Albums2010 #27: Zoso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookshot #14: The Girl Who Played With Fire

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

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

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

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

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

The End of Man

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

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

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

Pass On This Pledge

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

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

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

Texas Does It Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHS Homecoming Parade 2010

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

For Governor of Minnesota...

Tom Horner of the Independence Party!

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another One For The Reading List

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

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

Sigh... another one for the reading list.

Bookshots #11-13: Science In The Capitol Trilogy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Spy With My Little Eye...

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

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

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

Arizona 34, Iowa 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still Growing...

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

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

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

Redesigning The Dollar?

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

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

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

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

Bookshot #10: Team of Rivals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albums2010 #25-26: Abraxas and Supernatural

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Governor of Iowa...

VOTE FOR THIS DUDE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookshot #9: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

I did it. I broke down and finally got ahold of this book. The 'it' book of the summer, I had been curious about these books (I've read the first two so far, am hoping to get my hands on the third at some point.) and I am happy to report that overall, they don't disappoint- but lord-ee did I have some issues with volume #1.

It's gotta be a bitch, trying to write a trilogy- the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Star Wars trilogy, so many trilogies out there and they all seem to contain the same basic rules. The first volume introduces the characters, the second volume drops them in the shit and the third volume lets them redeem themselves. So it is, so it has been and so, seemingly will it always be and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is no exception. Therein lies my only complaint: this is not a bad book, by any stretch of the imagination, but WOW does it take a long time to get to the point. Drag, drag, drag, drag, drag and then wam, bam, thank you ma'am suddenly it's interesting, fun and suspenseful.

My only complaint out the way, let's get to business: Stieg Larsson has crafted one of the most incredibly powerful female heroines in modern literature with Lisbeth Salander. An ambitious statement, to be sure, but I stand by it. Salander, a hacker, probably autistic to some degree, strong, powerful, seemingly amoral, yet working with her own set of rules strides through the pages of this book like a hurricane, struggling and surviving some truly horrific situations before coming into her own helping out Kalle Blomkvist, a crusading journalist seeking (funnily enough)career redemption.

Blomkvist provides a nice foil to Salander, though it seems to be the other way around a lot of the time, as the disgraced journalist who is looking for redemption after being convicted of libel in court for screwing up a story. When a wealthy (and mysterious- dum, dum DUM) industrialist comes calling asking Blomkvist to unravel the decades old mystery of the disappearance of his niece, Blomkvist agrees and eventually gets sucked into a truly grisly and suspenseful series of events that brings him first into contact with Salander (the titular Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) and then with what really happened all those many years ago and the suspense is so carefully strung out through the book that the reader is kept wanting more. To be totally honest with y'all, it was all I could do the keep from flipping ahead in the book to find out what was actually going to happen and who done the deed. (I proved to be wrong on several aspects of both questions in the end.)

Overall, Larsson more than redeems his slow start and the book races to a surprising (you would hope so, what with it being a mystery and all) and satisfying conclusion that accomplishes two main things: it leaves the reader feeling satisfied at what they have read- and more importantly, it leaves them wanting more. Which they get in volume #2.

Shock (Stop The Presses!)

The UI Student Government officially voted against the 21-only ordinance, which should surprise absolutely no one. Stop the presses on that one! But what did raise my eyebrows was this little piece of information:

Also at the meeting, Patel put forward and student government voted to provide $10,000 in funding to a student group for getting out the vote effort aimed at students.

Am I the only one that thinks that this seems to be a little dodgy? I mean, OK, if a group of students had come to UISG asking for recognition and funding as an official group that would be one thing. But this reads like the UISG to vote to fund its very own Political Action Committee, which I'm totally not down with. I'm not sure where I'm going to come down on the 21-only issue yet, primarily because I'm over 21 and I can drink legally wherever the hell I want too, but things like this give me pause. The UISG was far from unanimous on this vote (it was 16-9 against 21-only) and it appears that there's a significant minority of students who are fine with 21-only...

I don't know. It seems dodgy to me... I could be wrong though. But that's a lot of cash to fund a get-out-the-vote effort- cash from student activity fees.

City High Has Some Big Plans

Namely a fine arts addition and an upgrade to facilities at Bates Field... In general, I'm hip to both notions. Lord knows that music and art at City High have been in the older part of the building probably since the school was built, so an upgrade and expansion is long past due- especially given how good the music program at City is. (Grammy Award, anyone?)

As for Bates Field... well, new bleachers I'm down with, better restrooms I'm down with and an upgrade to the press box I'm totally cool with. However, plans call for an alumni building (a small, modest affair from the look of it, which is good) to be built north of the existing press box with viewing rooms that can be rented out and indoor seats for alumni, I guess? That particular aspect I'm a little queasy about. Seems a little frivolous, however I have to admit I'll probably be able to afford to rent out a viewing room at Bates long before I'll get close to press box tickets at Kinnick, so that tickles my fancy a bit.

Cup O'Tea

It was a good night for the Tea Party last night with their biggest victory of the night coming in the Delaware Senate Primary which Christine O'Donnell won comfortably against party favorite Mike Castle. (In response to this, the NRSC has got its undies in a bunch and issued a statement saying O'Donnell will be getting no love from them.)

I've said it before (probably) and I'll say it again: I'm down with the Tea Party attempting to affect real change in the country, I just don't think it can be done from the inside- the entrenched marriage of politics and business can't be broken up by internal reform, it's going to take people becoming engaged, organizing and forming their own party to take the other two down. We need government that puts individual people first, instead of people and/or interest groups with money first.

Mexico Hits 200

Mexico has a bicentennial to celebrate this week (200 years since independence from Spain) as well as a centennial (100 years since the Mexican Revolution)- but given the rising violence in the north of the country as drug cartels are wailing on each other, a lot of people are asking: What is there to celebrate?

Personally, I'm glad that Mexico is marking the anniversary with something, despite the rough times it's going through. Anniversaries are important and taking time to think about where you've been and how far you've come (and how far you've got to go) is a good thing to do from time to time, for people as well as countries.

So, Happy Birthday Mexico!

Bush Forefits Heisman

Former USC RB Reggie Bush announced he was returning his Heisman Trophy today, as the Heisman Trust was set to meet soon to decide what to do about Bush's Trophy in the wake of NCAA sanctions and penalties against USC for, amongst other things, letting Bush get benefits from various sports agents while he was the school (A big no-no.)

Life is pretty good for Reggie Bush. He won a Super Bowl has a good pro career going and survived dating Kim Kardashian- so it's probably no big thing that he's returning it. It is the first time in 75 years that someone has returned it though. I get his reasoning, but the benefits had no impact on his performance. If he had been popping pills or shooting 'roids, then yeah, they'd have a point. But benefits? Had no real impact on his performance that season...

Good gesture on his part? Sure. But necessary? Meh, I am of two minds about that. If the Heisman is about performance, then why not let him keep it? If it's not, then what's it about? (And keep in mind that OJ never gave his back.)

UPDATED: Better, more articulate thoughts on the matter over here.

A Good First Step

We've got a designer for the new Hancher- they're looking at 2015 completion date, tentatively.

Election Samba

...if you're tired of hearing about America's boring and rage-inducing politics, but are still itching for your political fix, well I've got good news: Brazil is having a Presidential election October 2nd and they might well be on the verge of electing their first female President. Which (if it happens) will mean a huge glass ceiling shattered- when will the United States catch up? (And is Sarah Palin the one to do it? Or Hillary Clinton? Or someone totally different...)

Bookshot #8: England's Dreaming

I don't know when I fell in love with punk music, but I did. Probably because of Green Day's album Dookie more than anything else, though at the time, I didn't know what punk was, much less have an appreciation of Green Day's place within the genre. But Green Day eventually lead to The Cure, The Cure to Joy Division, Joy Division to the Sex Pistols and from there, out to the Clash, Rancid, Social Distortion, Siouxsie and the Banshees. The emotional energy of punk, the sheer raw power of its social rebellion and the anti-establishment message at its core appeal to me on several levels, both politically and personally. So many things in this country fall short of what I believe them to be capable of. We can do great things, we can be better, eventually events will force us to change, but I think waiting to forced into a corner is laziness. We can be better. And the fact we aren't makes me want to scream sometimes, hence my love of punk.

In England's Dreaming, I finally found the book that told me everything I ever wanted to know about the punk movement but was afraid to ask. The perfect compliment to the biography of Clash lead singer Joe Strummer, Jon Savage's tome (yes, it is a little bit of a doorstop, but a worthwhile doorstop) focuses more on The Sex Pistols than anything else, but within the wider lens of the punk movement as a whole. And what surprised me more than anything? Punk wasn't about music right at first, it was about fashion. And more specifically, punk impresario (the late, great) Malcolm McLaren's drive to sell clothes that shocked, rocked and would shake the world. Operating from a shop called (strangely enough) Sex he pushed his fashion outwards into Britain and from there the world- and crafted punk and more specifically The Sex Pistols as a vehicle to help him hock his fashion wares.

A digression: another surprise? Punk wasn't a British thing. No, the New York Dolls started it and the Ramones and Dead Kennedys followed and THEN The Sex Pistols took the stage, because McClaren was desperate to make his band work, make his band hit big and bring his sense of fashion and music back to London- and incredibly, with Johnny Rotten, Sid Vicious and company he single-handedly moved the center of the burgeoning cultural movement back from New York City to London. Then, it blew up in a major way.

What follows chronicles the heady days of punk in that short sprint between 1975 and 1979, where the Sex Pistols went supernova and then shattered like broken glass. Anyone vaguely familiar with the history of rock n'roll (or for that matter, Gary Oldman movies) will remember the sad demise of the Pistols: Rotten leaving, Vicious being implicated in a murder and OD'ing and it all ended so suddenly, on the moment of their success. While The Sex Pistols blew punk into the mainstream, really and truly it was The Clash that kept it going. The twin Janus-likes heads of the punk movement- so different and yet joined by a core of angry rage at the decay and decadence of the crumbling society all around them. 'God Save The Queen' proved to be the high water mark of the Pistols' success, but it also proved to be their undoing- what today seems to be a fairly straightforward critique of establishment Britain was INSANELY controversial back then and the backlash almost did them in and in fact, proved to be the first of the fault lines that would eventually bring them down.

There's more than Sex Pistols in this volume- its everyone and everything, bands big and small, people that I'd never heard of and it makes me insanely jealous. To be alive back then, when rage and the demand for change was channeled into such pure artistry... it would have been AWESOME.

This book, at the end of the day, pretty much rocked my face off. Everything you ever want to know about punk but were afraid to ask is to be found here. And as almost a signature to the whole thing, remember what punk was really about: 'If nothing gets challenged, nothing gets changed.'

I Roll My Eyes

...at the latest outbreak of nonsense over at Press-Citizen.com. I think I've pinpointed my mistake though: reading the comments section. Anyone who has the time and the energy to comment on and getting into pissing matches with some of the people who troll these websites is obviously quite a few French fries short of a happy meal. (However, dear reader, let this not discourage you from commenting on this modest little endeavor of mine. I welcome all points of view and if you disagree with me, I heartily look forward to (hopefully) anyway, explaining to you in great detail how wrong you are.)

Just kidding on that last part!

Anyway, the latest kerfuffle: ICPD is purchasing new riot gear. Because if there is a riot, people apparently think cops should be going into danger with riot gear from the late 70s. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone? Makes sense to me. Seems like a routine, run of the mill updating of equipment. Departments do it all the time- and if Iowa City's squad cars have anything remotely similar to the seemingly chronic problems that the UIPD has with some of theirs, they do a lot of maintenance on equipment.

Seems reasonable to me, but the fine, fine people over at PC.com lost their collective s**t over this and why? Well, that answer is to be found at Gazetteonline.com with this little gem of an article, here.

First of all, let's consider the headline: 'Use of ICPD's new riot gear sparks emotional debate.' Gazette, Gazette, Gazette... I shake my head at you and your extremely questionable copy-editing. They haven't even purchased the damn gear yet and they certainly haven't used it! The headline alone is misleading almost to the point of irresponsibility!

But (and this is the second of all): let's be responsible consumers of media and dig a little, shall we? It seems that if you actually read the article we discover this quote:

I’m not going to be a conspiracy theorist or anything like that but I just think that they’re obviously seeing something that leads them to believe that they need this equipment,” said Matt Pfaltzgraf, campaign manager for the anti-21-only YESS group.

Ex-squeeze me? There's so much irresponsibility on display here, it's practically littering. Apparently the young people in their haste and eagerness to put their money back in the pockets of bar owners think that the Iowa City Brownshirts need riot gear so they can bust up parties on South Johnson and Lucas on weekends.

I don't even know where to start with this. First of all, South Johnson is weeny-land compared to Kinnick on game days and officers from a myriad number of agencies delve into that mess sans riot gear on a regular basis. If they don't need it to bust up parties on Melrose on a Saturday, they probably can handle South Johnson. Sorry, Pfaltzgraf, but y'all just cause the Po-Po the regular amount of trouble, nothing so irritating that they require extra equipment. Implying otherwise is stupid, hurts your cause (because yes, it is irresponsible to suggest what you did) and makes me want to think hard about my stand on 21 only in Iowa City, because overall, what you said? It was pretty dumb.

But like I said, I roll my eyes...

Silly Season Is Here

And you know what that means, kids, it's election time! I seem to have recovered my mojo a little bit when it comes to the whole blogging thing, so rest assured I'm going to start doing my homework, maybe asking a question or two of eager political campaigns and making my endorsements for the 2010 Midterms. In the coming weeks, you'll see The Cigar weigh on the following:

Iowa's Gubenatorial Race
Minnesota's Gubenatorial Race
Iowa's Senate Race
Iowa's Second District Congressional Race
Minnesota's First District Congressional Race
The 21 Only Thing in Iowa City
Proposition 19 in Sunny California
The Overall National Picture

and...

My Predictions For Election Night.

Now that I've promised you guys this, of course, I have to start writing them up. So stay tuned.

Epic Fail

The head of Google said the following at a big search engine knees up yesterday:

"We Want Google To Be The Third Half Of Your Brain."

My brain is just find with 2 halves thanks, don't need to attempt to add a third.

The Biggest Thing Since Harry Potter...

...the feeding frenzy over former Prime Minister Tony Blair's memoirs has begun, with the Independent weighing in.

Personally, I'm of two minds about political memoirs, especially those written by politicians themselves. They're usually doorstops, bricks full of minutia that few, if any people are going to be bothered about and there's a lot of tedious self-justification in a desperate attempt to make themselves look as shiny and wonderful as possible as history turns its oftentimes piercing gaze upon them.

They can be annoying. But being a political science major, I'm read more than my lion's share of political biographies, memoirs and tomes and it was interesting, looking through my bookshelves because of all the political biographies I have (and there are many) only two of them were autobiographical in nature:

The Course Of My Life by Former British Prime Minister Edward Heath and
The Midnight Diaries by Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

Now, Ted Heath's memoirs were pretty chill and interesting read. The guy loved sailing and if memory served, he liked playing the piano- there was more to his life than politics. I can't recall any juicy details about his feud with Thatcher, but blabbering about stuff like that just didn't really seem to be his style.

And Boris Yeltsin diaries... well, I have no idea why I purchased those. Really and truly. I think I saw a Daily Show sketch where they had Yeltsin firing his cabinet and it was him talking in Russian and for subtitles they did their usual: 'My desk is clean. My desk is green. My desk is clean and green. You're all fired.' At the time, I found that hilarious, so probably just brought it on a whim. I can't say it struck me as being all that insightful.

But my point is this: the truth isn't going to come out when people still remember when Blair was Prime Minister. 50 years from now, sure, there could be some decent biographies on the guy, but these memoirs (as with so many others) are more about correcting and rectifying any holes in a politicians legacy than anything else. So, although Mr. Blair will probably be remembered for a great many things when all is said and done, I'll pass on his memoirs.

I'd prefer to take history's word for it, not his.

Discovery Channel Hostage Situation

A gunman took 3 hostages at the Discovery Channel HQ in Maryland today in a four hour standoff that ended when police shot the gunman. No one was hurt, which was good, but what stood out about this was the gunman's shall we say, wacky manifesto, found here.

Crash

Police are investigating the leaking of a video of a crash involving Iowa football player Josh Koeppel on Monday. This video is all over the internet, so I'm not going to bother posting it here, but needless to say, whomever leaked this to the press is, I would imagine, going to be in a heap of trouble, should they be found out.

The Divisional Dance Is Done

The Big Ten has announced the split. It breaks down like this:

Michigan
Nebraska
Iowa
Michigan State
Minnesota
Northwestern

and...

Ohio State
Penn State
Wisconsin
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana

I am cautiously optimistic about this. It preserves the Iowa-Minnesota rivalry, potentially starts a new one with Nebraska and at least for the next two years, I'd expect (Michigan will be back) I'd say it'll be a two horse-race between Nebraska and Iowa with maybe Michigan State a breath behind for this division. This has the potential to be a very competitive division, probably more so than the other one, which is going to depend on either Penn State or Wisconsin fielding teams that can get past Ohio State, which is a pain in the ass to do on their weak years for most of the conference.

Whether the Iowa-Wisconsin rivalry will be back at some point (or Minnesota-Wisconsin, another big one) is still something I'm sure they'll be working out, but from Iowa's point of view, I like this. It'll be a challenge, but one I'm sure we can play up too.

P.S. Iowa's protected cross-divisional rivalry game is Purdue? Our hated rivals, the Boilermakers? Do what now?

(As a side note: not that I care about Goldy the Gopher, but can someone please do something about Minnesota football? Seriously. If I was Gopher fan tonight, I'd be a little pissed off, because Minnesota as it stands now, as a tougher ticket to punch than any of the other teams in the Division. If Brewster doesn't do something drastic and soon, then I think he's toast and they're going to want a big name who can shake things up to put behinds in the seats of that fancy new stadium they got up there.)

2012 Watch

Put this name on your radar screen, ladies and gentlemen. Gary E. Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico... if, like me, your first reaction was 'who the hell is Gary Johnson?' then I wouldn't be all that surprised, but there's a quiet buzz, especially amongst libertarian leaning Republicans out there and rumors that he could emerge (assuming Ron Paul doesn't run again) as the 'next Ron Paul' in the Republican race in 2012. He paid us a visit here in Iowa City which made the front page of the Daily Iowan. Keep an eye out for this guy and learn some more about him. He sounds fairly sensible to me.

In other news, Sarah Palin is headlining the Iowa GOP's Reagen Dinner on September 17th, which pundits have taken to mean is a significant step towards possibly launching her own Presidential campaign. It's worth noting that no Reagen Dinner headliner has won the GOP nomination, which hasn't stopped several from trying, but I remain divided about Palin. With Grandmothers, a mother, two sisters, a wife and two just turned four months old nieces, it would be extremely difficult for me not to vote for a qualified woman. Whether she's the right person for the job is still an open question to me, but I don't think you pass that up, not for the first woman President in the history of the Republic. If she gets the nomination, I'm sure I'll be debating that point more extensively.

Yes kids, its not even 2011 yet and the Presidential caucus circus is starting to drift back into town. Depressing, no?