No Excuse

I'm beginning to get more than a little nauseated by the emerging narratives that are attempting to demonize Trayvon Martin as the person at fault in this tragedy. New, 'secret' witnesses have come forward alleging that Martin attacked Zimmerman and the voice on the 911 call heard crying out for help is, in fact, Zimmerman and not, as many people have assumed Martin.

To me, all this is somewhat beside the point:

Martin was apparently followed because he was an African-American male in a hoodie and therefore 'up to no good.' We live in a country where African-American man are automatically and unfairly assumed to be 'up to no good.' Let's talk about that.

Why did Zimmerman follow Martin? I'd like to know that. He's not a cop. He's a neighborhood 'watchman-' the key word there being 'watch.'

And let's say Zimmerman provides some sort of reasonable explanation for why he followed Martin- if you're 17 years old, unarmed, and some random guy starts following, maybe even chasing you and perhaps corners you, wouldn't you be scared? Wouldn't you do everything you can to get away? Don't you have a right to defend yourself? And if Zimmerman pulls a gun on you, what wouldn't you do to try and get yourself to safety?

Right now, all we know is that Martin is dead and Zimmerman is the one that pulled the trigger. Until we know more, it's unfair and just plain wrong to try and construct a narrative that pushes the supposed facts in one direction or another. That won't bring justice to anyone.

A 17 year old boy is dead. And now the narrative is floating around out there that it was somehow justified because Martin 'attacked' Zimmerman, therefore he was acting in self-defense. Zimmerman who was more than 10 years older than Martin. Zimmerman who chased him and- as far as we know, never once identified himself to Martin. And Zimmerman, who pulled the trigger.

Trayvon Martin was followed because he was an African-American male and therefore, 'up to no good.' That's the America we live in today.

He was shot because he was allegedly attacking someone 11 years older than him- and the only response to that was a gunshot. That's the America we live in today.

Whatever happened, there's no excuse for this. There's no excuse for the countless other young people who lose their lives to violence.

I'm sure that in the weeks and months ahead, more facts will come out and a better, more complete picture of what happened will emerge. Trying to figure that out now threatens to deny justice to those involved. And the fact remains that a 17 year old was shot to death because having dark skin and wearing a hoodie means you must be some kind of a criminal, apparently.

That's the America we live in today. Pretty fucked up, huh?

So what are we going to do about it? Let's talk about that.

Hooch, Man #5: Grilling Beers- The March Edition

Spring has officially arrived and that means grilling and that means... beer. From time to time during the grilling season, I'll probably post a rumination or two on beers I pick up, drink and enjoy in the warmer weather. Ideally, I'm going to aim to keep all these beer Midwestern- or Iowan but I might slip and spring for a case of Natty Light from time to time.

March's offerings come to us from Wisconsin and Colorado respectively...

First up- Wisconsin's Capital Brewery Island Wheat Ale (America's Number 1 Brewery) that made from Washington Island, WI wheat...

The color is a cross between lemonade and straw and the taste is delicious- BeerAdvocate gives it a score of 79 which sounds about right to me. It's a wheat beer so it's not hoppy at all- to the contrary, it's smooth and buttery with just a touch of sweetness at the back of the mouth on the aftertaste. That's a terribly pithy, useless review and for that, I apologize but let's just say that this beer is drinkable, smooth and delicious- and appropriately enough, a damn good way to toast Wisconsin's exit from the NCAA Tournament. (Beer Guru The Quiet Man has been posting updates periodically on how his bracket is doing- after the first day, mine was completely destroyed and after the Saturday when Lehigh took out Duke and Norfolk State took out Mizzou and at that point, I felt the wonderfully feeling everyone feels at a certain point in the Tournament- your bracket gone, you can cheer for whomever you damn well please! And as Sparty, my pick to win it all just went down to Louisville, that's what I'll do!)

Second is the Avalanche Amber Style Ale from Breckenridge Brewery in Colorado...

The best way I can describe this beer is that it's inoffensive. It doesn't knock your socks off but it doesn't blow either- there is, happily not a lot of hops floating around in the taste of it and Beer Advocate gave it the very respectable score of 73.

I've always liked Amber/Red Ales. Not sure why, but the flavor and the taste has always appealed to me. Give me a six pack of Killians and I'll be a happy man. An Amber or an Irish Red Ale? Yes please. And the Breckenridge is no exception- delicious, well balanced and not at all hoppy. (If you, dear reader, haven't figured it out, I am no hop-head.)

And there you have it! The grilling season is officially underway and warm weather, delicious food and nights around the fire undoubtedly await...

The Conundrum of Dharun Ravi

Last week Dharun Ravi was convicted of invasion of privacy for his role in setting up a webcam ostensibly to spy on his closeted gay roommate Tyler Clementi- but, on top of the invasion of privacy, he was also convincted of bias indimiation, a hate crime charge undoutedly motivated by Mr. Clementi's subsequent and tragic suicide.

But what makes a hate crime a hate crime? Can you really punish people for what they believe, however repellent? I would tend to say yes. I keep going back to the James Byrd Jr. case from 1998 where 3 white men were charged in his murder after they chained him to the back of a pick-up truck and dragged him for three miles. The perpetrators were alleged to be white supremacists. Now that, that I could define as a hate crime. Whether you can punish someone for having repellent, racist views is another question entirely-- I mean, is an extra ten years in prison really going to make them less racist? If you step back and really consider the question it becomes one of those nausea inducing question that you don't really want to think about too much.

However, let's leave that alone and just agree that some crimes are motivated by hate- whether of race, gender or sexual orientation some crimes are committed and motivated by reasons of hate, bias and prejudice.

But does what Mr. Ravi did rise to that level? This piece by Emily Bazelon in the New York Times disagrees saying:

The idea of shielding vulnerable groups is well intentioned. But with the nation on high alert over bullying — especially when it intersects with computer technology and the Internet — these civil rights statutes are being stretched to go after teenagers who acted meanly, but not violently. This isn’t what civil rights laws should be for.

I agree. Let's be clear: from all accounts, Mr. Ravi set up a web cam to spy on his roommate and took to the internet to say 'ha, ha this is kind of gross, look at this!' Is he guilty of being a homophobe? Probably. Is he guily of being a huge dick and a horrible human being? I'd say so. But a hate crime? That's where I get a little iffy about this whole thing.

For sure, Tyler Clementi's suicide was a tragedy and hopefully the conversation it sparked about bullying and anti-gay violence will continue and will produce good results. But as this interesting piece from Slate.com notes, it's not really Ravi that's guilty, it's the culture at large. And that's true. We live in a culture that vilifies what's different and glorifies conformity even though we supposedly spend many of our young, formative years trying not to fit in (ironically enough doing so by trying as hard as possible to be just like everyone else)- it's tailor made to encourage bullying.

Now, it's easy to say, well 'that's just growing up' and to a certain degree it is. Not everyone is going to be sunshine and rainbow and learning how to deal with that is part and parcel of growing up- but lately I've been wondering: when did kids get so mean? Sure, I had my share of torments and tormentors when I was in school but not to the point where I felt my worth was so low I didn't want to be here anymore. I've heard calls go out for suicidal 11 year olds for crying out loud- I could barely spell 'suicide' when I was 11, much less understood what it meant. Something is wrong in our culture when bullying goes to such extremes. Something is wrong when kids feel so hopeless, so alone that they feel that the only way out is suicide- whatever the reason.

And for the life of me, I don't know what the answer is. I think we're failing though- I think our education system is built on an antiquated model that treats kids like cattle and shuffles them from class to class over the course of the day- it's no wonder, or at least it shouldn't surprise us when they don't feel any worth at all. It's hard for me to hate the model too much though- it's what worked for me- but something's not working for the kids of today. The sooner we figure out what that is, the better of we all can be.

So that's the conundrum of Mr. Dharun Ravi: does spying on your roommate because he's gay and broadcasting it on the web so you can mock and torment him rise to the level of a hate crime? And what does it say about us as a society that said roommate felt so shamed and so much despair that he committed suicide as a result?

The Tragedy of Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old black teenager was shot dead last week by a Neighborhood Watchman while walking through a gated community in Sanford, Florida. The watchman is claiming self-defense, even though Trayvon had nothing on him but iced tea and Skittles at the scene.

This is tragic, plain and simple.

First, the 911 calls (I listened to a good chunk of them, this has a transcript) reveal a lot of chaos and confusion on the night in question. This is evidentally a quiet neighborhood and when someone gets shot, people get scared- a perfectly natural reaction. What struck me, though, was that when the shooter called, he was quiet and he was calm and he went after the kid when the Dispatcher told him not too.

(Professionally, this is one thing that I really hope I don't run into- working for the Department I do, I think we're pretty specialized that it probably won't happen, but from every call I've listened too- and we have to listen to a couple every month as part of the online training we do- every instance I've heard of someone chasing someone down never, never ends well.)

Second, Florida's frankly ridiculous 'stand your ground' self-defense rule is why the shooter has yet to be arrested or charged with a crime. Basically, the law states that you can shoot first without having to retreat in any way. (Slate's got a good piece exploring the law a little more.) But, I'm curious-- since the shooter chased the kid down, does 'stand your ground' even apply? Had the kid come at the shooter and started swinging, I could see how it would- I wouldn't agree with it, but I could see how it would apply. The fact that the shooter went out of his way to chase this kid down, even though he wasn't a cop and he was specifically told not to do so I think removes the immunity of 'stand your ground.' It's not 'standing your ground' if you chase someone down- at least not in my book.

Now the counter-argument to this, is, of course what if the kid came at him and tried to attack him or something (perhaps, with his iced tea or skittles?) I don't think that situation helps either because the shooter might have the right to 'stand his ground' under Florida law, but Trayvon Martin has an equal right to self-defense, I would have thought.

In short, a tragedy has escalated into a racially charged mess that's dragging the FBI and Justice Department into investigate as well. The outcry, rightfully so, has been huge and the shooter remains free. I believe people have a right to self-defense if the lives of themselves or their loved ones are genuinely threatened. What confuses me is that I don't think that works if you chase someone down. The shooter is a volunteer neighborhood watchman. Not a cop. It sounds like this is a case of enthusiastic vigilatism run amuck and a 17 year old is dead as a result.

Tragic.

Budget Shenanigans

House Republicans unveiled their election year budget which consists of cutting $5.3 trillion off the budget by sticking their finger directly in the President's eye and going 'ha ha!' by going after programs he's promised to protect (like student aid, Pell Grants, food stamps.) The do want to do something interesting to Medicare for people under 55:

To deal with the influx of retiring Baby Boomers, the GOP budget reprises a controversial approach to overhauling Medicare that would switch the program - for those under 55 today - from a traditional "fee for service" framework in which the government pays doctor and hospital bills to a voucherlike "premium support" approach in which the government subsidizes purchases of health insurance.

I'm cautiously open to this- we do need to do something about entitlements. (And the Democrats traditional solution of 'Make the Rich Pay More' doesn't work.) All these Baby Boomers are going to cost us way too much, but you know what they didn't mention: raising the retirement age. If they're going to bring down the welfare state as we know it, they can work an extra 5 years before shuffling off the canasta and cocktails by the pool. 72! 73! Hell, I'll take 70! But before you start rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic- be sensible and raise the retirement age.

They also failed to cut a single government agency- that I've seen so far. That's what pisses me off. All this budget wrangling amounts to pissing in a leaky bucket until we start figuring out which departments we actually need and which we don't. Consolidate! Eliminate! Actually make the structure of government smaller and leaner... This is like telling a morbidly obese dude that instead of the gastric bypass he actually needs, he should just lay off the burgers and fries for a little bit. Not gonna work.

Until a political party actually gets serious about delivering voters a smaller, leaner government I remain, as always, unimpressed...

How To Make Millenials Happy

Via Instapundit, some great thoughts from Susanna Breslin on the subject over at Forbes. Apparently, we want to be happy and do work with 'a purpose.' Hardly what I would call earth-shattering news as that's probably what most people want to begin with. Of course, it brought down the usual condemnations in the comments... some highlights:

Aw, that’s nice…don’t expect mine revolve around you.

We’d all like to have a “fun” job that allows us to “play” and “experience” our “personal freedom” and all that happy bullshit, but someone has to work late and do reports, sort invoices and all that other dull stuff that makes the world go around.

Bummer buzzkill, dude.

Someone has to make the damn donuts.

What is it about Boomer/GenXers that can make them such absolute douchebags sometimes? And more important, who the hell are these twentysomethings, that way I can slap them for giving fodder to the elder and definately not wiser in their quest to send us all straight over the falls.

Seriously. I want to meet someone my age that actually has some of the characteristics that we apparently have... I'm sure they're out there. There are rich, spoiled suburban kids all over the country, but they're rich, spoiled suburban kids. Of course they're going to be selfish and entitled and dislike the fact that life's unfair. They've had it easy. (Another comment pissed and moaned about supervising young lawyers at his law office and what arrogant little pricks a lot of them are. Jesus man, they're lawyers. What were you expecting?)

I've come to the conclusion that whenever a reporter/blogger/writer/pontificator writes a long treatise about the travails and snotty entitlements of the younger generation they're taking their sample size from the richest, whitest group of young people they can find. The way my supposed generation (the Millennials) is usally described is as whiny, selfish, apathetic, naive, foolish who don't want to work for a damn thing and have it all handed to them on a platter.

Problem is, none of the people I know who are my age fit that bill. What I do think is that people my age just want to be left alone at some level. We don't want the government messin' with our junk (of the gential variety or otherwise) and we want the freedom to really make our mark on a country like that. We may be a little fluffy with admittedly idealistic notions of work, family and wanting to 'express our creativity' but the old buggers out there don't get it. Creativity is going to be what builds the economy and not just the economy but the economy of the 21st Century.

Sure, you'll have the usual frothy cream topping of whiny rich suburban kids, but the rest of us have been beating the streets, getting jobs, getting houses (in my own case), getting hitched and building an existence one brick at a time. Which is what we're supposed to do- these whiners of which you speak? Don't know 'em. Never met any of 'em. So, blogosphere, so journalists of the world, pundits of America: write me a story about the people in my generation that you don't talk too.

Then maybe, you might actually know what we're thinking...

The Townie Bar Challenge: Red's Alehouse

I've had my eye on Red's Alehouse for awhile now- there's a lot of buzz about it in the area and it's got a reputation for having really good beers and, as it's our first bar outside of Iowa City we wanted to head up there on an off night when it might be a wee bit quieter. (The few times I've driven past it, the place has been rockin' hardcore- presumably for a reason.) Although we didn't sample the food, the quality of the beer alone makes you see why the place is so popular.

Red's is serious about their beer- they proclaim it loudly and proudly for all to see: 'No Crap on Tap' and they back that up. I was immediately impressed when our waitress offered us samples of anything we'd like to try- after some deliberation, I decided to be brave and locally based and try a Toppling Goliath Pseudo Sue pale ale from Decorah and was more than slightly blown away. First of all, the description promised citrus and it more than delivered. The waitress set the beer down in front of me and all I could smell was mango, distinctly and clearly- and my nose while it's decent when not stuffed with allergies is nowhere near the nose that The Quiet Man has for this stuff- though he's pushing 500 official beer samplings so that's to be expected. The pale ale aspect worried me- and there was nice bite of hoppiness in the aftertaste but the citrus fought it back nicely after awhile to the point where you could almost write it off as being just part of the grapefruit that was buried in the beer. Excellent stuff...

The atmosphere was also excellent- the color scheme, appropriately enough was various shades of red and The Quiet Man and I sat at the bar with no problems and watched the LA Clippers take on the Boston Celtics, while further down the bar two very enthusiastic Portland Timbers fans watched them take on the Philadelphia Union in one of the first (think Vancouver-Montreal was the absolute first) matches of the season. As usual, I made my yearly vow to actually get into the MLS and pay attention ('when I have a Thursday night off, I'm going to get drunk and watch the MLS game of the week') and pondered becoming a Clippers fan (I find myself becoming partial to them if nothing else for the sheer-bloody mindedness of it all. Stick your thumb in the eye of Laker fans everywhere!)

Beer number 2 was my very first Norwegian beer ever... a Nogne O Imperial Stout- a little pricier, it came in a smaller glass which The Quiet Man frowned upon but to me, it was well worth the experience. Although I was a little uncertain at first (the licorice smell was overpowering- almost to the point of Nyquil levels) the payoff, as with the Toppling Goliath was well worth it- chocolatey smoothness, a nice smooth finish and tantalizing hints of black cherries and brandy made it an excellent drink. I enjoyed it immensely.

Overall: An entirely awesome experience- these people are serious about their beer and it looks like a nice place to eat overall- informed the Missus that it's made a list of places we should go for potential 'date nights' or special occasions. The wait staff was friendly, the atmosphere was a bit quiet- but then again, it's North Liberty on a Monday night- probably not the most happening of places at the best of times and I can appreciate enthusiastic, rowdy soccer fans wherever I can find them- even if they are from Portland.

The Verdict: A

The Santorum Conundrum

I give up. I have no idea what the hell Republicans are thinking with this nonsense. Rick Santorum? Really? I mean, let's step back a bit: President Obama was elected in 2008 riding a tidal wave of discontent with Republican mismanagement at all levels of government. Our surplus was gone we were embroiled in 2 wars and although the Democrats had control of Congress, it's not like they were doing anything useful with it. So it was a 'let's hate on Republicans' kind of year.

Fair enough. Personally, I'm independent so I played my cards carefully in '08, backing Obama for the Presidency and voting Republican for Congress. (Budgets were balanced, surpluses were made and welfare reformed when we had divided government. It's annoying and yes, it did lead to a blatantly time-wasting partisan impeachment when they should have censured President Clinton- but divided goverment in my mind forces our politicians to act like grown ups and compromise for the sake of getting things done. At least, in theory.)

Come 2012, we find that President Obama is far more liberal than people would like. Probably more liberal than the majority of the country actually is. So Republicans think the answer is to send us all wildly hurtling in the other direction? I'm scratching my head on this one.

Let's consider what the past forty-eight hours have brought us:

First, Candidate Santorum insisted that adopting English as the official language must be a necessary condition of Puerto Rican statehood. WTF? Seriously, does this guy want there to be a Republican Party in 20 years? Are they trying to hand the whole ball of wax over to the Democrats? Outside of women (another constituency that Republicans are doing sooooooo well with) the other massively crazy important voting bloc of the future is the Hispanic population of this country. This piece of idiocy cost Santorum Puerto Rico (at least I hope it does- I'm betting yes) and probably cost the GOP I don't know how many more Hispanic votes.

Can someone put a cork in this idiot, please? What the hell is the RNC thinking? What the hell are their voters thinking? At first, I just thought it was a natural reaction to the supposed socialism of the current administration. Now I'm becoming increasingly convinced that as a whole GOPers nationwide seem to be intent on dousing themselves in gasoline and lighting the match.

Look, we can worry about the details of Puerto Rican statehood once they actually decide they want to join. As it is, I'd be surprised if they do- they've got a good thing going right now, where they can enjoy the blessings of liberty, etc without any of the headaches that go along with it. But say they do: who cares what language they speak? That should be an issue decided by the new state- not the Federal government. So underlying this, to me, is further proof that Santorum is a big government, conservative nanny-stater and not the true blue All-American Conservative he's pretending to be. Eff that, peeps. Come on now...

Next up, Candidate Santorum is promising to crack down heavily on internet pornography. Because with troops still embroiled in Afghanistan, our fiscal situation perilously close to disaster and millions of people out of work, this is what the government should be doing with it's time. Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Pornography is a divisive issue, to be sure, but at the end of the day smut is smut and it's ALWAYS going to be out there. Cracking down on it is not only a potential First Amendment violation (at least to me.)

So, to whit, we have a Candidate that wants to drag us all screaming back into the dark ages one hand and a frankly boring technocrat on the other hand with a white haired Nutty Professor type lurking in the background. I'm not sure I'm typical of independent voters, but I know the rhetoric is hateful, the issues silly, the politics just plain bad and another vote for President Obama coupled with votes for a solidly Repubican Congress are starting to look like frankly responsible things for me to do this November.

GOPers: What the hell are you thinking?

The Townie Bar Challenge: Coach's Corner

The Quiet Man and I decided to live a little and throw down with a TBC Doubleheader last night starting first at Coach's Corner on the west side of Iowa City. In times past it used to be Bob's Your Uncle and something else whose name escapes me at the present time- but it's current incarnation is a worthy successor.

The question of the evening confronting us was twofold. First, was Coach's Corner the 'Shakespeare's' of the West Side? And second, just how the hell was I going to make sense of my bracket this year...

The first question was easy: I'd say no, not the Shakespeare's of the west side- and that's a good thing. Coach's Corner has a flavor all it's own- although they paper over their door with advertisements making it something of a nerve racking experience to go in and out of the place (not wanting to jack anyone in the face either coming or going) what lies inside is a nice, clean and more importantly affordable neighborhood bar. Beers were 2 bucks a piece (I sampled the Summit Seasonal- a perfectly serviceable if forgettable beer) and we tucked ourselves away in a table near the windows centered under a celebratory green light presumably green for St. Paddy's Day and not for some other obscure reason.

The layout of the place was interesting- there was a raised seating area to one side of the bar and a collection of pool tables and games hiding behind what I'm assuming had been a live broadcast of some kind for the local ESPN radio station on the other side of the bar. In the middle was the main seating area and behind it all was the bar itself. The bar itself was impressive- the television arrangement, in a kind of pseudo-jumbotron octagonal display of televisions (all of which contained ESPN of some variety or another) tied the place together. I really liked it because in a lot of bars, television are sort of haphazardly placed everywhere which can be very distracting to the eye- especially when you have a bracket to fill out.

Coach's Corner seemed like the appropriate place to tackle my yearly kamikaze mission to the land of ballas and the bracket this year is as troubling as it always is. The Quiet Man pointed out that he himself had yet to wrestle with the bracket and was considering just not doing one because he felt he deliberated too much and his bracket was 'totally fucked' by the Sweet 16 anyway. Those, I felt, were valid points indeed- but part of the fun, to me, is getting mocked by people who know more than you for picking say, a Belmont over a Georgetown only to have said upset actually happen. Everything else usually goes to hell after that, but it's the little things when it comes to March Madness that counts.

So, for the record: I'm going with Sparty this year. That might be foolish, but of all the number one seeds they look like the best bet- Kentucky is really good has shown vulnerabilities. 'Cuse lost to Cincy in the Big East Tourney and Carolina lost to the surprising Florida State- while conference tournaments are probably a silly way to decide this, I still think Sparty's experience, depth and strength of schedule will get them there in the end. (Plus, how wonderfully symmetrical would it be to have Sparty and Carolina in the title game- finish the season exactly how we started? I like symmetry so I'm going with that. Now watch as it all goes to hell by Friday.)

Overall: The Quiet Man said that Coach's Corner reminded him more of the now defunct Hawkeye Hideway than Shakespeare's-- I said I would take his word for it. To me, the bar was impressive, the layout nice, the green lights were a nice celebratory touch and the beer selection affordable and decent. There was a good mix of clientele in the place- young, middle aged and old and although the low tables did look kind of drab and the ESPN on surround sound got to be just a touch excessive, it felt like a good neighborhood bar. Hopefully it's a well-appreciated one, though it was hard to tell on Monday night.

The Verdict: B

Timely Warnings

A jury found Virginia Tech negligent for delays in warnings about the 2007 shooting on their campus today, awarding $4 million each to families of two victims who sued arguing that the school's delay in warning the campus contributed to the deaths of their children.

There's no doubt this was a tragedy- one that, having lived through the school shootings of the mid-to-late 90s, I can honestly say touched me more personally than I had expected. Nowadays, the vast majority of educational institutions are bound under something called the Clery Act, a Federal law which mandates that students, faculty and staff recieve 'timely warnings' of situations that could pose a threat to any given campus.

Doing what I do, I'm oh so familiar with the Clery Act- whenever a critical incident occurs on campus a debate usually begins as to whether we need to issue a Hawk Alert of some kind. The variables that go into this debate are usually decided by people more important then me (read: our administration) but how the public percieves the success of these alerts doesn't conceal the fact that they have to be sent. It gets more complicated given the blurred juristictions that border the University campus and sometimes even more complex if another agency is taking lead on the matter- we cannot, after all, compromise what they're doing.

Was Virgina Tech negligent? The short answer is, I don't know. The gap of time between the initial shooting at the dorms followed by the shootings at the engineering building was significant. Police could have reasonably concluded that the first shootings were isolated incidents- but one thing that keeps going over and over in my head is where was the shooter? If two people have been shot and you don't know where the shooter is, why not keep everyone in place until you do?

It's easy to say that though- in hindsight everything is 20-20. All you can do if you're in a situation like that is the best you can given the fact you've got in front of you. You'll probably do better than expected but nobody is perfect. Mistakes can be made. Assumptions can be incorrect and in situations like they had at Virginia Tech, those mistakes, decisions and assumptions had tragic consequences. I sit behind a desk and I'm good at what I do, but even I am constrained in this age of instant communication by the information our officers have in front of them at any given moment.

Rest assured, Virgina Tech changed things in a big way- especially for Campus Law Enforcement Agencies. Here in Iowa, it was the prime mover in finally getting all three forces at the Regents' Universities full armed. Our communications equipment is top-notch, our people are good and while nobody can promise perfection- people at all levels train hard, learn what they can and try their best to be as prepared as possible.

And really, that's all we can do...

Bookshot #39: Encounters With The Archdruid

A Quiet Man contribution to my ever burgeoning library, Encounters With The Archdruid was my first John McPhee book and if The Quiet Man was looking to convert me to the glories of creative non-fiction, then all I can say is: mission accomplished.

Encouters is divided into three distinct sections- all of which detail encouters with Dave Brower, one time Executive Director of the Sierra Club, conservationist and environmental champion without peer- McPhee is writing in 1971, so memories of Rachel Carson and Silent Spring are still salient in culture and the environmental movement as we know it today is still in its (what I would consider anyway) infancy.

The first part is entitled 'A Mountain' and takes place high in the Cascades where Brower encounters mineral engineer Charles Park and the two debate mineral extraction as copper and mining companies hover over the Cascades, slobbering at the prospect of getting all that copper out of there. Brower and Park frame their debate with passion and intelligence and at the end of the day, you can't help but siding a little more with Brower. To tamper with one of the last unspoiled wildernesses in America feels wrong to you, the reader- despite the protestations that such mineral extraction can be done with the minimum of environmental impact (I'm not sure how true it was back then, but it's certainly true now) it's just best to leave such wild places alone. Not out of any aesthetic concerns but merely because we should- at this point, it's Archdruid Brower 1, Copper Lover Park 0 (Go Google Map Washington State when you get a minute- there's a wide, empty stretch of national forest that's seemingly devoid of roads, cities or any signs of civilization. 4 decades later, it appears the Archdruid won this battle.)

The next part is entitled 'An Island' and takes Brower to Cumberland Island off the coast of Georgia, which has the longest unspoiled beach on the Atlantic Coast. Here, Brower encounters developer Charles Fraser with whom he has probably the most collegial relationship of all his 'adversaries' over the course of the book. Fraser had pioneered the development of Hilton Head Island, but had attempted to do so in a way that could be seen as being harmonious with the existing environment as much as possible. Now, he's got his eye on Cumberland Island and is fighting the Carnegie Family for control of the place, which he wants to open to limited development so that he (and a few select clients) along with the rest of the people can enjoy it. Brower surprised me here by giving a little ground and actually acknowledging that while he would prefer to have the place not developed at all if anyone had to do it, it should be Fraser. (But Google Map Cumberland Island, Georgia... it's a National Seashore now. Another win for McPhee's 'Archdruid.')

The final part of the book is entitled 'A River' and sees Brower tangling with the Dam Man himself, Floyd Dominy, head of the Bureau of Reclamation and a passionate advocate for the impoundment of water. As they drift down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, McPhee flips back to an earlier visit to Lake Powell, which was formed with the completion of the Glen Canyon Dam and takes the reader to San Francisco where the Board of the Directors of the Sierra Club meets to oust Brower as Director. (Brower worked out OK though- went on to found Friends of the Earth per Wikipedia, the Font of All Knowledge) Here, Brower finds himself on the most solid ground of all... given what seems like a perpetual crisis of water that persists even to this day (at least when I've gone out west) all these massive dams and drowning these canyons in the name of hydroelectric power seems silly in retrosepct- especially given the obscene number of swimming pools and emerald green golf courses one sees when driving past places like Las Vegas. You have to wonder what kind of water crisis the western state would be having if they weren't so damn wasteful... (Here again, it seems that despite Lake Powell, Lake Mead and Lake Havasu, another dam wasn't slapped across the Colorado- another win for the Archdruid!)

McPhee is a mind blowingly good writer. This book reads like a novel, feels like a novel has three dimensional characters that battle and wrestle with competing philosophies of conservation versus exploitation and development and yet, from time to time, you have to remind yourself that this is non-fiction. All of this actually happened. All of these people are totally real. And it kind of blows your mind- creative non-fiction? Yes please... sign me up right now. (New biggest regret from my college days- not taking a creative non-fiction class. The Quiet Man urged me to do so and for whatever silly ass reason, I never got around to it.)

Overall: Whether he means to or not, McPhee makes you want to climb a mountain- and, working as I currently do in a job in a tiny, bunker-like room with no windows, the urge to run out and experience the wild beauty of the planet around us and to really stop and ask hard questions about what we should and should not do when it comes to protecting our environment. It's astonishing to realize that these threats were real at the time the book was written and yet four decades later, it's inspirational to realize that the Cascades have yet to be exploited, Cumberland Island is a protected seashure and there's not yet another dam along the Colorado River. Now that, to me, is making a difference.

(Does this change my position on the Keystone Pipeline? Yes and no... the Sand Hills in Nebraska should be protected. The Ogalala Aquifer also needs to be protected- but green technology? We've seen a parade of Teslas and Solyndras and we have to conclude that the government may be on the side of the 'angels' but they're bad at making this marketable... so the struggle continues, I guess- but that's another blog post.)

Bookshot #38: The Mystery of Capital

Before I get to the meat of this review, I have a small confession to make: I was supposed to read this book ten years ago for my Intro to the Politics of Developing Areas class. Needless to say, I didn't- the fall of 2002 was my one, regrettably insane semester- as most days this class met the Professor (Professor Moreno, whom I also took Latin American Politics with- she was pretty good) had this lamentable habit of going over by about 5 minutes each and every time. And as I had to haul my ass to North Hall from the EPB to get to my next class, I didn't appreciate it much so if there was one class I had a tendency to blow off that semester, it was the class where I was supposed to read The Mystery of Capital.

(For the record=- and Iowa Citians/Iowa Grads will get this: I started at 8 AM at Schaffer, went to the EPB, North Hall, Phillips and then back over to Schaffer. Wednesdays were not fun days that semester.)

But, to the task at hand: The Mystery of Capital! Written by Peruvian Economist Hernando De Soto, this book attempts to answer the question of why Capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. De Soto's argument is an interesting and compelling one- basically, he argues that advanced, developed nations achieved their level of prosperity only after construction a system of property law that included the majority of the populace in these countries. The developing world struggles, he says, because of the vast, extralegal sector which operates under it's own rules and regulations yet is excluded from accessing the legal mechanisms of capitalism itself.

How then, are we supposed to bridge the gap? Well De Soto's solution revolves around property rights. Once the poor/extralegal sector have titles to their houses/property then they can use that title to purchase capital or gain access to loans and credit to start a business. Once they have something to offer as capital, they can access the market and build prosperity as they see fit from there.

De Soto looks at the barriers to property rights- ranging from conservative legal establishments that want to defend the existing rule of law rather than reform it to benefit the extralegal sector to something as simple as the massive bureaucracy it takes to get a business license in some of these countries, not to mention title to your house. (De Soto and his team opened up a small garment workshop in Lima, Peru- working 6 hours a day, it took them a whopping 289 days to get the business legally registered under Peruvian law.)

De Soto also delves deep into US History itself, looking at how the issue of property rights was actually a fairly frought and controversial topic for many decades in the early years of our Republic. Settlers would stake claims and prove the land having little to no legal basis to do so. Laws against squatting were frequent and it wasn't until the then frontier states such as Kentucky essentially started going around outdated property laws that had no bearing in the reality of a new country where people were spreading out and forming settlements all the time, that attention turned to how to reform the system to make it work for everyone. And even that process took several decades- but De Soto argues that the blueprint is all there for how it should be done.

De Soto makes a compelling argument that capitalism needs to address those on the outside look in or risk being seen as the enclave of rich technocrats and businessmen more than a potential path to prosperity and development for the underdeveloped countries of the world. He belives that capitalism is the 'only game in town' but makes a compelling and urgent case to reform the existing globalized structures to make at least the prospect of accessing the global market more equitable across class and national boundaries.

Overall: A compelling and intriguing book- that makes me want to read more economics/political philosophy that way I can understand this even better than I already do. There is no denying that De Soto's argument is a compelling one, whether it is effective is something that's worth looking into a little more and there's no doubt that his think-tank, the Institute of Liberty and Democracy played a key part in Peruvian economic reforms of the late 80s and early 90s and his first book, The Other Path is seen as a direct intellectual critique of Peru's Sendero Luminoso, the Shining Path Terrorist organization that placed De Soto on their assassination list in response. There is no denying this guy is serious about his defense of economic freedom and his desire to give the poor and dispossessed a real path to prosperity- and whether you agree with his critique or not, the idea that capitalism needs to reform itself to continue to be effective and, in fact, to be more effective for more people is something that's worthy of vigorous intellectual debate.

There- I did it. I read The Mystery of Capital. Only took me 10 years, too.

Fitness Challenge: February

Starting Weight: 249.2
Current Weight: 237.6

The story of this month revolves around The Grapefruit Diet. I have to say this was a diet I can cautiously get behind. Once, many moons ago, my parents, the Missus and myself all tried the South Beach Diet. I lasted about a week. I remember one day opening the Tuperware that contained my lunch and finding a solitary lettuce leave with a bit of turkey wrapped in it. At that point, I decided I wanted bread and would be willing to mug a homeless bum just for a crust of anything resembling it.

This diet- I might actually be able to get my head around it. Why the sudden embrace? Well my father found out he was suffering from fatty liver disease so the Doc whipped this out and put him on it, telling him to get the weight down, and fast. (They normally give this to patients heading into bypass surgery that need to lose a few pounds.) The Doc did admit that Dieticians hated it- but he also pointed out that most dieticians are overweight anyway- and this diet, he said, does actually work.

So what's it all about? Grapefruit! For breakfast, grapefruit with 2 eggs and 2 strips of bacon. For lunch, grapefruit with salad, dressing and all the meat you want. For dinner, grapefruit with all the meat you want and veg. No sugar, no starches, no carbs... Do it for 12 days, take 2 off and then do it again!

Overall, I found it to be quite reasonable. The notion of 2 days off where you can eat things like carbs and whatever really makes it a lot easier to take. Only challenge, from what I can see as a challenge would be getting yourself transitioned onto a more normal diet- but I'll take that as it comes. All I know is that, I feel good, I'm down weight and I'm working out better than ever. Plus: 60 days without soda!

Goals For March: I've restarted the Couch to 5k thing- and my goal for March is to get myself down to the Rec Center five days a week and really get things going. This time last year was where I began to get a little soft and eventually fell apart completely, but not this year- this year this is when I'm going to kick it into high gear. Diet-wise, I think I'm doing a really good job of being healthier overall. I've had some issues along the way, but I'm enjoying and eating salads on a regular basis. My carbs are nowhere near what they used to be and I'm still staying soda free, which isn't all that bad.

In terms of working out, I want to see Couch To 5k through to it's ending and then start transitioning to running outside (when it's warmer, which it isn't right now) and I'd like to start swimming and maybe take another run at the rock climbing wall again. But so far, so good.