If you cannot answer this question, then I maintain that you haven't watched more than 59 consecutive seconds of NBC's/ESPN's U.S. Open Coverage (I have--for 6 straight hours, since I woke up...at 2 p.m.)
Why is this so important? Well, maybe because the U.S. Open is currently being played at Oakmont CC outside of Pittsburgh, PA, where years ago Johnny Miller did shoot an admittedly remarkable 63 in the final round, taking home the cup and the glory. Why else should we supposedly care? Well, because Johnny Miller himself is sitting in the booth, disparaging players who are right in saying the course is now unprecedented in its difficulty, in an effort by Johnny to make his own record all the more impressive. And his co-anchors are just gobbling it up.
Why does NBC think we want to hear this?
Honestly, every 8 seconds, an NBC anchorman says something like, "Man, if Tiger can hole out on 16, 17, and 18, he might get close to your record of 63, Johnny."
A smug Johnny Miller: "Heck, I tell you, that'd be a heck of a round. Maybe some of these other guys would stop whining about how tough the course is. It's not that tough. I shot a 63 here once, remember?"
Yes, Johnny, you did. The course was also 500 yards shorter, the rough less arduous to navigate, and the bunkers about 1/4 as deep. Oh, and the fairways were wider then, too. Oh, and you weren't battling the phenoms that the tour now pumps out at an abysmal rate in the post-Tiger era. Yeah, Jack was good, but he really was the only star. Now there are 20 players worldwide that are just as good, and they are all assembled at Pittsburgh this week to play the Open. Yet you still contend that players should be going lower.
A parallel to how ironic it is that Johnny is on-air beefing up his accomplishments could only be found if, say, members of the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins broadcast the last 10 regular-season football games of a team that started 6-0, talking the whole time about how many obstacles that Dolphins team had to overcome to not lose once and about, contrary to popular belief (and reality), "it was so much harder to do back then." Are people not seeing right through this?
Also, I kept an official tally of every time Johnny said a variant of, "These players have to realize that the ball breaks toward the turnpike on most of these putts," referring to the Pittsburgh turnpike that Johnny thinks supplanted bodies of water as a ball magnet. The Saturday total? 28 times...again, one day, one line, spoken amid shameless efforts to secure the validity of his one moment of shining glory 18 years ago. It's a wonder he had time to say anything else.
So why does NBC keep this abrasive "color man" in the booth, knowing full and well that he'll milk his "miracle" round to the fullest at Oakmont at every given possibility? Because: he's candid. Too his credit, Johnny Miller is the only golf announcer on TV with the stones to say what everybody else is thinking, namely about players' emotions in major-championship play. While Jim Nantz and the other WASPs in the booth lament about how "It's too bad Mickelson couldn't pull this one off," Johnny offers a reason (and kicks Lefty while he's down): "Yeah, Phil choked here, Rog. Just made some atrocious decisions. Arguably the worst decision making we've every seen in major-championship history. He's gonna feel like hell tomorrow."
While no one is a bigger self-aggrandizing jackass, no one is better--that's why the controversial Johnny Miller remains in golf broadcasting.
And if you find it funny or annoying that I blog about golf...well...yeah, it kind of is. You see, back in '78, I shot a 63 in the final round at Oakmont...
--
p.s. Tiger's got this one on lock-down...playing in the final group with Baddeley, who will choke, only two strokes back...it's over.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Gay Marriage: The Debate Continues
In one of the many comments made about our Friday editorial, one writer stated that the United States should get out of the marriage business. I couldn't agree more with that statement. The biggest issue with civil unions is the separate but equal aspect of the argument:
Civil unions are not equal to marriage, nor would they ever be considered so. Imagine a child asking his parents why some people can get married--like mommy and daddy--while others have civil unions. Regardless of what people say about civil unions, you are separating people into groups--again. We've tried this before, notably with ethnicity, and it didn't work.
The differences are clear: Some people are granted marriages (heterosexual partners exclusively), while others are given something...a little less (our homosexual counterparts.) And again the discrimination continues.
So here's the logical answer: Stop using the word marriage. The word itself carries religious implications, which shouldn't be allowed under our Constitution anyway. When a couple, gay or straight, decides to enter into a legal partnership, they should be granted a civil union by the state in which they live. If said couple wishes to include faith and religion into their partnership, they must ask their church, synagogue, mosque, etc. to grant a certificate of marriage. If a particular religion decides that homosexual relationships are sinful and prohibited by the laws of their faith, then no marriage certificate is granted.
But we have to change the language first: Civil unions for all, or civil unions for none. If you can't treat people equally, shame on your government's bumper sticker approach to "Freedom for all."
Rob Verhein
DI Editorial Writer
Civil unions are not equal to marriage, nor would they ever be considered so. Imagine a child asking his parents why some people can get married--like mommy and daddy--while others have civil unions. Regardless of what people say about civil unions, you are separating people into groups--again. We've tried this before, notably with ethnicity, and it didn't work.
The differences are clear: Some people are granted marriages (heterosexual partners exclusively), while others are given something...a little less (our homosexual counterparts.) And again the discrimination continues.
So here's the logical answer: Stop using the word marriage. The word itself carries religious implications, which shouldn't be allowed under our Constitution anyway. When a couple, gay or straight, decides to enter into a legal partnership, they should be granted a civil union by the state in which they live. If said couple wishes to include faith and religion into their partnership, they must ask their church, synagogue, mosque, etc. to grant a certificate of marriage. If a particular religion decides that homosexual relationships are sinful and prohibited by the laws of their faith, then no marriage certificate is granted.
But we have to change the language first: Civil unions for all, or civil unions for none. If you can't treat people equally, shame on your government's bumper sticker approach to "Freedom for all."
Rob Verhein
DI Editorial Writer
Friday, June 15, 2007
Gay Rights: The New Civil Rights Movement
I just wanted to add to our editorial today:
To many casual observers, my roommate is the ultimate meathead. He lifts six times daily, subsists solely on tuna fish and amino acids, and buys his whey protein wholesale (in such quantities that the three-gallon jugs dominate the top of our fridge, blocking access to my go-to healthy snack--Doublestuf Oreos). Yet, underneath his motorcycle helmet, there lies an unusually developed brain. Though he'd never admit it to his Iowa City Fitness buddies, the kid is a teeming intellectual, a shrewd political observer, and a social liberal. And, occasionally, he'll stop flexing his cheese-grater abs and dabble in profundity, transforming into Noam Chomsky in an Abercrombie polo.
A couple of months ago, he had one of those moments.
"You know what?" he said, suddenly waxing political. "I think in about 40 years, we're going to look back on the way we're treating gay people now like the way we treated black people 40 years ago, in the '60s."
It hit me. Why the hell didn't I think of that? That's a perfect way to describe rampant, harmful culture of homophobia that we cannot seem to escape in this country. It is no longer acceptable to spew the hateful N-word in public, or even to spell it out in print. Why, then, can one hear the derogatory use of the word "faggot" echo off of every wall of every college dorm, high-school basketball locker room, and GOP convention ballroom (see: Ann Coulter) in America on any given night?
What is this change-resistant juggernaut that's keeping us in the dark ages, subjecting people who are predisposed to liking members of the same sex to constant humiliation and utterly unequal protection under the law? Why, until the Iowa legislature extended protection to homosexuals in the state just months ago, was it LEGAL to NOT give a person a loan, or a job, or a home mortgage, simply because he or she was gay?
One of the most laughable arguments--and you hear right-wingers spouting this malarkey at alarming rates--is that, unlike race, homosexuality is a choice. This ludicrous assertion--that all gays are masochists who just love being pummelled by hate groups, discriminated against in all facets life, and ostracized from churches and society generally, and thus willingly choose to live as de facto second-tier citizens--is echoed by the same sad souls who believe "Creationism" should be taught alongside evolution, who deny research showing that homosexual males all seem to have this interesting little discrepancy on their X chromosomes that straight males don't happen to possess and identical-twin studies linking homosexuality to genetics, and who chalk up the fact that every other person in the free world has a gay uncle (who just happens to have been raised the exact same way in the exact same household as their straight father) as an example of "gay rebellion." Our only defense against people espousing this untenable belief is that they themselves will soon fall victim to Mr. Darwin's theory, a la the Reverend Jerry Falwell. RIP.
OK, so what else can the anti-gay religious right throw at homosexuals? "America was founded on Christianity, and Christianity says homosexuality is wrong, so we can outlaw gay marriage." Whoa, hold on. People actually say this. The same nation, Pat Robertson and and his crew claim, that specifically inserted a semi important (First Amendment) clause that "government shall respect no establishment of religion," that was conceived and delineated by documented atheists like Thomas Jefferson and deists like Ben Franklin, that was first colonized by people ESCAPING one-way theistic thought and religious persecution in England, was actually founded as a Christian state? I guess I don't follow...
So let's get down to the real problem: the fact that many Americans define "different" and "worse" the same exact way, i.e. "John is gay, so he's different than us," means the same thing to these people as "John is gay, so he's worse than us." The dilemma's simplicity makes it all the more troubling.
Until that mindset changes, Ann Coulter will still have Dale Earnhardt-status among the majority of Deep South-staters, and gays will be left where blacks were prior to 1964-65. If you believe this is OK, you're just as complicit as whites who looked the other way as blacks were denied access to the ballots and public facilities. If you're not an opponent, you're just another accessory.
To many casual observers, my roommate is the ultimate meathead. He lifts six times daily, subsists solely on tuna fish and amino acids, and buys his whey protein wholesale (in such quantities that the three-gallon jugs dominate the top of our fridge, blocking access to my go-to healthy snack--Doublestuf Oreos). Yet, underneath his motorcycle helmet, there lies an unusually developed brain. Though he'd never admit it to his Iowa City Fitness buddies, the kid is a teeming intellectual, a shrewd political observer, and a social liberal. And, occasionally, he'll stop flexing his cheese-grater abs and dabble in profundity, transforming into Noam Chomsky in an Abercrombie polo.
A couple of months ago, he had one of those moments.
"You know what?" he said, suddenly waxing political. "I think in about 40 years, we're going to look back on the way we're treating gay people now like the way we treated black people 40 years ago, in the '60s."
It hit me. Why the hell didn't I think of that? That's a perfect way to describe rampant, harmful culture of homophobia that we cannot seem to escape in this country. It is no longer acceptable to spew the hateful N-word in public, or even to spell it out in print. Why, then, can one hear the derogatory use of the word "faggot" echo off of every wall of every college dorm, high-school basketball locker room, and GOP convention ballroom (see: Ann Coulter) in America on any given night?
What is this change-resistant juggernaut that's keeping us in the dark ages, subjecting people who are predisposed to liking members of the same sex to constant humiliation and utterly unequal protection under the law? Why, until the Iowa legislature extended protection to homosexuals in the state just months ago, was it LEGAL to NOT give a person a loan, or a job, or a home mortgage, simply because he or she was gay?
One of the most laughable arguments--and you hear right-wingers spouting this malarkey at alarming rates--is that, unlike race, homosexuality is a choice. This ludicrous assertion--that all gays are masochists who just love being pummelled by hate groups, discriminated against in all facets life, and ostracized from churches and society generally, and thus willingly choose to live as de facto second-tier citizens--is echoed by the same sad souls who believe "Creationism" should be taught alongside evolution, who deny research showing that homosexual males all seem to have this interesting little discrepancy on their X chromosomes that straight males don't happen to possess and identical-twin studies linking homosexuality to genetics, and who chalk up the fact that every other person in the free world has a gay uncle (who just happens to have been raised the exact same way in the exact same household as their straight father) as an example of "gay rebellion." Our only defense against people espousing this untenable belief is that they themselves will soon fall victim to Mr. Darwin's theory, a la the Reverend Jerry Falwell. RIP.
OK, so what else can the anti-gay religious right throw at homosexuals? "America was founded on Christianity, and Christianity says homosexuality is wrong, so we can outlaw gay marriage." Whoa, hold on. People actually say this. The same nation, Pat Robertson and and his crew claim, that specifically inserted a semi important (First Amendment) clause that "government shall respect no establishment of religion," that was conceived and delineated by documented atheists like Thomas Jefferson and deists like Ben Franklin, that was first colonized by people ESCAPING one-way theistic thought and religious persecution in England, was actually founded as a Christian state? I guess I don't follow...
So let's get down to the real problem: the fact that many Americans define "different" and "worse" the same exact way, i.e. "John is gay, so he's different than us," means the same thing to these people as "John is gay, so he's worse than us." The dilemma's simplicity makes it all the more troubling.
Until that mindset changes, Ann Coulter will still have Dale Earnhardt-status among the majority of Deep South-staters, and gays will be left where blacks were prior to 1964-65. If you believe this is OK, you're just as complicit as whites who looked the other way as blacks were denied access to the ballots and public facilities. If you're not an opponent, you're just another accessory.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Bad news, or dumb public?
This morning as I read my Tribune and drank my soy milk I turned on MSNBC for some background noise in my post-sleepy-time routine. The generic female anchor informed me that the international space station's computers - the ones that control such minor luxuries as oxygen, water, and heat - had just crashed for the second time today, and NASA was scrambling to fix the problem. She then introduced someone nominally labeled as a space station expert. Just as the bespectacled techno-geek was beginning his first sentence the female anchor interrupted him and apologized fleetingly, explaining how imperative it was that the coverage break away from the space fluff story and cover the beginning of a critical press conference by a California law enforcement official. The purpose of the conference; Paris Hilton had been transferred to a new jail cell.
And there is the issue; is the problem that the media is more interested in reporting garbage or is the problem that the general public is more interested in reading garbage? Several highly-trained astronauts in a tin can weighing 450 metric tons (a heavy tin can) that sits miles above us in the sky might have some issues breathing and not freezing to death, but that's irrelevant compared to whether Paris Hilton needs an extra Prozac today? Aren't most people upset that they're in jail? Should someone maybe just step in there and slap her around a bit (I know I want to)? I understand there's a legitimate market for this human interest drivel, or magazines like People and US Weekly wouldn't exist, but can we please keep it separate from the real news of the day, the news that folks with an IQ larger than the common house fern might be interested in?
But is keeping the celebrity world and the real world separate going to do much towards clearing the clutter? The political blogs and news sites were littered with screaming headlines Thursday morning proclaiming that Tommy Thompson would have a big announcement to make at 2. Speculation ranged from Thompson dropping out of the race to a major policy plan. Instead, Thompson pulled a great big "gotchya" on the media involved by telling everyone that he was attending the immensely irrelevant popularity contest known as the Iowa Straw Poll; something he had announced in a press release on Wednesday. Evidently Thompson felt it necessary to make the same announcement again today and label it "big." Maybe he'll make an announcement tomorrow, that he's attending the Iowa Str....never mind. Don't count on the press being in your corner after that one, Tommy.
Thompson's stunt Thursday makes me believe that either some editors and newsroom chiefs and producers are making less intelligent decisions regarding coverage of issues or that - like a communicable disease - the stupidity is slowly spreading from the sections in newspapers labeled "Life" and "Tempo" and "Entertainment" to the sections closer to the front, closer to the relevant stuff, the stuff that actually may have an impact on our day-to-day lives. One of these two possible causes is behind the fact that I might wake up tomorrow and read about how Britney Spears decided that she likes the new Doritos flavor but I won't read about a possible new oil refinery being considered for construction that could drop gas prices nationwide.
Whoever is to blame for this increasing drivel in the papers and on the tube I just hope it stops. The Chicago Tribune limits their celebrity news coverage in a nice, neat, easily ignorable sidebar column once a week. It's appropriately titled "Celebrity Magazines: We read them so you don't have to."
Great. Can we do that everywhere else too?
And there is the issue; is the problem that the media is more interested in reporting garbage or is the problem that the general public is more interested in reading garbage? Several highly-trained astronauts in a tin can weighing 450 metric tons (a heavy tin can) that sits miles above us in the sky might have some issues breathing and not freezing to death, but that's irrelevant compared to whether Paris Hilton needs an extra Prozac today? Aren't most people upset that they're in jail? Should someone maybe just step in there and slap her around a bit (I know I want to)? I understand there's a legitimate market for this human interest drivel, or magazines like People and US Weekly wouldn't exist, but can we please keep it separate from the real news of the day, the news that folks with an IQ larger than the common house fern might be interested in?
But is keeping the celebrity world and the real world separate going to do much towards clearing the clutter? The political blogs and news sites were littered with screaming headlines Thursday morning proclaiming that Tommy Thompson would have a big announcement to make at 2. Speculation ranged from Thompson dropping out of the race to a major policy plan. Instead, Thompson pulled a great big "gotchya" on the media involved by telling everyone that he was attending the immensely irrelevant popularity contest known as the Iowa Straw Poll; something he had announced in a press release on Wednesday. Evidently Thompson felt it necessary to make the same announcement again today and label it "big." Maybe he'll make an announcement tomorrow, that he's attending the Iowa Str....never mind. Don't count on the press being in your corner after that one, Tommy.
Thompson's stunt Thursday makes me believe that either some editors and newsroom chiefs and producers are making less intelligent decisions regarding coverage of issues or that - like a communicable disease - the stupidity is slowly spreading from the sections in newspapers labeled "Life" and "Tempo" and "Entertainment" to the sections closer to the front, closer to the relevant stuff, the stuff that actually may have an impact on our day-to-day lives. One of these two possible causes is behind the fact that I might wake up tomorrow and read about how Britney Spears decided that she likes the new Doritos flavor but I won't read about a possible new oil refinery being considered for construction that could drop gas prices nationwide.
Whoever is to blame for this increasing drivel in the papers and on the tube I just hope it stops. The Chicago Tribune limits their celebrity news coverage in a nice, neat, easily ignorable sidebar column once a week. It's appropriately titled "Celebrity Magazines: We read them so you don't have to."
Great. Can we do that everywhere else too?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Climbing the Poll
It’s official: Hillary Rodham Clinton is the new president-elect. Her victory was confirmed last week after narrowly defeating former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, the Republican nominee, in an election almost too close to call.
Never mind that the 2008 presidential election is still a year and a half away. Political pundits, party elites, and just about every political junkie in the United States are already analyzing an election that hasn’t happened. Relying on new polling data, these most educated individuals have begun dissecting a campaign season that hasn’t yet started; my hat is off to them. I can’t even predict the winner of the World Series before registering to play Fantasy Baseball.
With the Iowa caucuses still seven months away, it’s impossible to distinguish between frontrunners and most second-tier candidates in either party. In the world of politics, seven months is a lifetime. Congressional presidential candidates will face enough controversial bills this summer alone to make any campaign staff cringe. One wrong vote can spoil years of meticulous preparation.
Combine that with four hundred dollar haircuts for a Democrat that prides himself on aiding the poor, Beach Boys songs’ that shouldn’t be parodied by a former POW turned senator, and a Republican frontrunner’s constant defense of his pro-choice views, and you have one thing: Disaster waiting to happen.
Mitt Romney staffers have been quick to point to polling in New Hampshire that shows their candidate leading amongst likely Republican primary goers, yet they conveniently forget to mention national polls that have their horse running fourth.
The same applies to John Edwards, who has visited Iowa often enough in the last three years to gain residency here, something even I haven’t yet accomplished. His dedication to Iowans has done him well. He leads most statewide polls. Too bad he’s also running in fourth place nationwide, behind Senators Clinton and Obama. And some guy named Al Gore. I didn’t even think he was running.
In fact, if the former vice president is polling within the margin of error of Barack Obama, what does that say about polling? Al Gore has denied on many occasions that he plans to again seek the Democratic nomination; by now most Americans should know this (or at least those that respond to telephone interviews should.)
When given a dozen names to choose from, most people will choose the one most familiar to them. Hillary Clinton, who shares the same last name as her husband and the former president, has been in the national spotlight for fifteen years.
Rudy Giuliani is perhaps the most recognizable mayor in American history. If you didn’t know that he was the mayor of New York City on September 11, 2001, just wait a minute. He’ll remind you himself.
Mitt Romney is polling well in New Hampshire for one reason: The latest round of party debates were held there, and many pundits agree that Mr. Romney won the Republican debate.
Polls don’t mean anything. John Kerry was leading in several polls twenty-four hours before the 2004 presidential election. If you’re so convinced that polls are accurate, e-mail the Massachusetts senator and ask him how everything worked out.
Rob Verhein
DI Editorial Writer
Never mind that the 2008 presidential election is still a year and a half away. Political pundits, party elites, and just about every political junkie in the United States are already analyzing an election that hasn’t happened. Relying on new polling data, these most educated individuals have begun dissecting a campaign season that hasn’t yet started; my hat is off to them. I can’t even predict the winner of the World Series before registering to play Fantasy Baseball.
With the Iowa caucuses still seven months away, it’s impossible to distinguish between frontrunners and most second-tier candidates in either party. In the world of politics, seven months is a lifetime. Congressional presidential candidates will face enough controversial bills this summer alone to make any campaign staff cringe. One wrong vote can spoil years of meticulous preparation.
Combine that with four hundred dollar haircuts for a Democrat that prides himself on aiding the poor, Beach Boys songs’ that shouldn’t be parodied by a former POW turned senator, and a Republican frontrunner’s constant defense of his pro-choice views, and you have one thing: Disaster waiting to happen.
Mitt Romney staffers have been quick to point to polling in New Hampshire that shows their candidate leading amongst likely Republican primary goers, yet they conveniently forget to mention national polls that have their horse running fourth.
The same applies to John Edwards, who has visited Iowa often enough in the last three years to gain residency here, something even I haven’t yet accomplished. His dedication to Iowans has done him well. He leads most statewide polls. Too bad he’s also running in fourth place nationwide, behind Senators Clinton and Obama. And some guy named Al Gore. I didn’t even think he was running.
In fact, if the former vice president is polling within the margin of error of Barack Obama, what does that say about polling? Al Gore has denied on many occasions that he plans to again seek the Democratic nomination; by now most Americans should know this (or at least those that respond to telephone interviews should.)
When given a dozen names to choose from, most people will choose the one most familiar to them. Hillary Clinton, who shares the same last name as her husband and the former president, has been in the national spotlight for fifteen years.
Rudy Giuliani is perhaps the most recognizable mayor in American history. If you didn’t know that he was the mayor of New York City on September 11, 2001, just wait a minute. He’ll remind you himself.
Mitt Romney is polling well in New Hampshire for one reason: The latest round of party debates were held there, and many pundits agree that Mr. Romney won the Republican debate.
Polls don’t mean anything. John Kerry was leading in several polls twenty-four hours before the 2004 presidential election. If you’re so convinced that polls are accurate, e-mail the Massachusetts senator and ask him how everything worked out.
Rob Verhein
DI Editorial Writer
Fury
"Cry havoc," are the words that Shakespeare puts into Antony's mouth as he predicts bloodshed and ruin. It appears that the Middle East has adopted them as a mantra.
The Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah have embarked on such a breathtaking spate of self-mutilation that describing it as a civil war seems almost insufficient: this, ladies and gentlemen is a conflagration.
I'm watching CNN right now, and I just saw a man go sprinting by the camera, firing an AK-47 with stiff, unnatural-looking arms down the street at a group of other people waving flags. A man shoves a child out of the way as the gunman passes, maneuvering the youth towards the other side of the street. He keeps his body between the gunman and the child; hunched and panicked. Now I'm looking at what can only be described as a pitched battle; dark-clothed fighters moving towards the enemy with the curious, crouching gait of soldiers as they pour round after round into an unseen enemy.
Hamas, the Islamist faction, appears to be winning. They wear a lot of black. Fatah fighters also wear a lot of black. I'd say that it must be difficult for them not to shoot their own people, but they seem to be managing just fine.
Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq are ferociously attacking each other's places of worship, demolishing mosque after mosque after mosque. I can't tell the sides apart on TV. I'd say that it must be difficult for them not to blow up their own mosques, but they seem to be managing just fine.
This is chaos; bloody and furious and entirely mindless. Past a certain point, there really isn't any cognitive activity involved in violence like this, just a perfect certainty cemented in the brain by adrenaline and terror and desperation that the whole world needs to die today.
There are times when we propose clever solutions. There are times when we critically analyze the problems and issues that lead to hellish violence like this. I can't; not just yet. I'm still too busy digesting the enormity of what amounts to three (3) civil wars happening at the same time in the most incendiary place on Earth.
I am, in fact, pretty furious myself.
The Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah have embarked on such a breathtaking spate of self-mutilation that describing it as a civil war seems almost insufficient: this, ladies and gentlemen is a conflagration.
I'm watching CNN right now, and I just saw a man go sprinting by the camera, firing an AK-47 with stiff, unnatural-looking arms down the street at a group of other people waving flags. A man shoves a child out of the way as the gunman passes, maneuvering the youth towards the other side of the street. He keeps his body between the gunman and the child; hunched and panicked. Now I'm looking at what can only be described as a pitched battle; dark-clothed fighters moving towards the enemy with the curious, crouching gait of soldiers as they pour round after round into an unseen enemy.
Hamas, the Islamist faction, appears to be winning. They wear a lot of black. Fatah fighters also wear a lot of black. I'd say that it must be difficult for them not to shoot their own people, but they seem to be managing just fine.
Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq are ferociously attacking each other's places of worship, demolishing mosque after mosque after mosque. I can't tell the sides apart on TV. I'd say that it must be difficult for them not to blow up their own mosques, but they seem to be managing just fine.
This is chaos; bloody and furious and entirely mindless. Past a certain point, there really isn't any cognitive activity involved in violence like this, just a perfect certainty cemented in the brain by adrenaline and terror and desperation that the whole world needs to die today.
There are times when we propose clever solutions. There are times when we critically analyze the problems and issues that lead to hellish violence like this. I can't; not just yet. I'm still too busy digesting the enormity of what amounts to three (3) civil wars happening at the same time in the most incendiary place on Earth.
I am, in fact, pretty furious myself.
Monday, June 11, 2007
U.S. finding unlikely ally in Iraq
The New York Times reported Monday that the United States is cooperating with Sunni insurgents in Iraq. Some insurgent groups have grown tired of the more radical actions committed by groups sympathetic to al-Qaeda, and have turned to the U.S. for weapons.
This has been widely implemented over the last few months in western Iraq, in the predominantly Sunni province of Anbar (the Times called it the "Anbar Model"). Once the most restive location in the country, and most dangerous for U.S. forces, Anbar has quieted down significantly. Sunni tribes have turned most of their attention from attacking U.S. forces and focused their energies on extremist Jihadist groups in the region.
Certainly, many of these insurgents have previously targeted U.S. forces, and many have American blood on their hands. Almost all resent the American occupation of Iraq, but have put aside these concerns - for the time being - in order to combat Islamist terrorists in the country.
General David Petraeus' pragmatic approach towards these groups demonstrates innovative thinking that all previous American commanders in the country have failed to show.
The Baghdad Surge, which seemed to have initial potential, has sputtered after Moqtada al-Sadr reemerged into the public sphere. Death squad killings are nearing pre-Surge levels, and many Sunnis in mixed enclaves in Baghdad are being forced out by Sadr's Mahdi Army and other Shiite militant groups, including the Badr Brigades of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (formerly the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq).
While some complain that the U.S. is now supporting both sides in a civil war, the reality is far more complex. There is more than one civil war, with intra-sectarian fighting nearly as prevalent as inter-sect conflict.
Timetables for withdrawal would be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region. Domestic politics should not be an arena for foreign policy disputes. The base of the Democratic Party, and its presidential candidates, must put aside the possibility of political gains for such a vital foreign policy task. Pragmatic and nuanced actions, such as these temporary alliances with some Sunni insurgents, show that there is still a chance for a measured success in Iraq.
This has been widely implemented over the last few months in western Iraq, in the predominantly Sunni province of Anbar (the Times called it the "Anbar Model"). Once the most restive location in the country, and most dangerous for U.S. forces, Anbar has quieted down significantly. Sunni tribes have turned most of their attention from attacking U.S. forces and focused their energies on extremist Jihadist groups in the region.
Certainly, many of these insurgents have previously targeted U.S. forces, and many have American blood on their hands. Almost all resent the American occupation of Iraq, but have put aside these concerns - for the time being - in order to combat Islamist terrorists in the country.
General David Petraeus' pragmatic approach towards these groups demonstrates innovative thinking that all previous American commanders in the country have failed to show.
The Baghdad Surge, which seemed to have initial potential, has sputtered after Moqtada al-Sadr reemerged into the public sphere. Death squad killings are nearing pre-Surge levels, and many Sunnis in mixed enclaves in Baghdad are being forced out by Sadr's Mahdi Army and other Shiite militant groups, including the Badr Brigades of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (formerly the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq).
While some complain that the U.S. is now supporting both sides in a civil war, the reality is far more complex. There is more than one civil war, with intra-sectarian fighting nearly as prevalent as inter-sect conflict.
Timetables for withdrawal would be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region. Domestic politics should not be an arena for foreign policy disputes. The base of the Democratic Party, and its presidential candidates, must put aside the possibility of political gains for such a vital foreign policy task. Pragmatic and nuanced actions, such as these temporary alliances with some Sunni insurgents, show that there is still a chance for a measured success in Iraq.
Thanks but no thanks, David Chase
(Spoiler alert: if you have not yet seen the Sopranos finale, you're going to hear about it somewhere. May as well be here. Read on...)
The Sopranos. It was once one of my favorite shows. But for some reason, in the last few years it's become more like a bad relationship. Most of us have had those relationships where we know that we should probably leave... we've been putting more into it than we're getting out of it for quite some time... yet, for some reason- we always stay a little too long.
but why?
Is it for the memories? There were some great times that we spent together back in the days when Tony kept Dr. Melfi a secret. When everything was so uncertain- if Big Pussy Bompensaro could become an informant and swim with the fishes, no one was safe! There was so much excitement back then.
And the laughs that we've had together. Tony's wacky dreams. Tony's mother was always good for a laugh. There was the time that Paulie was followed around by ghosts of the guys he had whacked. And the madcap episode in Pine Barrens where Paulie and Christopher's involvement with a Russian seemed more like a Three Stooges episode than The Sopranos. We sure did laugh over that one.
Ahhh, memories.
Of course, we had our rough spots: Janice.
But through the good times and the scenes with Janice in them, things eventually turned a bit sour. It's hard to pinpoint when. Maybe I stuck it out longer than some fans, but I really thought it was going to work out. Sure, the last three seasons have been anticlimactic, but they've had their moments of redemption. Didn't it make it season 5 worthwhile to watch Adriana puke on the FBI?
Okay, maybe I'm an enabler. The truth is that The Sopranos peaked somewhere around season 3, and it's not been able to live up to it's own standards ever since. Still, I could never give it up. I put up with the suspense of waiting months and months for the next season. I let James Gandolfini toy with my emotions each season he claimed it was going to be his last. I'm a tool, an enabler, codependent... all of those wishy-washy terms for "sucker." That's me.
When I sat down to watch the premiere of Season 6, part 2 (Part 2? That should've been a red flag right there!) I tried not to get my hopes up, but I wanted greatness. I'm glad that I didn't get my hopes up because I did not witness greatness. I finished that first episode of the return of season 6, and I said the same thing I've said for all 9 of the final episodes. "I'm so glad this is over." I never stopped watching, though. I sat through every single episode and waited it out. After about 3 of the final 9 episodes, I started to get anxious. Why was everything moving at such a slow pace? There were a lot of loose ends to tie up over the last 8 years, and the scenes were dragging on and on with more Janice, and the disturbed young son of Vito Spatafore. The sixth season was producing even more sappy stories that I just wanted to fast-forward through. But of course I didn't, I just waited and pinned all of my hopes onto the series finale. Last night, I was ready.
I watched with a friend who was certain that Tony was going to die. This is about the 8th time that he's been certain that Tony was going to die, but this time he was really really certain that it was going to happen approximately 21 minutes into the episode. (And I thought I was a sucker!) I was not on board with Tony dying in the finale, I was sure that the episode would end and the credits would roll without any of us knowing if Tony was still alive or not. I guess you could say that's true. It wasn't entirely clear what the guy in the Members Only jacket was up to, and we don't know what Meadow saw when she opened the door of that diner. It doesn't matter. What matters is that everything that has been frustrating me about this show culminated in the final scene. Everything that's been making me miserable: the obscurities, the unresolved plot lines- they were all there in one final "screw you!" from David Chase. So, no one knows what happened to Tony and the family. The final episode suggested even more possibilities than those they had been building to. Did the chummy FBI guy convince them to enter the witness protection program? Who knows?
David Chase, that's who. David Chase is the one who has been keeping this dysfunctional tv show/audience relationship going for years. I should have broken it off years ago, but I couldn't find it in myself to let go. Now, I have no choice but to give it up and I'm left with that final image of onion rings and bad parallel parking. What was it all about? What did it all mean?
I'll tell you what it means for me... I'm a sucker.
I'm so glad it's over.
RIP: The Sopranos, 1999-2007.
The Sopranos. It was once one of my favorite shows. But for some reason, in the last few years it's become more like a bad relationship. Most of us have had those relationships where we know that we should probably leave... we've been putting more into it than we're getting out of it for quite some time... yet, for some reason- we always stay a little too long.
but why?
Is it for the memories? There were some great times that we spent together back in the days when Tony kept Dr. Melfi a secret. When everything was so uncertain- if Big Pussy Bompensaro could become an informant and swim with the fishes, no one was safe! There was so much excitement back then.
And the laughs that we've had together. Tony's wacky dreams. Tony's mother was always good for a laugh. There was the time that Paulie was followed around by ghosts of the guys he had whacked. And the madcap episode in Pine Barrens where Paulie and Christopher's involvement with a Russian seemed more like a Three Stooges episode than The Sopranos. We sure did laugh over that one.
Ahhh, memories.
Of course, we had our rough spots: Janice.
But through the good times and the scenes with Janice in them, things eventually turned a bit sour. It's hard to pinpoint when. Maybe I stuck it out longer than some fans, but I really thought it was going to work out. Sure, the last three seasons have been anticlimactic, but they've had their moments of redemption. Didn't it make it season 5 worthwhile to watch Adriana puke on the FBI?
Okay, maybe I'm an enabler. The truth is that The Sopranos peaked somewhere around season 3, and it's not been able to live up to it's own standards ever since. Still, I could never give it up. I put up with the suspense of waiting months and months for the next season. I let James Gandolfini toy with my emotions each season he claimed it was going to be his last. I'm a tool, an enabler, codependent... all of those wishy-washy terms for "sucker." That's me.
When I sat down to watch the premiere of Season 6, part 2 (Part 2? That should've been a red flag right there!) I tried not to get my hopes up, but I wanted greatness. I'm glad that I didn't get my hopes up because I did not witness greatness. I finished that first episode of the return of season 6, and I said the same thing I've said for all 9 of the final episodes. "I'm so glad this is over." I never stopped watching, though. I sat through every single episode and waited it out. After about 3 of the final 9 episodes, I started to get anxious. Why was everything moving at such a slow pace? There were a lot of loose ends to tie up over the last 8 years, and the scenes were dragging on and on with more Janice, and the disturbed young son of Vito Spatafore. The sixth season was producing even more sappy stories that I just wanted to fast-forward through. But of course I didn't, I just waited and pinned all of my hopes onto the series finale. Last night, I was ready.
I watched with a friend who was certain that Tony was going to die. This is about the 8th time that he's been certain that Tony was going to die, but this time he was really really certain that it was going to happen approximately 21 minutes into the episode. (And I thought I was a sucker!) I was not on board with Tony dying in the finale, I was sure that the episode would end and the credits would roll without any of us knowing if Tony was still alive or not. I guess you could say that's true. It wasn't entirely clear what the guy in the Members Only jacket was up to, and we don't know what Meadow saw when she opened the door of that diner. It doesn't matter. What matters is that everything that has been frustrating me about this show culminated in the final scene. Everything that's been making me miserable: the obscurities, the unresolved plot lines- they were all there in one final "screw you!" from David Chase. So, no one knows what happened to Tony and the family. The final episode suggested even more possibilities than those they had been building to. Did the chummy FBI guy convince them to enter the witness protection program? Who knows?
David Chase, that's who. David Chase is the one who has been keeping this dysfunctional tv show/audience relationship going for years. I should have broken it off years ago, but I couldn't find it in myself to let go. Now, I have no choice but to give it up and I'm left with that final image of onion rings and bad parallel parking. What was it all about? What did it all mean?
I'll tell you what it means for me... I'm a sucker.
I'm so glad it's over.
RIP: The Sopranos, 1999-2007.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Stop Being Humble, Al
Why hasn't Al Gore decided to run for president again? This question has puzzled political pundits, thousands of likely Democratic caucus and primary voters, and at least one DI columnist: Me.
I'm not trying to argue that Al Gore would win in the general election, but at least a few of you are thinking the same thing as me--the man did win the popular vote in 2000. It's not a far stretch to say he couldn't do it again. (And maybe, with any luck, he might take the Electoral College, too.)
Surely the former vice president has realized that he could accomplish more in one day as president than he ever will as the celebrity and political face of the environmental movement. There are few that question his intentions; since he repeatedly refuses to throw his hat into the race, it's difficult to say he's politicizing global warming in attempt to launch himself to the front of the Democratic field of presidential nominees. If he does choose to run, there may be some that will consider his Inconvenient Truth lecture series and movie a political stunt. If they're right, it'd be one successful stunt at that.
In a FOX News/Opinions Dynamics Poll released today, Gore is running in third place behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama among likely likely primary goers, ahead of John Edwards. Now you might consider the poll forgettable, as FOX News had a hand in it. But it's not all that discouraging. Numerous other polls have revealed the same thing.
People want Gore to run. And, if you consider the margin of error of the FOX News poll, Gore could conceivably land himself in second place, as he's within the M.O.E. of Obama.
Maybe Al Gore doesn't want to be president. Maybe he doesn't think he could win. But he wanted to be president eight years ago, and many argue he did win then. Why not give it a chance, Al? What do you have to lose? The presidency? That already happened once, and you seem to be doing just fine.
Rob Verhein
DI editorial writer
I'm not trying to argue that Al Gore would win in the general election, but at least a few of you are thinking the same thing as me--the man did win the popular vote in 2000. It's not a far stretch to say he couldn't do it again. (And maybe, with any luck, he might take the Electoral College, too.)
Surely the former vice president has realized that he could accomplish more in one day as president than he ever will as the celebrity and political face of the environmental movement. There are few that question his intentions; since he repeatedly refuses to throw his hat into the race, it's difficult to say he's politicizing global warming in attempt to launch himself to the front of the Democratic field of presidential nominees. If he does choose to run, there may be some that will consider his Inconvenient Truth lecture series and movie a political stunt. If they're right, it'd be one successful stunt at that.
In a FOX News/Opinions Dynamics Poll released today, Gore is running in third place behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama among likely likely primary goers, ahead of John Edwards. Now you might consider the poll forgettable, as FOX News had a hand in it. But it's not all that discouraging. Numerous other polls have revealed the same thing.
People want Gore to run. And, if you consider the margin of error of the FOX News poll, Gore could conceivably land himself in second place, as he's within the M.O.E. of Obama.
Maybe Al Gore doesn't want to be president. Maybe he doesn't think he could win. But he wanted to be president eight years ago, and many argue he did win then. Why not give it a chance, Al? What do you have to lose? The presidency? That already happened once, and you seem to be doing just fine.
Rob Verhein
DI editorial writer
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Good-bye Tait's
It’s a little sad when being in Des Moines seems like being on vacation, but I’m a native. I can handle it. By the way, all you people from Chicago suburb number 2,995,092 do not get to make jokes about how boring Des Moines is. I come from a city and you come from a suburb. So there.
That said, Des Moines is becoming more and more like Iowa City. The once-deserted downtown is beginning to feature the kind of restaurants and bars that a city center desperately needs. Apartment buildings and upscale shops are blooming in previously seedy areas of the East Village, near the state capitol. The one catalyst downtown Des Moines really needs for a serious boom is a grocery store.
Which is precisely what downtown Iowa City is losing. Tait’s Natural Foods will be closing soon, and I’ll be watching it go with mixed feelings. I’d have appreciated the undoubted convenience of a grocery store within walking distance a lot more if I’d been able to afford the switch to all-natural, free-range macaroni and cheese. (Yeah, I can just see it too: paper packets of suspiciously orange cheese-powder roaming happily across grassy plains. But I digress.)
The problem was that pretty much the only people who could afford Tait’s were the people who live in that same glossy high-rise that juts incongruously from the intersection of Linn and College streets. So, in response to the general indifference that the rest of the downtown residents accorded it, Tait’s is going to fold. That’s too bad, but I’d bet anything that it wouldn’t have happened if they’d recognized that their customer base needed to be bigger than the building.
Jon Gold
DI columnist
That said, Des Moines is becoming more and more like Iowa City. The once-deserted downtown is beginning to feature the kind of restaurants and bars that a city center desperately needs. Apartment buildings and upscale shops are blooming in previously seedy areas of the East Village, near the state capitol. The one catalyst downtown Des Moines really needs for a serious boom is a grocery store.
Which is precisely what downtown Iowa City is losing. Tait’s Natural Foods will be closing soon, and I’ll be watching it go with mixed feelings. I’d have appreciated the undoubted convenience of a grocery store within walking distance a lot more if I’d been able to afford the switch to all-natural, free-range macaroni and cheese. (Yeah, I can just see it too: paper packets of suspiciously orange cheese-powder roaming happily across grassy plains. But I digress.)
The problem was that pretty much the only people who could afford Tait’s were the people who live in that same glossy high-rise that juts incongruously from the intersection of Linn and College streets. So, in response to the general indifference that the rest of the downtown residents accorded it, Tait’s is going to fold. That’s too bad, but I’d bet anything that it wouldn’t have happened if they’d recognized that their customer base needed to be bigger than the building.
Jon Gold
DI columnist
Monday, December 11, 2006
Keep your nose clean
Finals, as I’'m sure you’ve noticed, are here. Have you been getting enough sleep? I didn'’t think so. Brushing your teeth in the library? Probably. Having caffeine-induced hallucinations and gibbering nonsense? Aren'’t we all?
Yes, it'’s time for the last lap of the semester, and it'’s always pretty taxing. We panic-study, cram, and otherwise try to crowbar that last little theorem into our heads, and we forget all about it after the exam. We go to great lengths to do so, in fact. A lot of people even do crazy things like snorting Adderall or Ritalin to get those last few hours of studying in. There are a lot of problems with the way we study, but this has to be one of the worst ones.
It shouldn't be too surprising to those of you who’'ve read me before that I have ADHD. I take Adderall every day, and I have been doing so for many years. Consequently, I know a good deal about it, and from that knowledge let me plead with you: DO NOT PUT THIS CRAP IN YOUR NOSE. It'’s strong medicine —— basically a slightly watered-down version of methamphetamine —— and is dicey enough when used in measured, physician-approved doses. It screws with your appetite. It can make you a really awful person to be around, and it can absolutely ruin your sleep schedule.
Crushing it into powder and doing lines of it, then, is one of the dumber things I can think of. Although I'’ve never done it, I know that it takes effect instantaneously and uncontrollably. I imagine that it’d be pretty scary for someone who doesn’t really know what they’re doing, especially if they do very much of it.
Most importantly, if you do enough of this stuff, it will give you cardiac arrest and you will die. Finito. Finishing chapter 14 of Smurf Biology isn'’t really worth it. You didn'’t study enough when you had the chance, so take your medicine, not my medicine.
Good luck, and keep your noses clean.
Jon Gold
DI columnist
Yes, it'’s time for the last lap of the semester, and it'’s always pretty taxing. We panic-study, cram, and otherwise try to crowbar that last little theorem into our heads, and we forget all about it after the exam. We go to great lengths to do so, in fact. A lot of people even do crazy things like snorting Adderall or Ritalin to get those last few hours of studying in. There are a lot of problems with the way we study, but this has to be one of the worst ones.
It shouldn't be too surprising to those of you who’'ve read me before that I have ADHD. I take Adderall every day, and I have been doing so for many years. Consequently, I know a good deal about it, and from that knowledge let me plead with you: DO NOT PUT THIS CRAP IN YOUR NOSE. It'’s strong medicine —— basically a slightly watered-down version of methamphetamine —— and is dicey enough when used in measured, physician-approved doses. It screws with your appetite. It can make you a really awful person to be around, and it can absolutely ruin your sleep schedule.
Crushing it into powder and doing lines of it, then, is one of the dumber things I can think of. Although I'’ve never done it, I know that it takes effect instantaneously and uncontrollably. I imagine that it’d be pretty scary for someone who doesn’t really know what they’re doing, especially if they do very much of it.
Most importantly, if you do enough of this stuff, it will give you cardiac arrest and you will die. Finito. Finishing chapter 14 of Smurf Biology isn'’t really worth it. You didn'’t study enough when you had the chance, so take your medicine, not my medicine.
Good luck, and keep your noses clean.
Jon Gold
DI columnist
Approach Israel-Iran relations with rational mindset
Israel’s minister for strategic affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, is charged with one of the most salient jobs in the Israeli government. His key task is to formulate Israel’s relationship with Iran. While Israeli-Iranian cooperation has more historical precedent than most people realize, any compromises between the two states at the present time is unlikely. Lieberman took the post about a month ago, and his statements about Iran, as well as the Palestinian conflict, thus far foreshadow what we are likely to see in the coming months.
Lieberman’s strategic approach is demonstrative of the political realism that is so abundant in times of conflict. He has stated that Iran is the one of the most pressing issues facing the Israeli government today.
This view of Iran as such a huge threat is partially due to the lack of stability in the Middle East and the uncertainty regarding which states are going to emerge in the aftermath of the Iraq war as the most powerful. Although Saddam Hussein’s regime was brutal, as is often the case with strong dictators, it was relatively stable. The U.S. occupation and the subsequent civil war in Iraq have contributed to a restructuring of the power balance in the region. As a new status quo is defined, states such as Israel and Iran are both trying to emerge on top of the pile.
Perhaps even more disputed are Lieberman’s recommendations for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He suggests that the surest path to peace is to redraw the borders to create two states that are more culturally homogenous. Not surprisingly, this proposal was rapidly attacked as racist. It is thoroughly unproductive, however, to base our explanations of events on something untestable, such as a decision-maker’s psychological biases. Historically, states with populations fragmented by language and religion, among other factors, are not strong, and Lieberman’s position simply reflects this understanding.
Finally, Lieberman has stated that the best way for Israel to combat security threats from the Palestinians is to focus on the upper levels of leadership in Hamas. This idea also fits nicely with what we would expect from a rational decision-maker. He states, “We need to concentrate on those who have something to lose, the entire upper-echelon of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.” This demonstrates an understanding that, despite the rhetoric we may hear from Hamas leaders, they are the ones in a position of power in the Palestinian government and, therefore, are the ones concerned with staying in power. Focusing on this cohort of Palestinian society will best serve Israel’s interests.
Analyzing the situation in this way can create mechanisms for predicting what political moves are likely in the near future. In this way, we can also ask when and under what conditions would Israel and Iran or Palestine be likely to cooperate. This would advance the peace process more effectively than falling back on moral judgment.
Lydia Pfaff
DI columnist
Lieberman’s strategic approach is demonstrative of the political realism that is so abundant in times of conflict. He has stated that Iran is the one of the most pressing issues facing the Israeli government today.
This view of Iran as such a huge threat is partially due to the lack of stability in the Middle East and the uncertainty regarding which states are going to emerge in the aftermath of the Iraq war as the most powerful. Although Saddam Hussein’s regime was brutal, as is often the case with strong dictators, it was relatively stable. The U.S. occupation and the subsequent civil war in Iraq have contributed to a restructuring of the power balance in the region. As a new status quo is defined, states such as Israel and Iran are both trying to emerge on top of the pile.
Perhaps even more disputed are Lieberman’s recommendations for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He suggests that the surest path to peace is to redraw the borders to create two states that are more culturally homogenous. Not surprisingly, this proposal was rapidly attacked as racist. It is thoroughly unproductive, however, to base our explanations of events on something untestable, such as a decision-maker’s psychological biases. Historically, states with populations fragmented by language and religion, among other factors, are not strong, and Lieberman’s position simply reflects this understanding.
Finally, Lieberman has stated that the best way for Israel to combat security threats from the Palestinians is to focus on the upper levels of leadership in Hamas. This idea also fits nicely with what we would expect from a rational decision-maker. He states, “We need to concentrate on those who have something to lose, the entire upper-echelon of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.” This demonstrates an understanding that, despite the rhetoric we may hear from Hamas leaders, they are the ones in a position of power in the Palestinian government and, therefore, are the ones concerned with staying in power. Focusing on this cohort of Palestinian society will best serve Israel’s interests.
Analyzing the situation in this way can create mechanisms for predicting what political moves are likely in the near future. In this way, we can also ask when and under what conditions would Israel and Iran or Palestine be likely to cooperate. This would advance the peace process more effectively than falling back on moral judgment.
Lydia Pfaff
DI columnist
Monday, December 4, 2006
BCS bloodbath
Oh, good god. First we beat ourselves bloody, and now the Alamo Bowl people are tossing us in the shark tank.
College football has always done it differently, and this season is throwing those differences into sharp relief. As I write this, there’s a roiling controversy over which team really deserves a shot at the national championship game against Ohio State. Perennial powerhouse USC was widely expected to face the Buckeyes, but lost a shocker against underdog rivals UCLA. Now Florida gets a somewhat unexpected chance, but even this was met with rumbles of indignation. The computer (oh, yes, it’'s a computer, doesn'’t that give you confidence?) that calculates BCS rankings had Florida and Michigan tied for second place, but the coaches and AP voters really seemed to hate the idea of a Michigan-OSU repeat, even though most of them would agree that Florida is the weaker team.
Then again, since Michigan has already tried their luck and found it wanting against OSU, the Buckeyes still ought to be heavily favored against any possible challenger. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it’s a damn silly system, but it probably won’t make much of a difference this year at least for the championship game. The rest of college football’s postseason is a kind of Thunderdome of vaguely hierarchical bowl games that don’t really count for anything other than bragging rights and momentum for, er, next year. (I’'m not kidding; some sports journalists talk about momentum gained from these flashing-neon-lights-SEASON-ENDING games.) This leads to what could politely be called “a few mismatches.” Another way to put it might be that every postseason game other than the championship is a glorified party put together solely for the purpose of drawing spectators and viewers. “Bloodbaths” is the word.
There needs to be a better system for this. Great teams shouldn'’t sit at home in January, and our poor beleaguered Hawks deserve better than what I'’m pretty sure will be a brass-knuckle beating at the hands of the Texas Longhorns. End the loony BCS.
Jon Gold
DI columnist
College football has always done it differently, and this season is throwing those differences into sharp relief. As I write this, there’s a roiling controversy over which team really deserves a shot at the national championship game against Ohio State. Perennial powerhouse USC was widely expected to face the Buckeyes, but lost a shocker against underdog rivals UCLA. Now Florida gets a somewhat unexpected chance, but even this was met with rumbles of indignation. The computer (oh, yes, it’'s a computer, doesn'’t that give you confidence?) that calculates BCS rankings had Florida and Michigan tied for second place, but the coaches and AP voters really seemed to hate the idea of a Michigan-OSU repeat, even though most of them would agree that Florida is the weaker team.
Then again, since Michigan has already tried their luck and found it wanting against OSU, the Buckeyes still ought to be heavily favored against any possible challenger. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it’s a damn silly system, but it probably won’t make much of a difference this year at least for the championship game. The rest of college football’s postseason is a kind of Thunderdome of vaguely hierarchical bowl games that don’t really count for anything other than bragging rights and momentum for, er, next year. (I’'m not kidding; some sports journalists talk about momentum gained from these flashing-neon-lights-SEASON-ENDING games.) This leads to what could politely be called “a few mismatches.” Another way to put it might be that every postseason game other than the championship is a glorified party put together solely for the purpose of drawing spectators and viewers. “Bloodbaths” is the word.
There needs to be a better system for this. Great teams shouldn'’t sit at home in January, and our poor beleaguered Hawks deserve better than what I'’m pretty sure will be a brass-knuckle beating at the hands of the Texas Longhorns. End the loony BCS.
Jon Gold
DI columnist
Gaming evolution
What if the world you lived it was about to vanish right before your eyes? No flash of light, no doomsday asteroid, and no cataclysmic tidal wave.
So then who is the apocalyptic villain? Bankruptcy. The online MMO (massively multiplayer online) game Ryzom has come under assault because of financial woes and there is a possibility that if the courts rule in favor of splitting up the franchise the world could disappear forever. According to the BBC, "the Free Ryzom Campaign is hoping to purchase the online fantasy game Ryzom from current owners Nevrax who will go into receivership in December." So far, the campaign has raised 60,000 euros in pledges from those faithful to the game hoping to see the perpetuation of its life.
This move is significant because if the Free Ryzom Campaign is able to obtain the popular MMO game they have declared their plans to release the source code to the gaming community. The source code is the underlying code of a program and is typically kept secrete by computing companies so they can charge consumers to use it. So if they source code is released gamers would be able to edit and alter their virtual realities freely and submit interface changes freely among the population.
What we are seeing is an evolution of the gaming industry. Why hire programmers when you can dupe your loyal fan base into doing the work for you while pretending it is an honor to give them something they should have had access to in the first place?
John LaRue
DI columnist
So then who is the apocalyptic villain? Bankruptcy. The online MMO (massively multiplayer online) game Ryzom has come under assault because of financial woes and there is a possibility that if the courts rule in favor of splitting up the franchise the world could disappear forever. According to the BBC, "the Free Ryzom Campaign is hoping to purchase the online fantasy game Ryzom from current owners Nevrax who will go into receivership in December." So far, the campaign has raised 60,000 euros in pledges from those faithful to the game hoping to see the perpetuation of its life.
This move is significant because if the Free Ryzom Campaign is able to obtain the popular MMO game they have declared their plans to release the source code to the gaming community. The source code is the underlying code of a program and is typically kept secrete by computing companies so they can charge consumers to use it. So if they source code is released gamers would be able to edit and alter their virtual realities freely and submit interface changes freely among the population.
What we are seeing is an evolution of the gaming industry. Why hire programmers when you can dupe your loyal fan base into doing the work for you while pretending it is an honor to give them something they should have had access to in the first place?
John LaRue
DI columnist
Monday, November 27, 2006
Another one bites the dust
My dinner plans took a great hit last week. With the 'rents coming in on Thursday, I was looking forward to another world class meal from what I considered the best of the small Iowa City restaurant lineup. I couldn't believe it as I strode up to the window peering into the darkened quarters. A small note on the door was all that stated what the blank insides cued me in on: Venuto's: World Bistro was closed, for good. It stated the customary "thanks" to its faithful patrons, and cited finances as the main reason for closure.
What this comes down to, and illustrates more than anything, is that Iowa City is dying. Yep, I said it. This week has been an eye opener of sorts, because like any good kid living in the apartment world, I ran out of food. Not wanting to buy new groceries that could spoil, and partially because I wanted to dine out more, I was forced out into downtown Iowa City for food survival.
You know what the problem in that is? If you don't want to eat at a bar, well, you're screwed. Wait, check that, you could eat at a fast food restaurant along the lines of Taco Bell (found out the perils of that on Monday). It's not bad simply that Venuto's closed, but rather another piece of the teetering unofficial restaurant alliance fell. Restaurants in walking distance of the eastern part of the campus are dwindling at an alarming rate. One-twenty-six, Givanni's, Takanami, and Devote, are about the only restaurants leading the charge anymore. If you go downtown to the Ped Mall, well, let's see, we could get plain grill food from Brothers, or maybe Vito's.
I'm not knocking these bars as badly as it may seem. My feeble attempts at cooking make me more that willing to participate in feasts at just about any place, but unique restaurants like Venuto's just don't come around that often. If I want a nine-course Mediterranean full on blitz of a meal, I'm out of luck.
Last spring I was struggling to get a REAL restaurant reservation anywhere because of graduation. My friend was confused, because he assumed that it?d be easy to get into a place like Applebee's or Old Chicago, but herein lies the problem: As today's Iowa City and America in general continue allowing the death of the small restaurant, people begin to forget what the dining experience could mean. To me, going to a restaurant shouldn't be about wondering if the table is clean, or what some famous chef created on the latest commercial. No, my dream would be sitting down for two hours, getting my multiple-platter eat on, and if they would be so kind, how about that Mediterranean belly dancer.
Jon Van Dyke
DI editorial writer
What this comes down to, and illustrates more than anything, is that Iowa City is dying. Yep, I said it. This week has been an eye opener of sorts, because like any good kid living in the apartment world, I ran out of food. Not wanting to buy new groceries that could spoil, and partially because I wanted to dine out more, I was forced out into downtown Iowa City for food survival.
You know what the problem in that is? If you don't want to eat at a bar, well, you're screwed. Wait, check that, you could eat at a fast food restaurant along the lines of Taco Bell (found out the perils of that on Monday). It's not bad simply that Venuto's closed, but rather another piece of the teetering unofficial restaurant alliance fell. Restaurants in walking distance of the eastern part of the campus are dwindling at an alarming rate. One-twenty-six, Givanni's, Takanami, and Devote, are about the only restaurants leading the charge anymore. If you go downtown to the Ped Mall, well, let's see, we could get plain grill food from Brothers, or maybe Vito's.
I'm not knocking these bars as badly as it may seem. My feeble attempts at cooking make me more that willing to participate in feasts at just about any place, but unique restaurants like Venuto's just don't come around that often. If I want a nine-course Mediterranean full on blitz of a meal, I'm out of luck.
Last spring I was struggling to get a REAL restaurant reservation anywhere because of graduation. My friend was confused, because he assumed that it?d be easy to get into a place like Applebee's or Old Chicago, but herein lies the problem: As today's Iowa City and America in general continue allowing the death of the small restaurant, people begin to forget what the dining experience could mean. To me, going to a restaurant shouldn't be about wondering if the table is clean, or what some famous chef created on the latest commercial. No, my dream would be sitting down for two hours, getting my multiple-platter eat on, and if they would be so kind, how about that Mediterranean belly dancer.
Jon Van Dyke
DI editorial writer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)