By and large there are few teams in sports that I dislike and there are even fewer that I can honestly say that I outright hate. When I was younger, my B1G Football dislike centered around Michigan for some reason. I don't really remember disliking Ohio State all that much- but in the mid-to-late 90s, everybody liked Michigan. That maize and blue was everywhere and their fight song probably ranks as one of the more annoying college fight songs out there- Notre Dame's probably pushes it into second place, if only by a smidge. They were arrogant, they were annoying, they were everywhere and yeah, they were good and deserved to have some of that joy and arrogance but they were also dicks about it. So, they made my shitlist.
Then came Rich Rod, Appalachian State and while Michigan is getting better, they're not what they once were. A few Iowa victories here and there and I'm down with Big Blue now. We may win, they may win, c'est la vie, right? That's sort of my attitude for a lot of teams. I expect us to beat Iowa State and Minnesota- but I don't go out of my mind and call for mass executions of the Iowa coaching staff if we don't. Rivalries are only good when the other team wins now and again-- and when they're not playing us, I genuinely do wish Minnesota success. They need all the good karma they can get after the Tim Brewster fiasco. (And yes, I enjoyed the schaudenfreude of watching them beat Nebraska for the first time since 1960. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha....)
Ohio State I savor every victory we get over them because they only happen about once a decade or so, it seems like. Wisconsin brings one of the most balanced rivalries in the B1G to town next Saturday and they're another team I don't mind at all. But lately, the team that I have chosen to despise is Northwestern. Here's why:
A few years ago, The Quiet Man, the Missus and I were at the wedding of our mutual friend, The Harpist. It was at Northwestern, since that's where she went to grad school and it was my first time on the campus of Northwestern and it was odd to see how the elite upper crusty school of the conference lived. By the beach, everyone trim and rich looking. Anyway, we got to her wedding reception (and changed hotels- but that's another story) and we were sat next to some friends of hers and as you do at these things, pleasantries were exchanged. They all knew each other and were talking about how they had loved driving up to Door County over break (in that kind of eye-rolling, are you trying to show me how much your shit don't stink kind of way) and then they asked us how we knew The Harpist.
The Quiet Man and I said we had both been to high school with her. Oh, they said. Did you go to Northwestern? No, we went to Iowa.
There were hearty laughs at that. Iowa, one of the women said. We've beaten you five out of the last six years- we put that in our family Christmas letter!
Thus was my hatred of Northwestern born. I know the story of why the hate us, of course. Legend is that after a particularly punishing 59-0 stomping of the 'Cats in the mid-90s, Hayden Fry met Gary Barnett at mid-field and said something like 'I hope we didn't hurt your boys too much.' He was probably trying to folksy in that high porch picnic kind of way but Barnett took offense and the Wildcats have wanted our blood ever since. And for awhile there under Ferentz they were one of those teams that just gave us fits. (Indiana too, for some fucked up reason.) But it goes to show you how much a little condescension can do, because I've remembered that conversation ever since.
The next year, I was in the upstairs bar at The Airliner. I don't think I sat down or drank anything that entire game. I just lived for every snap, lived for every Iowa touchdown and when we beat Northwestern, I thought to myself: 'Put that in your family Christmas letter, lady.'
This year was no exception- except Friday night, I went and had a couple of beers with The Quiet Man and either I was getting sick already or parenthood has knocked my alcohol tolerance down to that of a small pygmy gerbil because the next day I woke with a pounding headache, puking, chills, sensitive to light and spent the morning sleeping whatever it was off. By afternoon, I was holding down food and feeling better and to my surprise, Iowa was up 10-0 at the half. The third quarter dragged on and Northwestern caught fire a little bit, catching up to Iowa by the end of regulation and sending it to overtime. We scored a TD on our first possession in overtime and when it came to 4th and 8, I went to put The Cigarillo down for a nap, assuming that, since it was Northwestern, we'd need at least two overtimes to beat them.
I came back out and found out that they had won! And suddenly the rest of the season doesn't have quite so much weight on it. One victory away from Bowl eligibility, statistically a better season that last year- I don't know if Ferentz deserves a pay raise and another extension (he probably doesn't) but the fact remains, we beat Northwestern! Quo posuit in tuis litteris Saturnalia! Put that in your Christmas letter! (Technically, the Romans didn't have Christmas.) So what's left: Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan and Nebraska. I don't think we'll go 4-0 down the stretch. It'd be nice but I think we split our last four and wind up at 7-5. (Primarily because if we lose to Purdue, we really have no business going to a Bowl game ad if Minnesota can beat Nebraska, I see no reason why we can't do the same. At the very least, it should be a better game than the last two editions of the HEROS GAME or whatever the fuck it is have been.)
Monday, October 28, 2013
Sunday, October 27, 2013
In Memorium: Lou Reed
I know who Lou Reed is of course. I wish I could say that he had a major impact on my taste in music but if he did so, it was tangentially at best. Other people out there are saying more profound and meaningful things about the guy, so I'll keep this brief. The middle video is a random find I stumbled across on Twitter. It is, without a doubt, one of the most amazing music videos I've ever seen- and the music is amazing as well.
Sad that it's the explosion of tributes at his death that lead me to discover more than the two songs of his I knew. But no doubt, he was a talent- and he will be missed.
Why Is Socialism Always The Answer?
I'm OK with Russell Brand. Granted, I think he gave Katy Perry a bit of a raw deal, but you can't tell me she didn't know what she was getting into when she married the guy. But by himself, in small to moderate doses, he's okay and he makes good points (witness his destruction of MSNBC's Morning News Panel a few months ago. A beautiful thing, since I'm not a fan of MSNBC or corporate media in general and I respect people who are willing to challenge/call bullshit on their friends or ideological bedfellows rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks on the other side as most people are wont to do.)
Last week, the folks at Britain's New Statesmen gave Brand the reins to edit and produce an issue of their fine publication. The New Statesman, like Brand, is left-wing and Brand went on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman to promote the issue. He also wrote this piece, entitled: 'We no longer have the luxury of tradition.'
This piece is lengthy and it's well thought out and Brand, as ever, makes some interesting points but I also felt a familiar sense of resignation as I read the piece... there was nothing fundamentally new on offer here- nothing fundamentally transformative or even revolutionary. No, instead it was just a clarion call- an impressive one, I'll grant you, to return to the spiritual roots and beliefs of socialism once more. So I gotta ask: why is socialism always the answer?
It's a bit incoherent and Brand acknowledges he likes stuff/materialism and agrees that individualism exists, but ultimately, we've got to get back to the spiritual roots of the land and work on what made socialism/that fluffy amorphous concept known as 'The Left' so great to begin with. I'll grant you that Brand is writing this for a British audience from a British point of view, but it's more or less the same over here. Conservatives represent big business, corporations, evil, etc, etc, etc so the answer, naturally is more big corporate trade unions and more big corporate governance. Capitalism is the problem, we're told, therefore socialism must be the answer.
Well, what if that's wrong? What if we've never actually seen either ideology the way it was meant to be seen? If you think about it, we're not really a capitalist system now. Government intervenes in the market all the damn time, the corporations game the tax code for their benefit and rake in corporate welfare by the bucketload. We're more corporatist that capitalist- and if you have a problem with our 'we're on the verge of just not pretending about it anymore' corporatist government, well then, welcome to the club, we've got jackets.
My problem has been and remains that nothing fundamentally new is happening, politically speaking. Brand seems to be hailing from the slightly riotous/Occupy branch of the fluffy amorphous concept known as The Left- and let's be honest, while there's a lot you can say about the Tea Party (it's no where near as effective as it once was, I think) at least they got something done. Occupy was about expressing yourself and feelings and all that other hippy dippy protest bullshit that looks great on camera but accomplishes very little in the way of anything practical. (It will be a very good day for America when the last hippy dies and nobody can tell the young people 'well that's what worked when we were protesting 'Nam.' I could give a shit about how you protested Vietnam*. I don't know man, I wasn't there! It's like the unseen baggage that prevents The Left over here from doing anything useful or effective and most importantly of all, it's a shackle to the past.)
(Conversely, the answer to every problem posed to a Republican/Conservative is always some variant of the refrain: 'too much government regulation' and 'taxes are too high.' Those are the same fucking talking points that Reagen used for crying out loud. My thoughts on Reagen are more or less the same as my thoughts on Vietnam: I don't know man, I wasn't there!)
Brand, to me, undoes his argument when he admits he doesn't think it's worth voting. I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. You have to vote. Voting is all we have and most of the time, it probably won't make the damnedest bit of difference one way or the other but occasionally, it does. The problem isn't voting- it's that people don't take it seriously. People just vote based on what they read in the newspaper or see on television. I shop. I read. I research because I do take it so seriously. Since I've turned 18, I've voted for sensible Republicans, I've voted for Democrats and I've voted for Libertarians, Greens and the Independence Party. I vote for what I believe in and for the candidates that believe what I believe and yes, that may be idealistic and maybe a little naïve but if more people believed that, we'd be in a lot better shape than we actually are.
Brand seems to think that since Osbourne, Cameron and company are all from the same crusty old boys network that there's nothing worth saving or voting for. Fuck 'em all. Well, who didn't vote better people in, Russell? You get the government you deserve and if people aren't willing to work to elect people that represent them and their beliefs, you can't be surprised at what you end up with. Plug in and make your revolution happen.
The problem goes deeper than that, though- it's a fundamentally a structural issue. First-past-the-post, Westminster style democracy produces a relatively low number of parties (usually 2, maybe 2.5 or three if you're lucky) and that can and usually does lead to corruption and paralysis. We need to explore more representative voting systems like proportional representation or multi-member district systems. (I was very, very happy to stumble across this a few months back. There should be more of this happening. Everywhere.) There are ways that we, the people can make a system that's more democratic, more fair and more responsive to everybody instead of just increasingly fewer and fewer people.
Relying on old ideologies, whether capitalism in it's current corporatist form or even bring out the old drums of socialism again ignore the fact that those ideologies are inherently vertical. Someone is at charge and someone is at the bottom. Power in the information age is going rapidly horizontal- we need ideologies that acknowledge that or better still, we can abandon all of them and just stick to my personal belief in government: help those that need helping and leave everyone else the hell alone.
*Obviously, I care about Vietnam. It was a horrible war and we shouldn't have been there and I have nothing but respect for those that served in that war- and when people tell me about how 'that's the way we did it when we were protesting 'Nam' I get angry and want to retort with things like 'yeah, how many veterans did you spit on when they got back, hippy?' So in general, massive respect to those that served. If you didn't, please hush.
Last week, the folks at Britain's New Statesmen gave Brand the reins to edit and produce an issue of their fine publication. The New Statesman, like Brand, is left-wing and Brand went on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman to promote the issue. He also wrote this piece, entitled: 'We no longer have the luxury of tradition.'
This piece is lengthy and it's well thought out and Brand, as ever, makes some interesting points but I also felt a familiar sense of resignation as I read the piece... there was nothing fundamentally new on offer here- nothing fundamentally transformative or even revolutionary. No, instead it was just a clarion call- an impressive one, I'll grant you, to return to the spiritual roots and beliefs of socialism once more. So I gotta ask: why is socialism always the answer?
It's a bit incoherent and Brand acknowledges he likes stuff/materialism and agrees that individualism exists, but ultimately, we've got to get back to the spiritual roots of the land and work on what made socialism/that fluffy amorphous concept known as 'The Left' so great to begin with. I'll grant you that Brand is writing this for a British audience from a British point of view, but it's more or less the same over here. Conservatives represent big business, corporations, evil, etc, etc, etc so the answer, naturally is more big corporate trade unions and more big corporate governance. Capitalism is the problem, we're told, therefore socialism must be the answer.
Well, what if that's wrong? What if we've never actually seen either ideology the way it was meant to be seen? If you think about it, we're not really a capitalist system now. Government intervenes in the market all the damn time, the corporations game the tax code for their benefit and rake in corporate welfare by the bucketload. We're more corporatist that capitalist- and if you have a problem with our 'we're on the verge of just not pretending about it anymore' corporatist government, well then, welcome to the club, we've got jackets.
My problem has been and remains that nothing fundamentally new is happening, politically speaking. Brand seems to be hailing from the slightly riotous/Occupy branch of the fluffy amorphous concept known as The Left- and let's be honest, while there's a lot you can say about the Tea Party (it's no where near as effective as it once was, I think) at least they got something done. Occupy was about expressing yourself and feelings and all that other hippy dippy protest bullshit that looks great on camera but accomplishes very little in the way of anything practical. (It will be a very good day for America when the last hippy dies and nobody can tell the young people 'well that's what worked when we were protesting 'Nam.' I could give a shit about how you protested Vietnam*. I don't know man, I wasn't there! It's like the unseen baggage that prevents The Left over here from doing anything useful or effective and most importantly of all, it's a shackle to the past.)
(Conversely, the answer to every problem posed to a Republican/Conservative is always some variant of the refrain: 'too much government regulation' and 'taxes are too high.' Those are the same fucking talking points that Reagen used for crying out loud. My thoughts on Reagen are more or less the same as my thoughts on Vietnam: I don't know man, I wasn't there!)
Brand, to me, undoes his argument when he admits he doesn't think it's worth voting. I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. You have to vote. Voting is all we have and most of the time, it probably won't make the damnedest bit of difference one way or the other but occasionally, it does. The problem isn't voting- it's that people don't take it seriously. People just vote based on what they read in the newspaper or see on television. I shop. I read. I research because I do take it so seriously. Since I've turned 18, I've voted for sensible Republicans, I've voted for Democrats and I've voted for Libertarians, Greens and the Independence Party. I vote for what I believe in and for the candidates that believe what I believe and yes, that may be idealistic and maybe a little naïve but if more people believed that, we'd be in a lot better shape than we actually are.
Brand seems to think that since Osbourne, Cameron and company are all from the same crusty old boys network that there's nothing worth saving or voting for. Fuck 'em all. Well, who didn't vote better people in, Russell? You get the government you deserve and if people aren't willing to work to elect people that represent them and their beliefs, you can't be surprised at what you end up with. Plug in and make your revolution happen.
The problem goes deeper than that, though- it's a fundamentally a structural issue. First-past-the-post, Westminster style democracy produces a relatively low number of parties (usually 2, maybe 2.5 or three if you're lucky) and that can and usually does lead to corruption and paralysis. We need to explore more representative voting systems like proportional representation or multi-member district systems. (I was very, very happy to stumble across this a few months back. There should be more of this happening. Everywhere.) There are ways that we, the people can make a system that's more democratic, more fair and more responsive to everybody instead of just increasingly fewer and fewer people.
Relying on old ideologies, whether capitalism in it's current corporatist form or even bring out the old drums of socialism again ignore the fact that those ideologies are inherently vertical. Someone is at charge and someone is at the bottom. Power in the information age is going rapidly horizontal- we need ideologies that acknowledge that or better still, we can abandon all of them and just stick to my personal belief in government: help those that need helping and leave everyone else the hell alone.
*Obviously, I care about Vietnam. It was a horrible war and we shouldn't have been there and I have nothing but respect for those that served in that war- and when people tell me about how 'that's the way we did it when we were protesting 'Nam' I get angry and want to retort with things like 'yeah, how many veterans did you spit on when they got back, hippy?' So in general, massive respect to those that served. If you didn't, please hush.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
This Week In Vexillology #52
Last week, we were down in South America visiting Chile but This Week In Vexillology, we're heading across the Atlantic Ocean to the Lion Mountains and the Republic of Sierra Leone!
Adopted on April 27th, 1961 for national and civil usage, the flag of Sierra Leone is a horizontal tricolor. The green in the flag represents the agricultural and natural resources of the country. The white in the flag stands for justice and the blue recalls the natural harbor at Freetown, the capital.
The Coat of Arms of Sierra Leone was devised and granted by the College of Arms in 1960:
The lions holding the palm trees (oil palms, technically I guess) are taken from the old colonial badge. The torches at the top of the shield symbolize education and progress, the green border represents the Lion Mountains while the wavy bars at the bottom of the shield represent the sea. The national motto of 'Unity, Freedom and Justice' rests at the bottom of the Coat of Arms.
So, kids, put your hands together for Sierra Leone! And remember, until next time keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise!
Adopted on April 27th, 1961 for national and civil usage, the flag of Sierra Leone is a horizontal tricolor. The green in the flag represents the agricultural and natural resources of the country. The white in the flag stands for justice and the blue recalls the natural harbor at Freetown, the capital.
The Coat of Arms of Sierra Leone was devised and granted by the College of Arms in 1960:
The lions holding the palm trees (oil palms, technically I guess) are taken from the old colonial badge. The torches at the top of the shield symbolize education and progress, the green border represents the Lion Mountains while the wavy bars at the bottom of the shield represent the sea. The national motto of 'Unity, Freedom and Justice' rests at the bottom of the Coat of Arms.
So, kids, put your hands together for Sierra Leone! And remember, until next time keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise!
Friday, October 25, 2013
The City Council Endorsements: 2013 Edition
Well kids, this is interesting. One of my chief gripes about the City Council has been it's long standing insistence (or at least perception or possibly suspicion of that insistence) in protecting certain interests in the downtown business community before the needs of the broader community. The ridiculous 20 story monstrosity that's undoubtedly coming for us on the corner of College and Gilbert Street- the one plan out of many fine, fine plans that didn't include the New Pioneer Co-Op only served to underline what I think an increasing number of people in Iowa City are starting to believe: we need a City Council that casts a wider gaze across the entire community and not just downtown and nearby neighborhoods.
Maybe that's an unfair judgment against the current City Council but I don't feel like it is. Ordinances against panhandling (not that big of a problem) and now homeless people sleeping on benches downtown (a problem magnified, I think, by current construction on the Ped Mall) were passed under the current Council at the urging of two of the members who are downtown business owners. That irks me. Were these problems really that pressing? Or did it just 'bother' the right people, so something had to be done?
It's the Co-Op thing that really bugs me though. I know the City Council was under no obligation to give the Co-Op a damn thing but there's something to be said for loyalty. New Pi has been a mainstay of downtown for decades- when plenty of other businesses up and left for the more lucrative, TIF-fueled retail environment of Coralville. That 20 story monstrosity is the wrong decision for Iowa City and for downtown and, no surprise, I'm endorsing a clean sweep- out with the old and in with the new!
At Large:
Rockne Cole: Gets props for actually having a website. I like that... my eyebrow raised a bit when I saw that the slogan on his yard signs was 'let a hundred flowers bloom' or something pretty close to that. I wonder if he knows where that reference comes from... hmmmm... about as different from anyone on the current City Council as you can imagine, I got nothing against cooperatives, sustainability and making the city more walkable. Hopefully he can put some of these ideas into action. He's got my vote.
Kingsley Botchway: Impressed me with this interview in The Little Village. His answers were thoughtful and it's obvious this guy is really smart and committed to making a positive impact for everyone in our community. I like that. He's got my vote.
District B:
Royceann Porter: I don't have a link to her interview in The Little Village yet, but I've read it (so grab the latest copy and check it out!), it's good! But even if it wasn't that good-given the fact she's running against Terry Dickens for the District B Seat makes her 'not Terry Dickens' and therefore, worthy of my vote. She's got my vote.
My Prediction: The depressing part about living in such a supposedly progressive town is that really and truly, when you pop the hood of this place, you find just another small town in Iowa. And in small towns in Iowa, the more you think things are going to change, the more they usually stay the same. I'm saying Champion, Mims and Dickens. And if that does turn out to be true, it'll be a very depressing election night indeed.
Maybe that's an unfair judgment against the current City Council but I don't feel like it is. Ordinances against panhandling (not that big of a problem) and now homeless people sleeping on benches downtown (a problem magnified, I think, by current construction on the Ped Mall) were passed under the current Council at the urging of two of the members who are downtown business owners. That irks me. Were these problems really that pressing? Or did it just 'bother' the right people, so something had to be done?
It's the Co-Op thing that really bugs me though. I know the City Council was under no obligation to give the Co-Op a damn thing but there's something to be said for loyalty. New Pi has been a mainstay of downtown for decades- when plenty of other businesses up and left for the more lucrative, TIF-fueled retail environment of Coralville. That 20 story monstrosity is the wrong decision for Iowa City and for downtown and, no surprise, I'm endorsing a clean sweep- out with the old and in with the new!
At Large:
Rockne Cole: Gets props for actually having a website. I like that... my eyebrow raised a bit when I saw that the slogan on his yard signs was 'let a hundred flowers bloom' or something pretty close to that. I wonder if he knows where that reference comes from... hmmmm... about as different from anyone on the current City Council as you can imagine, I got nothing against cooperatives, sustainability and making the city more walkable. Hopefully he can put some of these ideas into action. He's got my vote.
Kingsley Botchway: Impressed me with this interview in The Little Village. His answers were thoughtful and it's obvious this guy is really smart and committed to making a positive impact for everyone in our community. I like that. He's got my vote.
District B:
Royceann Porter: I don't have a link to her interview in The Little Village yet, but I've read it (so grab the latest copy and check it out!), it's good! But even if it wasn't that good-given the fact she's running against Terry Dickens for the District B Seat makes her 'not Terry Dickens' and therefore, worthy of my vote. She's got my vote.
My Prediction: The depressing part about living in such a supposedly progressive town is that really and truly, when you pop the hood of this place, you find just another small town in Iowa. And in small towns in Iowa, the more you think things are going to change, the more they usually stay the same. I'm saying Champion, Mims and Dickens. And if that does turn out to be true, it'll be a very depressing election night indeed.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
This Week In Vexillology: Special #SideProject
God Bless this brilliant individual. Seriously... it was pure random happenstance that I checked Wired.com and found an article entitled 'Could These Redesigned State Flags Bring America Together?' And sure enough, someone had launched a #sideproject to redesign every single state flag with several unifying features running throughout the redesign.
First of all, let me just get this out of the way: YES YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES THIS IS A BRILLIANT EFFING IDEA!
Second of all, now that I've got my Vexillological 'Squee' done with, let's get down the brass tacks. There is a problem, from a vexillological standpoint with our state flags. To be frank, the vast majority of them are, well, boring. Somewhere along the way, some bright and well meaning individual had the notion that the State Seal on a field of a randomly selected but usually blue color would make for a good state flag and far, far too many state followed suit.
There are exceptions: Colorado (I'm sure The Quiet Man would agree with me on this one), New Mexico (hailed as one of the best-designed state flags), Ohio (a pennant. Points for creativity), California, Alaska, Maryland and Hawaii all spring to mind as being creative, nice to look at and more or less emblematic of their respective states. (I suppose you can throw Arizona in there if you want.) So the fact that someone actually took the time to do this and use an unifying set of colors and symbols throughout the redesign- seriously awesome and what's even more awesome?
The designs actually kind of rock.
I'll be honest, I loved all of them but a few stand out. This is the proposed redesign for Kentucky:
These are bold redesigns and many of them are worthy of consideration. From the point of view of vexillology, many of America's state flags could use a refresher and if there are conversations to be had about changing them up, these proposals are a damn good place to start.
(No, I didn't include Iowa, Minnesota or New Hampshire. Can't give all the fun away-- click the link above and find out for yourselves! :-) )
First of all, let me just get this out of the way: YES YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES THIS IS A BRILLIANT EFFING IDEA!
Second of all, now that I've got my Vexillological 'Squee' done with, let's get down the brass tacks. There is a problem, from a vexillological standpoint with our state flags. To be frank, the vast majority of them are, well, boring. Somewhere along the way, some bright and well meaning individual had the notion that the State Seal on a field of a randomly selected but usually blue color would make for a good state flag and far, far too many state followed suit.
There are exceptions: Colorado (I'm sure The Quiet Man would agree with me on this one), New Mexico (hailed as one of the best-designed state flags), Ohio (a pennant. Points for creativity), California, Alaska, Maryland and Hawaii all spring to mind as being creative, nice to look at and more or less emblematic of their respective states. (I suppose you can throw Arizona in there if you want.) So the fact that someone actually took the time to do this and use an unifying set of colors and symbols throughout the redesign- seriously awesome and what's even more awesome?
The designs actually kind of rock.
I'll be honest, I loved all of them but a few stand out. This is the proposed redesign for Kentucky:
Pennsylvania I just love to death:
"The intertwined arrows represent the joining of the frontiersman (red) and the statesman (blue) who are shaking hands on the existing state seal. That image (illustrating the motto, 'United We Stand, Divided We Fall') also appears on the flag. The angled lines suggest a 'K.'"
"A nib of a pen occupies the lefthand side, representing the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Three stars represent the state motto: 'Virtue, Liberty and Independence.'" --Ed Mitchell.Seriously. I love that... there's a PEN. A freaking PEN! In the flag of Pennsylvania... if someone in the Keystone State doesn't get on this right away, they are missing a huge opportunity. California is intriguing:
"This is the only flag with curves, because I wanted to convey the feeling of driving along the coastline." --Ed Mitchell. Image: Ed MitchelOf all the redesigns this is probably the most interesting. There are a few flags out there that are iconic in their own right and the Bear Flag of California is one of them- but to be honest, I don't hate this... it draws a nice parallel with Colorado- and the curve does convey the feeling of driving along the PCH- probably one of California's more iconic features.
These are bold redesigns and many of them are worthy of consideration. From the point of view of vexillology, many of America's state flags could use a refresher and if there are conversations to be had about changing them up, these proposals are a damn good place to start.
(No, I didn't include Iowa, Minnesota or New Hampshire. Can't give all the fun away-- click the link above and find out for yourselves! :-) )
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Instagram Food Wars: Pumpkin Spice Pummelling
'Tis the season. The season for Pumpkin Spice everything, that is. There's pumpkin beer on every shelf in the grocery store and pumpkin spice cookies and the cookie stand and of course, then there's the drink of the month: the pumpkin spice flavored coffee.
I haven't made a complete survey of every pumpkin spice flavored coffee out there- but Starbucks is celebrating ten years of Pumpkin Spice Latte Dominance this year and the other people that seem to be getting a lot of mention in the Pumpkin Spice Coffee department are Dunkin Donuts. So, I tried 'em both to see who would come out on top of the pumpkin spice pummelling.
Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte:
I haven't made a complete survey of every pumpkin spice flavored coffee out there- but Starbucks is celebrating ten years of Pumpkin Spice Latte Dominance this year and the other people that seem to be getting a lot of mention in the Pumpkin Spice Coffee department are Dunkin Donuts. So, I tried 'em both to see who would come out on top of the pumpkin spice pummelling.
Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte:
The granddaddy of them all, much like the McRib, the Pumpkin Spice Latte is one of the few offerings from Starbucks that I'm willing to shell out money for on a regular basis. While the frappacino version is even more delicious than it's regular latte counterpart, you can feel the insane calorie count with every sip which sort of adds up the guilt factor quickly. The Latte however, makes up for that by, well, being hot, being coffee and bringing the perfect blend of pumpkin spice with just a hint of nutmeg to the proceedings. It's the king and it would take a lot to dethrone it.
Dunkin Donuts Pumpkin Mocha Latte:
Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure to think of what Dunkin Donuts brings to the table but it's not bad. I think if it has a downfall, it's in the mocha part. The chocolate sort of overwhelms the pumpkin, but it's impressive- you can still taste the pumpkin despite that. As expected and as advertised- it's excellent coffee. America does indeed run on Dunkin'. But is it enough to dethrone Starbucks as the King of all things Pumpkin Spice related in the world of coffee?
I decided no. The Winner is and probably always will be, Starbucks. Can't top those Pumpkin Spice Lattes.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
This Week In Vexillology #51
Last week, we checked out the oldest tricolor in the world in The Netherlands and now we're heading back down to South America and La Estrella Solitaria, the flag of Chile!
If you think this flag looks a lot like the flag of Texas, well, you'd be right but it's a pure coincidence as the flag of Chile was adopted for National and Civil usage on October 18th, 1817, twenty eight years before Texas adopted their flag in 1839. The white in the flag represents the snow of the Andes, the red is the blood shed for freedom and the blue the clear Andean skies and the Pacific Ocean. The star is said to represent a guide to progress and honor.
While the overall design of the flag has remained more or less the same since 1818, there has been an evolution from the original configuration over time. (I would go over each of them with pictures and visual aids, but Wikipedia does a better job charting the evolution from pre-independence all the way up to present day. So go here if you want to get your knowledge on, kids.)
What I will give a visual aid for (not to mention a hefty shout out) is this guy:
Who is this guy? Well, thanks to this book- a book which I think should be required reading for every high school student in America because it's frankly pathetic how little we know about the history of neighbors both north and south- anyway, that aside, this guy is one of Chile's founding fathers: Bernardo O'Higgins.
First of all, let the awesomeness of that name sink in. The guy was of Spanish and Irish ancestry a combination that surprised me at first but didn't seem to matter all that much as eventually he became the 2nd Supreme Director of Chile and was no slouch on the battlefield- breaking out at the Battle of Rancagua with the cry of "Those who can ride, ride!" And helping pro-independence forces at the Battles of Las Tres Acequias and the Battle of Chacabuco.
Undoubtedly, this knowledge will come in handy during some obscure game of trivia because that's how we roll here in the United States but south of the border, this guy is a serious historical figure. So respect! And now you know and as GI Joe once said, knowing is half the battle.
So give it up for Chile! And remember, until next time keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise!
If you think this flag looks a lot like the flag of Texas, well, you'd be right but it's a pure coincidence as the flag of Chile was adopted for National and Civil usage on October 18th, 1817, twenty eight years before Texas adopted their flag in 1839. The white in the flag represents the snow of the Andes, the red is the blood shed for freedom and the blue the clear Andean skies and the Pacific Ocean. The star is said to represent a guide to progress and honor.
While the overall design of the flag has remained more or less the same since 1818, there has been an evolution from the original configuration over time. (I would go over each of them with pictures and visual aids, but Wikipedia does a better job charting the evolution from pre-independence all the way up to present day. So go here if you want to get your knowledge on, kids.)
What I will give a visual aid for (not to mention a hefty shout out) is this guy:
Who is this guy? Well, thanks to this book- a book which I think should be required reading for every high school student in America because it's frankly pathetic how little we know about the history of neighbors both north and south- anyway, that aside, this guy is one of Chile's founding fathers: Bernardo O'Higgins.
First of all, let the awesomeness of that name sink in. The guy was of Spanish and Irish ancestry a combination that surprised me at first but didn't seem to matter all that much as eventually he became the 2nd Supreme Director of Chile and was no slouch on the battlefield- breaking out at the Battle of Rancagua with the cry of "Those who can ride, ride!" And helping pro-independence forces at the Battles of Las Tres Acequias and the Battle of Chacabuco.
Undoubtedly, this knowledge will come in handy during some obscure game of trivia because that's how we roll here in the United States but south of the border, this guy is a serious historical figure. So respect! And now you know and as GI Joe once said, knowing is half the battle.
So give it up for Chile! And remember, until next time keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise!
Friday, October 18, 2013
21 Only Redux: The Endorsement
Minor surprises only, here kids: I'm voting NO to 19 this November- but with a few qualifications:
First, I don't like the fines. Those should be cut in half at minimum as I doubt that $700+ for being in a bar after hours or whatever is now is going to really make all that much of a dent on the Bank of Mom and Dad, LLC (Naperville Branch)- it's certainly doesn't seem to be deterring students from drinking. Though oddly enough, either the hangover from last season or students being more excited for basketball for once seems to be contributing to more adults misbehaving at games than students. Tickets are better than jail, I'll agree- but let's not be exorbitant about it.
Second, it's worth noting that the University achieved it's #1 Party School in the land ranking after the 21-only ordinance became law. If the idea was to change the University's reputation away from being a party school, then mission fail, people. Epic mission fail.
Thirdly (and finally) although it didn't get much play in the local media, for obvious reasons, the 21-only ordinance might run afoul of the City's own human rights ordinance which prevents discrimination on the basis of age. The City is now looking at changing that- which I'm not wild about. I mean, shouldn't they have thought about this before now? If we've got the right to bear arms, then by God, 19 year olds have the right to $2 jaeger bombs at the SpoCo and Scummit on Thursday night! 'MERICUH!
However, the more I thought about it (and I surprised myself by actually thinking about this somewhat. It was a short little trip on the struggle bus with this endorsement, kids, it really was) the more I decided that it just wasn't enough. Why?
Well for starters, this isn't the forum to make a point about the drinking age. Does it suck that people can vote, have sex, fight for their country, purchase pornography and cigarettes at 18 and yet can't have a beer? It does. Is repealing this ordinance going to do a damn thing about it? Nope. For that we'd need to talk to some folks down in Des Moines and see if a loss of some Federal Highway funding is worth lowering our drinking age. Monetarily, I'm betting not- but still, the point stands: if you want the drinking age in Iowa lowered, you need a law, and all our lawmakers are in Des Moines. This ordinance has zero effect on the issue and pretending like you're all swell and awesome by 'making a point' only serves to underline how small you think. Think big. Go for the brass ring and lower the damn age. Don't piss around on the local level to do it.
Secondly, the oldest rule in politics is cui buono? Who benefits. In this case, it'll be local bar owners more than anyone else. Which proves that this isn't about fairness or 'making a point' or whatever it is people want to pretend it is, it's about making money. And while I have nothing against making money, I think there's something fundamentally dishonest about not just saying that up front.
As usual, I remain irritated and unconvinced by this whole business. It's not like having a drinking age of 21 has prevented anyone from actually drinking, is it?
My Prediction: It all comes down to student turnout...I got a University-wide email encouraging students to participate in early voting but it's one of those mass spam emails that (at least when I was an undergrad) everybody just sort of blew past them so I'm not sure how effective it will be. The students have shown up in a big way for this once so far... and they didn't the last time. It feels a little different this time around- but it's the usual Town Versus Gown Battle Royale and I think if the students put up big numbers, it's going down. 50/50- but I could see it being repealed.
First, I don't like the fines. Those should be cut in half at minimum as I doubt that $700+ for being in a bar after hours or whatever is now is going to really make all that much of a dent on the Bank of Mom and Dad, LLC (Naperville Branch)- it's certainly doesn't seem to be deterring students from drinking. Though oddly enough, either the hangover from last season or students being more excited for basketball for once seems to be contributing to more adults misbehaving at games than students. Tickets are better than jail, I'll agree- but let's not be exorbitant about it.
Second, it's worth noting that the University achieved it's #1 Party School in the land ranking after the 21-only ordinance became law. If the idea was to change the University's reputation away from being a party school, then mission fail, people. Epic mission fail.
Thirdly (and finally) although it didn't get much play in the local media, for obvious reasons, the 21-only ordinance might run afoul of the City's own human rights ordinance which prevents discrimination on the basis of age. The City is now looking at changing that- which I'm not wild about. I mean, shouldn't they have thought about this before now? If we've got the right to bear arms, then by God, 19 year olds have the right to $2 jaeger bombs at the SpoCo and Scummit on Thursday night! 'MERICUH!
However, the more I thought about it (and I surprised myself by actually thinking about this somewhat. It was a short little trip on the struggle bus with this endorsement, kids, it really was) the more I decided that it just wasn't enough. Why?
Well for starters, this isn't the forum to make a point about the drinking age. Does it suck that people can vote, have sex, fight for their country, purchase pornography and cigarettes at 18 and yet can't have a beer? It does. Is repealing this ordinance going to do a damn thing about it? Nope. For that we'd need to talk to some folks down in Des Moines and see if a loss of some Federal Highway funding is worth lowering our drinking age. Monetarily, I'm betting not- but still, the point stands: if you want the drinking age in Iowa lowered, you need a law, and all our lawmakers are in Des Moines. This ordinance has zero effect on the issue and pretending like you're all swell and awesome by 'making a point' only serves to underline how small you think. Think big. Go for the brass ring and lower the damn age. Don't piss around on the local level to do it.
Secondly, the oldest rule in politics is cui buono? Who benefits. In this case, it'll be local bar owners more than anyone else. Which proves that this isn't about fairness or 'making a point' or whatever it is people want to pretend it is, it's about making money. And while I have nothing against making money, I think there's something fundamentally dishonest about not just saying that up front.
As usual, I remain irritated and unconvinced by this whole business. It's not like having a drinking age of 21 has prevented anyone from actually drinking, is it?
My Prediction: It all comes down to student turnout...I got a University-wide email encouraging students to participate in early voting but it's one of those mass spam emails that (at least when I was an undergrad) everybody just sort of blew past them so I'm not sure how effective it will be. The students have shown up in a big way for this once so far... and they didn't the last time. It feels a little different this time around- but it's the usual Town Versus Gown Battle Royale and I think if the students put up big numbers, it's going down. 50/50- but I could see it being repealed.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Shutdown Roulette: Was This Gun Supposed To Do That?
So, it's over. They saw the light, the Senate did what the Senate does and produced something safe, bipartisan and fundamentally vanilla flavored that purchased a few months of peace. Or like two months of peace, anyway. We could be right back here very quickly- but I doubt it. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said he's not shutting down the government over Obamacare again. Speaker of the House John Boehner is probably worried about keeping his job- and he should be as he might have to rely on Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Minority to get anything done.
My original point still stands- why shut down the government over Obamacare? They knew it was never getting through the Senate and they knew that even if, by some crazy happenstance it did so that the President wasn't going to sign it. It was about as complete a non-starter as you can imagine- yet they did it anyway. To stand with the American people for Conservative principles or blah blah blah... but you know, there's a thing about principles: they don't matter a damn if you don't win elections.
And, moreover- if, as it seems to be that the rollout of Obamacare has been a complete and total nightmare, then why oh why would you want to distract from that? That's all on the Democrats and the President. Pull out your deck chairs, pour yourselves a nice frosty beverage and watch it happen. Resist the urge to tell the voters 'we told you so.' Come up with a detailed, specific plan about what you would do to fix the problem. Stop saying 'repeal and replace' and focus on the 'replace' part and you might, just maybe, get clear of this trainwreck and accomplish something next year. Ultimately, this shutdown was the wrong play for the GOPers. If the opposing party is launching a trainwreck, don't, for heaven's sake stand in their way.
Going forward- although I don't have a lot of reasons to hope on this score- one hopes that the spirit of sensible compromise will prevail. The message should be sent to all the GOPers across the board: big change means winning elections. If they're smart (and I think this debacle proves that they are nowhere near as smart as they should be) they'll get as much as they can out of a bipartisan budget compromise and push any conversations about the debt ceiling or government shutdowns past the 2014 midterms. If they're smart, they'll keep the focus on the current problems with Obamacare and hope, hope, hope that they continue.
But here's the thing: I don't think they're that smart. I have this sinking feeling that 2014 is going to bring at least one Senate candidate that should have been laughed out of the room and cost them a seat. 2016 is probably going to be another clown car massacre of just plain unpalatable candidates before someone bland, inoffensive and probably richer than everyone else because that's the only way someone's going to get the Republican nomination. A future full of Mittens' awaits unless something radical is done to the GOPers.
Maybe it's creeping old age thrusting me into the welcoming arms of conservatism and ugly sweaters and corny Dad jokes- but it's irritating me that the GOPers can't get it together. It irritated me when the Dems couldn't get their shit in order after 2004- (make fun of Howard Dean's maniacal, campaign killing yell all you want but the man's 50 state strategy made sense and paid dividends for them.) If I'm stuck with only two parties, I want them to be sane, healthy and doing productive things that are as free from the constraints of dusty ideologies as possible and entrenched firmly in utilitarian pragmatism- doing sensible things for as many people as possible and not just the corporate dickheads that purchase and rent our elected officials.
My original point still stands- why shut down the government over Obamacare? They knew it was never getting through the Senate and they knew that even if, by some crazy happenstance it did so that the President wasn't going to sign it. It was about as complete a non-starter as you can imagine- yet they did it anyway. To stand with the American people for Conservative principles or blah blah blah... but you know, there's a thing about principles: they don't matter a damn if you don't win elections.
And, moreover- if, as it seems to be that the rollout of Obamacare has been a complete and total nightmare, then why oh why would you want to distract from that? That's all on the Democrats and the President. Pull out your deck chairs, pour yourselves a nice frosty beverage and watch it happen. Resist the urge to tell the voters 'we told you so.' Come up with a detailed, specific plan about what you would do to fix the problem. Stop saying 'repeal and replace' and focus on the 'replace' part and you might, just maybe, get clear of this trainwreck and accomplish something next year. Ultimately, this shutdown was the wrong play for the GOPers. If the opposing party is launching a trainwreck, don't, for heaven's sake stand in their way.
Going forward- although I don't have a lot of reasons to hope on this score- one hopes that the spirit of sensible compromise will prevail. The message should be sent to all the GOPers across the board: big change means winning elections. If they're smart (and I think this debacle proves that they are nowhere near as smart as they should be) they'll get as much as they can out of a bipartisan budget compromise and push any conversations about the debt ceiling or government shutdowns past the 2014 midterms. If they're smart, they'll keep the focus on the current problems with Obamacare and hope, hope, hope that they continue.
But here's the thing: I don't think they're that smart. I have this sinking feeling that 2014 is going to bring at least one Senate candidate that should have been laughed out of the room and cost them a seat. 2016 is probably going to be another clown car massacre of just plain unpalatable candidates before someone bland, inoffensive and probably richer than everyone else because that's the only way someone's going to get the Republican nomination. A future full of Mittens' awaits unless something radical is done to the GOPers.
Maybe it's creeping old age thrusting me into the welcoming arms of conservatism and ugly sweaters and corny Dad jokes- but it's irritating me that the GOPers can't get it together. It irritated me when the Dems couldn't get their shit in order after 2004- (make fun of Howard Dean's maniacal, campaign killing yell all you want but the man's 50 state strategy made sense and paid dividends for them.) If I'm stuck with only two parties, I want them to be sane, healthy and doing productive things that are as free from the constraints of dusty ideologies as possible and entrenched firmly in utilitarian pragmatism- doing sensible things for as many people as possible and not just the corporate dickheads that purchase and rent our elected officials.
My Halloween Jam
This is my Halloween Jam. It's on heavy rotation in my latest iTunes mix and it's rapidly become one of my favorite songs. Obviously, there's the title: 'Zombie'- but to me, the track has a nice voodoo flavor that makes the idea of zombies shuffling around easy to imagine. But the artist, Fela Kuti is worth a peek if you haven't heard of him. One of the progenitors of Afrobeat, the man was also a fierce political activist and opponent of the military regime in Nigeria. The backstory on 'Zombie,' courtesy of Wikipedia:
In 1977, Fela and the Afrika '70 released the album Zombie, a scathing attack on Nigerian soldiers using the zombie metaphor to describe the methods of the Nigerian military. The album was a smash hit and infuriated the government, setting off a vicious attack against the Kalakuta Republic, during which one thousand soldiers attack the commune. Fela was severely beaten, and his elderly mother was thrown from a window, causing fatal injuries. The Kalakuta Republic was burned, and Fela's studio, instruments and master tapes were destroyed. Fela claimed that he would have been killed had it not been for the intervention of a commanding officer as he was being beaten. Fela's response to the attack was to deliver his mother's coffin to the Dodan Barracks in Lagos, General Olusegun Obasanjo's residence, and to write two songs, 'Coffin for Head of State' and 'Unknown Solder,' referencing the official inquiry that claimed the commune had been destroyed by an unknown soldier.Wrap that around your minds for a moment. The man's mother is killed by the military and what does he do? Sends her coffin to the General's barracks. Stone cold steel cojones on this guy... like an angry version of Bob Marley with just as big an influence on world music.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
The Practical Guide To Entertaining The Cigarillo #4
Iowa City Public Library Downtown
(Proving that even when it comes to playgrounds, sequels are never as good as the original)
Pros: Location, location, location! Can't say that enough about this stuff- you're a short stroller ride from the Farmer's Market, from froyo and other fun foods not to mention that weird-ass excuse of a fountain (Weatherdance, I think it's called. God, I miss Three Women Peeing.) The rubber bouncy crap they use on playgrounds these days is especially bouncy downtown and as a bonus, there will always be kids around for your kiddo to play with.
Cons: The height makes me kind of nervous as do the crowds sometimes. The Cigarillo can move fast when he wants too so the first time we took him here I was making like a linebacker jumping off of the play equipment swinging down ladders to catch up with him. Now I just go down the slides with him- thankfully he seems to have a pretty good sense of the heights with the stuff so he hasn't made like he's going to attempt a ladder or anything that's way too high for him- at least not yet.
Bonus Rant: This playground is the reason I hate the rounded corners plastic shit that seems to be endemic on playgrounds these days. When they put this stuff in and took the old stuff out they destroyed a huge chunk of my childhood not to mention the most awesome playground in the entire county. The old stuff (and townies that grew up here can testify to this) was awesome. There was everything you could possibly want in a playground- climbing blocks, ladders, gigantic metal slides and a secret compartment that when you were big enough to get down to it was a right of passage for many a child of The I.C. I only wish I had a picture of the old stuff to prove to everyone how awesome it really was.
Verdict: Not as good as the original and it never will be but it's still a nice addition to downtown- and it's the perfect something for the kids to do if you're out and about downtown.
Shimek Elementary
(There may not be windows, but there are tons of skylights, we swear!)
Pros: What better way to close out the playground season than with the best kept secret in Iowa City! One of the friends of the Missus, Nurse Ratchet had kept insisting that Shimek had the best playground anywhere in Iowa City and after going here, I'm willing to go along with that. Shimek kicks it old school- their playground is sprawling, complex and wooden. It's almost nostalgic to see a wooden playground with mulch again and as a double bonus, Shimek has a lot of climbing, a lot of hidden compartments and nooks and crannies for kiddos to explore and there are no death-defying drops for The Cigarillo to potentially tumble off of. He had a lot of fun here- especially with the bouncy bridge and the clattering wooden bridge.
Cons: Metal slides. I forgot how hot they can get-- I ended up having to put The Cigarillo on my lap to go down the slide just to make sure his little legs didn't get singed- I think he had more fun with Daddy anyway. And then there's the school itself... it's white, but not that pristine, cheerful white you'd want in a school- it's more of an off-white, almost a hospital white and there's not a window visible which makes the whole place feel like a mental hospital almost- or a prison. Nurse Ratchet, herself a graduate of Shimek hastened to assure both the Missus and I that there were, in fact, plenty of skylights inside to make up for this. I'll take her word for it.
Verdict: Whip out the GPS, load the kids in the car one weekend and track this place down. Your kids will thank you for it.
(Proving that even when it comes to playgrounds, sequels are never as good as the original)
Cons: The height makes me kind of nervous as do the crowds sometimes. The Cigarillo can move fast when he wants too so the first time we took him here I was making like a linebacker jumping off of the play equipment swinging down ladders to catch up with him. Now I just go down the slides with him- thankfully he seems to have a pretty good sense of the heights with the stuff so he hasn't made like he's going to attempt a ladder or anything that's way too high for him- at least not yet.
Bonus Rant: This playground is the reason I hate the rounded corners plastic shit that seems to be endemic on playgrounds these days. When they put this stuff in and took the old stuff out they destroyed a huge chunk of my childhood not to mention the most awesome playground in the entire county. The old stuff (and townies that grew up here can testify to this) was awesome. There was everything you could possibly want in a playground- climbing blocks, ladders, gigantic metal slides and a secret compartment that when you were big enough to get down to it was a right of passage for many a child of The I.C. I only wish I had a picture of the old stuff to prove to everyone how awesome it really was.
Verdict: Not as good as the original and it never will be but it's still a nice addition to downtown- and it's the perfect something for the kids to do if you're out and about downtown.
Shimek Elementary
(There may not be windows, but there are tons of skylights, we swear!)
Pros: What better way to close out the playground season than with the best kept secret in Iowa City! One of the friends of the Missus, Nurse Ratchet had kept insisting that Shimek had the best playground anywhere in Iowa City and after going here, I'm willing to go along with that. Shimek kicks it old school- their playground is sprawling, complex and wooden. It's almost nostalgic to see a wooden playground with mulch again and as a double bonus, Shimek has a lot of climbing, a lot of hidden compartments and nooks and crannies for kiddos to explore and there are no death-defying drops for The Cigarillo to potentially tumble off of. He had a lot of fun here- especially with the bouncy bridge and the clattering wooden bridge.
Cons: Metal slides. I forgot how hot they can get-- I ended up having to put The Cigarillo on my lap to go down the slide just to make sure his little legs didn't get singed- I think he had more fun with Daddy anyway. And then there's the school itself... it's white, but not that pristine, cheerful white you'd want in a school- it's more of an off-white, almost a hospital white and there's not a window visible which makes the whole place feel like a mental hospital almost- or a prison. Nurse Ratchet, herself a graduate of Shimek hastened to assure both the Missus and I that there were, in fact, plenty of skylights inside to make up for this. I'll take her word for it.
Verdict: Whip out the GPS, load the kids in the car one weekend and track this place down. Your kids will thank you for it.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Yesterday Was Columbus Day. I Didn't Notice, Did You?
Yesterday was Columbus Day. As is my usual custom each and every year, I barely noticed. If not for the flurry of commercials on television announcing Columbus Day sales and the fact that the mail doesn't show up, I probably wouldn't notice or care at all. I don't care about Columbus Day. I've never cared about Columbus Day. It was always that random day when no mail came, nothing more. We didn't get a day off school. (Though the Missus informs me that South Dakota does! It's Indigenous People's Day!)
So it always surprises me that there's an eruption of outrage each and every year over a holiday that most people could give a damn about. Specifically, there was this web comic, courtesy of The Oatmeal which pretty much tells us what everyone who's advanced beyond elementary school already knows: namely that for a guy that did us all a solid by discovering The Bahamas, he was a gigantic tool. The Oatmeal goes on to suggest that Bartolomé de las Casas would be a better person to name this holiday that nobody gives a shit about after. De Las Casas was a pretty civilized dude by the standards of the time- after witnessing the cruelty of Spanish colonization, sold all his land, became a priest and worked tirelessly for the equality of indigenous peoples.
Sounds pretty cool, right? Except, ru-roh! The Observation Deck pointed out that while De Las Casas was all about fair and decent treatment for indigenous people- but he thought that they would never survive slavery, so he advocated bringing over African slaves to do it instead. They were hardier, he thought and could survive it better. And while he repented later in life, he was still one of the fathers of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. So, our postal workers should stay home for him, but not Columbus?
I don't know: history is riddled with contradictions- and while the behavior of the Spanish imperialists horrifies us and the genocide that resulted- whether through conquest or through disease should be considered the disasters they are, by the standards of the time, there was nothing wrong with their behavior. These were people that were still clinging to the idea that the Earth was flat. In 1492, they hadn't even wrapped their heads around the Earth revolving around the sun. Of course they held views about different people and cultures that in the modern age seem astonishingly ignorant. It seems silly to judge them for it- after all, they really didn't know any better. And I would really question just how much we honor Columbus, anyway- like I said at the start of this post, I've never given a damn about Columbus Day. Like the Pledge of Allegiance, it's one of those things that you sort of stop doing on a regular basis once you advance into junior high and high school.
Of course, there's another point of view that's very intriguing: namely the idea that it's not Columbus or De Las Casas we should be celebrating but John Cabot or possibly Leif Erickson. If you look at the 'New World' it more or less falls into three spheres: the English speaking, Spanish speaking and Portuguese speaking worlds. Columbus is incredibly important for the Spanish-speaking world. Pedro Alvares Cabral would probably get some credit for the Portuguese speaking world (he discovered Brazil) but English speaking exploration didn't really kick off until John Cabot's voyage in 1497.
I'm sorry, I can't work up the outrage about this. What happened afterwards- the slavery, disease- the loss of Tenochtitlan (which would be one of the Wonders of the World today, had it survived), the loss of culture and language that are slipping away with every passing day- those are matters worthy of our attention and outrage. A holiday which adds up to one less day of junk mail and those copies of Ebony that someone subscribed to for me (why, I don't know) isn't.
So it always surprises me that there's an eruption of outrage each and every year over a holiday that most people could give a damn about. Specifically, there was this web comic, courtesy of The Oatmeal which pretty much tells us what everyone who's advanced beyond elementary school already knows: namely that for a guy that did us all a solid by discovering The Bahamas, he was a gigantic tool. The Oatmeal goes on to suggest that Bartolomé de las Casas would be a better person to name this holiday that nobody gives a shit about after. De Las Casas was a pretty civilized dude by the standards of the time- after witnessing the cruelty of Spanish colonization, sold all his land, became a priest and worked tirelessly for the equality of indigenous peoples.
Sounds pretty cool, right? Except, ru-roh! The Observation Deck pointed out that while De Las Casas was all about fair and decent treatment for indigenous people- but he thought that they would never survive slavery, so he advocated bringing over African slaves to do it instead. They were hardier, he thought and could survive it better. And while he repented later in life, he was still one of the fathers of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. So, our postal workers should stay home for him, but not Columbus?
I don't know: history is riddled with contradictions- and while the behavior of the Spanish imperialists horrifies us and the genocide that resulted- whether through conquest or through disease should be considered the disasters they are, by the standards of the time, there was nothing wrong with their behavior. These were people that were still clinging to the idea that the Earth was flat. In 1492, they hadn't even wrapped their heads around the Earth revolving around the sun. Of course they held views about different people and cultures that in the modern age seem astonishingly ignorant. It seems silly to judge them for it- after all, they really didn't know any better. And I would really question just how much we honor Columbus, anyway- like I said at the start of this post, I've never given a damn about Columbus Day. Like the Pledge of Allegiance, it's one of those things that you sort of stop doing on a regular basis once you advance into junior high and high school.
Of course, there's another point of view that's very intriguing: namely the idea that it's not Columbus or De Las Casas we should be celebrating but John Cabot or possibly Leif Erickson. If you look at the 'New World' it more or less falls into three spheres: the English speaking, Spanish speaking and Portuguese speaking worlds. Columbus is incredibly important for the Spanish-speaking world. Pedro Alvares Cabral would probably get some credit for the Portuguese speaking world (he discovered Brazil) but English speaking exploration didn't really kick off until John Cabot's voyage in 1497.
I'm sorry, I can't work up the outrage about this. What happened afterwards- the slavery, disease- the loss of Tenochtitlan (which would be one of the Wonders of the World today, had it survived), the loss of culture and language that are slipping away with every passing day- those are matters worthy of our attention and outrage. A holiday which adds up to one less day of junk mail and those copies of Ebony that someone subscribed to for me (why, I don't know) isn't.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Whiskey of The Month #13: A Detour To Grappa, Part 2
Well, last month brought an unexpected birthday bonus of a second bottle of Grappa! This time, we're stepping sideways to another grape, chardonnay and of course, that means this is Grappa Di Chardonnay. It came in this bottle:
Equally beautiful and hand painted as it's counterpart from last month, this bottle of grappa presented us with an immediate challenge I had never encountered: the cork got stuck. Well, more precisely what happened was that the stopper separated from the cork and we ended up having to pry the cork out with an assist from Mother Cigar.
A creative use of mason jars ensued and most of the Grappa Di Chardonnay now resides here:
But, let's leave that aside and get down to brass tacks:
Color: Clear, colorless
Body: As with the Grappa Di Prosecco there's an underlying sweetness there but it's a different kind of sweetness, which I would probably put down to the difference between the grapes. The sweetness of the prosecco is more obvious (as with most proseccos) but the sweetness of the chardonnay is more subtle, I think.
Palate: It's smooth and there's a hint of grittiness to it, yet weirdly it's kind of syrupy as well. Hmmmmmm...
Finish: Not as nice as the Grappa di Prosecco- there's a rush of harsh taste that redeems itself with a nice, gradual warming sensation that makes up for it.
I was toying with the notion of having an espresso test and being really Italian about it but I don't think I will-- I will say that both of these grappas are actually nice and quite drinkable which made a huge change from my initial, drain cleaner like experience with grappa when we were in Italy itself a few years ago. But between these two, I think I like the bolder sweetness of the Grappa di Prosecco over it's chardonnay counterpart. Never fear though- next month, we're back to the good stuff!
Equally beautiful and hand painted as it's counterpart from last month, this bottle of grappa presented us with an immediate challenge I had never encountered: the cork got stuck. Well, more precisely what happened was that the stopper separated from the cork and we ended up having to pry the cork out with an assist from Mother Cigar.
A creative use of mason jars ensued and most of the Grappa Di Chardonnay now resides here:
Color: Clear, colorless
Body: As with the Grappa Di Prosecco there's an underlying sweetness there but it's a different kind of sweetness, which I would probably put down to the difference between the grapes. The sweetness of the prosecco is more obvious (as with most proseccos) but the sweetness of the chardonnay is more subtle, I think.
Palate: It's smooth and there's a hint of grittiness to it, yet weirdly it's kind of syrupy as well. Hmmmmmm...
Finish: Not as nice as the Grappa di Prosecco- there's a rush of harsh taste that redeems itself with a nice, gradual warming sensation that makes up for it.
I was toying with the notion of having an espresso test and being really Italian about it but I don't think I will-- I will say that both of these grappas are actually nice and quite drinkable which made a huge change from my initial, drain cleaner like experience with grappa when we were in Italy itself a few years ago. But between these two, I think I like the bolder sweetness of the Grappa di Prosecco over it's chardonnay counterpart. Never fear though- next month, we're back to the good stuff!
Sunday, October 13, 2013
A Modest Proposal: The John Corse Memorial Bridge
I like driving through Des Moines now. It didn't always used to be that way-- way back in the day, I-235 was a god-awful nightmare of a mess and it just made sense to ride I-80 around the curve and Urbandale and through West Des Moines until it branched off from I-35 and headed west once more. Then, Des Moines got it's act together and decided to clean up I-235 and the results were wonderful.
The road system works. And more to the point, it's dotted with these beautiful, arched, blue pedestrian bridges that take what was a drive through a grey, pedestrian, frankly boring urban landscape and gave you something to look at. Those bridges made all the difference.
I love bridges. It's probably some weird side effect of living in such close proximity to Father Cigar for all these years but a bridge doesn't have to be just a bridge. It can soar, it can arch, it can be breathtaking and beautiful all with merely a modicum of effort- which got me thinking- why doesn't Iowa City have any iconic bridges?
I mean, we're looking at doing all kinds of crazy things with the River. There's talk about altering and even maybe removing the Burlington Street Dam to allow for whitewater rafting and canoeing. I saw some vague, crazy-ass plan in Coralville to set up ziplines across the River by the Marriot. The Iowa River has been designated a Water Trail and overall, there's a concerted effort to integrate the River into the life of the community as much as possible- if for no other reason that once a decade or so it tends to integrate itself into our lives whether we want it or not.
Which brings me to this most modest proposals- a suitable replacement for the John Corse Memorial Bridge:
Yes, that's right, this bridge has a name. If, like me, you were wondering just who the heck General John Corse was, well, you're not alone. The TL;DR version: he was a badass General, Commander of the 6th Iowa Infantry in the Civil War and is especially noted for his stubborn defense during the Battle of Allatoona Pass in 1864. His money quote: "I am short a cheek-bone and an ear, but am able to whip all hell yet."
I think he deserves a better bridge than this. We could get crazy:
But there's equally creative precedents right here in Iowa:
That second one is the new bridge in Iowa Falls and it's extremely nice- really beautiful replacement for the Scenic City. Or there's something simpler still:
It doesn't have to be glorious and wonderful and a wonder of the world- but a nicer bridge, maybe a bridge that's illuminated somehow now and again would help bring attention to the River which is apparently where we want to go anyway and could be a nice way to highlight the southern end of the Riverfront Crossings District should that ever get seriously underway as the City wants.
I think that quote of his would look especially cool carved into the side of a bridge somehow but at the very least, it deserves a fresh coat of paint on those railings. It looks like crap and I think if you're going to name something after anyone, you shouldn't be quite so slapdash about it.
The road system works. And more to the point, it's dotted with these beautiful, arched, blue pedestrian bridges that take what was a drive through a grey, pedestrian, frankly boring urban landscape and gave you something to look at. Those bridges made all the difference.
I love bridges. It's probably some weird side effect of living in such close proximity to Father Cigar for all these years but a bridge doesn't have to be just a bridge. It can soar, it can arch, it can be breathtaking and beautiful all with merely a modicum of effort- which got me thinking- why doesn't Iowa City have any iconic bridges?
I mean, we're looking at doing all kinds of crazy things with the River. There's talk about altering and even maybe removing the Burlington Street Dam to allow for whitewater rafting and canoeing. I saw some vague, crazy-ass plan in Coralville to set up ziplines across the River by the Marriot. The Iowa River has been designated a Water Trail and overall, there's a concerted effort to integrate the River into the life of the community as much as possible- if for no other reason that once a decade or so it tends to integrate itself into our lives whether we want it or not.
Which brings me to this most modest proposals- a suitable replacement for the John Corse Memorial Bridge:
I think he deserves a better bridge than this. We could get crazy:
But there's equally creative precedents right here in Iowa:
I think that quote of his would look especially cool carved into the side of a bridge somehow but at the very least, it deserves a fresh coat of paint on those railings. It looks like crap and I think if you're going to name something after anyone, you shouldn't be quite so slapdash about it.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
This Week In Vexillology #50
Well last week, we checked out the world's only non-quadrilateral flag with Nepal and this week, we're heading over to Europe to check out the oldest tricolor in the world- so get your orange jerseys on and start learning your soccer chants to the tune of that one aria from Aida because this week, it's The Netherlands!
Kids, buckle up because this isn't going to be your simple, easy and kind of boring tricolor. Nope, this one is complicated and it all starts and ends with William The Silent, the first Prince of Orange*, who lead a revolt against Spanish rule in the Netherlands that culminated in their Declaration of Independence, the Act of Abjuration of 1581. Partly out of respect for him, they adopted what was an orange, white and blue tricolor (since he was from the House of Orange-Nassau) but the orange had a tendency to fade to red with time, it was made the official color by the mid-17th century and here's the mind blowing part: this flag wasn't officially confirmed by Royal Decree until 1937**. It's first recorded appearance was in 1572 making this by far, the oldest tricolor in the world.
If the history isn't enough for you and you're still thinking 'b-b-b-but Tom, it's a tricolor and they're boooooooring' well, get a load of this:
It's called 'The Prinsengeus' and it's the official naval jack of the Netherlands.
So, kids, put your hands together for The Netherlands and remember, until next time, keep your flags flying. FREAK or otherwise!
*Crazily enough, William the Silent is also believed to be the first Head of State assassinated by a handgun in world history.
**The Dutch had a Republic for awhile that somehow morphed into a Kingdom. It's sort of confusing yet really cool at the same time. Our Founding Fathers were pretty pumped by the Republic part anyway. The flag was adopted for national and civil usage on February 19th, 1937.
Kids, buckle up because this isn't going to be your simple, easy and kind of boring tricolor. Nope, this one is complicated and it all starts and ends with William The Silent, the first Prince of Orange*, who lead a revolt against Spanish rule in the Netherlands that culminated in their Declaration of Independence, the Act of Abjuration of 1581. Partly out of respect for him, they adopted what was an orange, white and blue tricolor (since he was from the House of Orange-Nassau) but the orange had a tendency to fade to red with time, it was made the official color by the mid-17th century and here's the mind blowing part: this flag wasn't officially confirmed by Royal Decree until 1937**. It's first recorded appearance was in 1572 making this by far, the oldest tricolor in the world.
If the history isn't enough for you and you're still thinking 'b-b-b-but Tom, it's a tricolor and they're boooooooring' well, get a load of this:
It's called 'The Prinsengeus' and it's the official naval jack of the Netherlands.
So, kids, put your hands together for The Netherlands and remember, until next time, keep your flags flying. FREAK or otherwise!
*Crazily enough, William the Silent is also believed to be the first Head of State assassinated by a handgun in world history.
**The Dutch had a Republic for awhile that somehow morphed into a Kingdom. It's sort of confusing yet really cool at the same time. Our Founding Fathers were pretty pumped by the Republic part anyway. The flag was adopted for national and civil usage on February 19th, 1937.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Hail To The R******s?
The latest brouhaha over the Washington Redskins name continues. Dan Patrick spent a good chunk of his first hour on it this morning, Rick Reilly has had a column supporting the name (in which his father in law was his main source and who has today come out and said he was misquoted), Dan Snyder- the owner of the Washington Redskins published an open letter to the world expressing his pride in the tradition and honor of the name and blah blah blah, etc, etc, etc.
Let's be perfectly clear here: I am not Native American. I don't think I know any Native Americans and even if I did, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable going to my newly discovered Native American friend to find out what Native Americans think about any given topic on any given day. (Because, naturally, as Rick Reilly's column points out- they all know what each other thinks about any given topic on any given day.) That said, I'm going to going out on a limb here and tentatively say that perhaps things like centuries of oppression, bone-crushing poverty, land rights, mining rights, treaty rights, pretty much any rights you can think of might just matter more to Native Americans than the name of a not-very-good football team.
I get mildly offended by the idea that we should do Native Americans a solid by changing this name because we wouldn't want to offend them. Really? Really? That's going to make up for everything, of course- you know what offends me? The fact that so many Native Americans live in bone-crushing, pretty much Third World poverty and this is what America chooses to feel bad about. The Redskins fans who cry about the P-C police and how great their name is miss the mark quite a bit but they're not wrong: this is a huge amount of misplaced white guilt- and if we really want to help Native Americans, I think we can do better things than this. (Like may be giving large amounts of their land back, perhaps?)
But ok, fine, let's say for the sake of argument that we're going to go ahead and have this discussion. Should the name be changed?
Well, if you're going to change the Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards because of well, murder*, then I don't think there are many compelling arguments to keep the Redskins name. Unlike the NCAA, whose convoluted double-standard of a policy still annoys me (either they're all offensive or none of them are. You can't have your cake and eat it too...) the NFL*** could be proactive on this- and while Reilly isn't wrong- there are probably still plenty of sports teams from high school to professional that have antiquated names like this, the fact remains, it's a name that belongs in another century- tradition be damned.
The Onion weighed in with what I consider to be the most likely name change scenario, given Dan Snyder's fierce resistance to the idea- but it was Buzzfeed that came up with something better. I've seen enough Redskins' games to have seen the obligatory screen shot of the Hoggettes or the Hog Pound or whatever the hell it's called and it's always confused me. What the hell is the connection to a pig? But it's a tradition- and one that could be easily spun into a new name for the team. The Washington Hogs works on multiple levels: I mean, have you seen that show about feral pigs in Texas? Those bastards are mean. Plus, with all the politicians slobbering over Washington's pork barrel buffet on Capitol Hill it works on a satirical level as well.
Problem is, even if you change the name, you don't solve that many problems. I seem to remember sometime back in the 90s there was controversy over the Atlanta Braves. And I bet the Cleveland Indians and the Chicago Blackhawks will come under scrutiny as well... which brings us back to the point I made about the NCAA- it's a good point and it applies here: either all the names are offensive or none of them are.** Professional sports should decide, same as the NCAA.
*I wonder how many people in Washington would support bringing back the Bullets if the Redskins changed their name the Wizards?
**This includes Florida State. Yes, I know they had 'permission' but come on now- you take this much history and culture and reduce it to this? That sort of depresses me- but what do I know?
***Fuck, I forgot about the Chiefs. Well, they have it easier. Just drop the 'I' and I doubt anyone will notice or care.
Let's be perfectly clear here: I am not Native American. I don't think I know any Native Americans and even if I did, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable going to my newly discovered Native American friend to find out what Native Americans think about any given topic on any given day. (Because, naturally, as Rick Reilly's column points out- they all know what each other thinks about any given topic on any given day.) That said, I'm going to going out on a limb here and tentatively say that perhaps things like centuries of oppression, bone-crushing poverty, land rights, mining rights, treaty rights, pretty much any rights you can think of might just matter more to Native Americans than the name of a not-very-good football team.
I get mildly offended by the idea that we should do Native Americans a solid by changing this name because we wouldn't want to offend them. Really? Really? That's going to make up for everything, of course- you know what offends me? The fact that so many Native Americans live in bone-crushing, pretty much Third World poverty and this is what America chooses to feel bad about. The Redskins fans who cry about the P-C police and how great their name is miss the mark quite a bit but they're not wrong: this is a huge amount of misplaced white guilt- and if we really want to help Native Americans, I think we can do better things than this. (Like may be giving large amounts of their land back, perhaps?)
But ok, fine, let's say for the sake of argument that we're going to go ahead and have this discussion. Should the name be changed?
Well, if you're going to change the Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards because of well, murder*, then I don't think there are many compelling arguments to keep the Redskins name. Unlike the NCAA, whose convoluted double-standard of a policy still annoys me (either they're all offensive or none of them are. You can't have your cake and eat it too...) the NFL*** could be proactive on this- and while Reilly isn't wrong- there are probably still plenty of sports teams from high school to professional that have antiquated names like this, the fact remains, it's a name that belongs in another century- tradition be damned.
The Onion weighed in with what I consider to be the most likely name change scenario, given Dan Snyder's fierce resistance to the idea- but it was Buzzfeed that came up with something better. I've seen enough Redskins' games to have seen the obligatory screen shot of the Hoggettes or the Hog Pound or whatever the hell it's called and it's always confused me. What the hell is the connection to a pig? But it's a tradition- and one that could be easily spun into a new name for the team. The Washington Hogs works on multiple levels: I mean, have you seen that show about feral pigs in Texas? Those bastards are mean. Plus, with all the politicians slobbering over Washington's pork barrel buffet on Capitol Hill it works on a satirical level as well.
Problem is, even if you change the name, you don't solve that many problems. I seem to remember sometime back in the 90s there was controversy over the Atlanta Braves. And I bet the Cleveland Indians and the Chicago Blackhawks will come under scrutiny as well... which brings us back to the point I made about the NCAA- it's a good point and it applies here: either all the names are offensive or none of them are.** Professional sports should decide, same as the NCAA.
*I wonder how many people in Washington would support bringing back the Bullets if the Redskins changed their name the Wizards?
**This includes Florida State. Yes, I know they had 'permission' but come on now- you take this much history and culture and reduce it to this? That sort of depresses me- but what do I know?
***Fuck, I forgot about the Chiefs. Well, they have it easier. Just drop the 'I' and I doubt anyone will notice or care.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Shutdown Roulette: The 28th Amendment
OK, now this is just getting ridiculous. It's been over a week and if there's actual talks going on, they're behind closed doors and far, far away from any media that's able or willing to report on them. What makes this sort of a yawn inducing subject is the news that 83% of the Federal Government is actually still working and Congress, figuring that it's sort of hard to justify paying themselves and not furloughed Federal workers has agreed to pay said furloughed workers.
So, the majority of the government is still at work, everyone is getting paid, so why exactly can't we come to some sort of agreement on this? Instead, Park Rangers are forced into being stormtroopers for an Administration that seems hell bent on being as assholic as possible about this-- not to mention the fact that monuments remained open during the last government shutdown and if you show a group of World War II veterans some barbed wire, what do you think they're going to do? Nazis with machine guns were probably a hell of a lot scarier than the National Park Service ever could be.
But don't worry- there's plenty of my ire left over for GOPers as well... the pendulum on stories like this seems to swing back and forth a lot but I refer to my point made in part one: if, as many GOPers are convinced, Obamacare is going to be a trainwreck, then why are you standing in its way? Every difficulty or technical glitch makes them look bad not you and the longer this shutdown continues the more likely it is that both sides are going to get the blame. I think it's time to give the people what they supposedly want and just call it a day... I really don't like playing brinksmanship with the nation's debt ceiling so if you could stop that, I'd appreciate it.
Sigh. Which brings us back to Obamacare... do I think it's a bad law? Meh. I'm not crazy about it but I also know that health care costs are sky rocketing and not enough people have access to our health care system. Something had to be done... what makes me queasy is the blatant act of crass political opportunism on the part of the Democratic Party to force the ACA through. I can't say that I really blame the Democrats, per say- after all, they saw an opportunity and they ran with it- and I can't honestly say the GOPers wouldn't or haven't done similar things in the past- but we're talking about an incredibly large, complicated part of the American economic system. To me, that isn't something you rush. But, you know- hindsight is 20/20, c'est la vie and all that. What's done is done. We just have to live with it- I'd prefer it if members of Congress did as well, if for no other reason that if you inconvenience them, then they're more likely to fix it faster but que sera sera, I guess.
If either side is looking to impress me, however, there is a way to do that. Pass the 28th Amendment... which in my head, basically says this:
Government shutdowns represent a failure of the executive and the legislative branches of our government and the way I've been increasingly thinking about this is that if we're going to continue to live in the age of hyper-partisan idiocy that we do (symptomatic of both sides of the aisle, IMHO, even though both leftys and righties reading this will insist that it's the other guys who are the crazy ones, not them) then we need to hit members of Congress and the Executive where it hurts- by taking away their salaries and benefits for a year. If that doesn't provide enough motivation for Congress to actually get a deal done, well then, fire everybody and get a new Congress.
Extreme? Probably. But lately it seems like politicians seem more concerned about keeping their jobs than fixing the country. I can think of no better way to motivate them to get shit done than by dangling their jobs in front of them.
So, the majority of the government is still at work, everyone is getting paid, so why exactly can't we come to some sort of agreement on this? Instead, Park Rangers are forced into being stormtroopers for an Administration that seems hell bent on being as assholic as possible about this-- not to mention the fact that monuments remained open during the last government shutdown and if you show a group of World War II veterans some barbed wire, what do you think they're going to do? Nazis with machine guns were probably a hell of a lot scarier than the National Park Service ever could be.
But don't worry- there's plenty of my ire left over for GOPers as well... the pendulum on stories like this seems to swing back and forth a lot but I refer to my point made in part one: if, as many GOPers are convinced, Obamacare is going to be a trainwreck, then why are you standing in its way? Every difficulty or technical glitch makes them look bad not you and the longer this shutdown continues the more likely it is that both sides are going to get the blame. I think it's time to give the people what they supposedly want and just call it a day... I really don't like playing brinksmanship with the nation's debt ceiling so if you could stop that, I'd appreciate it.
Sigh. Which brings us back to Obamacare... do I think it's a bad law? Meh. I'm not crazy about it but I also know that health care costs are sky rocketing and not enough people have access to our health care system. Something had to be done... what makes me queasy is the blatant act of crass political opportunism on the part of the Democratic Party to force the ACA through. I can't say that I really blame the Democrats, per say- after all, they saw an opportunity and they ran with it- and I can't honestly say the GOPers wouldn't or haven't done similar things in the past- but we're talking about an incredibly large, complicated part of the American economic system. To me, that isn't something you rush. But, you know- hindsight is 20/20, c'est la vie and all that. What's done is done. We just have to live with it- I'd prefer it if members of Congress did as well, if for no other reason that if you inconvenience them, then they're more likely to fix it faster but que sera sera, I guess.
If either side is looking to impress me, however, there is a way to do that. Pass the 28th Amendment... which in my head, basically says this:
In the event of a government shutdown, all members of Congress, the President and the Vice-President shall forfeit one year's pay and benefits with no possibility of back pay. And moreover, if a government shutdown lasts longer than two weeks, new elections for both House and Senate will be triggered six weeks from the day the shutdown enters it second week and all parties must field new candidates for every seat.
Government shutdowns represent a failure of the executive and the legislative branches of our government and the way I've been increasingly thinking about this is that if we're going to continue to live in the age of hyper-partisan idiocy that we do (symptomatic of both sides of the aisle, IMHO, even though both leftys and righties reading this will insist that it's the other guys who are the crazy ones, not them) then we need to hit members of Congress and the Executive where it hurts- by taking away their salaries and benefits for a year. If that doesn't provide enough motivation for Congress to actually get a deal done, well then, fire everybody and get a new Congress.
Extreme? Probably. But lately it seems like politicians seem more concerned about keeping their jobs than fixing the country. I can think of no better way to motivate them to get shit done than by dangling their jobs in front of them.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Iowa v Michigan State: venite ad paginam aperire fabularum libri duo
I picked up some overtime Friday night into Saturday morning patrolling the Stadium. It had been awhile since I had done overnights at the Stadium: Kinnick Stadium the night before game day remains one of my favorite places to be. It's empty, it's quiet, it's oddly beautiful at 2 AM on a Saturday morning. You marvel at the emptiness of the place, not quite believing that 60-70,000 people are going to show up once it becomes daylight and watch a football game.
I got home at 6 AM, crashed and awoke just in time for kickoff. I remained trapped in that odd state where you're not really asleep but neither are you entirely awake either which lent this game a certain air of ethereal unreality- as if the whole thing was like the season of Dallas which turned out to be a dream. (And given the result, I don't know if I'd be happy or sad to wake up to find Patrick Duffy in my shower. It would certainly be odd, I know that.)
So we lost. It's Michigan State though... of late, these games have been scrappy, hard hitting affairs, trench warfare of the football kind that hearkens back to the glory days of B1G Ten Football- you know, when we actually had ten teams and not twelve. It's been the kind of football that lends itself to World War One metaphors, a game of attrition, inches and feet instead of yards and points. And you know what? I think, secretly, both Ferentz and Dantonio love it. If there was a way for these two teams to have a game with a score of 3-2, I think they'd both ascend to a higher football plane of nirvana and maybe stay there permanently.
The take away of the day: venite ad paginam aperire fabularum libri duo- let us open our playbooks to page 2! While the defense is to be commended for doing solid work all day and yes, the offense did manage to bite them twice to give us a lead at the half, they bottled us up all day. You could sense the trouble in the first quarter: while it would have been silly to expect an offensive eruption early in the game, we had to, had to, had to establish that we could move the ball early and often. We didn't do that. You know how everyone says that Offensive Coordinator Greg Davis had a seventy five page playbook? Today was the day to dig into that hardcore. When you're going up against of the best defenses in the country, running it up the gut just won't do. You have to surprise them, catch them off guard, show them something we- and they- hopefully haven't seen before.
We were woefully one dimensional on offense and Sparty took full advantage.* They shut down the run game and then they proved equally as adept as shutting down our passing game as well. Problem is, the general equation seemed to be that taking some successful shots downfield would loosen them up enough to get us traction on the running game. We couldn't manage that and remained unable to do much of anything on the offensive side of the ball. To be fair, we tried going to hurry-up but Sparty did what Sparty does and started taking more dives than an Italian soccer team so that petered out in a hurry.
So now: a bye-week. Then (gasp) Ohio State. Followed by (shudder) Northwestern. We remain one win away from statistical improvement from last year and two away from Bowl eligibility. I have to think, given what this team has shown on both sides of the ball thus far, that they have the ability to get to the magical two victories we need- and while this wasn't a do or die, must win kind of game, I think people would be a lot more comfortable had we pulled out a win. Statistical improvement would be cold comfort to hang your hats on if it means missing a Bowl game by the skin of our teeth but it'd beat the alternative. I remain convinced we have two victories out there. We just have go get them- though given our upcoming schedule, it could be a long and spooky October.
*No, I don't want to talk about that fake punt. I'm glad I didn't see that.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Food Adventures #32: CHICKEN AND WAFFLES, PART 2
Behold, the most meta meal I have ever constructed in my life: Chicken and Waffle Lays Encrusted Chicken and Waffles. BOOM! If your mind just imploded into tiny little pieces, give yourself a minute. I'll wait.
Are you ready? Are you sure? Good, I'll continue. I enjoyed the Chicken and Waffle flavored Lays when they first came out but there was one teensy problem with them: you got more waffle/syrup flavor then you did the chicken. Which got me thinking: what if you used them to bread chicken and serve that with waffles? Would that enhance the flavor or detract from the flavor?
As it turned out, it actually added to the flavor of the chicken quite nicely. Even after baking, the chips retained the sweetness of their original flavor and the recipe I got, whatever magic was contained therein kept the chicken breast nice, moist and cooked just about perfectly. (The recipe also said to flatten or tenderize the chicken. Boy a footnote warning potential cooks to pound lightly when it comes to chicken would have been nice. I about dissolved one chicken breast before I realized my mistake and adjusted accordingly.)
Where this experiment fell down is with the waffles. It didn't fall down entirely. Let's just say I was working a deadline (the missus had to leave for her internship at around 6.30) and I was trying to cook with an almost 2 year old roaming about looking for trouble to get into. So I got my dry ingredients mixed and realized that I had run out of flour (I hadn't: the Missus had plenty in a series of red pots she had purchased for storing precisely such ingredients. Only problem is, those red jars/pots are usually tucked away in the corner and I genuinely don't think about them. Or remember that they're there most of the time.) So I panicked and added some coconut flour. I bravely kept going, following the instructions until I realized something else:
I had no butter. Turns out, no butter is no problem because I had plenty of vegetable oil on hand to use a substitute. I did that and when I mixed the wet with the dry what I got was more dough and less batter. Waaaaaaaay to thick... so what did I do? I added milk. Probably too much since most of my waffles turned into a crumbly mess- but I salvaged a few good chunks to use in the meal- and they had a nice taste to them, I'm guessing because of the coconut flour.
Just to add some veg into the mix, I threw some peppers, some onion and some viciously hot peppers from the garden of The Quiet Man into some olive oil and sautéed them up as a garnish/addition to the meal.
My Verdict: a mind blowing intersection of Chicken and Waffle flavored Lays and chicken and waffles themselves, I'd totally take another run at this- only this time, I think I'd try and give myself a little more time to see if I can get the waffles right!
Are you ready? Are you sure? Good, I'll continue. I enjoyed the Chicken and Waffle flavored Lays when they first came out but there was one teensy problem with them: you got more waffle/syrup flavor then you did the chicken. Which got me thinking: what if you used them to bread chicken and serve that with waffles? Would that enhance the flavor or detract from the flavor?
As it turned out, it actually added to the flavor of the chicken quite nicely. Even after baking, the chips retained the sweetness of their original flavor and the recipe I got, whatever magic was contained therein kept the chicken breast nice, moist and cooked just about perfectly. (The recipe also said to flatten or tenderize the chicken. Boy a footnote warning potential cooks to pound lightly when it comes to chicken would have been nice. I about dissolved one chicken breast before I realized my mistake and adjusted accordingly.)
Where this experiment fell down is with the waffles. It didn't fall down entirely. Let's just say I was working a deadline (the missus had to leave for her internship at around 6.30) and I was trying to cook with an almost 2 year old roaming about looking for trouble to get into. So I got my dry ingredients mixed and realized that I had run out of flour (I hadn't: the Missus had plenty in a series of red pots she had purchased for storing precisely such ingredients. Only problem is, those red jars/pots are usually tucked away in the corner and I genuinely don't think about them. Or remember that they're there most of the time.) So I panicked and added some coconut flour. I bravely kept going, following the instructions until I realized something else:
I had no butter. Turns out, no butter is no problem because I had plenty of vegetable oil on hand to use a substitute. I did that and when I mixed the wet with the dry what I got was more dough and less batter. Waaaaaaaay to thick... so what did I do? I added milk. Probably too much since most of my waffles turned into a crumbly mess- but I salvaged a few good chunks to use in the meal- and they had a nice taste to them, I'm guessing because of the coconut flour.
Just to add some veg into the mix, I threw some peppers, some onion and some viciously hot peppers from the garden of The Quiet Man into some olive oil and sautéed them up as a garnish/addition to the meal.
My Verdict: a mind blowing intersection of Chicken and Waffle flavored Lays and chicken and waffles themselves, I'd totally take another run at this- only this time, I think I'd try and give myself a little more time to see if I can get the waffles right!
Saturday, October 5, 2013
This Week In Vexillology #49
BOOM! That sound you just heard was your mind blowing because This Week In Vexillology, we're looking at the only national flag (don't start, Ohio!) that's not rectangular or square. That's right, we're heading up high in the Himalayas to Nepal:
Adopted on December 16th, 1962 for national and civil usage, the design is a combination of two separate pennants that had been used for the previous two centuries that became a double pennant in the 19th Century and borrows from a basic design that's been around for more than 2,000 years.
Interesting enough though, there's subtle distinctions between Wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) and my handy-dandy reference guide about what the symbols actually mean. Reference guide says that the blue border denotes peace, while Wikipedia says: "The blue border symbolizes the peace and harmony that has been prevalent in the country since the age of Gautama Buddha, who was born in Nepal."
Handy-dandy reference guide says that red is the color of the rhododendron, Nepal's national flower, while Wikipedia says: The crimson red is Nepal's national colour, and it indicates the brave spirits of the Nepalese people. Wikipedia also added:
This is kind of interesting, to be honest and leaves me a little confused on what to believe. While it seems like (and maybe this is a stretch, maybe it's not) that the Wikipedia entry might just have been written by a person who's from Nepal and very proud of their flag, I can't argue with the interpretation either. It makes sense and it fits and what the heck, I'm not Nepalese. What do I know? What will be interesting to see is if this flag sticks around for the long term- Nepal is in something of a political transition right now, having abolished its monarchy in 2006 so stay tuned, I guess. (I wouldn't want to change this flag. It's unique!)
So ladies and gents, give it up for Nepal- and remember until next time keep your flags flying FREAK or otherwise!
Adopted on December 16th, 1962 for national and civil usage, the design is a combination of two separate pennants that had been used for the previous two centuries that became a double pennant in the 19th Century and borrows from a basic design that's been around for more than 2,000 years.
Interesting enough though, there's subtle distinctions between Wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) and my handy-dandy reference guide about what the symbols actually mean. Reference guide says that the blue border denotes peace, while Wikipedia says: "The blue border symbolizes the peace and harmony that has been prevalent in the country since the age of Gautama Buddha, who was born in Nepal."
Handy-dandy reference guide says that red is the color of the rhododendron, Nepal's national flower, while Wikipedia says: The crimson red is Nepal's national colour, and it indicates the brave spirits of the Nepalese people. Wikipedia also added:
The two triangles symbolize the Himalaya Mountains and could also represent the two major religions, Hinduism and Buddhism.[1] The red triangular flag has been a Hindu symbol of victory since the time of Ramayana and Mahabharata. The depiction of celestial bodies represents permanence, the hope that Nepal will last as long as the sun and the moon. The moon symbolizes that the Nepalese are soothing and calm, while the sun symbolizes fierce resolve. The moon also symbolizes the shades and the cool weather of the Himalayas, whereas the sun symbolizes the heat and the high temperature at the lower part (Tarai) of Nepal. Another interpretation: The flag's shape symbolizes a Nepalese pagoda. Putting a mirror at the side of the flag closest to the flagpole will generate an image of a pagodaThe handy-dandy reference guide didn't go into quite as much detail on everything else. The crescent moon represents the royal house, while the sun represents the Rana family, who were the hereditary Prime Ministers up until 1961.
This is kind of interesting, to be honest and leaves me a little confused on what to believe. While it seems like (and maybe this is a stretch, maybe it's not) that the Wikipedia entry might just have been written by a person who's from Nepal and very proud of their flag, I can't argue with the interpretation either. It makes sense and it fits and what the heck, I'm not Nepalese. What do I know? What will be interesting to see is if this flag sticks around for the long term- Nepal is in something of a political transition right now, having abolished its monarchy in 2006 so stay tuned, I guess. (I wouldn't want to change this flag. It's unique!)
So ladies and gents, give it up for Nepal- and remember until next time keep your flags flying FREAK or otherwise!
Friday, October 4, 2013
Tom Clancy, 1947-2013
Noted thriller author Tom Clancy died Wednesday at the age of 66 in Baltimore. Clancy, whose works could reliably double as paperweights and/or doorstops in a pinch was launched to fame with 1984's The Hunt For Red October- which President Reagen dubbed 'a perfect yarn.' He followed that up with Patriot Games, The Sum of All Fears, Clear and Present Danger- all of which were made into movies, starring his central character Jack Ryan. I didn't know this but apparently Clancy, along with JK Rowling and John Grisham was one of only three authors to hit a million copies in a first printing in the 1990s. 1989's Clear and Present Danger sold 1,625,544 copies making it (per Wikipedia) the best selling novel of the 1980s.
While I devoured his books, it's also worth noting that he made an impact on the world of gaming as well, with several series of games including Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six. But I think it's Popular Mechanics that does him justice the best, pointing out that Clancy brought military tactics, accuracy and realism to his writing and that level of detail and knowledge has had a huge impact on entertainment and the techno-thriller genre since. (This from Buzzfeed and this from VodkaPundit are also worth reading.) Things I didn't know about Tom Clancy: he was part owner of the Baltimore Orioles and tried to buy the Minnesota Vikings at one point, except it turned out he didn't have the money he thought he did.
His writing, however, has had a huge impact on me not only a reader but as a writer as well. His characters are well drawn and relatable and the man could tell a story like few others. If he had a fault it was that sometimes, his attention to detail went from the fantastic and well-researched into the level of just plain unnecessary. There's an infamous chapter in The Sum of All Fears in which he takes about thirty to forty pages to explain on a molecular level exactly how a nuclear weapon blows up.
While his main character, Jack Ryan is probably the one he's most well known for- as the star of most of his books, it's a myriad supporting cast of characters that produced standouts as well. CIA Agents John Clark and Domingo Chavez were interesting to watch develop and gain back stories of their own over the course of several books- though one of the more remarkable of Clancy's achievements was an ability to keep more plot threads and plot points going than any writer I've read before or since and to do so on a global scale and in the end, all of them got tied up into gripping stories that readers could and did lose themselves in frequently.
While many might dismiss his abilities as a writer, I would argue that would be a mistake. Without Remorse and The Cardinal of the Kremlin are probably my favorite Clancy books, hands down and the former proves that Clancy could write and write well pushing the boundaries of genre, while the latter just proves what so many readers already know: Tom Clancy was the man.
In the meantime, I might just have to sit down tonight and watch The Hunt for Red October- or maybe I'll sneak over to the Cigar Parentals place and snag Without Remorse to read again, but either way, a great writer was lost on Wednesday. He will be missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)