd end this crap and put some actually music back on what is, supposed to be, after all- MUSIC TV. At least, I think that's what the 'M' stands for.

Second in line for my ire is '16 and Pregnant.' I think this could go both ways, in many respects. Every girl they feature regrets their decision and talks about how hard it is. Which is good- they shouldn't be sugar-coating things like teen pregnancy, but my main problem with this show is that there's this shiny, sugary sheen to the whole thing that obfuscates some of the painful, hard choices (or what I'd imagine would be painful and hard choices) of the issue of teen pregnancy. Every episode is a happy little story about girl meeting boy, boy getting girl pregnant, parents fighting, etc, etc. It even has the happy little font from 'Juno' floating around the place. Are there happy ending when it comes to teen pregnancy? Sure there are- but I think MTV pulls its punches with this show. Everyone pretty much keeps their babies- a few give them up for adoption, but the big ugly question looming above this show: no one exercises their right to choose? No one at all? And again- we come back to that question about observing phenomenon fundamentally changing them- and it's hard not to notice the occasional preen and careful outfit choices made for the camera. It can feel more than a little scripted sometimes and I think with something like teen pregnancy, a documentary style 'fly on the wall' type of thing would work better. (You know, like True Life. Which is AWESOME. And should be lauded for sticking to that hardcore documentary style in the face of crap like this.)

Then, of course, there are 'The Hills' and 'The City' or whatever they're called. Whatever devil spawn television shows sprang from the belly of the 'Laguna Beach' thing. I don't know why any of those people are famous- first of all, and I hate, hate, HATE that the new 'in thing' apparently is to be randomly famous for no discernable reason whatsoever. Second of all, I have a buddy who lives in the OC and vouchsafed to me when we stopped in the infamous Laguna Beach for awhile, that the town itself hated the show with a passion. Despite being a rich, plastic beachside community in SoCal, I actually warmed a little to the town of Laguna Beach when I heard that. The whole 'famous for no reason' thing aside, these shows represent the most dangerous and deplorable trend in reality television- the fictionalization of reality. Reality, however much we desperately want it to be, is not like a television show and shouldn't be treated as such and these twin peaks of cultural excrement represent the idea that people can escape into a reality that's totally fake. Um, I'm not an expert, but I can't help but think that that's not a good thing. But maybe that's just me.

But over all, I miss music videos. I miss TRL, even though they never showed the entire video, just a good chunk of it. I get that at the end of the day, television networks produce shows that people watch- and if people didn't watch crap like 'The Hills', then it wouldn't get made. The bottom line drives everything, like always in this capitalist paradise we live in, but I look at MTV and I wonder what happened to what was truly a revolutionary network, once upon a time. And I worry about the messages and trends that are emerging from MTV these days... whether they are a good thing or a bad thing I don't know- but it certainly leaves me wondering:

What happened to MTV?

Dispatches from Studio Arts #2

Random photography... by ME!

Football Is Coming

Spring Game for Iowa football was yesterday and people are understandably SUPER-excited about this year. However, the Man himself urged caution- saying 'We're hardly there' yet.

This is why I love Kirk Ferentz. This guy has his eyes on the prize and he doesn't let himself get caught up in the fact that they went 11-2 last season and won their first major bowl title since 1959. Slow and steady wins the race for Coach Ferentz and he's interested in playing good football first and the record second, it seems like. (Because good football will get you the record.)

My prediction: if we can win at Arizona, we'll be sitting pretty going into the Big 10 schedule. Our road schedule looks a lot better this year, but we can't afford to get lazy at home with Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State and Ohio State to deal with. Indiana and Minnesota I think we can take- and I want REVENGE against Northwestern.

A bowl game, for sure- with a high potential for a January game if we're lucky.

What An Ashole

That volcano in Iceland is still going. Europe is still shutdown, airline wise. (And OF COURSE airlines and airports are questioning the flight ban. They're losing money hand over fist because of this... but I don't think they should be allowed to compromise safety just for a few bucks. If it's safe, then fine- but make sure first!)

$223 Million In The Hole

NBC lost a cool $223 million on the Winter Olympics this year- and although the ratings were up 14% over the 2006 Winter Games in Turin, they were still bleeding money hand over fist. What does this add up to in my book?

They need to seriously rethink the way they cover things. USA v Canada hockey, for one shining example: that was the marquee matchup of these games and NBC didn't cut over to it until the last minute. It should have been front and center on their prime time coverage. They should also consider doing some stuff live. In the age of the internet, people find out shit hours sooner than they broadcast it- which to me, lessen the reason to actually watch the medals being won. I would say some combo of live coverage and online coverage with maybe a primetime hour of a recap show from the medals won earlier in the day would be an idea.

But who knows- what it comes down to is what I said: something ain't working. Fix it by 2012!

Monster Raving Loony Tuesdays #2

This is going to be the week that sets the tone for the rest of the UK election. David Cameron (seen above) and the Conservatives have a real chance to break this thing wide open- or continue to slip towards either a continued (but much reduced) Labour majority or, the more likely outcome- a hung parliament.

Why? Well, the first ever televised debates between the leaders of the major parties are set for this Thursday- and I really do think that what happens next hinges entirely on how the respective leaders perform Thursday night. The person with the most to gain? David Cameron. He's young, telegenic and can bring energy and charisma to the stage that can reach a lot of the British electorate all at once. Gordon Brown? Meh... he's a dour Scot. I fear there's a Kennedy-Nixon phenomenon that could potentially repeat itself here. (For those who don't know, the 1960 Presidential Debates between Kennedy-Nixon proved to be a fascinating example of the influence of media. Those listening on radio thought Nixon had won, while those watching on television thought that Kennedy had won, based on their perception of Nixon looking sweaty and ill at ease.) And lest we forget, there's Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats to think of too- he has the opportunity to score some real hits as well.

Basically: it's Cameron's to win, Brown can claim moral victory with a draw and Clegg can take pot-shots at both with an eye towards the electoral math and potential coalition shenanigans in the event of a hung parliament. But the debates will make or break the tone of the whole campaign, methinks.

The Polls:
Conservatives: 37%
Labour: 31%
Lib Dems: 20%
Others: 12%

...which translates (per the fancy electoral seat calculator on the BBC site into: 285 Conservatives, 281 Labour, 55 Lib Dem and 29 Others)

The Manifestos- (so far this week) Conservative, Labour, UKIP and the Communists... and the SNP in Scotland and Plaid Cymuru in Wales have kicked off their campaigns as well.

I also took an informal straw poll of the family over there- and responses are slowly coming back in, but hopefully I'll have a decent enough amount of responses to publish something resembling results next week. So stay tuned! The excitement continues...

**UPDATE, 4/14/2010**
The Liberal Democrats have their manifesto out for all to see. Summary is here.

President Lech Kaczynski, 1949-2010

The President of Poland, his wife and a raft of top political and military leaders were killed yesterday in a plane crash in Western Russia- the plane was carrying the delegation to Smolensk to mark the anniversary of the infamous Katyn Massacre during World War II, where thousands of Polish troops were massacred by the Soviets on Stalin's orders. The entire nation of Poland sounds like it's in shock, understandably so, as their nation mourns its loss.

The BBC has an obituary here... and my thoughts and prayers are with Poland today.

Transfers Galore!

With the transition to new Iowa Men's Basketball coach Fran McCaffery (who just hired his first assistant today), someone leaving was perhaps inevitable. John Lickliter (former Coach Todd Lickliter's son) has already announced his transfer to Marian University in Indiana- but now sophomore Aaron Fuller has announced his intention to transfer and incoming recruit Cody Larson has asked to be released from his letter of intent.

And on the Women's side of the ball, Gabby Machado is also transferring to be closer to her family in Michigan. (She will be missed, for sure-- she was a gritty, 'in your face' type of player that was a lot of fun to watch this season.)

Blackjack!

The 21 only ordinance is set to go into effect June 1st- and the drive for signatures to get a referendum to overturn it has already begun. It's interesting how much it lurks beneath the surface of everyday conversations, primarily because unlike the last time, when the City Council was confronted with a mob of students and backed down- (weenies) this time they went all in and passed the thing. 21 only is going to happen. And last night, driving the now infamous Nite Ride Bus, a passenger asked me what I thought of 21 only-- this was my response:

In general, I'm in favor of 21 only. When I was an undergraduate, most underaged people going to bars were already in varying shades of intoxication because they drank before going downtown, so I don't see how a. this is going to lead to some kind of house-party apocalypse or b. how it's a big deal. Underaged people will drink no matter what- but if we can get rid of some of the skankier bars downtown and replace them with I don't know, practical stores people can shop, movie theaters or other entertainment ideas or hell, even just better bars, I think it'll be a good thing. That said- this cannot happen in a vaccuum. Law enforcement needs to be ready June 1st to take on a (potential) shift to more neighborhood patrols and the City Council needs to have an economic strategy to diversify the business base downtown and have something else to bring downtown- other than cleaner, classier bars.

There is, however, a new ridiculous wrinkle to the debate: Provost Wallace Loh wants student athletes on campus to support the new ordinance, saying:

“Nobody among the students has come forward and said, ‘This is the right thing to do,’ ” Loh said during the meeting, which Athletics Director Gary Barta attended. “I wouldn’t expect them to. The vast majority on board are against it.

“My question is — and I don’t know if this is out of line — is there any way of inquiring and encouraging some of our outstanding student-athletes to step up and say, ‘This is the right thing to do.’ ”

Oh, holy shit, people. Really? Are you serious? What sort of a happy go-lucky dream world does the good Provost live in? The Daily Iowan did quote linebacker AJ Edds or wrestler Jay Borschel as being willing to go on the record endorsing the ordinance, but seriously now! People at Iowa love wrestling. They love football.

But they also really, really, really love beer. All respect and props to Borschel and Edds but they shouldn't waste their breath. And Provost Loh is obviously grossly overpaid if he's willing to seriously push this idiocy and expect to get any kind of result at all.

Monster Raving Loony Tuesdays #1

The silly season is underway in the UK, as Prime Minister Gordon Brown has asked for a dissolution of Parliament paving the way for the election to be held on May the 6th. Of course, over the course of the next month or so, we here at the Cigar will bring you updated poll numbers, random thoughts and craziness from what, to me as a huge poli-sci dork, is the Second Greatest Show On Earth! (India does it better, I'm afraid...)

Anyway, the 2010 UK Elections are officially underway and it's shaping up to be one of the most hard fought elections in decades. Although Labour is fighting for a fourth consecutive term, they're also fighting voter fatigue and the idea that the time for a change has finally come. However good that may be for the Tories, it's still not clear at this point whether the British electorate is entirely sold on bringing them back to power yet- and of course, lurking in the background, hoping to make some noise and maybe even be kingmakers in the event of a hung Parliament are my homies, the Liberal Democrats.

4/6/10 Polls:
Conservatives: 41%
Labour: 31%
Liberal Democrats: 18%
Others: 10%

The Swingometer: I love the Swingometer! In fact, I just love all the wacky features and gadgets the BBC throws up for the election- but the Swingometer measures just how much of a swing in voter preferences the parties need to either hold their own, get a majority or avoid a hung Parliament. Right now, the Tories need a whopping 7% swing to get a majority of 6. Tall order right now... (though to be fair, the Liberal Democrats need a 19% swing from Labour to get a majority of anything. Similiar swing for them against the Tories leaves Labour with a majority of like 5. Ick.)

Well, it's ON, baby! Let's get ready to, well, if not rumble, then probably bore and irritate the British electorate for four weeks!

Television You Should Be Watching: Stargate Atlantis

Television is a lot like food, I've discovered. Sometimes, a really good steak with all the trimmings is called for- and you enjoy every last bite of it and other times, well, you'd settle for a really good peanut butter and jelly sandwich- the perfect comfort food. Happily Stargate: Atlantis falls into the latter category in ways that make it extremely entertaining for reasons that still mystify me somewhat to this day.

A spinoff of Stargate: SG1, which was in turn, spun off from the 1994 titular movie starring Kurt Russell and James Spader, one would have thought that a Richard Dean Anderson free Stargate would be a recipe for really bad television- yet despite starting with what I imagine would have been absurdly low expectations, Stargate: Atlantis succeeds in being a genuinely entertaining science fiction series. There's no new ground broken here, no pushing of the envelope of the genre of science fiction, just pure fun, pure entertainment and a show you can just enjoy, plain and simple.

Part of the reason I think I got into this show was the pilot episode: 'Rising' probably ranks as one of the more impressive series debuts for a science fiction show that I can think of. There's action, adventure, the cast is introduced and fleshed out perfectly- and the introduction of the main bad guys of the series that prove to be creepy, confounding and worthy opponents for our heroes. And more importantly: our heroes are actually going somewhere. That, I think is Atlantis' greatest strength and most important difference with SG-1. Richard Dean Anderson and company can go out into the universe, have an adventure, come home and have a beer. From the very first episode though Atlantis establishes that our heroes are on a one-way trip to a galaxy very, very far away and there are no guarantees they can get home. Over the course of the series, a way home and a connection to Earth is found again, but still the threat remains: they are very, very far away from home in a galaxy with some truly bad guys out to get them.

Atlantis feels like a true voyage of exploration to me and that sense of adventure and danger infects the whole series and makes it a lot of fun to watch. The cast helps a lot as well: Torri Higginson brings a suitable sense of motherly gravitas to her role as leader of the expedition Dr. Elizabeth Weir- who also bounces nicely of her military counterpart Colonel John Shephard- played ably by Joe Flanagan. Although no replacement for Richard Dean Anderson (who can fill McGuyver's shoes? Really?) Flanagan lends his own sense of wise-cracking laid back bad assery to the role- the only sane, beer drinking human amongst a den of nerds. David Hewlett plays the arrogant Rodney McKay perfectly- surprising you occasionally with beautiful flashes of vulnerability that humanize him. Rachel Luttrell and Jason Momoa play the indigenous allies to our heroes managing to be bemused and confused by some of the customs and culture that the natives of the Milky Way bring to their galaxy. The cast works perfectly- and familiar faces from Stargate SG1 drop by as well.

In short: it may not blow your mind, but if you want a television show you can just watch and enjoy, Stargate: Atlantis fits the bill. Especially if you're a dork, like me. Plus, as a review on Amazon.com points out: the bad guys look kind of like Edgar Winter crossed with a vampire. See for yourselves!



Edgar Winter.



Steve the Wraith. See the similarities? Isn't that awesome! Overall: Entertaining as hell, tons of fun and the peanut butter and jelly of television watching. It may not blow your mind, but occasionally, it feels just right.

Zeitgeist: The Movie-- A Review

I can't remember who first told me about Zeitgeist: The Movie, but it sounded a little strange to me, so I generally dismissed it as the rantings of some nutter who put together a movie for YouTube and left it alone. But, last night, on break, I decided- what the hell? People talk about this movie, it comes up in conversation now and again, why not call up YouTube and watch the damn thing?

So I did. And an hour and fifty minutes later (that's an hour and fifty minutes I'm not getting back anytime soon by the way) I came to the following conclusion: Zeitgeist is essentially a big shit cookie, with the chocolate chips of what, if you squint really hard and look at it from the right angles in the perfect lighting conditions might genuinely be considered truth. Maybe. Basically, it's divided into three parts: part one tries to debunk Christianity. Part two tries to sell you on the notion that 9/11 was an inside job. And part three is about how every war we've fought in the past century or so has been part of a vast conspiracy by the international banking community.

Part One: was interesting. There were a lot of interesting parallels that Christianity has with astrology that I had never seen before, so I was willing to take those with a grain of salt. Where the movie lost me was it's somewhat shrill insistence that Christianity is nothing more than a plagiarized religion designed to control the masses that stole everything from it's pagan predecessors. Well, no duh! Tell me something I don't know. Zeitgeist acts like there was some massive conspiracy behind this, while ignoring the simple truth: when you're a 'start-up' religion so to speak, you're going to try and convert people to what you believe. Stressing what's similar between you tends to help that process. So of course Jesus was born on Christmas and died on Easter. Early Christians wanted to convert the pagans! It makes total sense. And was completely ignored by the movie.

Oh and also, Jesus didn't exist. At all. The movie hurries past this point a little bit, because I suspect the filmmaker knows that when held up to the light of day that this particularly brazen assertion is less clear. There probably was a dude called Jesus. Whether he was the Son of God or performed miracles- that's another question entirely.

And finally, Zeitgeist seems to dislike Christianity. It doesn't mention other organized religions and how they might be bunk too at all, just Christianity. Hinduism might be ok. Islam, Buddhism? They too might be OK. But this Jesus guy? Load of crap in the eyes of Zeitgeist. An interesting omission, but one which ignores the larger truth: right now, yes, I would say I'm open to the notion that organized religion has it's downsides. The Vatican is hiding the fact that is covered up sexual abuse, so it's hard to have faith in an organization that covers up the abuse of children, you know? But does that mean I'm willing to sign onto the notion that there's nothing at all out there? It does not. We tend to personify what we want to see in divinity, because it makes it more relatable to us as human beings. That's fine, but it could be that all our warring religions are merely different views of the same, universal, divine truth. (A truth that interestingly enough, the Sikh Gurus based their religion around- the Sufis and probably the Gnostics touch on some of the same ideas.) There will always be, however far we go, something just outside of our reach. Something unknown. Something a part of humanity will always yearn for. Whether that's a dude in the sky or just a universal, divine presence or nothing at all after we die, I don't know. (Robert Browning has a great quote: "A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?") But Zeitgeist seems intent on destroying one religion to further its own agenda. Which gave me pause from the get go.

Part two begins with the sound of a low-flying very large plane followed by an even bigger explosion. You're going there? That was my first thought. And yea, indeed, they went there. 9/11 was an inside job. I'm not even going to bother going into most of this drivel, instead I'm going to refer everyone to Popular Mechanics- who, bless their hearts, went through all this crap and debunked most of it. Read for yourselves, here.

Basically, this section of the movie read like porn for Conspiracy Nuts. Do I think 9/11 was a false flag operation to get us into a war and take away our civil liberties? I do not. I have some serious issues with how and why we got into the Iraq War, but overall, crazy Islamic extremists wanted to kill us and on 9/11 they certainly killed a bunch of us. And all this crap about civil liberties? Please- this may be extremely cynical, but does anyone really believe that there's such a thing as privacy anymore? Of course the government is doing all manner of dirty things in the name of securing the Homeland or hell, just propping up their own elite power structures. We only tend to erupt in outrage when they get caught. Anyone who believes that the government hasn't tortured people or tapped phones in the past for various reasons needs to take a deep knee bend and think about that a little bit. America is not perfect. No country is- and all manner of sins are hidden away from the prying eyes of the public. Always have been, always will.

If Part Two was porn for conspiracy nuts, Part Three is pretty much porn for Ron Paul. Basically, the Federal Reserve, World Wars I, II, Vietnam and our current imbroglios in the Middle East are all part of a worldwide banking conspiracy, the final aim of which is to get us all micro-chipped and under the control of one world government. OK: Zeitgeist is correct in one thing- and probably should be lauded for it- most of our freedoms are illusions when you get right down to it. The real power is controlled by the people with the money in this country, whether it's special interest groups, political parties, unions or, as they point out- banks. In the United States of today, money matters more than our votes do, which means our democracy is increasingly irrelevant and will continue to be that way until the system is overthrown and broken down. (I'm aiming for peaceful, people-based revolution on that score, but sadly, given the world we live in, I'd imagine it will eventually be violent revolution that does it.) So, score one, lonely point for Zeitgeist.

However, this massive one world government conspiracy that's behind all the wars? Eh, not buying it... I'll buy that bankers make profits off of big-ass wars- I mean, do the math on that one and someone's gonna be making money, but the one world government thing? Where's the money going to come from? War is, as Zeitgeist points out, incredibly good for business and with one world government, the elites would have no one left to fight. Where are the profits then? I mean, if there are aliens out there we can fight, OK- but so far, nothing doing on that score. As long as elites of all stripes can make money off of war and death, there will never be a one world government. Because if there was, they'd have no one left to fight.

Overall, Zeitgeist implores the viewer to open their eyes and question everything that they've ever been told. Because we are apparently being lied too. But a close viewing of this movie with it's singular focus on attacking the Judeo-Christian tradition and it's slipshod, one-sided conspiracy theories about 9-11 and the international banking community make it obvious that the movie is right on yet another very important point: we shouldn't believe everything we're told- even if it's Zeitgeist that's doing the telling.

So take it with a grain of salt and go and see for yourselves, here.