Dart League Week 11 vs. Team Drinks

Score after round 1:
Club Car 6, Drinks 10

Score after round 2:
Club Car 18, Drinks 16

Score after round 3:
Club Car 27, Drinks 16

The hallmark of a good team is that they are able to play through adversity and find a way to win even when they aren't playing well. At one point, we were down 16-9. Our opponents were confident and in good spirits and throwing the best darts of their lives. We weathered the storm though and scored 18 straight points to put the game away. It was amusing to watch as they silently grew angry at each other and began to unravel. Our response reminded me of that part in Bloodsport where Jean Claude Van Damme tastes his own blood and then starts doing helicopter kicks all over the damn place and wins the Kuhmatah.

One more week of fine tuning before playoffs begin. If we win next week, we'll be taking a 9 game winning streak into the playoffs. No team will want to play us.

Let the games begin. . .

Grassley Goes After Dodgy Prosperity Preachers

I missed this story when it first came out but was extremely pleased to find it while flipping through a Time magazine tonight. As faithful readers are aware, Cornucopia, The Horn of Plenty has long been both suspicious of and hostile to those unsavory characters known popularly as the "prosperity preachers." The idea that a shady, manipulative preacher can build gold houses, fly a private jet, and by some quirk of the system still qualify for a tax-exempt status strikes me as odd. Now I realize that there's actually a pretty good reason that it seems odd: it's probably illegal.

As of now, Republican Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance, has simply sent out some courteous little letters requesting tax and real estate records. But as the article in Time states, "the Senator has mused that the replies could lead to testimony under oath."

I have never been more proud of Senator Grassley than I am right now. Grassley explains himself below.

Dart League Week 10 vs. Team Hard Tips

Score after round 1:
Club Car 14, Hard Tips 2

Score after round 2:
Club Car 26, Hard Tips 8

Score after round 3:
Club Car 35, Hard Tips 8

People play darts for many reasons. Some play for the feeling you get when, after having landed that final dart in the center of the bull, the machine begins to flash and beep, advertising your victory and superiority to all the alcoholics in attendance. Others play for the camaraderie or the exercise. Not a few times have I seen a serious dartist thrown of track because he forgot to wear his headband.

Me? I play darts for the fans. For the feeling I get when I hear the roar of the crowd as pound my opponent on triple 20's. Nothing, and I mean nothing can match that feeling.

That's why tonight's game was such a treat for me. As it turns out, my girlfriend's best friend was in town interviewing for the physician's assistant program here at Iowa. The two of them, looking for something fun (inspirational?) to do, came to watch Team Club Car in action. For someone like me, who feeds off of the energy of the crowd night in and night out, this was a huge boon. Though I'm used to playing in front of people, the addition of Emily and her friend more than doubled the amount of spectators we typically have at our games. You could hardly hear yourself think. It was absolute madness.

But that's really what it's all about isn't it. . . the fans. Monday night warriors aren't just playing to buff their egos or score a free beer; we're playing to make someone's life better. Sure, I like it when I do well. I'd be lying if I said it doesn't feel good. But it feels a hell of a lot better when I look up and see those teary-eyed faces after a major victory. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that a lot of people's happiness depends on me winning games. And if that means that by throwing a couple of silly projectiles at a flashing board the world can be made a better place. . . so be it.

I'm just going to keep throwing darts.

*This post is dedicated to all the people in the world who draw inspiration from the awesome dart throwers that they idolize.

MAC Daddy: Hawkeyes Finally Lose

And they said it couldn't happen. The Iowa Hawkeyes, tied for the longest winning streak in the Big Ten (seriously, we were. Remember Michigan and Ohio State both lost last week) were finally bested by NCAA powerhouse and perennial middle of the pack MAC contender Western Michigan.

By the way, we now own an 0-2 record against Western Michigan. They also beat us in like 2000 or something.

Let us never speak of Western Michigan again.

I

Audaciously Hopeful

Just got done reading two separate items. The first, from my property textbook, was long and boring and related to the economics of rent control.

The second, from the Atlantic, was a compelling argument and epic endorsement for Barack Obama written by Andrew Sullivan.

If you've got about 20 minutes, feel free to read the full piece here.

Otherwise, here's the summary:

America is deathly ill. It has been so for quite some time and it's mostly on account of the violently hostile political divide that those oft-bickering baby boomers have left as their most unwelcome legacy. According to Andrew Sullivan, there's really only one possible treatment, and at this stage it's only experimental: Barack Obama. Here's a paragraph that I found particularly illustrative of his point--

"To be black and white, to have belonged to a nonreligious home and a Christian church, to have attended a majority-Muslim school in Indonesia and a black church in urban Chicago, to be more than one thing and sometimes not fully anything—this is an increasingly common experience for Americans, including many racial minorities. Obama expresses such a conflicted but resilient identity before he even utters a word. And this complexity, with its internal tensions, contradictions, and moods, may increasingly be the main thing all Americans have in common."

Sullivan goes on to make the other key arguments for Obama: his credibility (both domestically and internationally) on the Iraq war issue, his electability, his cross-over appeal with Republicans, his ease with religion, his charisma, and yes, even his face. In this little excerpt, Sullivan explains just how a face and a name might radically alter a young man's conception of what America stands for:

"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."

Goodbye domestic rancor and suspicion, hello hand-holding and goodwill.

Optimistic? Nope, just audaciously hopeful.

Dumping is What I Do When I'm Called On in Class

So, as an English Lit. major embarking on a business heavy profession, there are times that the learning curve seems embarrassingly steep. I might have to start boning up.

Case in point:

Today, while I was attending a lecture on international law that offered free pizza, Mr. X described how the DNA/gene manufacturing firm that he counsels had been served notice of a complaint. Though his company is headquartered in the U.S., it has offices in Sweden as well. The complaint, filed in Sweden, alleged that his company had committed the crime of dumping.

At this point Mr. X looked at the people in attendance (roughly seven of us), and said, "You all know what dumping is right?" I immediately pictured a large dump truck emptying greenish ooze into a river populated by three-eyed fish. "Let me put it a different way, does anyone NOT know what dumping is?" he continued.

Me to self-- this seems like a trick question. Should I raise my hand, thereby verifying my green ooze hypothesis, or nod knowingly, thereby blending in with the rest of my knowledgeable peers? Surely if my conception is flawed, this flaw will be rectified by the speaker in a matter of moments with no loss of credibility to myself. The hand stays down.

"Ok then," Mr. X continues, "who can explain it to me?"

Uh oh. He looks in my direction. I quickly look away but he finds my patent avoidance of eye contact suspicious. He points at me "Go ahead."

Me: "Well, I guess when you dispose of materials in ways that you shouldn't."

Mr. X: "No. Wrong," he says. He then launches into a lengthy explanation of why it is so much easier to correct law students than undergraduates. Undergraduates are weak and take it personally, law students are resilient and indifferent to criticism, he explains. I laugh heartily and wipe away a tear forming in the corner of my eye. Surely now, after I have failed him, an explanation of dumping will be forthcoming.

Mr. X: "Suppose you are accusing me of dumping in your country, what am I doing?"

Me? Again? Really? His eyes are on me again. I quickly file through the definitions of dumping I am familiar with. There's the green ooze theory previously posited. That's not right. I'm only familiar with one other meaning of the word dumping, and I'm fairly sure that offering that explanation would not be appropriate in this context.

Me to self: time is ticking. . . think think think. . . use law words.

Me-- "I'm accusing you of infringing on some kind of property interest that I'm claiming?"

Mr. X: "This is what I love about lawyers, when they don't know, they still try to make things up."

Bingo. Not just lawyers though. Before I was in law school I was a liar too.

He then asks if anyone else can explain this concept. The hands of the six others in attendance shoot-up in unison, as if a kindergarten teacher had asked the students what their favorite color was. Have you no shame?

(Note: to extend this analogy, when the teacher asked me what my favorite color was, I replied: "motorcycle.")

The answer, which I will never, ever forget for the rest of my life? Basically predatory pricing.

Here is the Wikipedia definition of dumping under the entry "dumping (pricing policy)":

"In economics, "dumping" can refer to any kind of predatory pricing. However, the word is now generally used only in the context of international trade law, where dumping is defined as the act of a manufacturer in one country exporting a product to another country at a price which is either below the price it charges in its home market or is below its costs of production."

In my defense, Mr. X didn't actually say "What is dumping in an economic sense?" If this were the case, I probably would have pieced it together. Now that it's been explained, I admit that I've seen and heard of "dumping" used in this context before, though I've never studied the topic in any kind of formal sense.

Also in my defense, there is another entry right under "dumping (pricing policy)" entitled: "environmental dumping." Here is the definition in Wikipedia for evironmental Dumping:

Environmental dumping is the practice of transfrontier shipment of waste (household waste, industrial/nuclear waste, etc.) from one country to another. The goal is to take the waste to a country that has less strict environmental laws, or environmental laws that are not strictly enforced.

In this context, it's not so outrageous that a biotech company that specializes in creating DNA could get into trouble for environmental dumping.

There are all sorts of problems involved in GM foods contaminating the fields of others; do these same kind of problems happen in the biotech industry? Doesn't seem likely, but I really wouldn't know.

Anyway, the story ends with the biotech company losing millions of dollars in pointless litigation even though the claims were scandalously weak and indefensible. Eventually, the firm raised its prices in a "price undertaking," a kind of settlement under the WTO, and was allowed to remain in Sweden.

All in all a very well told story with lots of suspense and quite a bit of information about the often confusing and labyrinthine international system of adjudication. It even had a tidy little moral at the end that I thin we can all learn a little something from:

"Even if you don't shit on a foreign market, you might get accused of dumping."

Iowa City Speaker Circuit News: Paul Krugman Endorses John Edwards Kind Of

When I was in Cameroon in my tiny, pink-walled bungalow, I was the lucky beneficiary of a library of books left behind by my volunteer predecessors. Among this treasure trove (you find it, you keep it!) of literature was the book “The Great Unraveling: Losing our Way in the New Century" by New York Times columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman. Paging through the book --a collection of his columns--was one of the more effective means I've ever discovered of generating a big, heady dose of political righteous indignation. This was particularly effective sometime around Nov. 3 of 2004, when, whenever necessary, I could select a column and be reminded of all of the fascinating ways in which our electorate had seriously fucked up.

Though I was supposed to be glow in the dark bowling tonight with book weary law students, when I learned Krugman was here in Iowa City I had to postpone it. Bowling with me is always pretty predictable anyway: 3 games with an average between 140-160, several strikes, variety of fist pumps, several ball changes, many celebratory dances, and several times where I’m so disgusted with my shot that I walk back to the scoring area without even watching the result. (Note: this is followed by a quick look over my shoulder, EVEN THOUGH I OBVIOUSLY DO NOT CARE, to make sure that the ball that I through down the middle of the lane did not miraculously pick up that 7/10 split).

Those of you who have ever bowled with me are familiar with this routine. I can recreate it any time I want.

What I can’t recreate anytime is a live Q and A at the Englert Theatre with Paul Krugman, one of my favorite columnists of all time. Julie Englander, the regular presenter for the Prarie Lights author sessions, introduced him tonight as the "most important political columnist in America." And then there's bowling.

Krugman was fantastic. He was funny and insightful, and, oddly, despite all of the dire predictions of "The Great Unraveling," extremely optimistic about the direction of the country. People are finally seeming sensible and fed-up, he noted. . .this seems to be the inadvertent gift of George W. Bush.

The talk was basically the distillation of the thesis of his book into about a 40 minute talk, with a special emphasis on the implications of the upcoming presidential race.

His thesis:

America is regressing. We had a gilded age with robber barons and enormous disparities in wealth and privilege and power, then we had the New Deal, then the 40’s, and 50’s gave us a strong middle class with strong labor, and then came movement conservatism that essentially is seeking to put us back into the late 19th century (the return of the barons!).

While countries like Canada, France, and the Scandanavian countries (those same countries that are on the top of every standard of living index in existence) have been tweaking capitalism in an effort to benefit a the common welfare and preserve a strong entrepreneurial spirit, the conservative movement has been attempting to roll back every New Deal program they can get their hands on.

Though NYT policy forbids him from making presidential endorsements, he did speak at length about the kind of president he wanted. He said to be aware of candidates beholden to special interests (read: Hillary Clinton) and beware of overly polite "cross-the-aislers" who are looking for bipartisanship (here's looking at Obama). Since substantive differences between the candidates are negligible, he basically wants someone with some fire in his/her belly who can, above all else, really push through universal health care. Process of elimination, plus the fire in the belly qualification leads me to believe that this was a thinly veiled endorsement of John Edwards.

Interesting. Lately John Edwards has been espousing the most populist message. The other night at Jefferson Jackson he claimed that if congress didn't let him push through a health care plan he would take away government health care for the house, senate, and president. You gotta like that kind of talk.

Krugman then took questions from the audience members, a few of whom were crazy people. He proved himself to be extremely likable and great with his off the cuff analysis.

Fortunately, no one was tased throughout the talk.

Here's a clip of him and Bill O'Reilly having a civil talk with Tim Russert. Sometimes watching Bill O'Reilly makes me sick to my stomach. As Stephen Colbert once noted (paraphrase) "you know Bill, a lot of people criticize you for what you say, but they never give you credit for how loud you say it."

Couldn't agree more. Apparently Bill O'Reilly missed out on that whole "jobless recovery" thing that everyone was talking about when this interview took place.

One More Seat?

If Iowa Democrats are going to capture another seat in the house in 2008, in all likelihood it will be in the 4th district. Though Steve King (5th district) and Tom Latham (4th district) received roughly the same proportion of the popular vote-- King with 58% and Latham with 57%-- there was a lot more support for the Democratic contender in district 4, where Seldon Spencer gathered in about 43% in the 4th district, than in the 5th district, where Joyce Shulte could only find support from 36%. Spencer has made it clear that he's not going to run again, which begs the question-- who is?

Luckily, Century of the Common Iowan has generated a list of potential candidates. Among some notables from the Ames area that made the list are: state rep. and assistant Majority Leader Lisa Heddens and Story Co. Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald.

Dart League Week 9 vs. Team Gus' Gun Show

Score after round 1:
Club Car Bombs 8, Team Gus' Gun Show 8

Score after round 2:
Club Car Bombs 20, Team Gus' Gun Show 14

Score after round 3:
Club Car Bombs 29, Team Gus' Gun Show14

This was billed as a showdown of the two titans of the second division, and after the first round, it was just as advertised: two heavyweights toe to toe, slugging it out as the fans watched in awe. At one point, Team Gus' even took a 14-11 lead. This may have been just what team Club Car needed to wake them up, as they quickly shut the door on a stunned Gus' by rattling off 18 consecutive points.

Good teams don't get frazzled, they lock down and score points. That makes six straight wins.

Highlight of the evening-- Murray hits a 9 mark (triple 19, triple 18, triple 17) during one particularly successful streak. His hapless opponent cries like a schoolgirl at his bad luck and takes another shot of whiskey.

Postgame highlight of the evening-- Nick and Kyle beating Murray and Griff on a combined six straight bulls-eyes in order to win a rubber match and 5 dollars apiece.

5 Interesting Legal Principles That I've Learned in My First Year of Law School: Part 1 of a Series

Disclaimer: I hope it is clear that these legal principles, being both hazily remembered and heavily embellished, are in no way to be taken as legal advice --

1. The Goonies Rule—“Finders Law” is kind of complicated. For example, if you find property that’s “lost” or “abandoned” you usually get to keep it. However, if you find property that’s “mislaid” then it usually goes to the owner of the premises where you found it. There are other fairly arbitrary distinctions that are sometimes clear and sometimes not. The one rule that IS clear? If you find a “treasure trove,” it’s yours. Keep it. No questions asked. Roll in it, toss the gold coins up and let them rain down on you, whatever you want. A treasure trove in the case book that I use describes a treasure trove as this: “ANY GOLD OR SILVER IN COIN, PLATE, OR BULLION FOUND CONCEALED IN THE EARTH OR IN A HOUSE OR OTHER PRIVATE PLACE.” This rule is apparently founded on the principle that all of use think that at some point in our lives we’re going to find a treasure map in the attic and then follow it to all sorts of pirate treasure.

2. The G.W. Bush rule/preemption rule—If you REASONABLY BELIEVE someone is going to attack you can use reasonable force to protect yourself. You can’t, however, use lethal force or force that is not commensurate to the threat. Maybe this shouldn’t be called the G.W. Bush rule. An addition to this rule is the imminence rule. Here is a brief illustration of this rule: Saddam and George are drinking a bar. If Saddam says to George “I will beat you up tomorrow,” George cannot beat up Saddam today to prevent tomorrow’s attack, unless it appears that here will be now way for George to defend himself tomorrow.

3. Take the money and run principle—after guy found 17,000 dollars in the wing of an airplane he told his supervisor and eventually lost the (probably drug) money to the owner of the premises because it was judged to be “mislaid.” As per above, if it would have been classified as “lost or abandoned,” the finder would have kept it. The motto of this story: Never, ever tell anyone when you find $17,000 in a fucking airplane wing.

4. The Ewok net rule—This is similar to the G.W. Bush rule. You can’t protect empty property with lethal force. A guy in IA owned an abandoned house in which he kept mason jars. There had been a theft (or maybe just thefts in the area, I can’t remember), so he did what all of us what have done: he rigged up a shotgun to the door handle and pointed it at about knee high. This way, he could make sure to forever alter the life of any wayward criminal or cute, adventurous child who happened to wander into the abandoned home. When Mr. Bush league criminal came by to cash in on that sweet mason jar collection, the gun took out his legs and severely injured him. The court ruled that lethal force cannot be used to protect unoccupied property and suggested that he buy the same kind of nets that the Ewoks in star wars used, noting that they were both humane and durable (this didn’t really happen). The spring gunner’s response “I wish I would have aimed higher.” (This REALLY DID happen). Oh, my sweet, sweet mason jars.

5. The Princess Bride Rule—a thief with prior possession of a piece of property has rights over different thief who tries to relieve him of it. Remember that part in the Princess Bride when Sicilian Evil Mastermind Wallace Shawn is running off with a discombobulated but resilient Robin Wright? And then Dred Pirate Roberts starts chasing them and Sicilian Evil Mastermind Wallace Shawn says “he’s tyring to kidnap what I’ve rightfully stolen.” Well, he’s kind of right. You can’t do that. In absence of the “true owner” prior possession prevails, even if it is a thief who has stolen something. Since Shawn had possession of the Princess before Dred Pirate Roberts, he wins. (Note: this is only applicable if women are considered “chattel.”) (Note #2: It is my understanding that Wallace Shawn used to make his home in Iowa City. Please feel free to disabuse me of this notion).

Yepsen Calls Jefferson Jackson Dinner for Obama

Due to some terribly important commitments this weekend involving movies and sleep, I refrained from heading to Des Moines to attend the Jefferson Jacksons dinner. From what I hear, Obama's people won the "noise war," and Obama made a hell of a speech. David Yepsen recaps the event in this article.

There was also a great article on Slate that asked the legitimate question: "Why isn't Obama killing Hillary in Iowa?" John Dickerson basically talks a little bit about how much the Obama Show brings to the table:

"I knew what to expect Tuesday night at his event at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, and yet after it was over I was still impressed. He was funny and passionate, and he connected with his big audience. When he left the stage, the room was on its feet and chanting with him. Nothing like that happened during the two days I followed Hillary Clinton. Her performances were solid and her audiences were enthusiastic, but they didn't interrupt her with applause the way they did with Obama."

This was EXACTLY the kind of candidate that we should have put up on the national stage in 2004, and it's exactly the kind of candidate that we should look for this year. In 2000/2004 the Democratic candidate lost essentially because the American people would rather have a beer with George Bush. The Dems might have had substance and sanity, but the Republicans had a creepy kind of likeability. This year I think Barack Obama tips the scales in a different direction.

Bright of Eye, Bushy of Tail: Thoughts on the Bright Eyes Concert at the Union

I think I’ve decided I’m going to stop going to concerts at the IMU. Sure it hosts good shows—both Ryan Adams and Wilco paid a visit to the venue in the last few weeks—but it’s always so clean and clinical. And there’s no beer. Which means that anybody who wants to enjoy a leisurely drink or two needs to do the whole sneak around with a spiked drink deal. No beer, coupled with the presence of throngs of 16 year-old hipster kids, made me feel an awful lot like I was attending a high school mixer.

I kept on thinking about what an amazing show it would have been had it been in a dirty old beer soaked club: the music throbbing, the beer flowing, the dance floor one mass of jumbled, drunken human bodies gyrating in unison.

Which isn’t to say that the concert wasn’t good. Conner Oberst was amazing, finding time to deliver not only soft crooning and violent wailing, but also admirably subversive political statements and a random shout-out to the working poor. All in all, it was an unbelievable performance from a man whose only major visible flaw is that he kind of has a hunchback when he plays the piano.

Seriously, the man’s coolness almost made me feel uncomfortable. When my girlfriend snuck away to get a drink (of soda of course), I half expected that she would call me several days later from the band’s bus in somewhere like Fargo. That’s how strong the force was with Conner. He was like Jonny Depp if you strapped a guitar to him and gave him a voice ranging from the eunuch-sweet alto of a five year old boy to the teste-heavy bass of Zeus, Greek God of the Sky and Thunder.

The first time he pulled out what I’m going to call his “angry voice,” I actually got scared. Which I think was his intention, because the last song of the night he fondly dedicated to Dick Cheney and his Army of Satan, which is an inherently frightening concept.* As expected, the song was beautifully angry and angst filled and Conner was on fire, kicking shit around and jumping on speakers and the like.

I was a little disappointed that he didn't play the "First Day of My Life" song, so I'll post the touching little video here to compensate for its absence on the set list:

Here's a live performance a while back on the Late Late Show too that's kind of fun. He doesn't kick shit (a minus) but he does get in a shot at the Dubya in Chief (a plus):

So all in all it was a great, alcohol free night. Which was good because 90% of those in attendance we’re being picked up by their parents. And if they would have had to go home with alcohol on their breath, they probably wouldn’t have been allowed to go to the next mixer.

* Note to Conner: an army of Satan is a pretty small army actually, Satan being just one demon among the scores who populate the fiery depths of Hell. Next time shoot higher—an army of Demons with Satan as its general perhaps. Or maybe “Dick Cheney and his Satan’s army,” which would imply that Dick Cheney himself is Satan and he is supported by an army of indeterminate size.

Dart League Week 8 vs. Team Tuna

Score after first round:
Club Car 14, Team Tuna 2

Score after second round:
Club Car 29, Team Tuna 5

Score after third round:
Club Car 38, Team tuna 5

That's five in a row for those of you keeping score at home. Though the score might indicate otherwise, it was actually a fairly uninspired performance across the board. Special criticism should be reserved for my play, which was considerably more lazy and distracted than usual. I had a hand in both of the losses, the first one coming as the lone individual loss on the night, and the second coming in a second round team game with Griff.

If I were to make excuses it would be that looming deadline for my memo on Wednesday morning. Good thing I don't make excuses. But considering for just one moment I was the kind of person who went around making excuses, I might also talk a little bit about the debilitating paintball injury I suffered on Saturday at a bachelor party that got a little out of control.

And assuming that both of those excuses were accurate descriptions of the kind of obstacles I was facing, maybe I shouldn't be so hard on myself. Instead of criticizing myself, maybe I should be praising myself.

Is Nick Gregory a hero? Maybe. Maybe not. But he certainly proves that a person can take a paintball in the back, write a troublesome memo, and still find time to struggle through the adversity and win a game of darts. . . on the road.

A win on the road in this league isn't easy. Next week and the week after we return to the Club Car for our first two game home stand all year. Tickets are free. Beer is $1.75. See you there.