New Fall Television

So, we cracked. We cracked like the sad, sad people we were and got ourselves the basic cable package from Mediacom again. By basic, I mean ABC,CBS,Fox,NBC,CW,PBS and a few random HD versions of said channels thrown in as well. Plus the usual accoutrement of Home Shopping, CSPAN, Fox News, CWN, etc, etc, etc. About as no-frills as you can get in other words and I'm ashamed to say that I couldn't be happier. I missed television. It's sad when you have to admit that to yourself, but it's totally true. And the best part about fall? (Other than football, of course.) New fall television shows.

I don't know when I fell out of love with movies and fell in love with television, it's hard to pinpoint- but a good television show, to me, is one you can keep watching again and again, with great writing, great characters and engaging storylines that hold up well over time. That's my barometer for great television. If I can watch it once, I will, but if I can't (or don't want too) watch it again, then to be frank, it doesn't measure up for me. Great stories are ones you can read again and again, same thing with great music and great movies- the ones you stumble across in the back of your DVD collection and go 'hey, haven't seen that in awhile' and you pop it in and it's just as amazing as you remember it being when you first saw it. That to me, is what makes something truly worth watching/reading/listening too again and again and again.

Plus, I think I like television because the stories are so much more detailed. Movies have two and a half hours, maybe 3 at the most to hold your attention and tell a story. Television shows have to find a way to keep you coming back all year- and maybe years after that. It's a challenge that many fail to meet, but the good ones allow you to get to know characters on a deeper level than the movies and allow for greater character and story development overtime. You're not left wanting more at the end of the television show- a good one should have wrapped things up to your satisfaction. (M*A*S*H is a prime example of this, The X-Files and Seinfeld are not.)

So what does the new fall television season have to offer us? Well, here are a few I've noticed:

The Event (NBC): The latest in a 'we'd like to be the next Lost, please' show, this one is walking a fine line between intriguing and engaging and just plan annoying. So far, what we've learned: The red headed lady from ER (Laura Innes) has been kept in a secret air base in Alaska for 60 years and a shiny new President, (Blair Underwood) wants to free her and all her friends and announce something huge to the world. (Presumably, the titular EVENT.) In the short course of the pilot, it's revealed that there's a plot to kill the President, somehow involving Jason Ritter, a cute girl, a cruise ship and Luke from Gilmore Girls (Scott Patterson) and when the hijacked plane is making its death plunge towards the President in his strangely tropical paradise mansion, there's a weird special effect and the whole plane... VANISHES. Convuluted? Very. Interesting? Very. But the trick with this show is going to be making sense of the whole mess before the audience just gets bored and changes the channel.

No Ordinary Family (ABC): Why can't people do justice to the Fantastic Four? The original family of superheros has seen a cartoon, a crappy B-movie from the late 80s, 2 less than stellar big budget motion pictures and still, other people seem to take the concept of a family of superheros and do it better than anyone else has so far. The Incredibles was one such example, No Ordinary Family is another. Michael Chiklis, Julie Benz and their two kids star as the titular family with Romany Malco from The 40 Year Old Virgin floating around as BFF/side kick wannabe for Michael Chiklis. Basically, the family is a modern, disconnected, too busy family and they're drifting apart. So, Super Dad (a weird combination of Mr. Mom and strangely, a police artist?) makes them all go on vacation to Brazil, where Mom is doing research in the rainforest. They all go on a beautiful plane ride, crash into some glowing water and BAM, super-powers ensue. Super Dad gets his mojo back with his super strength and feels useful, connected and engaged for the first time in a long time. Super Mom is speedy and find out she can make time for her family again. Super Daughter gets telepathy and dumps her cheating boyfriend and Super Son is all droopy because he doesn't get his superpower right away and then, suddenly, he's super smart, thus taking caring of his annoying learning disability. I have hope for this show, provided they keep the focus on the family and don't get too lost in any weighty mythology that they think up. What makes the Fantastic Four so compelling is their family ties- keep that firmly in mind and this show could be around for awhile. Meander into some 'save the cheerleader, save the world' nonsense and we'll end up in a mess that'll make this Extraordinary Family vanish in a big hurry. (Bonus Aside: Dad from 7th Heaven (Steven Collins) appears to be the bad guy. Awesomeness.)

Detroit 1-8-7 (ABC): Speaking as a newly minted 911 Dispatcher, I gotta ask: where are all the Dispatchers in these shows? I mean, I get that cop shows are about guns, violence, catching bad guys, but not even a tiny glimpse of a Dispatcher? We're pretty important, you know... Just sayin. Anyway, from what I've seen it looks like Michael Imperioli may have found a decent cop show to call home for awhile. I thought that about 'Life On Mars' too, but this one seems to work fairly well. Nothing new, nothing ground breaking, just catching bad guys and solving cases- without the tiresome procedural frills of a CSI or a Law and Order. The grittiness of Detroit seems to be the perfect backdrop for hard-bitten cops to catch bad guys in. I'm not sure I'll be watching every single week, but I might drop by from time to time.

Hawaii 5-0 (CBS): Remakes make me nervous. So far, only one truly excellent television remake has ever been made and that was Battlestar Galactica. But I was intrigued by this- it makes sense from a marketing point of view. CBS has been infamous as the 'old people's network' for some time now, despite attempts to shake that moniker off, bringing back a 60s classic for the modern age can only appeal to Baby Boomers that grew up with the original. The casting works, with Alex O'Laughlin as Steve McGarrett and Scott Caan as Danno (really good casting on that last one- he bounces off of O'Laughlin quite nicely and steals a scene or two from the leading man). Daniel Dae Kim and Grace Park add heft to the cast as well. The cast works and the show didn't even bother to mess with the original theme- which was smart of them. However, what the 5-0 squad is and what they do seem curiously ill-defined thus far. The Governor pretty much gives them a blank check to kick ass and so far they come across as this weird cross between spies and cops. I think in order for this to work, they need to pick one or the other, but so far, I'm intrigued enough to keep watching.

Undercovers (NBC): JJ Abrams has done it again. I mean, can this guy do anything wrong? Seriously. Sexy, smart, funny and with spies running around all over the place, this just became my appointment television for the fall season. Boris Kodjoe and the very exotically named Gugu Mbatha-Raw star as a husband and wife team who are caterers (yes, caterers) by day and spies by night. Gerald McRaney stars as their CIA handler who is wonderfully crusty and there are a couple of other random people who help them out as well. I LOVED this show. Sexy people, sexy locations, spies, guns- it's like the best of Alias except without all the confusing Rambaldi crap that it wandered into in about Season 3 and never got back out of successfully. I am tuning into this- as should you...

Outlaw (NBC): I'm always curious about somewhat political shows. They try, does NBC to recapture a sliver of the magic of The West Wing (witness the short-lived Mr. Sterling and if you don't remember that show, that's fine, neither does anyone else) and don't often succeed, but this one caught my attention. In short: Jimmy Smits stars as a bad boy Supreme Court Justice who resigns to go flit around the country and stand up for the little guy. I might have to tune into this one as well- I'm certainly intrigued enough to check it out for a few episodes. As 'law' shows go, it has to be better than the now pedestrian Law and Order. (Moving to Los Angeles right about now, if the clock on my computer is correct.) Perhaps Mr. Smits is overly idealistic and a little pollyannish about his faith in the mystical, magical powers of the law. But then again, so was Mr. Smith. And he managed to go to Washington and do OK for himself...

Potential New Planet?

Yes PLEASE, can I have another?

First World War Ends

This may seem like a statement of the obvious, but it's really true. Germany delivered its last payment of reparations imposed on it by the Treaty of Versailles just three days ago, officially, finally, bringing the First World War to end to the tune of a payment of $94 million.

92 years after the fact. If you needed any more proof that the Treaty of Versailles was fantastically bad idea...

Gender In America

Newsweek recently pissed me off by publishing pages of dreck exhorting men to redefine masculinity, as if masculinity could be put into some kind of weird, little pre-determined box that everyone has to check all the boxes in to get issued their 'Man Card' on a yearly basis. The article in question seemed to call for more of a partnership with women and a heightened emphasis on men co-parenting. All of which took me by surprise, because my approach to my marriage is to view it as a partnership, not a dictatorship and I fully intend on co-parenting my children.

In general, it really pissed me off. Thirty years of feminist psycho-babble and now it's being turned against men. An attempt to convince men they are oppressed? Intercine war between feminists and meninists? The language of feminism seemed to have been turned into the tools of the patriarchal oppression that impacts both genders, whether they know it or not. Now, Newsweek is pushing more dreck: do we need Men's Studies? After all, poor, poor men are becoming a minority on college campuses so don't they need their own major?

Hell no. Good God, leave it alone already. Men don't need to be studied, men need to step up. Men need to be better fathers, better husbands, better all over! It's a simple little formula with easy policy solutions all around. Teach all the kids, not just the girls. Get paid family leave put into law, so men can actually take the time to be Fathers. Easy solutions that can pay dividends. Three more decades of psycho-babble academic bullshit discourses about gender will do nothing!

Then, I stumbled across Susan Faludi's front page article for Harper's Magazine and managed to read a goodly chunk of it before my lack of a subscription to Harper's prevented me from devouring the whole thing. Did it contain a discussion of the state of modern feminism and a prescription for its future? Nope. Instead, Faludi launched into the tiresome, tiresome dissection of the void between Generation Steinem and the Third Wave Net Saavy Feminist Brigades of the Modern Day. No discussion of what's left to do. No discussion of what's to be accomplished, just a tiresome old story about the generational civil war in contemporary feminism. Once again, aiming, firing and completely missing the target.

While Faludi is busy dissecting NOW elections, a bomb is going off in feminism's backyard and how the modern feminist movement deals with that is going to be the real test of the movement. I'll risk the wrath of Women's Studies majors everywhere by saying it, but Sarah Palin is coming to a theater near Gloria Steinem and Company, so get ready! Quick: name another woman that's done more to find and promote female candidates in the past ten years? You can't. She's a master, nay mistress of social media and is quietly constructing a brand for herself that will be very intriguing should it be put in front of the electorate. She appeared on 'Dancing With The Stars' and got a healthy round of applause, looking like Super Mom cheering on her kid as she did so. The appearance stuck with me and as I rolled it around and around in my head, I came to a surprising conclusion: Sarah Palin gets it. She's changing the rules for women in politics in a way that Hillary Clinton should have, but didn't. Women can be caring and nurturing and still win elections. They can be good mothers and strong leaders. They don't have to fit into any mould constructed by the media.

Will she run for President? I don't know. I think right now, she can get the Republican Nomination easily, but there's a gap she has to close with independents and moderates before she can seriously compete for an election. She needs to reach as many people as possible as directly as possible and if she can introduce herself directly to the electorate and show she has serious ideas and serious solutions for the serious problems facing the country, she might just win. But quietly and in a way that feminism has yet to discuss on any meaningful level, Sarah Palin is re-writing the rules for women in politics. And what that might mean will impact gender in America for more directly than any psycho-babble the media or academia can come up with...

For Iowa's Second Congressional District...

Miller-Meeks!

Republicans: http://millermeeks.com/
Democrats: http://www.loebsackforcongress.org/
Libertarians: http://www.garysicard.org/wp/

Iowa, it's time. 90 years after the passage of the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote in this country and only Iowa and Mississippi share the dubious distinction of never having sent a woman to Congress, the Senate or elected one Governor. And I think it's high time we changed that, which is why I'm endorsing Marionette Miller-Meeks for Iowa's Second Congressional District.

Now, don't get me wrong, I've sat through my share of women's studies classes. I've seen multiple points of view on waves of feminism be explained to me in great detail- and maybe I don't get it because I'm a guy and if that's the case, then I'm fine with that, but I don't want people to think that I'm endorsing Ms. Miller-Meeks because she's a woman. Happily, I can re-assure you kids that her gender is just the added layer of frosting on an already very accomplished cake. In other words: not only is Ms. Miller-Meeks our best bet to break the glass ceiling for women in Iowa politics, she also happens to be the right candidate for the job.

Where to begin? Well, as with most Republicans, what usually sends me running for the hills is their insistence on being way out of step when it comes to social issues. While Ms. Miller-Meeks believes in traditional conceptions of marriage being for one man and one woman, she is not stridently against in either. She believes in reasonable exceptions being carved out in existing abortion laws for rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger and while she opposes using stem cells in a manner that would be destroying life, she's also willing to acknowledge that they can bring medical advances that benefit everybody. It's this kind of sensible approach to social issues that drew my attention immediately. There's no call for constitutional amendments or other measures against marriage equality, just a simple statement of belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I can argue against that, but I have to respect her opinion on the matter. Nuanced positions on abortion and stem cells don't precisely line up with mine, but her positions aren't deal breakers for me either.

On the economy, while she lines up with most Republicans in calling for the extension of the Bush tax cuts, she also calls for a payroll tax holiday, which struck me as both radical and creative- the kind of ideas that we need in Washington right now, because she's right: a payroll tax holiday would put more money into the hands of American workers right now, which would give them more money to use to push the economy forward. (Personally, I think we should get rid of it altogether, but that's just me and my wacky way of thinking.) But big points for creativity there!

On health care, Ms. Miller Meeks, sorry, perhaps I should say Dr. Miller-Meeks has been President of the Iowa Medical Society, served on two University medical faculties and worked in both public and private sectors of the health care system. In short, she's got acres of experience and if anyone knows what they're talking about when it comes to health care, it's her. Her health care plan wants to put power back in the hands of individual consumers, rather than in the government's hands or in the hands of insurance companies. I like this basic idea, because it's totally in line with what I'm thinking on health care. The employer based system made a lot of sense back in the day, but with people switching jobs and changing careers multiple times over a life time it should be easy and affordable for individuals to insure themselves and it's not right now. That needs to change. Practical steps to empower consumers are something I can get behind and Dr. Miler Meeks has the right ideas I can agree with.

To me, the biggest indicator of whether or not I'm going to vote for any given candidate is how much thought they appear to have given their stance on the issues. While that's probably hard to measure when reading a website, there's a clear distinction between Miller-Meeks and Loebsack when it comes to the issues and to me, Miller-Meeks has all the earmarks of being a thoughtful, dedicated, hard working public servant. She offers complex, creative solutions for the difficult problems facing the nation currently and that impressed me far more than anything I read on Congressman Loebsack's website. While I don't doubt that the good Congressman is a dedicated public servant, I want creativity, I want a willingness to develop and search for the best solutions possible. Going on what I go on (reading the websites, in other words) I got more of that sense from Miller-Meeks than Loebsack and that's what informed my decision the most. That may seem like vague justification for endorsing someone, but it's the best I've got- and a healthy combination of gut instinct and stance on issues seems to work for me best.

The Battle of The Milibands Is Over

...and Ed Miliband squeaked by his older brother to become the leader of Britain's Labour Party. What this means is uncertain, especially given the fact that he's been leader for all of five minutes or so, but a canny politician could score big points by appealing to disaffected Liberal Democrat voters and with deep spending cuts coming down the pipe the Coalition probably won't be universally loved by the time of the next election.

But I do think Labour missed a golden opportunity by not picking Ed Balls. I mean that would have been AWESOME! Prime Minister Balls? 'The man with the balls for the job' Vote Balls, he's got testicular fortitude? It would have been a dream come true...

Colbert In Congress

Comedy Central Star and Comedian Stephen Colbert testified before a House Committee today and the Establishment is generally losing its collective shit as a result. First of all, Iowa Rep Steve King (our very own, I'm SO proud) weighed in, was pissed off and dropped the astonishing bombshell that Colbert's right wing persona was a put on. (Gasp... really?)

People seemed even more offended that Colbert remained in character for his testimony, feeling that perhaps he was mocking the hearing process and Congress in general. Of course, responding to that charge is way too easy. If Congress was silly enough to invite a comedian to testify on an issue like migrant labor, then Congress should expect to have its collective nose rubbed in it. (Meaning: of course he's going to mock them. They were, after all, silly enough to invite him.) But it's not without precedent- our glorious leaders have heard testimony from Elmo before, so while irritating, while potentially treasonous in some eyes and inappropriate in others, it's not all that surprising.

But the real story about Colbert in Congress isn't about what he said, it's about what was going on somewhere else in Washington D.C.- as a scandalous story managed to slip completely under the radar of every major media outlet in the country. The conservative blogosphere has been bubbling about this all day and I'll admit I'm not all that familiar with the facts of the case, but former DOJ Official Christopher Coates testified today about the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party case. (The gist of it: White voters complained about the New Black Panthers intimidating them. The DOJ dismissed it because none of the political appointees wanted to enforce voter intimidation laws AGAINST racial minorities. Meaning that in the Obama DOJ, white voters apparently don't get protection from voter intimidation. AWESOMENESS.)

The media didn't touch this with a ten foot pole, so here (courtesy of the Christian Science Monitor, not some howling Red Stater blog, by the by) is some coverage for you, kids. Read 'em and get pissed off...

Albums2010 #27: Zoso

Don't you just love albums that don't have a bad song on them? It's such a great experience just knowing you can hit play and just sit back and let the music device you're using do the rest for you. Not many bands can do that, but with Led Zeppelin IV (also known as Zoso or merely Unititled) Led Zeppelin manages to do just that and the results pretty much rock my face off. If you have to own a Led Zeppelin album, this is the album to buy. If you're looking for a prime example of a band at the height of its creative powers, this is perfect. In short, if you love rock n'roll and don't own this album, you're missing a major piece of the puzzle.

Before we get to the music (because I know all true Zep fans have been waiting for this for years) I had to ask: what the heck do those symbols mean? I'd never thought about it a lot before skimming Wikipedia (The Font of All Knowledge) to look for some basic background information about this album and found an explanation for all four. (OK, so all SERIOUS Zep fans probably know this already, but I didn't and found it pretty damn interesting. So don't hate, ok?)

The ZoSo Symbol: This was Jimmy Page's and a symbol of his own design. What it means is apparently a mystery, though there's an argument that it's been a symbol of Saturn since about 1557.

The Triquetra: The three pronged triangle looking thinger over a circle was John Paul Jones' choice, taken from Rudolf Koch's Book of Signs it's meant to represent a person with confidence and competence.

The Three Rings: John Bonham went with three interlocking rings, which represents the triad of Mother, Father and Child- but also happened to be the logo for Ballatine Beer.

The Quill In The Circle: Robert Plant's symbol was also of his own design, supposedly based off of the lost Mu Civilization. (What's the Mu Civilization, you ask? Well apparently there was another continent floating in the Pacific at one point that vanished into the mists of antiquity and presumably, the ocean.)

As always kids, keep in mind for these album reviews, they're fairly non-academic and random, so when I get information off of Wikipedia, there's a decent chance that I could be completely full of crap. But now that you know what the heck those funky symbols are about, let's get to the meat of the album: the music.

To be honest, there's really not a bad track on here and I can't think of a song on the album that's too obscure not to be recognized by anyone who has happened to listen to a radio station in the past three decades. The tunes and titles should be familiar to most: Black Dog, Rock N'Roll, The Battle of Evermore, Stairway To Heaven, Misty Mountain Hop, Four Sticks, Going to California and When The Levee Breaks- all Zeppelin (and rock) classics and all excellent songs to listen too. How musicians of any talent manage to produce an album where they bat 1000, literally, is beyond me. I would have thought that the sheer law of probability would have decreed at least one dud or 'controversial' song that fans would argue about the quality of for years to come, but no- Zeppelin managed to produce pure solid gold with this album, and that's a rare feat worth recognizing.

What do I like? Well, first and foremost, you have to love Zeppelin's references to Lord of The Rings (see: Misty Mountain Hop, Battle Of Evermore on this album and randomly in Ramble On presumably on another album.) It's fun, it's neat and I like to think it gives lovers of high epic fantasy a certain amount of street cred with everyone. After all, if one of the greatest rock bands in the world likes Lord of The Rings, how does that make you uncool? The Battle of Evermore is probably one of my favorite Zep songs which has Plant's howling lyrics on fine display. Just plain awesome stuff.

Another standout: Four Sticks- you want to hear John Bonham make a case for being the best drummer of all time? Listen to this song- the intensity and speed of the underlying percussion part make this song tight, taut and generally awesome. I'm honestly surprised I haven't seen on the silver screen as part of a car chase or fight scene or something like that. (Though reportedly, Zeppelin tends to be picky about which songs, if any, it gives away to movies and things of that nature.)

And finally, one of my all time favorite Zeppelin songs, EVER: When The Levee Breaks. Wow, do I love this song- it's just awesome. Well, you know I keep using that word a lot, so I'll try to think of something else to describe it.... wait, no, I can't. It's big, bombastic and bluesey. The perfect combination for Led Zeppelin, this album and my general musical taste. If you've never heard this song, I can honestly say that you're missing out on rock n'roll as we know it. Remedy the situation ASAP, kids, because this song- and more generally, this album are not something you want to miss out on.

What didn't I like? Well, there's not a bad note to be had, but I will risk the electronic lynch mob and wrath of Zeppelin worshippers everywhere by saying that I find 'Stairway To Heaven' to be one of the weaker tracks on this album. If you're going to have a 7 minute song, it needs to be better than this. Don't get me wrong: melancholy works with this album, you just have to listen to 'Going to California' to hear that, but 'Stairway' is an exercise in dreariness that get's more lovin' than it should. A bad song? Not at all. But Zeppelin at it's greatest? I beg to differ.

Overall: Screw everything I've ever said about must own albums. If could only afford to buy one CD, I'd highly reccomend this one.

Bookshot #14: The Girl Who Played With Fire

The Girl Who Played With Fire starts with a bang and never lets up until the final page- and, point of fact, leaves you hanging on the final page, desperately hoping for more and practically screaming for someone to give you the third book in the trilogy so you can find out what happens. Yeah, that slow start and meandering pace of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo? Gone. Larsson wastes not a word, not a page of your time with this one and, once again, the result is a fantastically taut thriller that grabs you and refuses to let go and leaves the reader desperate for more by the final page.

All the usual suspects from the first book are back for the second: Kalle Blomkvist is now back to being a successful journalist. Lisbeth Salander stole a bunch of money at the end of Book 1 and is travelling the world, enjoying exotic locales and generally not worrying about life all that much. And then that ever-crusading news magazine Millennium takes on an expose of the sex worker industry and the story really takes off. When two of the writers are found murdered and Salander is implicated, Blomkvist is, of course, convinced of her innocence and sets out to clear her of the murders. What follows is an intriguing, shocking and suspenseful descent into the dark past of Salander and her connection to the brutal underworld of the sex trade.

Without revealing too much, I can safely say this is a satisfying sequel to The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo- pretty much giving the reader what they want and leaving them wanting more (while also leaving our heroes facing an uncertain future at the end of the book, just like the Empire Strikes Back. Is it weird that trilogies function in the same way that Star Wars does? Did Star Wars make the rules for trilogies or did trilogies make the rules for Star Wars? Deep and meaningful question, kids- discuss!) But anyway, The Girl Who Played With Fire proves to be more than up to the task of continuing the story of Salander, Blomkvist and company. What proves surprising is that while in the first book Salander is presented as some sort of weird anti-heroine, basically good, but willing to kick the shit out of you if the occasion demands it, in the second book, Larsson gets into the head of Salander a bit more with this one- you find out what makes her tick and gain large amount of insight into just why she is the way she is (it's a dark and unpleasant reason, believe me- but one that I'm not willing to spoil for all 'yall)

Another interesting aside: mathematics. While The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo dangled nuggets about violence against women in Sweden, there's more of a direct connection with the 'flavor' of this book to the narrative at large, namely Salander's new obsession with mathematics. She devours whole textbooks of the stuff and at the end of the book has an astonishing insight into the real solution behind Femat's famously unsolved but now solved last theorum. What that insight is, unfortunately is not revealed, but Salander thinks it's pretty damn cool. It's an interesting plot device that Larsson employed in the first book to great effect- the underlying theme of the first book involving horrible violence against women, it made sense to throw some statistics at the reader, to make them see how his story connected to reality. How mathematics connects to this book, other than to explain how Salander's mind works is something of an open question, but it's use as a 'flavor' of sorts to the book is done effectively enough, I'll admit.

This is hard to wrap up without spoiling anything, but you need to read this book. If The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was too slow, too boring or just plain overrated in your mind, do yourself a favor and give this writer and his amazing characters a second try- like fine wine, it seems Larsson gets better as he goes along- and I can't wait to see what volume 3 has in store for me.

The End of Man

6 pages of wonderful dreck from Newsweek about the need to reimagine masculinity full of psychobabble bullshit that's just plain annoying once you actually start reading it. Here's what I say:

I'm a man and I'm doing just fine, thanks. I was raised to respect women and be polite and nice to them (of course, in high school thanks to masculinity, that meant I was probably gay) I was raised to believe that being a father is the most important thing a man can do with his life and doing it right is even more important. I was raised to believe in co-parenting in the idea of marriage being an equal partnership, a team held together by love and commitment to your spouse.

In short, I refuse to be defined by anyone and I certainly refuse to be redefined. I reject you and your narrow-minded insistence on gender roles, Newsweek. I am a man and I am just fine.

Pass On This Pledge

I haven't read this yet, but the reviews are lukewarm at best. Apparently seeking to recapture some of the old '94 magic for themselves, Republicans have released a 'PLEDGE TO AMERICA!' laying out what they would do, if elected. It's worth noting that RedState.com doesn't seem to be all that impressed with this and having skimmed through the thing (some of the font work is just lovely and all the pretty pictures? Wow...) I can't say I'm particularly inspired either. Repubcans in Washington deserve a right ding about the ear for this chestnut of a document. Inspiring? Not a bit. Radical? Not even a little bit!

We face a huge problem in this country primarily because people want things from the government, but culturally speaking we get all fidgety about giving our money to the government. (And really, can you blame us? Look at what they do with it?) Now is not the time for the Republicans to turn into shrinking violets and play it safe, now is the time to tack into the wind, grow a spine and get real about shrinking government. What departments are gonna have to go? What agencies are going to be streamlined and what useless programs are we getting rid of? What about tax reform? What about entitlement reform? How are you, the Republican Party going to save the world as we know it and guarantee Social Security and Medicare to people my age?

If this was meant to inspire me, consider it an EPIC FAIL.

Texas Does It Again

First, Texas rewrote a substantial amount of history- now, it's gunning for a re-write of the way textbooks portray Islam, detecting (though how, I don't know- perhaps via nose?) a pro-Islamic bias in the schoolbooks of the nation's children.

Just because the Left likes to use the educational system as a way to push their agenda doesn't mean that Conservatives should do the same damn thing. More bias, even if it's to the right of the political spectrum still undermines the educational system, still presents a view of history and the world that isn't as factual as it could be and in general, won't do what conservatives want it to do, I think. If the Right starts playing the game of the Left, then the education of our children just becomes another victim caught in the crossfire of the tiresome and irritating Culture War. And I'm not hip to that at all- end the bias, stop the insanity, Texas! Let's put the best view of history forward for our kids, instead of grabbing it and trying to make it conform to an ideological agenda.

The problem then becomes two fold: is such a thing possible and does the Texas Board of Education actually have a point? First of all, yes I do think such a thing is possible, but we have to be able to let go of some of the more nationalistic views about America for it to happen. America has done some not-very-nice things over the course of its history and emphasizing those doesn't paint an accurate picture even as glossing over them in the name of making sure LIttle Johnny knows that America kicks ass makes for an equally inaccurate picture. Personally, I think facing up to the bad and the good is a true measure of what makes a nation great. If we can't be honest about our history, then what kind of a country are we? I think you talk about everything. You talk about the way we've treated Native Americans, slavery, sexism, racism- all of it. But you also point out that America is still and always will be a bastion of freedom for the world. We've done some bad things, sure, but we try and make them better and everyone still wants to come here.

I don't know, maybe that's too simple or too complex for people to grasp. But I'd like to think in a perfect world, kids would get to know their country a little better than they do. The amount of stuff I learned about Native Americans and their experience in school was miniscule. I'm making up for it as best I can now, but it was a huge gap in my education, I think- and Native Americans and their struggle are just as much a part of the American story as anyone elses. At the end of the day, there's got to be a better way than this. We can't turn curriculum into a political football, it'll make problems in education even worse than they already are.

But does the shoe fit? Here, I think the Texas Board finds itself on slightly firmer ground. Hating Christianity has become almost a hobby of a lot of people on the Left, which strikes me as political suicidal given how many people in this country believe in God and go to Church. Hating on organized religion and seeing it as some sort of a symptom of a deranged mind or a thing that 'hicks' in the middle of the country do is a problem for large chunks of the Coastal Intelligentsia. Now, I'm not saying that Christianity is without its problems. But there's a large number of church-goin' folks in this country that feel like their values and their faith is under attacks by the secular left. And in this score, they have something of a point. Maybe not to the extreme that a lot of people on the right think, but yeah, I think there's a section of the left which likes to piss all over Christianity and people have a right to be upset by that.

Do we favor Islam as a result of this? I think the struggle with learning about any religion is just getting the basics right before you get into the complex stuff and no doubt, Islam, like Christianity has its good points and bad points throughout history. Good curriculum, I think, would emphasize learning about the basics, but should also not shy away from controversial topics. Honor killings, FGM, concepts of jihad and martyrdom- good scholarship would demand to know where these practices began? Do they conform to the original message of Islam? Are they widespread? How do such things happen? Even as we acknowledge the controversy over evolution v creationism in our classrooms, we cannot shy away from controversy just because it happens to be attached to the religion of Islam.

So, I disapprove of this- primarily because I don't want to turn education into a political football. Take ALL the politics out of it and concentrate on LEARNING and TEACHING and we might be getting somewhere. But I have to acknowledge the point: shying away from the controversy surrounding aspects of Islam, while emphasizing the controversies of Christianity isn't the kind of well-rounded educational practice we should be encouraging. I'm just not sure making a political statement about it is the right way of correcting the problem.

CHS Homecoming Parade 2010

I love City High's Homecoming Parade... goes right by my front door every year, so wine glass in hand, I sat on the front porch and watched it go by.

For Governor of Minnesota...

Tom Horner of the Independence Party!

DFL: http://markdayton.org/mainsite/
Republican: http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/
Independence: http://www.horner2010.com/
Green: http://www.mngreens.org/
Libertarian: http://www.lpmn.org/
Socialist Worker: http://www.spminn.org/

As always kids, do your homework, be informed citizens and for real- make your own choices. I make these endorsements mainly be reading websites and deciding whom I think will do the most good- but that's not a reason you should take my word for ANYTHING...


I miss Minnesota sometimes. It's always good to be closer to family and I love my job and you can't beat fall in Iowa City, whether it's for high school or college football, the place is just damn spiffy to settle down, live and work in. But I do miss Minnesota. Believe it or not, Iowa has an independent streak in its political nature that is often hard to notice, despite people viewing New Hampshire as more of the wild card in Presidential Primary Parcheesi. Iowa has this tendency to go moderately to the left in Presidential elections and send conservatives to Congress. But yet we don't at that same time. But Iowa's politics are predictable, independent-minded and sometimes downright irritating. We're one of two states that have yet to elect a woman to any position whatsoever- a distinction we share with Mississippi, oh joy and the people we do elect, we tend to keep sending back to Washington, over and over and over and over and over and over again. So there's not much turnover and movement in Iowa politics, despite the state's independent-minded nature.

Minnesota politics, however, are awesome. They're vital, fun, feisty and also hard to quantify at times, but you can't say The Medium White North isn't afraid to try new people now and again. These are the people who, after all, did elect Jesse Ventura. I miss Minnesota- but only sometimes and it's more out of nostalgia than anything else that I decided to give a shout-out to all my peeps up north and weigh in on some statewide races in Minnesota. And first up, is of course, the quadrennial three way brouhaha between the Democrats (quirkily called the DFL, a remnant of the state Democratic Party's post war merger with the Farmer-Labor Party), Republicans and the state's small but feisty third party, the Independence Party (a legacy of Jesse 'The Body' Ventura, who split with the Reform Party after they immolated themselves by nominating Pat Buchannan for President.)

The three way aspect of the race tends to be more illusory that the reality of what happens at the ballot box, but it does make it fun. The importance and vital role another political party can (and should, on the national level) display is on full display in Minnesota and it rocks my socks off, because voters actually have options. Real live options and it's not like they're no-hopers either, no the Independence Party has a taste of power under its belt so both Democrats and Republicans know full well that Minnesota's electorate will only put up with so much guff before voting 'em both out and putting someone else in. (They have after all, done it before.) I like to think it keeps the big boys a little more honest.

But the reality of the situation is that the Independence Party doesn't seem (I really hope I'm wrong about this. IP people reading this, tell me I'm wrong!) to have a lot of bench strength outside the Twin Cities. They should be aggressively recruiting and running people for seats in the Statehouse and they didn't (at least in 2008 when I checked, hopefully that's changed) seem to have too many out there. More aggresive party building on the part of the IP could pay off down the road in the long term and hopefully they start to realize that and build a base where they can within the state, because Minnesota's democracy and their politics are much better with the IP than they would be without them.

Enough of that: to the race! Democrat Mark Dayton had me intrigued for awhile, but kids, you know how I roll: I want more options and a healthier democracy across the country which is why I'm endorsing Independence Party Candidate Tom Horner for Governor of Minnesota.

No offense to Republican Tom Emmer, but there was not one piece of his platform that I found particularly inspiring. OK, so there's a school of thought that says you gotta stick with what you know works- which is something that lies at the core of conservatism, I think, but the usual grab bag of social issues, lowering taxes across the board and cutting spending, promoting school choice and being against abortion and gay marriage just isn't doing it for me anymore- and this doesn't just apply to Mr. Emmer and the Minnesota Republicans, it's a general memo to the GOP at large. I've been listening to the same bland mix of low, low, low taxes and morals and values from Republicans since I've been old enough to understand in some half-assed way how politics would work in this country. (4th Grade, 1992- totally kids voted for Perot! Independent from the word, go, kids- that's me in a nutshell!) They never seem to tire of talking about the same, tired old Republican chestnuts- but I tell you what, I'm damn tired of listening. Seems like Republicans talk a good talk and then do nothing resembling what they've talked about once in power- whether Mr. Emmer is afflicted by the same problem his national party is or not, the fact remains- I read, I slipped into a coma and was left entirely uninspired. We need innovative and radical ideas to help fix this country and Mr. Emmer seems to be playing it safe by hitting every Republican g-spot he can think of. It's good conservatism to be sure and there's a chance it could win him the race, but it's not the change I'm looking for. So sorry, Mr. Emmer. No goodies for you.

Mr. Dayton of the DFL intrigues me more. He also irritates me quite a bit, as I was cheering for party-endorsed Margaret Anderson Kelliher to win the primary, but the past is the past. Mr. Dayton is to be commended for standing up for marriage equality, a State Equal Rights Amendment and has a quite frankly fascinating plan to establish an Energy Savings Fund to retrofit public buildings with energy efficient and alternative sources of power to lower the state's overall energy consumption- using the initial savings to spread retrofitting statewide. (Simultaneously being good for the environment and sound fiscal practice, from what I can see.)

But with the good, there's also the bad: to tackle problems with education, Dayton promises to increase funding, which to me is a good first step, but also doesn't really solve any problems from what I can see. Yes, teachers should be paid better and schools should be well-funded, but the results we're getting overall don't really justify continued investment. If the bucket has several holes in it, what's the point of putting more water in the bucket? Dayton also favors a single-payer health care system and seems to think he can pay for everything by taxing the rich. (Read my lips: 'Tax The Rich' says his website, because they don't pay their fair share.) Again, the problem with that is that Republicans although they turn purple saying it so much, have a point: taxing the 'rich' will have a detrimental effect on small business- and who gets to decide what a fair share is? Dayton? Emmer? The government? Thanks, but no thanks on that score. (Personally, I like the idea of a national sales tax more and more- Americans live and die for the ability to buy crap they don't need, so really the more crap you buy, the more tax you should pay- though I have to do some more reading on this matter before I can say for sure.)

All of which brings us back around to the man himself, Tom Horner. Horner got my immediate attention by talking specific numbers in a way the other two aren't, especially on Minnesota's current fiscal state. He lays out the math, says what he'd want to do and puts out there for voters to like or dislike as they see fit- a refreshingly honest and direct approach that I liked right way. He follows this up with a call to streamline government and an emphasis on making sure that if the state does spend money, taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck. On taxes, Horner calls for lowering the sales tax rate, while simultaneously expanding its reach- pointing out that Dayton's plan to raise taxes on top earners making over $120K would hit both small business AND two income households. On social issues, he says he's committed to reducing abortions, but doesn't come across as anti-choice, while making a firm refusal to use the issue as a political tool, which is laudable. He's pro-marriage equality (as an aside: if you would have asked me pre-Varnum which Midwestern state would have legalised gay marriage first, I would have told you point blank, Minnesota. I'm still surprised they haven't.) and picks some specific local issues (like supporting a new Racino as an extra revenue flow for state coffers) to back and, unlike DFLers or GOPers has now come out in favor of getting the Vikings a new stadium deal, offering specifics on that. (Whether I can approve of public money being used for such things is another debate entirely, but the Vikes bring economic heft to the Twin Cities table and losing the NFL franchise to presumably Los Angeles would have an impact.)

My love and desire for viable third parties and vigorous democratic debate aside, this choice was a no-brainer. Emmer has said so far nothing that I haven't heard before. Dayton throws you a few interesting nuggets and then says nothing that I haven't heard before (single payer health care, taxing the rich, etc) but it's Tom Horner that seems to epitomize a real break with the tiresome business as usual offered by the Republican and Democratic Parties. If I still lived in the Medium White North, I'd be knocking on doors for Mr. Horner and you'd better believe I'd be running to my ballot box to proudly cast my vote for the Independence Party and Mr. Horner this November.

Another One For The Reading List

What ever happened to Camile Paglia? Asks Pajamas Media today and it's a worthy question... I read a blip of her attempted excoriation of Lady Gaga and it missed the mark entirely. Lady Gaga is one of the most original artists to emerge in the last ten to fifteen years and far from the pale, plastic clone that Paglia made her out to be. A rare misfire for a great writer and cultural commentator.

Either way, apparently I need to read her magnum opus for myself: Sexual Personae- Art and Decadence from Nefertiti To Emily Dickinson.

Sigh... another one for the reading list.

Bookshots #11-13: Science In The Capitol Trilogy

Where to begin with this compact, neat little trilogy? These three books are strange because I both liked and disliked them all the same time, which isn't unusual for me, but in this case it can be put down to a simple divide: I like Kim Stanley Robinson's writing, science and technology. In this particular trilogy however, I don't like his politics. We can go round and round on what's wrong with me and when did I become such a good little capitalist Brownshirt for ages, but the fact of the matter is that this reads like 'An Inconvinient Truth' cast in fiction and makes no bones about discussing that most irritating of issues, global warming- or as the new memo says it's to now be called: global climate disruption.

What's even more problematic about this curious divide is that one of the underlying themes Robinson plays with over the course of the trilogy is the relationship between science and politics itself- so where do we begin? I would say I have to unpack the whole global warming issue myself, but that could take too long- instead, let's talk about Kim Stanley Robinson, because despite having more than a few issues with his politics in this trilogy, his writing still rocks my face clean off. Robinson is one of those incredibly talented science fiction writers that we need more of, matching- to me anyway, only Ken Macleod and probably Neil Stephenson for the sheer audacity and complexity of some of the ideas he has played with, both in this trilogy and his masterpiece of masterpieces- the Mars Trilogy, (Red, Green and Blue Mars respectively- appointment reading for anyone and everyone who wants to colonize Mars or is just a space nut in general.) Robinson plays more with hard science than technology than speculative fiction or technology which is what makes a lot of his books so damn good. The technology and the future he describes is fundamentally believable and you can see it in your mind's eye with ease. There's no aliens or robots or weird quantam transportation. Robinson is extremely good and extrapolating where technology might go and weaving it into his narratives.

This trilogy is no exception to that rule: whether the characters (stalwart champions of science who work at the National Science Foundation) are re-salinizing the stalled out Gulf Stream to get it re-started again or discussing possibly shifting salt water to the dry basins of the world to ameliorate the effects of sea level rise- or even, more fascinatingly talking about a rapid transformation of China's economy and energy industry (courtesy of the US Navy, who deploys en masse to China, plugs into their grid and runs the country's power off of their extremely efficient and safe nuclear reactors. I really hope Robinson wasn't speculating when he mentioned that the US Navy has the ability to do this in real life, because if so: very cool.) All these technological challenges that are thrown in the face of global warming I found to be fundamentally believable and could actually be deployed in the event of a climate crisis. (As a bonus: when it comes to developing energy alternatives, in these books Robinson rightfully pegs nuclear as a holdover to develop better solar energy. No wind, no ethanol, no pie-in-the-sky fusion generators, nope, nope, nope- Robinson says solar all the way.)

As for the story itself: well, it follows some hardy scientists who work at the National Science Foundation in D.C.-- one of them is married to a high-flying stay-at-home Dad/Senatorial Advisor, so we see an obvious connection between science and politics and what they do when faced with a sudden and genuine climate crisis. (Washington D.C. gets flooded, everything freezes- the Gulf Stream almost stalls out which would be very, very bad indeed.) Floating in and out of the story are some Buddhist monks from the made-up microstate of Khembalung, which actually drowns due to sea level rise at the end of the second book, I believe. (A fascination with Buddhism seems to float in and out of a lot of Robinson's writing, and the Buddhist monks play an important role in these novels by underlying the spiritual (and obvious) connection humanity has with the world around it- further underlined by one of the character's increasing fascinating with 19th Century American thinkers Emerson and Thoreau. To make a long summary short: there's nefarious deeds afoot, there's a climate crisis afoot and the high-flying state-at-home Dad/Senatorial Advisor's Senator decides to run for President and wins, thus setting out to save the world from itself and fix the climate crisis.

In the end, of course, everyone- including dear old Mother Earth lives happily ever after, more or less. But the technology and the strategy for fighting this fictional climate crisis aside, it's Robinson's 'wouldn't it be nice' politics that bothered me the most. Some kind of pro-environmental New Deal with an amazing First Hundred Days a la FDR from the Fictional Wonder Senator Turned President would not save the day, because they probably would get laughed out of the room, if we're being honest. The real trick, at least for the current American political system is going to be to make green energy profitable and more importantly, lucrative for business. If there's a President who can do that, then we would be cooking with gas, because at that point, the general greed (which yes, ignores that collective responsibility we all share for the planet) of the corporate world will take over and go bananas for you To me, the government creating the right conditions for business to make a massive investment in green energy and technology would pay off more than the wrangling that would be sure to occur if the government starts trying to lead from the front on this issue. People would lose their damn minds. OK, so back in the day, the government lead from the front and, thanks to World War II managed to solve the Depression. But that was then and we're all a lot more cynical and jaded now. A New New Deal, even a kind of green one? Never going to happen. Not in a million years.

I'm not even going to waste my breath arguing about whether or not global warming is real. I've been waiting for science to give me a straight answer on that for years now and it still hasn't and it never will. There's no such thing as a straight answer in science and if there was one on this issue, it'd be fundamentally unscientific in many ways- at least from my limited understanding of the scientific method and the like. Whether you believe in global warming, cooling or that it's some kind of socialist conspiracy, we can all get behind the following facts, I hope: first- fossil fuels are finite. They will run out someday. What are we going to do then? Second and perhaps most importantly of all, the basic idea that we have one planet (so far) and we should take care of it should be another idea we can all get behind. You can't make a buck if there's nothing left of the planet but a ravaged. scarred up lump of rock. If saving the planet for everyone isn't something you can get behind, then surely saving the planet for the forces of capitalism is.

But overall: this is Kim Stanley Robinson! The writing kicks ass, the story is fascinating and if Robinson wants to make people think about something, he certainly succeeds with that. I think I'll always like the Mars Trilogy more than this one, but I have to give mad-props to a writer who is as consistently thought-provoking as Mr. Robinson is. Good stuff and well worth a read. (If global warming is your thing- also try 'Earth' by David Brin.)

I Spy With My Little Eye...

Some anti-war activists in good Old Iowa City. The Press-Citizen is leading with an article today detailing a somewhat surprising level of surveillance that the FBI slapped on a local group of anti-war activists in the run up to the 2008 Republican Convention in St. Paul. The article names specific sites (the Library, New Pi, Red Avocado and Deadwood) and alleges that local law enforcement agencies cooperated with the FBI and with the Ramsey County, MN Sheriff's Office (who had an undercover deputy down here to attend an anti-war conference sometime in 2008.)

It's kind of unsurprising. I remember Twin Cities Law Enforcement was on high alert in the run-up to the Convention and claimed to have broken up an Anarchist Ring in St. Paul. (Just how much of a threat anarchists are these days to anything but the windows of your local Starbucks is debatable, but it's worth noting that Leon Czolgosz was an anarchist. **Bonus to anyone who knows the latter name without the use of Google/Wikipedia**) Was the surveillance justified? That's debatable, of course- and it will be debated no doubt, but a national party convention is a high profile event with international media coverage. You have to take security for that seriously, whether this small little anarchist group was a serious threat or not. At the very least, you've got to do your due diligence and actually see...

I can appreciate the desire of law enforcement to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' but also can't help but feeling uneasy at how easy and how unnoticed this apparently was. Were it not for a Freedom of Information Act request, we might never have known all the details. Is there any such thing as privacy anymore? Kids, discuss.

Arizona 34, Iowa 27

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Everybody calm down, everybody breathe easy-- believe it or not, things aren't as bad as they seem. Sure, Iowa went down to defeat to Arizona last night losing 34-27, but it's not the end of the world. It may seem like it, but it's not. There are a number of things at work here worth mentioning, not least of which is the fact that this probably wasn't quite the statement game for Arizona that everyone makes it out to be. Uncharacteristic mistakes on special teams cost us two touchdowns. (That's 14 points) and Ricky Stanzi just mentioning that he wanted to keep his to-that-point-anyway-but-we-knew-it-was-too-good-to-true interception free season going meant that the Football Gods were sure to call down at least 1 pick six on him. Which they did losing us another 7 points right there. A third mistake: too much celebration and that missed PAT. One more point right there.

So: if this was a defeat, it was a self-inflicted one. Big win for Arizona? Oh, no doubt, but let's not pretend that we didn't see this coming. Concerns about the relative youth of our o-line have been out there for months, concerns that became real problems last night. Poo-poohing Arizona's defense? Yeah, not so much- they were more than up to the task. But then again, it's not like our offense was completely missing from the game. We moved the ball. Sometimes not very well, sometimes not at all, other times brilliantly, but still, eppur si muove! It still moved!

But what does all this mean? Do we miss out on a National Title Shot? Yup, I'm afraid so- but the Big 10 title and the Rose Bowl are still on the table and if there's one overarching trend we can pinpoint about Kirk Ferentz's recent teams, it's that they tend to get better down the stretch. Adjustments are made, experience is had, the overall job gets done. It's worth noting that the last time we were out west, we got our asses handed to us by Arizona State to the tune of a 44-7 drubbing. We went on to go 9-4 and win the Capitol One Bowl in miraculous fashion against LSU. At least we put up a respectable showing this time around- and if you look back further to 2002, an early season loss- at home no less, to Iowa State failed to doom the season. So although this was a tough loss, it was a respectable one. We're left with the knowledge that something is probably going to be done on special teams and unfortunately, every team in the country now knows that if they shut down our run, our pass isn't as spectacular. We seem to function better with a balanced offense- but again, even without the run we effectively moved the ball, scored points and came very close to pulling out a comeback.

Not bad, not good: but we were lulled into the false perception that 2 cupcake victories made some of the pre-season worries seem less than important- but those two were just testing our jab. Now we've played a real game and now we know what we have to work on- not an unimportant thing to take away from this game. We have to watch out for Michigan and Northwestern on the road (perhaps even Indiana too) and Sparty, Wisconsin and Ohio State are going to be brutal games- but home games, so we'll at least have some friendly faces around us. Penn State? Can't sleep on 'em, but it's hard to tell where they are- a drubbing by 'Bama doesn't mean much when you send a freshman QB into Tuscaloosa, it's the equivalent of throwing someone into a meat grinder, chum tends to result. But we keep spoiling their party and they're going to want blood, so you have to circle that one as well.

This was a good barometer of where Iowa really was as a team. We can see where the adjustments have to happen and although it was a Big Win for Arizona no doubt, Iowa pretty much gave a ranked team 15 points for free at their home stadium. You do that, of course you're going to come out on the fuzzy end of that lollipop. But without those fifteen points we'd be looking at an Iowa win 27-12.

Big win for Arizona, but not as big as everyone seems to think it is. If they can get past Oregon, then and only then will they have truly hit the big time.

Still Growing...

The Board of Regents have approved the University Hospital's application for a $280 million grant for a free-standing Children's Hospital. Why? I don't know... the UIHC is seeing an increase in patient volume that's leaving them short-handed, so they're hiring more nurses and now they want to expand their already gargantuan hospital.

Seriously now. Can't we be happy with what we have? I know the UIHC provides quality medical care and all and I'm happy they're good at what they do, but another tower? A free-standing Children's Hospital? Is there really a desperate need for it? And more to the point, just where the heck are they going to build it? The article linked above says a free-standing tower south of UIHC Parking Lot 2. I don't know what exactly that means, but if they mean Ramp 2, then it's either going to grow, tumor like out of the Pomerantz Family Care Pavillion or take out the Cambus turnaround.

Either way it's another step towards my final prediction for the future: someday, Kinnick Stadium will be the only Division I football stadium in the country completely surrounded by a hospital.

Redesigning The Dollar?

An interesting random link from Huffington Post lead me here and I have to admit, the concept of re-designing our currency is an interesting one. The argument that in a recession a re-branding of the American economy could provide a vital sense of fresh energy to the economy is intriguing and quite possibly a correct one. After all, how many times do we see businesses changing their looks or restaurants adding or subtracting unpopular items. Retooling and refreshing are important to do from time to time and like so many of our governmental institutions, the dollar hasn't been reworked since the 1930s.

Maybe it's time for a fresh look? I don't know- I have a feeling that if a serious effort were made, it would run into what every attempt to push a dollar coin has run into for what seems like decades now: people just don't want to give up their dollar bills. The obvious thing to do would be to merely stop printing dollar bills and go with coins, rather than wasting time and money making the damn things that we hardly ever see and a lot of vending machines don't even take.

I don't know. But in economic times like these, any ideas have to be considered and I have to think that any and every little thing might just help. Has to be a better idea that spending billions of more dollars than we don't have anyway.

For the record: coolest money I've ever seen- hands down, it was Swiss money. Colorful and sexy as hell.

Bookshot #10: Team of Rivals

This book suddenly entered the cultural zeitgeist in a major way during the 2008 Presidential Elections when it was revealed that then Candidate Obama (a lawyer from Illinois) was reading the multiple biography of Abraham Lincoln (also a lawyer from Illinois, though technically Kentucky) and his cabinet. People flipped out, tried to draw comparisons between Obama and Lincoln (especially their oratorical skills) and generally speaking, I seem to remember sales of the book shooting skywards. (When President Obama took one of his rivals as Vice-President and put his chief rival in as Secretary of State- and made a play for a third to get a cabinet post, the media practically tripped over themselves with comparisons between Lincoln and Obama.)

All of this might make me extremely leery of tackling such a doorstop of a book (after all, President O has been less than thrilling thus far and I wasn't sure this doorstop was worth the risk of disappointment) but I should have known better. Because Doris Kearns Goodwin delivers a majestic, encompassing, engrossing volume of Lincoln and the men that formed the core of his cabinet that should be a must-read for anyone who has even a passing interesting in American history.

I don't even know where to begin with this book. I honestly think I learned more about the Civil War reading this than I ever did in school- Goodwin digs and digs and tries to get at the nitty gritty of what made Lincoln and his Cabinet tick and by and large succeeds. The portrait of Lincoln as some hayseed lawyer that rose to the occasion gets thrown out the window in a big hurry, because as Goodwin reveals, Lincoln was a genius at politics. He could take big ideas and put them into words that the general public could relate to at a personal level, a talent which allowed him to connect to the electorate in a more personal, real way than any of his rivals. Although powerful figures in the Republican Party at the time went into his cabinet, he quickly and firmly made it clear that he was in charge- and eventually won the loyalty of the men, many of whom's ambitions he had crushed by winning the nomination.

All in all, Abraham Lincoln was a damn genius. That quintessentially Churchillian phrase 'cometh the hour, cometh the man' springs to mind and I really believe that it's totally true. Some people are just in the right place at the right time and everything clicks perfectly and maybe it was luck, fate or even divine providence, but Lincoln was the right guy for the most critical moment in our nation's history and he got the job done.

And what a team backed him up! (This is where I really learned a lot... the shortcomings of my American history curriculum are on fine display here) Seward, Bates, Chase, Stanton-- all of whom brought their unique talents to Lincoln's cabinet and proved to be critical to the overall effort to keep America whole. Time, brevity and the desire to get some of you to actually go out there and read this book forbids me from delving into each of these guys in details, but their stories and what makes them tick are in here. And that, to me, proves to be the real achievement with this book. Trying to write a biography of someone like Lincoln would be intimidating enough, but trying to write a biography of his whole damn cabinet? That seems like a multi-volume epic waiting to happen, yet somehow Goodwin pulls it off in fine style.

The backdrop to the stories of these men, is, of course, the Civil War. And I gotta say, I really mean it when I say I learned more about the Civil War from reading this book than anything I had ever learned up to this point. Maybe it's a certain amount of intellectual snobbery on my part, but I had never cared too much for the more hagiographic elements of the average American history class. America rocks and we make the world better. World War II began on December 7th, 1941 (to be fair: they do mention the previous two years, in about a page or so) and things of that nature. It was irritating, provincial and generally speaking annoyed me from time to time.

I'd like to take a minute to take a lot of that attitude back. Having read this book, I see the Civil War in a whole new light- what a close run thing it was, in parts- how Seward had to do a diplomatic dance to keep Britain and France from recognizing the Confederacy. How Lincoln maintained morale in the face of Union defeat after Union defeat and how Stanton, by some feat of human endurance organized, mobilized and successfully go enough troops from Washington to Nashville so that the Union could hold the territory they had won in Tennessee. It was a crucial, critical moment in our national history which could have easily swung either way. And somehow, Lincoln and company managed to save it. The sheer scale of the task was made clear to me by reading this book and the monumental achievement all of these men, but especially Lincoln deserve credit for is placed in its proper context.

Overall: and it's not often I say this, but reading this book actually made me a better American. If you have even the slightest interest in the Civil War, find this book and read it. If you're looking for an engrossing historical tome to devour, don't be scared by it's size. Read it. In general, find this book- and read it!

Albums2010 #25-26: Abraxas and Supernatural

Hendrix, Clapton, Knopfler- we can't listen to 100 albums and talk about Guitar Badasses without including Carlos Santana somewhere very high up on the list and nowhere are Santana's incredible talents with the guitar on better display than with his albums Abraxas and Supernatural.

A quick note: there's about a thirty year gap between these two albums that excludes a huge chunk of Sanatana discography that's worth exploring, if you dig his music. I didn't know this, but a quick glance at wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) reveals that Santana didn't just vanish for 30 years between Abraxas and his amazing Top 40 comeback 'Smooth'- he did a lot of work with jazz fusion sounds and had been out there rockin' out this whole time. So kudos to him for that!

Abraxas is just start to finish a good album. Latin, jazz and blues influences are all on fine display here, from the opening instrumental 'Singing Winds, Crying Beasts' to the Tito Puente classic 'Oye Como Va' Santana makes a name for himself, his guitar work so complex, it almost seems to be vocalizing in a strangely perfect counterpoint to the melodies of his songs. Over all, this is a classic, mellow trip and if you're a music lover, this is a 'must-have' for any serious lover of rock n'roll. It's hard to say what the real standout tracks are on this album are. Everyone probably knows 'Black Magic Woman/Gypsy Queen' and 'Oye Como Va' but the mournful 'Samba Pa Ti' and the more traditional blues number 'Mother's Daughter' also caught my attention. In short, this album is a great mix of influences and styles all rolled up into one neat little package. Latin rubs shoulders with jazz, rock and blues and instrumental pieces do battle with more traditional rock numbers. Their now legendary set at Woodstock, combined with this breakout album put Santana on the map- and it stands the test of time extremely well, which isn't something you can say about every single album out there.

Supernatural, however provides an interesting contrast that's still having repercussions in the music industry today. Although Santana continued to put out albums well into the 80s, by the mid-90s, he seemed to have reached a nadir in his fortunes and it was at the suggestion of Clive Davis, longtime record mogul that he structured this album around collaborations with hot young artists like Dave Matthews, Lauryn Hill, Everlast, Rob Thomas and others and the results provided him with his biggest commercial success in years and one of the last number one singles of the 1990s with his collaboration with Rob Thomas on the hit single 'Smooth.' (Coincidentally, it's also a really good album too.) I remember the first time I heard 'Smooth' on the radio (I'm thinking it was Q103, but it may have changed back to Z102.9 by then) and it sort of blew my mind. It was catchy, the guitar hook was amazing and there was that sexy cha-cha strut that ran throughout the whole damn song. And then I learned it was Santana and Rob Thomas and I was both shocked and pleasantly surprised! Santana was back on the radio! Santana had been someone, up until that point that my parents listened too. He wasn't hip. He wasn't cool. He was old school- and there wasn't anything wrong with that- but suddenly he was everywhere and he was cool again. He cleaned up at the Grammies with this album and seemed to spark a new wave of collaboration that we're still seeing to this day. (Though mainly it's everyone wanting to work with Timbaland.)

But Supernatural: from the opening track 'Da Le Yaleo' to the hits from the album 'Maria, Maria' and 'Smooth' Santana works his magic with the likes of Wyclef Jean, Lauryn Hill, Dave Matthews, Eric Clapton, Mana, Eagle Eyed-Cherry and Everlast amongst others, this album flies by and bops along to a variety of beats and grooves that seem truly magical at some points. My personal favorites from this album: 'Da Le Yaleo', 'Smooth', and 'Corazon Espinado', Mana's excellent contribution to Supernatural's success.

Overall, Abraxas is a classic and Supernatural is probably the best comeback in rock n'roll history, hands down. Whether you prefer the old school or are hip to the newer album, both underline the important point: Carlos Santana earned his place amongst the guitar greats of rock n'roll and shows no sign of losing his touch anytime soon.

For Governor of Iowa...

VOTE FOR THIS DUDE!

Democrats: http://www.chetculver.com/home
Republicans: http://governorbranstad2010.com/
Independent: http://narcisseforiowa.com/wp/
Libertarians: http://www.coopersmallergovernment.com/

(The Greens have no one I can find running. If one of them reads this and you do have a candidate for Governor this year, please let me know. I also strongly urge everyone to check out all of these websites- especially Mr. Narcisse's and Mr. Cooper's. There's more than two people running for Governor and the latter two gentlemen have interesting and important things to say, I think.)

This one was a hard one to think about for me. While I'm not ripping my shirt off or fainting at the thought of Chet Culver running the state for another four years, I have to admit that he hasn't totally f****d things up either. Did he spend some money? He did. There's an argument to be made that in a recession, you spend a little to stimulate the economy and Iowa has a good credit rating so why not put it to use to help push the economy along a little bit? He didn't go completely crazy. We're not approaching California levels of political and fiscal disaster yet and we're not even approaching the territory of our fiscal trainwreck and neighbor next door, Illinois. So why throw Chester out the door?

That was a good question and unfortunately it's one that Terry Branstad failed to answer for me. I spent a good deal of time on his website today and while I think he's got some nice specifics on what he would do for job creation and reforming government, he didn't present a particularly compelling case to put him back in charge. Don't get me wrong: I get the appeal of Branstad. He was at the helm during the Farm Crisis of the 80s (probably the worst economic disaster to hit the state since the Depression and our current crisis) and he developed a good record on job creation and you have to admit, after 16 years in charge, he left the state in better shape than he found it. (If you lived in Iowa before '82 and think that last statement isn't true, please correct me.) But at the end of the day, I get uneasy at the thought of putting a guy who ran the place for 16 years back in charge. We need fresh faces and new ideas and while Terry has some good ones, he is the very definition of 'not fresh.'

In terms of presentation, Branstad did a better job than Culver, in terms of information gleaned from websites alone. (Not being a blogger with the cache of say, Instapundit, Althouse or Kos I'll take what I can get from websites to make these decisions.) Culver's got a good website, but seems to be making his case around what he's done so far. If he has plans for the next four years, he's keeping them awfully well hidden on his website- and while I'm OK with what Culver has done (more or less) I'd like to know what his plans are in some detail before I'm going to jump aboard his bandwagon. Since he didn't see fit to share, so much for him. Branstad does a better job on detailing specifics and I have to admit, I was awfully tempted to endorse him, as he belongs to the old school, fiscally conservative school of Republicans I tend to find mildly irritating as a posed to the rage inducing social conservatives that seem to dominate the party today. I liked the specifics on his website, but while Terry has a whole section devoted to Iowa's veterans (as does Culver, as should everyone) and Iowa's senior citizens (um, ok I guess) he mentions not one word about the chronic problem of brain drain that Governors since time immemorial seem always be calling commissions into existence to deal with. I'm young, I'm hip and I like this state and want to make a future here, but Branstad seems more wedded to social conservatives (not my crowd) and old people (again, not my crowd) than people my age. I appreciate the level of detail, but he just didn't speak to me.

And therein lies the crux of the problem with this race: you may not be wild about Culver, but he hasn't screwed things up too badly- at least not badly enough to provide me with a compelling reason to endorse Branstad.

So what's an independent to do? Well, there were two real choices available to me: a protest vote or a hopeful, quixotic vote for a party that might effect real change. Although Independent Candidate Jonathan Narcisse has interesting, compelling ideas that deserve a forum and a bigger spotlight in the campaign that they're getting currently (if you've never heard of Mr. Narcisse, rest assured he was a pleasant discovery for me as well) he has no party organization to back him and at the end of the day, I want more parties. I want options! As a student of political science, I'm well aware that our voting system doesn't trend towards multiple parties and I'm OK with that. Too many parties makes for a free for all and our political system is messy enough as it is. I'll take an extra party. Maybe two extra parties. Some safety valve, some pressure point that keeps the big two honest and can be a real alternative for the electorate to punish the big boys if they f**k things up too badly- which they're doing now with gusto.

Given that, I came to the conclusion (and it's with great pleasure) that I announce that The Cigar will be endorsing Libertarian Candidate Eric Cooper for Governor of Iowa.

A quick aside: I'm not totally down with everything Libertarians have to say. I think (although I haven't read the book yet) I'm more in line with Hayek's ideas of capitalism: free market where the government has a properly constrained role. The lack of ideological flexibility and intellectual realism in Libertarian thinking has irritated me constantly, but they, unlike their major party counterparts are at least consistent with their principles- even if I don't agree with all of them.

Mr. Cooper (and his running mate Nick Weltha) may not have the most detailed platform out there, but it was the platform that I agreed with the most. His ideas on education reform are the most radical of any campaign out there and I agree with his stance on gay marriage, drugs, repealing the fireworks ban and Mr. Cooper scored big points with acknowledging the need to attract young people (and all people) to the great state of Iowa. While he was a little short on specifics in that regard he at least mentioned it in a place where I could find it easily. (If Culver and Branstad have some thoughts, I sure couldn't find them anywhere.)

I depart from Mr. Cooper on a couple of points. While the notion of a smoking ban offends me (we're all adults here and I don't need the government to wipe my ass) his assertion that workers exposed to second hand smoke in their workplace merely can choose not work there rings hollow in the midst of the current economic crisis- but his overall point is well taken. If you don't want to go to a restaurant or bar that allows smoking then surely the laws of free market capitalism will take care of the rest.

Mr. Cooper also (like the good libertarian he is) takes issue with the minimum wage. Again, his idealistic faith in the power of free markets rings hollow in the face of the current economic crisis. If the market does set the wage rate, then in an ideal world, workers would gravitate towards the jobs with the better wages. However, the paucity of jobs in the current economic climate seem to make that notion hard to put into practice in reality.

Those two points aside, Mr. Cooper's platform and ideas for Iowa appealed to me the most and I'll be happy to cast my vote to help try and get the Libertarian Party major party status (the magical 2% mark) this November.