Time To Lift Fireworks Ban

A bill to lift Iowa's ban on the use and possession of fireworks has managed to survive the legislative funnel and is still alive and kicking for now, but the Des Moines Register weighed in on the issue with an ill-thought editorial on the subject.  The thrust of their argument:  fireworks can kill people.   They cite a tragic accident that killed one Des Moines teenager in 2000, a fire that destroyed most of downtown Spencer in 1931 and a few other accidents and fatalities that happen over the years.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but cars, alcohol and guns also kill people and yet the Register is not gunning to ban any of those.   Vending machines, roller coasters, dogs and hot dogs and many other things have been known to kill people from time to time and yet, curiously, the Register is not interested in banning all of those.

The better argument (at least to me) for maintaining the fireworks ban is a simple one:  NIMBY!  Not in my backyard!  This past 4th of July, not long after The Cigarillo had arrived, the Missus and I took him to Omaha so he could meet his cousins for the first time- and I was blissfully unaware that in Nebraska, fireworks are legal.   Omaha, I can now report from first hand experience sounds a lot like what I imagine an urban warfare zone would sound like in the middle of say, an American invasion or a Serbian-led siege of some kind.   The Register's underlying point was somewhat proved due to the fact that the combination of alcohol, patriotic fervor and potentially undercooked meat on the grill turned people into crazed pyromaniacs that thought nothing of setting off a flipping firework in my in-law's cul-de-sac as we were trying to get The Cigarillo to relax and go to sleep.  (I was somewhat displeased, to say the least.)

So, from that point of view, I'd be okay if the fireworks ban stayed in place.

However, the counterarguments tend to win the day on this issue for me.  We, as a state spend a shit ton of money in Missouri and, I guess, Nebraska buying fireworks that we're not legally allowed to have for the 4th of July.  That's money we could be spending in our own state.

From a purely professional point of view (yes, I'm about to make a vague, generalized reference to my job- so buckle up): I can tell you that around that time of year, law enforcement gets a lot of calls about 'shots fired' or 'fireworks' and the vast majority of them turn out to be nothing- or the people have set off their fireworks and have skeedaddled before the fuzz get there.  It ties up law enforcement resources- dropping the ban would use them more efficiently at the very least.

The fire argument could hold a little more water (heh: see what I did there?) with me- however, in my experience (again, vague reference to my job) every farmer in the county seems to wait until the first warm day with 40 mph winds to start controlled burns of their undergrowth and fire departments seem to handle that just fine, so in the unlikely event that someone drops a match in a fireworks factory I think we'd be okay.  Provided, of course, that no one is actually nearby or even in the fireworks factory when that happens.

In short, I don't like sending money to Missouri, the ban doesn't seem to stop people from getting fireworks and setting them off anyways, so if it's that ineffective, then why have the ban in the first place?  The arguments about safety are certainly worthy of thoughtful debate and discussion, but fireworks and here, they're not going anywhere and it's the 4th of July- why can't we as Iowans, 'MERICUH it up a little bit and set off some fireworks?

When Two Countries Blow Up At The Same Time, Do They Make A Noise?

Last week, two countries more or less blew up both for entirely different reasons and with entirely different implications.  Of the two, I'd say Ukraine is a far more interesting situation from a geo-political point of view than Venezuela.  That's not to say that Venezuela isn't equally as important- it's just that thanks to a government clampdown on information and a general disinterest from the western media, it's a hell of a lot harder to get a clear picture on what's going on down there, whereas whole trees and barrels of ink are being poured into analysis of what's going on in Ukraine.

So what's up with Ukraine?  Well, a lot of things for a start but basically (the TL;DR version for everyone): it's an east versus west thing.   No really, that's what it comes down to:  the eastern half of the country is ethnically Russian, pro-Russian and wants closer ties with Russia, while the Western half is ethnically more Ukranian, pro-western and wants to eventually join the European Union.  So, welcome back my friends to the show that never ends, because this is a classic geopolitical chess match going on and now that the Olympics are over life could get a lot more interesting here.

Why?  Well if push comes to shove, the Russians are going to want to keep the Crimea for a start- their Black Sea Fleet is based out of there and they're very attached to it.  However, the ethnic Tatars in Crimea aren't fans of that notion- having not exactly had a warm and ticklish experience under Moscow's benevolent rule back in the day.  So that could get interesting.

If push really comes to shove, they could partition the whole damn country.  Eastern Ukraine wants closer ties with Russia and the Western Ukraine doesn't? Grab the chainsaw boys, we're going to cut us up a country!

Do I think this will come to military action?  No, I don't- not yet anyway.  People are saying this is bad news for Putin and it really is if you think about it.  After the Orange Revolution in 2004-2005, then President Yushchenko and his Prime Minister the now freed and running for President Yulia Tymoshenko (not exactly carrying a halo herself, despite the hair) failed to deliver on the promises of the Revolution and pro-Russian and now former (or still current, depending on who you talk too) President Yanukovich came to power and Putin hoped that would complete a pro-Russian tilt and keep Ukraine firmly on their side of things, but when Yanukovich kyboshed a major trade deal with the EU last fall, that kicked off the latest round of protests and when he tried to send in police to clear them out and they didn't leave (and more to the point, the military wouldn't step in), that was pretty much curtains for him.

What's ahead?  A fascinating, fascinating chess match with a whole country in the balance.  I think the probability of military intervention is low right now, but partition is still a possibility and look for Russia's words to be more bellicose than usual but I think their actions will be muted.  After all, the opposition took over after the Orange Revolution and it quickly ran aground.   Playing a long game could be an option- but Moscow can't stifle Ukranian aspirations for EU membership forever.  They either have to offer something better or figure out a way to let them do that and still get what they want out of the deal- and Putin is player enough if not to get there, then certainly to grope his way toward something in that direction.

A different kettle of chip is underway in Venezuela- it's sort of pissing me off because far, far too little attention is being to the violence down there. With the death of Hugo Chavez last March, his successor, Nicolas Maduro has proven to have little of the charisma that made Chavez so successful and any gains that Chavez and his revolution have made seem to be illusory- inflation is running around 56%, there are food shortages, the government can't keep the lights on and then there's the crime rate: the government has stopped publishing official crime stats, but per Wikipedia (how much you can trust them, I don't know, but it's still eye-popping stuff) A person is murdered in Venezuela every 21 minutes.  In Caracas alone, in 2013 the murder rate was 122 homicides per 100,000 residents.

So going out on a limb, I'd say if these sources are anything to go on, it sounds like Venezuela is going to hell in a handbasket, the government (sitting on a shitload of oil, by the way) can't or won't do anything about it and people are pissed off and fed up.  Getting up-to-date info is a challenge when it comes to these protests as the government has clamped down hard on the media- but as this article from FP Magazine points out, that only made it appear to the rest of the world that the government has something to hide.  The arrest and detention of opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez doesn't help that image either.

Will Venezuela go the way of Ukraine?  It's hard to tell.  Reaction from Latin American leaders (at least in the media up here) seems to have been somewhat muted and given the close economic ties fostered between Venezuela and Cuba under Chavez, Cuba certainly has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  Though in reality, it may be simpler than that:  Chavez and Venezuela have long represented a more bellicose and radical brand of leftism throughout the region- in stark contrast to the more muted, productive center-left governments in Chile and Brazil.  Presidents in places like Bolivia, Nicaragua and Argentina might be doing their best to ignore the situation because they worry they could be next.

My gut instinct says that while Ukraine was the matter of a miscalculation (a deadly one for the protesters killed) by the government, Venezuela is going to be more of a long game.  People are getting fed up- if the opposition can stick together and try and broaden their coalition to pick off disaffected Chavistas that are out there, they could flip the script.  Venezuela certainly doesn't deserve to be ignored the way it is by the Western media- so, friends, Google is your friend.  Check up on our friends down south from time to time- dig on Twitter and social media.   If the World pays attention, we might, just maybe, be able to help a little.  At the very least they'll know someone is paying attention.  (This Gawker piece has some good links to videos of protests and the comments are somewhat instructional and might give some insight into why this is being ignored- Progressives/Lefties in the media don't want to harsh their mellow too much by pointing out a purportedly Socialist regime in a state of slow collapse.)

It gets frustrating sometimes, turning on a television in this country and trying to find out what's going on in the world.  News networks- and this shouldn't come as a galloping shock to anyone- are in the business of ratings and entertainment, commentary and analysis and if it doesn't get ratings, they don't report it.   Which is shitty, because there are things going on in the world that are worth paying attention too and we shouldn't have to fight through corporate media bullshit to get there.   But then you run into the problem of how time consuming it is to dig through the internet-  or at least that's what people think.  Turning on the television or reading a newspaper is the path of least resistance and in our hectic, busy lives I can understand that, but there's some serious shit going down in the world.   So click that link on Twitter, do a Google search and take ten minutes to get your knowledge on.

We live in interesting times.  Try not to miss them.

This Shouldn't Be A Law

Kansas took a pass on a ridiculous anti-gay law that essentially enshrined the ability to discriminate against LGBT individuals on the basis of religious belief into law, however, where Kansas wisely decided not to tread, Arizona went ahead and trod- passing State Senate Bill 1062, which seeks to protect business, corporations and people from lawsuits after denying services based on a sincere religious belief.

Pretty much, it wants to be protect people and businesses who refuse to serve LGBT individuals from being sued.

Whether it becomes law is all in the hands of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer now- who could veto the bill, but when even Senator John McCain is coming out and urging her to veto, I think it's safe to say that Arizona has taken a left turn down crazy lane and might want to think about reversing course.

This really shouldn't be a law though.  I mean, leaving the obvious objection aside (it's well, pretty bigoted) this is one arena that can and probably does take care of itself over time.   Discrimination cuts both ways, after all- if there's a business that makes it known that they don't serve LGBT people, I know they wouldn't be getting a penny of my money- and if enough people stay away, it's going to hurt their bottom line at some point.  And given the fact that most businesses only stay in business by making money, should this odious, festering turd of a law actually become a law, an aggressive boycott will undoubtedly ensue- and given the fact that the Super Bowl is coming to Phoenix next year, that's a monetary bonanza that Arizona would be stupid to put at risk with idiocy like this.

Governor Brewer added this as well:

"I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."

This is exactly why this doesn't need to be a law.  Private businesses can pick and choose who they do business with- and again, schoolyard rules apply here too.  Say you're a bakery and you don't want to make cakes for LGBT couples.  In general, that's massively shitty of you in my book, but for the purposes of this example, let's say fine and dandy- but if you get tarred with the well-deserved brush of discrimination and bigotry and it hurts or kills your business, don't come crying to me about it.

But it's the whole 'religious freedom' thing that pisses me off more.  Conservatives, who purportedly want smaller, less intrusive government, risk opening up a whole can of worms with these idiot bills that I don't think they're going to end up liking.  If 'religious freedom' can be used to justify discrimination against LGBT folks, it can be used to justify female genital mutilation, honor killings or even institutionalized racism (a policy which the Mormon Church maintained up until the late 70s.) If you're religious beliefs really dictate that you don't do business with LGBT folk, fine- but it's like free speech:  you can say what you want, but the law doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say.   Same deal here:  do business how you want and with whom you want but again, don't come crying to me about the results.

The 'religious freedom' schtick that really sends me over the edge though isn't this bullshit (which GOPers know damn well will get knocked down by the courts and hurt businesses in their state which is why I'd be surprised if any of these proposed bills actually make it into law) but it's the 'Pharmacists Against Birth Control' crap that's sprung up in recent years.  Basically, there are pharmacists (usually very Catholic ones, but not always) who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because of their 'moral objections.'  Which is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard.  If I have a prescription and I come to your pharmacy and you're earning upward of 90k a year, you damn well give me my damn pills and spare me the lecture.  And if your religious beliefs don't allow you to do that, you better have someone on staff and on duty at all times that can perform that basic service.

But, the thing that utterly lays that argument to waste is, to me, a basic understanding of the central message of Christianity itself, which is namely that you treat others the way you would want to be treated.   Do you think Jesus would refuse to serve anyone?  Because I sure don't.

Lots of Joy and Plenty of Fun

I stumbled across a review of Jennifer Senior's All Joy and No Fun on Slate.com a couple of weeks ago and to be honest, it sort of disturbed me.  I've been letting the topic percolate for awhile, but I really feel like I've got to speak up and throw my two cents in about this notion.

All joy and no fun?  Hmmmmm...  I'll admit that I'm not even a year into this parenting business yet, but I've had plenty of fun.  Suddenly it's socially acceptable to visit playgrounds and watch cartoons again!  You can play with super cool toys and not be judged for it!  What's not fun about that?  Don't get me wrong:  there are days and moments when I have stepped into the other room, closed all the doors and screamed at my ceiling for a good thirty seconds- but I can probably count those days on one hand.  And I know, I know- a 2 year old is probably a ton of fun- they only get more truculent and mouthier from here.

I understand several aspects of this discussion though.  I get the need to vent:  seems like a lot of the 'parentosphere' so to speak might appear to be parents bitching about how awful children can be sometimes but in reality a lot of that is just venting- and when you've got kids, the best people to vent at or too are other parents.  I have no problem with people deciding that kids aren't for them- they're not for everyone and they tend to be a little time consuming, so if people decide that they aren't their cup of tea, well, more power to 'em and bonus points for figuring that out before accidentally popping any out.

Personally, now that The Cigarillo has arrived, I can't really conceive of what life would be like without him.   I'm busier (but not necessarily more productive) and I have a ton and a half of fun and when he blows me a kiss and squeaks in that tiny voice of his 'da da da da?' when he knows I'm going to work- little moments like those are where the joy comes in and I hope I never stop finding those, because it's amazing.

Becoming a parent is a lot like going through a phase change in many respects:  you move from water to ice and the essentially core of you hasn't changed, you're still essentially the same.   There's a weird point in your mid-to-late 20s where you've graduated college and are starting your jobs and you're sort of in limbo.   You're not in college any more and you don't have kids and your friends are either stuck in college mode or are busy popping out babies like the dozen.   Friends are hard to come by, because again, your priorities are shifting so the idea of staying up until bar close and living through a hangover doesn't have the appeal it once did and you're not quite in the 'married friends' type of phase either.  Kids really do change everything and so far, it's not a bad change, it's just different.  And different may take some getting used to it, but it doesn't have to be bad unless you want it to be bad.

I think it depends on your mindset as well.  Sometimes I wonder if I'm been dispatching too long, because when it comes to dealing with a very, very active two year old, keeping the old 'dispatcher ear' open is a big help.  Expecting the unexpected and being prepared to deal with it and knowing my limits- all something I've had to learn how to do and do well in a professional setting these past years- I think it's helped ground me and it's made parenting seem a lot less scary than it should be.

I don't know:  maybe it's a little premature to be judging this whole parenting with less than a year under my belt, but so far I have had lots of joy and plenty of fun.

Grading NBC's Olympics: A Serious Look

It seems like hating on NBC's coverage of the Olympics is rapidly on it's way to becoming an Olympic event all by itself.   The race to achieve some kind of 'snark-nirvana' and trash the Peacock's Efforts starts at the Opening Ceremonies and doesn't seem to let up until the Closing Ceremonies- by which point, everyone is exhausted, tired and ready for a two year break until Bob Costas, Mary Carillo and friends come back for more in Rio De Janeiro.

That said, I think the Peacock can genuinely do better- not because I, like so many others love to bitch about their coverage (and deservedly so in some places) but because, well, they're getting better, but they're not quite there yet.  Acknowledging the massive pain in the ass it must be to try and broadcast a two week sporting event on the other side of the world far, far away from Eastern Standard Time- I decided to try and restrain my snark and really take a critical look at how the Peacock actually did and throw my two cents (purely as a consumer- I know they've got advertisers to satisfy and ratings to make) about how it could be better.

The Good:
Tara Lipinski and Johnny Weir:  If NBC doesn't ship their current prime time figuring skating crew to the retirement home before 2018, they're out of their damn minds.  Never mind Weir and his fashion explosions, this duo knows what they're talking about when it comes to figure skating and, refreshingly, doesn't speak in sweeping metaphors or stilted cliches.   If they see a mistake, they tell you what it is and, refreshingly, why they made it.  They bounce off of each other nicely and could have done without Terry Gannon (the 'guy in the suit') as their chaperone.   You know what?  Keep Scott Hamilton, stick him with these two and the magic could happen in 2018.

The Paralympics:  Are apparently going to be on NBC/NBC SN come March.   I don't know if the Paralympics have ever gotten serious coverage on American television before- certainly this is going to be the first time I'm going to get to see them or can recall finding them with such ease so let me just say this:  about fucking time and well done.  Looking forward to scoping these out.


The Bad:
The Spoiler Problem: I actually have a little bit of sympathy for the Peacock here- because how do you broadcast these events, when most of it's happening live when your primary viewing audience in the United States is fast asleep in bed.  And what do you as a viewer do?  I made myself avoid the ice dancing finals live- but a random article on downhill skiing and what do I see in the right column?  The news that Davis/White won gold for the U.S.  There has to be a better way to handle this- because Primetime Coverage, unless it's Live, looks stupid as shit- I mean, everyone knows that it's already happened- going for 'plausibly live' in the age of internet just makes you look foolish.  About the only thing I can think of to help resolve this would be to have a dedicated platform of a 'Medal Zone' like the NFL Red Zone thing they do- people tune in, see the medal runs for every event they want and go away happy- because, let's face it- if an event gets spoiled for you, all you're really left with is wanting to see the medal winning performance.  Maybe.  I don't know.

Human Interest Fluff:  I suppose these inspiring stories are inevitable, but I'd like to see more balance.  Apparently the CBC focuses on the mechanics of a lot of these sports and technical aspects of them as well as the occasional human interest fluff piece- so a Sports Science type of segment now and again would be cool and shifting some of these fluff pieces to the Today show to spare us the site of Lauer and Roker attempting double's luge would not go amiss either.


The Ugly:
The Parade of Nations:  OK, NBC:  never again- and I do mean NEVER AGAIN- should you let Lauer or Viera do this.  They're awful.  If I would have been told about the Cyrillic alphabet one more time in the Opening Ceremonies I would have had a rage-stroke and died.   I didn't catch the name of the third guy (you know, the sensible one who actually knew something about Russia) but he can stay.  He was pretty good. But Lauer and Viera are awful.

The Bode Miller Thing:  Look, I get that sideline reporters have a crappy job, but seriously?  Not cool NBC. 

Basically, if you dial back the fluff pieces and the inane commentary a bit and create a Hulu-like Olympics platform where people can watch events maybe the day after they air, I'd be a happier camper overall.   Rio De Janeiro should be a little better, time zone wise but a lot of these problems will crop back up with a vengeance for Pyeongchang in 2018.  The Peacock has time to prep though!

'Red2' --A Review

Sometimes, it's fun just to sit back and watch a movie that isn't trying to hard too be a blockbuster and just wants to have a good time.   Red 2 is that film and then some.  Falling into none of the usual pitfalls that plague sequels in Hollywood, Red 2 manages to keep the characters from the first movie fresh and interesting with a new story that sends our protagonists on the trail of a weapon of mass destruction that threatens to destroy an entire city.

The film opens with Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) and his girlfriend, Sarah (Mary Louise-Parker) trying to live a normal life as best they can, shopping at the local CostCo.  Marvin (John Malkovich) shows up, insisting to Frank that people are still after him- but Frank dismisses him.  When Marvin drives away, his car blows and Sarah insists that Frank goes to the funeral, where he delivers a tearful eulogy.

After the funeral, Frank is taken into custody by government agents and taken to a facility to be interrogated about a project called Nightshade he was involved in, which involved smuggling pieces of a nuclear weapon piece by piece into Moscow during the Cold War and hiding it somewhere in the city.  Another agent, Jack Horton (Neil McDonough) shows up and threatens to torture Sarah until Frank gives up the information-  Frank eludes Horton and meets up with the actually alive Marvin and goes on the run, along with Sarah.

Soon, everyone is looking for Frank.   Their old friend Victoria (Helen Mirren) is hired by MI6 to kill him.  An old flame, Katya (Catherine Zeta-Jones) comes after them.  A contract killer from Frank's past, (Lee Byung-Hun) is also after them and soon enough, the gang is in Paris on the trail of a master assassin named The Frog (David Thewlis) who reveals that the man they are looking for is, in fact the master genius and inventor Edward Bailey. (Anthony Hopkins)  Turns out that MI6 has kept him locked up for the past three decades and when Frank, Victoria and the gang spring him from prison, he helps them hunt down the bomb- which he planted in the middle of the Kremlin- but is Bailey really who he seems to be?  (As always:  no spoilers!)

Overall:  I loved Red and Red 2 is just as fun, entertaining as it's predecessor and doesn't take itself too seriously.  I think that's probably the secret to the success of both movies in this franchise: you can tell that the actors are having a good time making these movies and the exciting story moves at a pace that keeps the viewer engaged and entertained.  The all-star cast is charming, excellent and altogether a blast to watch- though I think Helen Mirren and Mary Louise-Parker (especially with the latter's ongoing gag about wanting a gun throughout the movie) just about steal the show.   I'd say *** out of ****.  I could see myself buying this and watching it over and over again.  This is just one of those movies that's a ton of fun to watch over and over again.

This Week In Vexillology #69

This week our Vexillological tour of the Russian Federation wraps up right back where it started with the Republic of Adygea, which is an enclave Republic completely surrounded by the Krasnodar Krai.  It's capitol is Maykop and it's flag has a very interesting design and an equally interesting history to it:

The green in the flag represents the forests and the vegetation of the Caucuses- the 12 stars represent the 12 individual tribes of Adygea- the nine of the outside represent the aristocratic tribes, while the three under the arc, above the arrows represent the democratic tribes.  The arrows symbolize peace, while the gold color of the stars and arrows represent the plentiful harvest of grain and wheat. (There's another interpretation to this flag that says that the arrows are for resistance, green for agriculture and gold for freedom.)

But here's the twist where it comes to the Republic of Adygea- guess who designed this flag?  A guy by the name of David Urquhart- in the 1830s!  A Scottish diplomat and a writer and a member of Parliament from 1847-1852 he was active in the Balkans and Turkey and yes, in the Caucuses, especially during the Crimean War.  All in all, he sounds like a pretty interesting guy.

So that's it for the flags of the Russian Federation- we're back to business as usual next week, so remember, until next time, remember to keep your flags flying, FREAK or otherwise!

What I'm Reading #3

...this month, I'm featuring my doorstop.

I love the occasional doorstop, but they are time consuming.  This month's doorstop (and, in fact, the doorstop du jour) is Defend The Realm: The Authorized History of MI-5 by Christopher Andrew.*   My second confession of this post:  I'm a sucker for a good book about an intelligence agency.  James Bamford has done two excellent books about the National Security Agency.  I've got a book about MI-6 and another about Mossad lurking somewhere on my shelves and they're all fascinating, but I always, always, always take them with a grain of salt.

And why wouldn't you?  When it comes to opening a veil that most, if not all governments would prefer remain closed, you can't put too much faith in just one source.  I like reading about these agencies.  I like finding out about the reality of intelligence work- or at least as close to reality as these books will allow, but this one is a little different.  First of all, MI-5 approached Mr. Andrew to write this book and second of all, it's probably the only (but maybe not) officially approved and sanctioned history of an intelligence agency of it's kind.

This one is slow going- I mean, look at the size of the thing, but it's fascinating, detailed and I would imagine that such a massive undertaking- given the level of access given to Mr. Andrew for his research- would have been a lot of fun as well as a titanic pain in the ass, I'd imagine.

But at the end of the day, I'm a still a sucker for a good doorstop.  There's a sense of accomplishment once you actually finish one of these things- you get your knowledge on and you've found your way through a ginormous book and it's a relief to be finished- but your proud of yourself too.  Sort of like walking the stairstepper on high for the very first time and surviving.

*Yes, I read a rotation of about four books at once these days.  I like to spread things out as much as possible so I don't get too bored with one book- it probably seems a little weird to a lot of people, but weirdly enough, it works for me.

Navigating The Minefield of 'Job-Lock'

Two weeks ago now, the Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that by 2024, Obamacare will reduce the size of the U.S. labor force by 2.5 million full time equivalent workers- a significant jump from what they had previously predicted three years ago.  (They also made much of the news that ACA enrollment had jumped to 3.3 million people- though that's not the real number.  The real number is how many people are actually enrolling and paying for their policies- and apparently they don't have those numbers yet.)

Anyway...  so, 2.5 million fewer full time workers-  that should be a bad thing, right? Apparently not...  this was the money quote from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

Over the longer run, CBO finds that because of this law, individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods, like retiring on time rather than working into their elderly years or choosing to spend more time with their families. At the beginning of this year, we noted that as part of this new day in health care, Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families, and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams

The frantic spin from the left has been to try and play this as not 'lost jobs' but instead, 'reduced work hours.'  Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison doubled down on the 'chase your dreams' rhetoric:

Ellison countered that the CBO report on the reduction of hours worked means, "We are going to have parents being able to come home, working reasonable hours. People are going to be able to retire. People might actually be able to cook dinner rather than have to order out and get some takeout."
He added: "If you look at international comparisons country by country, Americans work way more that the average of industrialized countries around the world."
He said the report showing fewer work hours gives us the chance "to look at our work/life balance," which he described as "a great opportunity."

And the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers took to his blog to try and fleshout a defense for the news that if you're not about to be effed out of a job, you're about to be effed out of a decent paycheck- but hey, you'll have crappy, government-healthcare, so shut up, right?

Of course, Dems/Progs trotted out the usual 'it's all the GOPers fault' thing by digging up this true, gem of an article (written by a University of Iowa Professor of Leisure Studies) arguing that- well, shit I don't know what his point was, but apparently it's something to do with this:

Then real progress would begin. Humane and moral progress. Instead of perpetual consumerism and the infinite increase in material wealth, we would naturally turn to improving the human condition, learning how to live together “wisely, agreeable, and well,” as Keynes put it. Progress would then take the form of healthier families, communities and cities—the increase of knowledge, the enjoyment of nature, history and other peoples, an increasing delight in the marvels of the human spirit, the practice of our beliefs and values together, the finding of common ground for conviviality, expanding our awareness of God, wondering in Creation.

So, we should all sit around and get high basically?  I don't know-  I don't really want to touch on the continuing mess over health care in this country, because it's all been written about before and depending on who you read, it's either the best thing since sliced bread and it's going wonderfully or it's a slow-motion trainwreck and we should be making like Harrison Ford in The Fugitive and trying to get the fuck out of the way.

What does irk me about this spin is that it's incredibly, incredibly stupid politics.  If I were a GOPer, I'd be cutting ads accusing Democrats of hating work and running them from now until the end of time.  I'd be saying things like 'they want everyone to be freeloading, lazy assholes and they expect YOU to pay for it!'  And I'd keep saying variations on that until the election because this whole, lazy-ass pile of rhetoric is a Christmas gift with a bow on top to the GOPers.  It might as well be a candygram and a stripper.

Look, I know what they're trying to say:  they're trying to say that people shouldn't have to work six jobs just to support their family and get some kind of shitty, cut-rate insurance to make sure their kids don't die of a papercut.  I get that.  But I also know that when we moved back down here in 2009, my first job was working at Wal-Mart for $7.45/hour and I busted my ass and kept applying for jobs until I found something better- and look at where I am now!

That said:  I'm not so blind to my privilege that I won't acknowledge that if I wasn't a white guy and didn't live in a relatively prosperous area of the country that the notion that people should just 'bust their ass until they get something better' can be a hell of a lot easier said than done.

But whatever the answer, pissing all over the notion of hard work and self-sufficiency is not only distinctly un-American, it's flat out disgusting and disrespectful as well.  Leaving aside the unanswered question of how anyone is going to pay their mortgages, student loans or electric bills when they're out contemplating their 'higher purpose' or enjoying their lives more, there's the fact that a lot of us don't work because we have too, we work because we enjoy being able to afford the lives we have.  If working pays for a modicum of comfort, fun experiences/trips and a decent bottle of whiskey now and again- plus all of my bills, then yes, I'm going to work.

The idea that we should all sit around in a drum circle, hold hands and get in touch with nature or some silly hippy-dippy bullshit like that only underscores what many have suspected about the Dems/Progs of the far left- which is exactly what we know about their counterparts on the far right:  they live in a totally separate universe from the rest of us.

Down here in the real world, I still have bills to pay- so if you could not cut my hours, that'd be great!  And you best hope some GOPer doesn't get too wise to this and start using it in an intelligent fashion, because if this is the best spin that the Obama Administration can come up with to cover-up the ongoing shit-show that is the Affordable Care Act, then we are all, as a nation, well and truly fucked.

Whiskey of The Month #17: Ardbeg Uigedail

I have a complicated relationship with Islays.  Occasionally, I'll get in the mood for a nice, smokey, peaty single malt and plunge back into a good Islay, but it doesn't happen all that often.  Too much peat and too much smoke can produce a wave of alcohol so strong that it singes your nose hairs clean off.  But, as with most things in the world of whiskey you always find something that challenges your perceptions and changes your mind.   I've tasted Laphroig, Lagavulin and Bowmore before- I've even tried the straight up 10 Year Old Ardbeg, but the Uigedail (pronounced 'ooo-ga-dal') takes things to a different level of complexity and what results is one of the most complex and interesting whiskies I've ever tasted.

Why so different?  I think it comes down to the body more than anything else-  I have yet to find an Islay that produces such a complex, complicated body.  Instead of peat and smoke, there's anywhere from three to six main notes and other under notes that take awhile to percolate in the brain.  It took me three rounds to really settle on a verdict on this one- it's that much of a pleasure to explore and it's got the pedigree to back it up: Jim Murray's Whiskey Bible declared it World Whiskey Of The Year and Scotch Single Malt of The Year in 2009 and 2010.  The San Francisco World Spirits Competition awarded this two double gold, three gold and two silver medals between 2006 and 2012.

But now, too business!

Color:  This one is darker gold/amber in color.

Body: Believe it or not, this smells like my wallet.  It's a bit of a refreshing change of pace from the other Islays that I've tried- instead of smoke and an alcoholic burn so hard it singes your nose hairs, the predominant thing that I get when I sniff this is leather, smoky leather- maybe touching on the beef jerky/smoked meat end of things.  But here's the kick that elevates this above and beyond not just most Islays but beyond many single malts as well:  this seems insanely complex for an Islay...because there's notes of what I'd swear are figs and honey in there as well.  Though maybe honey isn't quite right- it doesn't smell sweet enough for that.  Maybe molasses?

Palette: It sits very lightly on the tongue- but it's falls somewhere between the weak/watery and heavy/syrupy- the honey is a little more evident in there as well with spices and, insanely, I want to say orange peel as well?  It's hard to really get a grip on:  honey, but the spice isn't the usual peat-flavored burn at least taste wise- at least with the initial taste.  The peat hits the back of the throat on the way down though.

Finish: The spice/smoke fills the mouth with an initial harsh burn but it almost threatens to be heartburn before calming down and warming you up beautifully.

Overall:  I think I could write a whole book about this whiskey.  For an Islay, it's insanely complex and I think every time I have a taste and really sit down and think about it, there's always some new facet that pops up that I haven't considered or found yet.   Full disclosure: it took me three rounds to get to grips with this beauty and tasting it was even more fascinating, considering the fact I was getting over a cold at the time.   I think it's fair to say that this wouldn't be a good single malt to get your feet wet with, but if you've been exploring single malts and whiskies for awhile and are looking for something that will knock your socks off, then plonk down the cash for this one- it's one of the most fascinating, complex whiskies I've ever tasted.

'Big Trouble In Little China' --A Review

I am going to confess something: I was ridiculously excited when I read that Big Trouble In Little China was coming to Netflix Instant.  Back in the days of my youth, this was a movie that occupied either TNT or USA during a variety of weekend afternoons-  I don't know what it was about that movie, but I only ever saw the end of the movie and it was one of those movies that was on all the time.   So, I made it a goal to actually sit down and watch the whole thing to see what the fuss was about and, you know what?  For an 80s movie that's been elevated to 'cult classic' it wasn't half bad.

I really liked the way this movie opened:  in a lawyer's office, talking to one of the minor characters, asking them what happened and how an entire city block can just vanish in a 'ball of green fire.'  It grabbed my attention, because the lawyer was played by none other than Deep Throat (Jerry Hardin) from the early seasons of The X-Files.  He wanted to know what happened to Jack Burton- the minor character replies that Jack Burton is a hero and he didn't know where he was-

Cut to the start of the events:  all-American hero type, truck driver Jack Burton (Kurt Russell) riding his beloved truck, the Pork Chop Express into San Francisco, dispensing John Wayne-like nuggets of wisdom over his CB radio.  Burton makes a delivery to the Chinatown restaurant of his friend Wang Chi (Dennis Dun) whose fianceé, Miao Yin (Suzee Pai) is arriving from China.  They go to the airport to pick her up and a local gang, The Lords of Death kidnaps her, intending to sell her as a sex slave.

Along the way they meet a lawyer named Gracie (Kim Cattrall) and a reporter, whose name I honestly can't remember but who is played by Kate Burton.   What seems like a simple, 'let's break in and rescue the girl from evil Chinese gangsters' type of movie takes a left turn when the heros learn that Ancient China Sorcery is, in fact, real and an especially evil sorcerer Lo Pan is after an unmarried girl with green eyes to restore his youth and Miao Lin happens to fit the bill.

The heroes break into Lo Pan's headquarters to find that he and his minions are packing all kinds of magical powers- there are multiple guys running around channelling Raiden from Mortal Kombat, weird monsters that look like they have been lifted from the sets of An American Werewolf In London and Labyrinth.  Long story short:  Lo Pan kidnaps Gracie, notices she has green eyes as well and decides to kill her to restore his youth and marry Miao Yin instead.   Longer story still shorter:  Kurt Russell and company break in, free everyone, kill Lo Pan and surprisingly, Jack says goodbyes and hits the open road, despite being interested in Gracie.   Unfortunately, he's got a monster from Lo Pan's labyrinth in tow as he drives away from San Francisco, dispensing advice on the Pork Chop Express.

Overall: A delightfully campy b-movie from the 80s, the neon blend of old school fantasy and adventure with new school thriller/adventure movie reminds me a little bit of The Goonies.  Kurt Russell is in fine form here but too many random plot twists doom this flick- but not entirely.  I think you can tuck this squarely into the 'guilty pleasure' category of your movie collection and trot it out whenever you're in an especially 80s mood for a good result.   Alas, however, I must say: ** and 1.2 out of ****.

This Week In Vexillology #68

Last week, we discovered the remote Republic of Tuva- but this week, we're heading west to the interestingly named Chuvash Republic and it's very striking flag:

Naturally, our first order of business:  where the heck is Chuvashia?  Best way I can think of to describe it is this:  find Moscow on a map, put your finger on it and head east in a straight line.  Just  before you get to Kazan, that's Chuvashia.  It's capitol, Cheboksary is right on the River Volga.  (Alternatively, you can always type it into Google Maps, but where's the fun in that?)  Unlike Tuva, which is damn hard to get into and even harder to get too, Wikipedia hastens to assure the potential visitor to Chuvashia that it's transportation network is one of the most developed in Russia- with plenty of roads, rail and air and river transport to go around.

But, now to the flag:  the red base of the flag (interestingly enough, up until the 90s, a misinterpretation of the Russian word for dark red, purpurnyi, originally had the red in this flag depicted as purple.)  stands for the Chuvash land, from which grows the 'Tree of Life'- a symbol of rebirth and the stylized three suns above it are a traditional emblem seen in Chuvash art.   Gold/yellow in the flag represents the future and prosperity.

So there you have it- Chuvashia!  And remember, until next time, keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise!

Food Adventures #39: New Glarus Uff-Da Bock Beer Bread

Forgive me, people, for I have committed that most heinous of crimes...   beer heresy.   And it tasted, oh so delicious...

Yes, a couple of weeks back, the Missus was digging through her box o'recipes trying to find something we could cook up at home with relative ease and came across two recipes- first one was for tortilla soup which the Missus brewed up:

This turned out to be a really good recipe- it was somewhat akin to chili, but once you topped it with sour cream, cheese and a few corn chips, it gave it a nice crunch that was very similar to your average taco.   I was fighting a cold at the time, so I slathered it up pretty good with Sriracha to give it a nice kick to help drain my sinuses somewhat and that did the trick quite nicely.

Accompanying it was my criminally good beer bread.  I love beer and I love bread and the recipe we had for beer bread was amazingly simple.  Flour, baking powder, salt, sugar, melted butter and beer.   That's it.   Mix the dry ingredients, add beer, dough it up, slap it in a loaf pan and top it with melted butter and one hour later, you get this:

It's doughy, crumbly and altogether awesome- though I think if further experiments with beer bread are in my future, it'd be interesting to see what different types of beer do to the flavor-  New Glarus being New Glarus (and therefore, delicious) made this just about perfect- though with recipes like this one out there, I can want to dig further into the oeuvre of beer bread some more.

10 Authors (In No Particular Order) Part III

Jorge Amado:  During my brief, passionate love affair with magic realism- back when I was flirting with a double major in Portuguese and PoliSci, I tripped and fell upon the Brazilian author Jorge Amado and instantly fell in love.   Gabriela, Clove and Cinnamon and Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands sit proudly on my shelf- and although both are excellent, I can give a hearty 'must read this' to the former, rather than the latter.

Deeply rooted in the northeast of Brazil, especially around Bahia, Gabriela, Clove and Cinnamon is two tales:  the first is the deep, passionate love affair between Nacib and his cook, Gabriela.  The second is the story of a young man named Mundinho Falcão, who, freshly arrived from Rio De Janeiro, brings the forces of modernization to challenge the entrenched power of the cacao barons in the region.

I love this book for the romance-  I'm not a fan of the Nicholas Sparks type of romance, but Amado weaves a tale of a passionate, erotic, spicy love affair between Nacib and Gabriela that feels real and most importantly, adult- the same can be said of my book recommendation at the bottom of this post- and it's a fascinating look into the forces of modernity sweeping early 20th Century Brazil- the conflict between tradition and modernity is a theme that shows up not only in Amado's other novels but in other fiction of the region as a whole. (Def check out Mario Vargas Llosa if you want another great author from Latin America:  The War of The End Of The World and The Feast of The Goat- both phenomenal novels.)

The Verdict:  Gabriela, Crava E Caneta FTW!  Makes me want to brush up my Portuguese and go to Brazil.

Tom Clancy:  We were strange kids.  I can remember my mother reading The Illiad to us and I remember her reading The Hunt For Red October to us.  (Mother Cigar put up with a lot.) Once I was old enough to start reading on my own, I went through every Tom Clancy book I could lay my hands on.  Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, The Sum of All Fears and the rest of the Jack Ryan books.  They're all doorstops and they're all good in their own way- though Clancy's attention to detail gets a little freakish with the 30-50 page chapter that's a molecule by molecule description of a nuclear weapon blowing up in The Sum of All Fears.  (After the first time I read it, I tended to skip over it:  true confession.)

But to me, where Clancy's story-telling really hit it's peak was with two of his novels: Without Remorse and The Cardinal of The Kremlin.   The former tells the story of a rather mysterious and, up until that point in the Ryan-verse, rather minor character, the spy Mr. Clark-- it's sort of a spin off in that sense, but it's a gripping, thrilling and fascinating look at a total different character in Clancy's universe.   The fact that he puts so much detail into elevating a minor character and giving him such a compelling storyline is really amazing and it remains one of my favorite books.   The latter, The Cardinal of the Kremlin is an old fashioned, gripping spy yarn that could probably put up against anything John Le Carré or Frederick Forsyth have to offer- as Ryan and company race to protect the identity and then the life of one of the CIA's most valuable and most secret double agents.

If Clancy's body of work has a fault, it's that his spinoff panoply of video games tends to influence and bleed into his later work, I think.  Don't get me wrong:  I enjoyed Rainbow Six and I enjoyed The Bear and The Dragon, but you got the sense that these novels had more military theory behind them than the solid, well-spun yarns of his earlier work- I wouldn't want to go so far as to call them origin stories for a video game franchise, but you could go there if you were a Clancy detractor.

The Verdict:  Stay for the early stuff and if you fall in love with it, keep reading- his whole body of work is entertaining, at the very least.

Nevil Shute: Hard to find these days in book stores, I know the one that everyone is expecting me to plug is On The Beach- and while that was, in fact, the first book of his I read, it's another book of his A Town Like Alice that I have to recommend here.

Don't get me wrong:  On The Beach might be the definitive novel of the Cold War- it's visceral, haunting and utterly depressing (TL;DR:  The last survivors of WWIII wait in Australia to die as radiation slowly moves southward.) but for a happier ending- though just as gripping and compelling of a novel, A Town Like Alice is a better bet.

Set in post-war Britain, were a young woman Jean Paget is summoned to a lawyer's office- Noel Strachan is his name and is informed that she has come into a large sum of money thanks to the death of a uncle she barely knew.  The lawyer has to act as a trustee for her until she turns thirty (or twenty five?  Or thirty five?  Some age she hasn't reached yet.) and asks her what she wants to do with it.  She says she wants to go build a well in Malaysia- and then, the story comes out: captured by the Japanese when they invaded, she had met an Australian soldier, a fellow prisoner who helps the group of women and children she is with by stealing food and medicine for them- when some chickens belonging to a Japanese commander go missing, he takes the blame, is beaten and crucified and Jean presumes him dead.

The twist, of course, is that, somehow, he survived.  And A Town Like Alice is the story of how two people, separated by war, chaos and tumult can meet again, fall in love, emigrate to Australia and try and build, a town like Alice (Alice Springs, that is.)

The Verdict:  There's a lot more of Shute's work that I need to explore than these two books, but both should be on your 'must read' list.  The contrast between the two could not be greater, but Shute's writing is gripping, pulls no punches and dances across the page.

Go Go Go Sochi

What does $50 billion buy you? Apparently, it buys you this:

Yes, the Sochi Olympics are underway in Russia and controversy and corruption is giving way, slowly but surely to the results on the slopes and the ice- which is more or less as it should be, I think, but the clouds that have hovered over international sporting events like the Olympics and The World Cup are still there and growing and the idea that maybe the costs are too high and the benefits too few are only to grow from here on out- especially when the Olympic Committee courts controversy by going ahead with these Olympics in the wake of Russia passing those disgusting anti-gay laws.

I mean I get it:  if done right, there's a lot of national prestige that can boost a country in a somewhat intangible way- and a smaller, more micro level, the cities themselves, if they're smart can upgrade their infrastructure and reap the benefits for years.  But, especially for the Olympics, there's a legacy of white elephants being left behind- venues crumbling into dust and growing weeds.

So is it worth it anymore?  The short answer I can come up with is:  maybe.  I can think of a few cities in the United States that, if they used their existing sports infrastructure creatively enough could probably do a decent job of hosting the Olympics.   I liked that a lot of the venues at London were either temporary (like the beach volleyball at the Horse Guards) or were scaled down or even moved elsewhere in the country to communities that could use things like a swimming pool.

But have the larger messages of things like The Olympics or The World Cup been lost?  Should those more metaphorical, abstract notions even matter?  I mean, let's not kid ourselves:  this shit costs money and money means sponsors and this means money for sponsors so they can run a shit ton of ads during the games.  The idea of athletes all over the world  coming together in peace and harmony for some friendly competition gets frayed a little.   But that's the thing about ideals, I suppose:  if you can't keep striving to achieve them, they sort of cease to be ideals.  You always want to be looking for ways to do it better.

So, going forward:  I think it's time for the IOC to reassess it's mission, it's values and the way it does business.   Some things went awry with these games, it's obvious- but the problems of cost and empty seats will only to continue to fester if the IOC fails to address them.  I don't know if a decentralization of the games would help- but the emphasis needs to be on sports that matter to people- this fiasco with wrestling being dropped in favor of something idiotic should never have happened- and there needs to be an effort made to make sure everybody can afford to go see something if they want too.   The distance between the Olympic Games and the rest of the world/it's viewers has grown to wide.  They should try to close the gap.

In the meantime, there are plenty of horror stories from journalists to snicker at- though it's worth noting that a large chunk of the rest of the world doesn't flush their TP either, so it's not as bizarre or horrifying as people think.   NBC still doesn't get this 'broadcasting the Olympics thing.'  (Hint:  it should all stream live on the internet, for free, without needing an account through an ISP/cable company.   Individual events should be able to watched, a la Hulu whenever we like.  And of course, you can broadcast all you want on the many channels in the NBC family of networks.  And yes, it should be broadcast LIVE.  It's idiotic that the Opening Ceremony was tape delayed.)

Immigration Something Something Blah Blah Blah

With the dawning of the New Year comes a new Congress and a new push on some kind of immigration reform that already has sector of the GOPer Punditocracy up in arms and wringing their hands and generally clutching at pearls at the prospect of a dreaded amnesty for 11 million or so illegal immigrants already in the country.  Right leaning pundits from Ann Coulter to Tammy Bruce and Mickey Kaus (and plenty of others) are doing their best Admiral Ackbar impressions and trying to get the point across that this is a very, very, very bad idea.

Look, I'm not immune to some of the arguments.  To be totally honest, having seen my family go through the process legally- which, if you've ever had the painful, painful privilege of dealing with the INS, you'll know that weekly visits to the proctologist would be a welcome alternative- it irks me when people suggest that people who just walked into the country and didn't take the time to do it by the book should go to the front of the line for citizenship.  GOPers and Dems can talk about 'a path to citizenship' all they want- the fact remains, they broke the rules and they're getting rewarded for it.  That irks me some.

But, you can't ignore the facts already on the ground.  There are 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country.  They live in the shadows, they get exploited by their employers and do jobs that I'm sorry, white Americans just won't do.  I don't buy into the 'they're taking our jobs' argument at all.  I mean, are there people lining up to work on the kill floor of your local meat-packing plant?  Or doing janitorial work at Wal-Mart? Or picking avocados or soybeans? These aren't jobs that people are beating down doors to get at.

These people are here, already and they deserve to live here legally and have recourse if their employers are screwing them out of benefits and/or wages.

Mainly, this is about politics.   Hispanic voters are an increasingly important voting block in every electoral cycle and nobody is going to piss them off-  unfortunately, because both parties are eager to curry favor with the Hispanic community, aspects of this debate that actually matter- such as the STEM brain drain, gets left out in the cold. (GOPers would probably argue that border security is also an important aspect, but I'm pretty sanguine that, like the TSA supposedly making our airports more secure, actual border security is an illusion and an expensive one at that.)  So, in a perfect world, this is what I'd get behind:

1.  A eight year path to citizenship:  illegal immigrants can apply for and get residency no questions asked and if, after eight years (and after the next midterm and Presidential elections have passed) they have a clean criminal record and have dotted every I and crossed every T, then they can apply for citizenship.  (This also has the luxury of keeping either party from taking too much political advantage of it.  Immigration reform should work like Congressional pay raises and not go into effect until after the next election.  Or, in this case, the next two elections.)

2.  Rescind VISA restriction imposed after 9-11 that are negatively impacting our ability to retain high-tech graduates in important STEM fields that come here for school.

3.  During the eight year waiting period- all legal citizenship applications will be processed free of charge and the legal immigration system will be stream lined so it more closely resembles the Selective Service.  I think if you've been a legal resident for ten years, the government should just send you a postcard every year, asking if you want to apply for citizenship and if you check the YES box and send it back, then it should cost you processing fees for the paperwork and nothing more.   It should not upward of $2,000 to become a citizen.  If you want to get to the root of how to make legal immigration easier and illegal immigration harder, cost and convenience have to be first on your list of problems to tackle.

Will anything like what I've just described actually happen?  Probably not- in fact, I think getting consensus and moving forward with immigration reform is going to be a long shot- I mean if President Bush the Younger couldn't get it done, what makes President Obama any more likely to get it over the goal line?

'Prisoners' --A Review

The second half of our Redbox Double Feature, Prisoners was the Missus' pick and I've got to apologize to her, because I was a little dubious about this one and I couldn't have been more wrong.  I don't know what it is lately- maybe I'm just getting lazier in my movie choices the older I get or maybe it's some weird reflection of my job on my entertainment choices, but I seem to be veering away from the darker movies lately.  I want light, entertaining, easy- and Prisoners, while entertaining is neither light nor easy- but ultimately I was glad I broke out of my lazy movie choices, courtesy of the Missus, to watch this movie, because it was an amazingly twisty, turn thrill ride that grabbed my attention and kept it the whole way through.

It starts innocuously enough:  Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his family attend Thanksgiving dinner at the house of their neighbors, the Birches (Terrence Howard and Viola Davis).  That afternoon, both families' young daughters go missing.  The police are quickly informed and start hunting for an RV that was parked outside the house- when the Detective David Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) tries to confront the driver, Alex Jones (Paul Dano) Jones attempts to flee and is arrested.

Under questioning, Jones reveals nothing and is found to have the IQ of a ten year old and is living with his aunt (Melissa Leo.)  Upon his release, Dover confronts Jones (who, being pretty damn creepy and driving the RV the girls were last seen by is prime suspect number one) who whispers to him 'They didn't cry until I left them.'  Unfortunately, no one else heard this vital piece of information- and, naturally, Dover leaps to conclusions of his own and kidnaps Jones to torture him for information- a fact that his quickly discovered by the Birches, though neither of them assist with the torture.

Detective Loki, meanwhile, turns up some interesting information of his own:  a body in the basement of a local defrocked Priest- whom the Priest said he had killed for claiming to be waging 'a war against God' by killing children.   During a candlelight vigil for the girls, Loki sees a hooded man acting suspiciously- when he approaches the man, he runs away and becomes prime suspect number two.

The nice thing about this movie (and I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone) is that it keeps you guessing.  You wander through suspects, even briefly entertaining the notion that two or three of the protagonists could be responsible for the crime- but even when you think you know who the person responsible is, there's one final twist that you don't see coming (at least I didn't) when the kidnapper is revealed.

The cast is strong, the story excellent and the movie plays on some very real fears that every parent probably has- which made it somewhat hard to watch, especially at the beginning.  (I confess, we actually checked the Sex Offender Registry- thankfully no one particularly nasty lives too close to us.)  The fact that Keller Dover leaps to the wrong conclusion about Alex was also particularly uncomfortable- why he doesn't listen to the police?  Why is his so obsessed about finding the answers himself rather than supporting his family during this nightmare?  If you were his shoes, what would you do to find your kid if they were missing?  It prickles uncomfortable parts of the oxipetal as you realize that there's probably not much you wouldn't do for your children.

If there's a fault to this movie, I'd say Detective Loki's character gets a little too hard bitten and intense at times- he never seems to carry a radio and never, ever seems to phone for back-up.  (The final chaotic scenes were he goes Code-3 in bad weather with a head wound and a groggy kidnapping victim in the back is especially insane.  Why wouldn't you call for an ambulance?  Or get someone to escort you?  Or have EMS meet you halfway?)

Overall:  A surprise- hardbitten, twisty and intense, Prisoners has the cast and the story to carry the viewer on a wild ride that asks some tough questions while keeping the viewer guessing as to who is really responsible for the kidnapping. **** out of ****

This Week In Vexillology #67

Our journey through the flags of Russia continues this week, with these guys:



Yes, that's right, we're going to get down with our bad selves and look at the home of Tuvan Throat singing, the Tuva Republic.  First of all, the obvious question:  just where the heck is Tuva?  Well, Tuva is nowhere near Sochi (or Moscow for that matter)  it's way the heck out there in Southern Siberia and sits nestled on top of the northwestern border of Mongolia.   Per Wikipedia, it's also damn hard to get too:  there's no railway into Tuva yet- they're working on that. There are only three roads in and a small airfield in the capitol Kyzyl with 'intermittent flights.'

The flag of Tuva looks like this:

The original flag was adopted in 1918, when it was occupied by White Russian troops for about two years or so after the Russian Revolution of 1917- the Bolsheviks established a People's Republic and between the World Wars it was effectively an independent state before the Soviet Union annexed it outright in 1944.  The colors today are said to represent courage and strength (blue), prosperity (yellow) and purity (white).

Tuva remains isolated and hard to get too, even today- but strangely, physicist Richard Feynman, toward the end of his life developed a mild obsession with going there- and although Cold War politics and bureaucracy prevent the visit from happening, the day after he died, he received a letter from the Soviet government granting him permission to visit- and his obsession and efforts gave rise to the phrase 'Tuva or Bust' and is also the title of a book about his efforts. (Which, obviously now I want to read!)

So, now you know more about Tuva than most people not actually living there (or serious fans of throat singing).  Remember, until next time, keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise!

Albums2010 Revisited: Dookie Turns 20

I officially feel old.   Green Day's seminal album, Dookie has turned twenty (here's my original Albums2010 review, if you're interested) and people are remembering it either fondly or not so fondly, depending on who you talk too.   I fall squarely into the latter camp.  This was one of the first albums I ever purchased along with The Counting Crows' August and Everything After and Hootie and The Blowfish's Cracked Rear View.  (Seriously:  if there was a trifecta of albums that summed up the post-Nirvana 90s, could you top that trio?

(Randomly, cassette number four I purchased for my new radio, far, far back in the mists of my youth was The Dance, a Fleetwood Mac live album that featured the USC Marching Band during 'Tusk'.)

But, back to Dookie: I can understand the punk purists that despise Green Day.  After all, they were essentially the progenitors of pop-punk that gave birth to bands like Good Charlotte and Blink-182.  But, you could also argue that maybe that was just the sign of the times.  After all, the 90s were the era where rap lost it's social consciousness and embraced the ridiculous celebration of gangster excess that lasted until the emergence of Kanye.  Why wouldn't punk lose it's edge in the 90s?  Who was there to rail against? We were in the middle of the largest and longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history and life was good.  Punk, fundamentally, was born out of the rage of late 70s malaise, when life was anything but 'good.'  People were boiling with anger and rage.   And that's what gave birth to punk.

So I get that.  But, and here's the interesting thing that The Quiet Man and I touched on during the snowy ride back from a galling and truly depressing loss to Ohio State:  music has to evolve to survive. Even as Metallica risked the wrath and alienation of thrash metal purists by changing, so Green Day took some of the angry edge off of punk to make it work for them.  Even working your way through the discography of The Clash you can see the evolution of their sound from 'White City Riot' to 'Train In Vain.'

While everyone probably remembers 'Basket Case' from Dookie, I hold two songs near and dear to my heart:  'Longview':

(This was the first song I ever picked up a phone and called a radio station to ask to hear.  Q103 FTW!)

The second one, oddly, is 'Welcome To Paradise'...  I don't know why, but I think the lyrics speak to me even today.  How scary it can be to leave home and move out on your own for the first time is a theme that I think is universal, in a way.  But really, it can be applied to anything.  A new job, a new house- every transition- and in an economy like this, there can be many, can be scary.  And maybe paradise is fleeting, but sooner or later, even if it's just for a little while, you're going to feel welcome there.

In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy the memories, the nostalgia and spend the rest of the month feeling incredibly, incredibly old.  The only comfort I have from this fact is that Billy Jo Armstrong and Company probably feel a hell of a lot older than I do.

Food Adventures #38: The Great German-Indian Fusion Experiment

If necessity is the mother of invention, well then serve me a double scoop of the stuff because this Great German-Indian Fusion Experiment was totally and utterly improvised and actually turned out really well.  What I ended up with was this:

How did this magic happen?  Well, we got a meat bundle at Hy-Vee awhile back, not long after we purloined my mother in-law's deep freeze and included in the meat bundle were about a dozen or so brats, the remnants of which were sitting in our freezer accumulating freezer burn ever so slowly.  So, I wanted to use them up.   We also had an onion or two hanging around the joint and I had a left over Anchor Christmas Ale- the 2013 Edition hanging around my fridge and that's when the light bulb went off.

I chopped up the onions, sliced up the brats, threw them in a pan and pour the Anchor Christmas ale in after them.   What resulted was actually pretty delicious:  the reduced down into a delicious, hearty and flavorful gravy, which, when combined with the brats and the onions was amazing.   The only question that remained:  what were we going to put it on?   After some consultation with the Missus, we decided on some Naan bread from Trader Joe's that had also been lurking in our freezer for far too long-  we added some ketchup and a squirt of mustard and a strange flatbread/taco/gyro was born.

The Missus observed that the only thing that it was missing was probably some sauerkraut- and I would tend to agree with that assessment, despite not liking kraut all that much.   I also think a stronger, more authentically German mustard would have added the right kind of kick to it.  Or you could fuse the other way and make it a curry sauce of some kind.  (Maybe also add some vegetables other than onions?  They worked out fine, but unless you had some brat along for the ride, a mouthful of them, even with the delicious beer-gravy, the onion flavor was a little intense.)

Either way, for a total, 'make it up as you go along' experience, this turned out really, really well.  I would happily do it again.

The Tao of Writing #3: Writer's Block

I have a very strange process when it comes to my writing.  I have to get it right in my head before I actually get it down on a piece of paper.  In fact, as I spent most of January outlining for the sequel to The Prisoner and The Assassin, I can attest to the fact that even creating an outline takes time, especially when you run into a case of that most dreaded of phenomena:  Writer's Block.

Not sure how other writer's deal with a good old case of writer's block, but I tend to have a couple of methods of tackling the problem when I run into it.  First, I do my best to ignore it.  I step away for awhile- lose myself in a television show or a book and let things percolate a bit.  I tend to randomly stare off into the distance at things during this phase of the process.  I might mumble to myself a little bit as well- or at least do more than normally.  It's really hard to describe how your brain works on paper- but this is where I do a lot of writing in my head.  I set things up, I straighten them out, I iron out any wrinkles and then,  then I start putting them down on paper.

If that works, then everything is golden and the writing flows like warm bat guano after taco night down in the local cavern.   If it doesn't work, however, that's when I have to take things up a notch.

Stage 2 for resolving writer's block is usually when I get irritated about it.  I can't seem to make it work in my head and stepping back and letting things brew for a week or so hasn't done the trick, so then I roll up my sleeves and get down into the trenches with the problem.  Pretty much, I make myself write.  What results usually sucks out loud in the worst possible way, but the fact is once I have something on paper, I can then get my claws into it more effectively, especially if doing it in my head just isn't doing the trick.

Basically, this is where I put my head down and just brute force my way through a problem.  It's not pretty and I hate to do it and there's usually a good couple of days where I write a sentence of two and then promptly delete them in mini-fits of rage.  It's a rough road to travel but I usually make my way through to something that I can be satisfied with and then polish up to a point where I can keep moving on with whatever I'm doing.

So that's my process in a nutshell- or at least as much of my process as I can put to paper.  The brain is a funny thing sometimes-  music can kick start my writing.  An especially dramatic scene in a movie...   reading something random on the internet.   It's amazing how random it can be sometimes, but so far, it's never let me down.

Fellow writers and readers and dreamers of dreams and stories, how do you get through writer's block?

David Stern Retires or, Why I Don't Care About The NBA

Jason Whitlock, over at ESPN is not a fan of outgoing NBA Commish David Stern- he is, a good writer, so I tend to read his stuff when I happen across it, because well, it's well-written for one and for two, it tends to be different from the usual 'serious' sports writing that you come across- it's not as sugar-coated as some of Rick Reilly's stuff- it's not as stilted or as obsessed with the Celtics as Bill Simmons is.   And his criticisms of Stern are well founded, I think.

I say, 'I think' because really, I don't care that much about the NBA.  I try too, really I do- but it just doesn't work.  If I want to watch basketball, I'll watch college basketball because that, to me, is where the sport really comes into its own- and I'm saying this as a person who couldn't stand playing basketball when I was a kid and would probably have to think about it when faced with the choice of say, a trip to the Dentist or a pick-up game of three on three on a basketball court.

Putting David Stern on the same level as Pete Rozelle?  Yeah, Whitlock nails this one.  Stern isn't even close- given the fact that, unlike football, basketball really can be played by anyone with the time or the patience to pick up a ball- even people in wheelchairs, it's somewhat ridiculous that the NFL is five times more popular than the NBA.   There's a universality to basketball- something broadly democratic in it's concept that should really appeal to the American spirit.   It's why basketball has a more global presence than American football does.  It's not a fundamentally weird idea that the rest of the world doesn't need a funny video or a manual to grasp- pick up ball, dribble it down court, shoot it into the hoop.

Do I know anything about the racial dynamics of all of this?  No, I really don't.  I could buy into the notion that maybe the arrival of Larry Bird made the NBA more 'palatable' and comfortable for white America, but how do you explain people like Bill Walton?  If you think that the perception of the NBA having a 'drug problem' was racial- I'll grant you that the 'sports media' such as it is turned a blind eye to doping in baseball and football but when you have people like Len Bias dying so tragically- it's hard to argue that the problem was overblown somehow.

Who knows- maybe there's something I'm just missing about basketball, but the few times I've sat down to watch an NBA game, it just seems too clean, too perfect and too produced and professional by half.   The college game is more scrappy and authentic to me- and the season, dear Lord the NBA season just seems to go on forever and ever and ever and the playoffs- God, don't even get me started on the playoffs.  They last forever too!

Shit, the NCAA Tournament is probably more entertaining than the NBA playoffs from where I'm sitting.   The glorious thing about college is that every single year, there's always some giant killer that comes out of nowhere and upsets someone that everyone is convinced is a sure thing to go deep in the Big Dance.    We haven't had a 16 seed over a 1 seed yet, but odds are, we will one of these times and that will be in every sports montage until the end of time.

But probably one of the most interesting statements came from the comments- which on ESPN range from the hysterical to the laughable to the 'you must live in your parents' basement and wear a tinfoil hat'- but occasionally something intriguing pops up and the best epitaph for Stern's tenure was described (more or less) thusly:  He's retiring with franchises in Memphis, Oklahoma City and Charlotte, but none in Seattle, Kansas City or San Diego.

Now that intrigued me.  Don't me wrong:  I understand Charlotte- that's a big media market down there, but the presence of the NBA in small markets like Memphis and OKC- especially given their proximity to New Orleans and Dallas, geographically speaking is something of a head scratcher.   One of the teams I genuinely miss is the Seattle Supersonics.  I don't actually know if I ever saw them play a single game, but one of the few players not on the Chicago Bulls back in the day whose name I actually knew:  Shawn Kemp. And it has been puzzling to me why KC doesn't have an NBA franchise- I mean, I know they used too, but if you're going to go into a small market, why not go to the one that originated the game itself?  #JustSayin

I don't know what the future of the NBA is, going forward. I know that right now, it doesn't have my attention.  I'm more likely to sit down and watch an MLS, NHL or even MLB game than an NBA game.  Shit, I'll probably watch the Masters Tournament before I watch the NBA playoffs.  I'm sure it's making money hand over fist and will continue to surge forward with the fans they do have and maybe that will work for them- but let's not act like Stern somehow transformed the league into something amazing.   He didn't.  The league is solvent and prosperous and that's the bare minimum you should expect from an outgoing commissioner- that they should leave things better than how they found him, but challenging the NFL for world domination?  Please.  Don't make me laugh.

Philip Seymour Hoffman, 1967-2014

Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead today in his apartment of a possible drug overdose.  He left behind a wife and three young children, not to mention the indelible mark he left on Hollywood and a generation of excellent roles on stage and screen.   To be totally honest, he was one of my favorite actors.  It didn't matter what role he was in- whether he was playing a good guy or bad guy or whatever- he made movies better just by being in them.  When news broke, last year I think that he had entered rehab, I was surprised.  He seemed like the last person in Hollywood you would have expected to be battling some demons, but I wished him well and hoped that he would beat them.

Sadly, it seems as though his demons might have caught up to him- what a loss- not only to his family, but to the entertainment industry as a whole.   He will be missed- Slate has some good thoughts here and here and here and I threw in some of his most memorable scenes below.  (I'm now wondering why I don't own Almost Famous and Charlie Wilson's War- both fantastic movies!)