Iowa: Converts Welcome!

I've always considered myself somewhat of a spokesperson for the state of Iowa. When speaking to non-Iowans, I often tout our top-notch committment to education, or brag about our first in the nation caucus, or describe our beautiful countryside, or even boast about (what I consider to be) the above average civility and good-naturedness of Iowans.

I'll casually drop the fact that Iowa is one of the top producers of wind energy in the nation, or that our state is one of the few between New York and California that could send our 7 electoral votes to either a Democrat or Republican year in and year out. (Little known fact: Dukakis won bigger in Iowa in 1988 than in any other state except Rhode Island).

And so I'm always happy to see others, especially converts from afar, singing its praises.

I just read a blog post by one such convert (Thoughts on the Iowa caucuses from Black Iowan) which outlines a UI law professor's thoughts about the caucus process and people's misconceptions of the state of Iowa, with a special slant on issues of race and gender. The post is a little dated, but for those of you who already miss the caucus circus, it shoudl be a fun trip down memory lane.

And as a bonus, here's the quote of the week from Iowa Writer's Workshop alum and food author Ted Lee:

"Everyone said, 'Oh my God - you being a food guy, what are you going to do there?' That was simply because the people I was around were so provincial," Ted Lee, 36, said. "[Iowa] is a place where people live very close to the food - I felt like I was living in Europe."

For the full DI article about his award winning book, The Lee Bros. Southern Cookbook, click here.

Dart League Week 9: Shakespeare's Writes Us Another Tragedy

Michigan vs. Ohio State, Duke vs. UNC, Iowa vs. Western Michigan, and finally, the Club Car vs. Shakespeare's. These are the rivalries that have routinely captured the hearts and imaginations of citizens and sports fans around the world.

And as expected out of any major rivalry, it was a struggle all night long, with no points coming cheap.

As was not expected, Shakespeare's pulled away for a surprising 27-16 victory over a superior and more handsome team (that's right, put it on your bulletin board Shakespeare's).

But, as is often the case, handsome alone doesn't win you dart matches. You also need to throw darts and win big games, which we quite spectacularly failed to do.

Things were falling into place in the first round, as we came out with a 8-8 tie ballgame. Then the second round things unraveled as we saw a number of close games slip from our grasp and we began to lose hope.

But even as the lead began to accumulate and become insurmountable, we never, as a team, lost sight of our sense of revenge. As our team captain said: "If there is any justice in this world, we will be meeting Shakespeare's in the second round of the playoffs this year."

Congratulations to our worthy adversaries Shakespeare's, who proved, once again, to be an obstacle that we were unable to overcome. They kept cool heads and steady hands in our house, with our music, and our fans. For this they are to be commended. We look forward to seeing you again soon.

As always, there were a few highlights:

I won my two individual matches again, coming off the bench late in the game as Kyle was unable to play. Will and I had the most dominant win of the night, polishing off a game of 501 in the 8th round with an avg. of over 75 points per round and only needing one dart to double out for the victory.

In addition, I was able to eke out a win in the post game 20$ money match. That was a big victory because I had previously forsworn gambling on darts only the week before, and a loss would have made me depressed and irritable.

But who needs money? I would have traded back at least 4 of those 20 dollars for a dart match win.

You've got to know what's important in life.

The World According to John Irving

I was able to see John Irving speak in Iowa City a couple of nights ago and was pleased to learn that his next book, Last Night in Twister River, will be taking place, at least partially, in Iowa City.

Seeing as Cider House Rules, The World According to Garp, Hotel New Hampshire, and A Widow for a Year were all made into movies (A Widow for a Year was released under the title the Door in the Floor), I think it's safe for people to start practicing for their dream roles.

So judging by the reading, if you're a female bodybuilder whose not afraid to parachute naked onto a pig farm and then beat beat up a bunch of sissy artists, I think there may be a role available for you.

Other than that, I don't think there's much I can add to Iowa Independent's great roundup of the reading, which includes, among other things, Iowa Writer's Workshop director Samantha Chang's funny comment on how great it was to see 500 people walking down Dubuque Street for something other than a football game.

Thank you for the reading Mr. Irving and good luck on your book. Go Hawks.

Dart league Week 8: IRISH PRIDE!

What a win. That one was for the mother country. I love you great, great, great, great grandma MacGregory.

It came down to the last match, where Will hit a double-bull for the victory. If he wouldn't have hit it, Charliez boyz would have had six straight darts to hit a single 15 mark and win the game. Even taking into account the massive amount of green beer that our adversaries had consumed that Monday night, a single 15 would have been a sure thing.

As is customary after each club car win, an embarrassing amount of jumping and hugging and yelling ensued.

I've been to quite a few dart matches now, and I'm pretty sure we're the only team that does that.

As for my stat-sheet:

I started off slow, losing my two individuals, but then grabbed the next three win darts in doubles play and ended 3-3 for the evening. I dedicated two of my victories to Michael Collins and the last one to Alec Guinness, whom I mistakenly thought was Irish.

Long live Eire.

Obama Firewall Resistant

Just sitting at the library studying, but the Mississippi results are rolling in and I wanted to do a quick numbers breakdown.

Here are the numbers from the march 4th Ohio/TX/RI/VT primary night that Hillary won big and got ALL THAT MOMENTUM.

OH--

Hillary 76, Obama 69: Hillary +7

RI--

Hillary 19, Obama 10: Hillary + 9

TX (primary)--

Hillary 77, Obama 71: Hillary + 6

VT

Hillary 7, Obama 14: Hillary - 7

TX (caucus)

Hillary 29, Obama 38: Hillary -9

Final result of Hillary's March 4th Super Tuesday (the sequel) Huge Momentum Shifting Night Where She Won Big: 7 + 9 + 6 -7 -9 = 6 delegates (net).

Tongiht in Mississippi, with 92% of precincts reporting, CNN estimates that Obama will take 20 and Hillary will take 11 delegates to net Obama 9 more delegates. This is a full 3/2 what Hillary received on her "huge" night.

Oh, and throw in the 4 he got from Wyoming the other night and he doubled Clinton's victory with MS and WY alone.

Firewall indeed.

Dart League Week 7: A Perverse Advantage for a Worthy Adversary

I'm pretty sure the final score last night was 29-14, as we fell to the 6th ranked team from the Old Capitol Brewery. If it had been their usual roster, victory was possible, and perhaps even inevitable. It wasn't the usual team though. Instead, they had subbed in a new guy who was THE BEST DARTS PLAYER I HAVE EVER SEEN. EVER.

Because it was his first night, THE BEST DARTS PLAYER I HAVE EVER SEEN played with a 1 handicap (handicaps range from 3 to -3 in dart league). In several games of cricket he averaged over 6 marks per round. I can't guarantee that before last night I had ever even seen a game over 5 marks per round. I can guarantee, however, that after playing us he will be a -3 handicap against the next team he faces.

And that's what sucks. It's not that I think everyone should be handicapped so that we have a chance to win, because that's not the case. I'd even support a darts league that didn't even use handicaps.

The travesty, the grave injustice of the whole episode last night, was that THE BEST DARTS PLAYER I HAVE EVER SEEN hadn't been accurately handicapped. Thus the handicapping system gave this incredibly good player a kind of perverse advantage that he didn't need. Essentially, instead of serving to even the playing field, our players were actually handicapped against him.

For example, our top two players handicap-wise last night were Murphy at -1 and Griff at 0. This guy was miles better than the two of them (possibly combined), and yet while they got skipped a turn, he got extra darts.

But I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles whenever you're dealing with a handicap system-- it may just wind up handicapping the game itself.

Let it be known that as of this moment, Cornucopia, the Horn of Plenty is calling for a non-handicap system for the Iowa City Dart League.

Post-game facts for Nick Gregory--

My one victory for the night was in my first match, where I played horribly the entire match, had given up all hope, and then hit 8 bulls-eyes in 8 darts to steal a precious win from the jaws of defeat. Behind me, a small whimper of pain and confusion could be heard from my hapless opponent as my final dart found its mark. Small consolation, but consolation nonetheless.

Next week is St. Patty's Day. Look for Irish Pride, luck, and four leaf clovers to play a pivotal role.

Breaking News: "Barack" Revealed to be Just Another Sacha Baron Cohen Character

The American electorate, the fragile, gullible, and largely ignorant mass of humans charged with the responsibility of electing the next leader of the free world, was shocked to learn yesterday that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was just another creation of brilliant and cheeky British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen.

Cohen, famous for creating such beloved characters as hip-hop dimwit Ali G, sexist and anti-Semitic Kazakh reporter Borat, and flamboyant gay fashion journalist Bruno, stepped forward today and admitted to being the comic genius behind the optimistic and inspirational politician whom many citizens considered to just too damn good to be true.

"I had really been focusing a lot on creating kind of tongue-in-cheek stereotypes and getting people's reaction to them," explained the unmasked Mr. Cohen. "I just got to thinking, ‘what if, instead of recording my own act with my own cameras and such, which can be quite difficult, why don't I just let CNN and Fox cover every step of my new character?’"

Cohen was pleased with the results of his stunt, noting that he never thought that Obama would be as successful as he was. The character, whom Cohen gave the non-sensical and funny sounding name “Barack Obama,” came out of nowhere onto the presidential scene, quickly becoming the leader in total delegate count and amassing popular support across a wide array of demographics. His most recent success included winning 10 straight Democratic Primaries across the nation.

“When I won that 10th contest in a row, I started thinking that maybe this joke has gone too far,” said Cohen. “Plus people were sending me all of this money, it was some crazy shit. Do you realize people sent me 30 million dollars last quarter? That’s crazy.”

Obama's supporters have admitted to experiencing a range of emotions, from disappointment to amusement to embarrassment, upon hearing the news.

"Go figure," one Obama supporter was heard as saying, "the one presidential candidate in my life that I've really supported and he turns out to be a hoax. I knew it was too good to be true. Not bad Cohen. Not bad at all. Looks like I’ll be staying home in November after all."

Despite Obama’s newly discovered non-existence, other supporters remain determined to see their dream candidate elected. These stalwarts insist that Mr. Cohen remain in the race as his alter-ego, Barack Obama, until he is elected or defeated in November.

"Okay, so no guy named Barack Obama really exists. Big deal. Obvioulsy Mr. Cohen has a sense of foreign policy and is a great speaker. I say he keeps playing the role and see how this thing turns out," said Joel Jackson, a self-professed “Obamber.”

Should Mr. Cohen elect to remain in the race, experts agree that such a decision would pose some tricky and heretofore unseen constitutional questions for our federal judiciary. Ed Jones, a constitutional scholar at the kick-ass University of Iowa law school, explained the questions presented in a possible Obama victory.

"Obviously Mr. Cohen couldn't run for office because, being British, he wasn’t born in the country,” said Jones. “On the other hand, there is very little dispute that Mr. Obama, who is Mr. Cohen's creation, was certainly born in the United States. So the question would remain for the court: can a fictional character who was born in the United States and is an American citizen run for the president of the United States? And, frankly, that's a question that the Supreme Court of the United States hasn't had the opportunity to answer.”

Dart League Week 6: VICTORY AT LAST!!

The losing streak has finally ended with a 26-17 win over Charlie's Boyz. This is definitely something to build on for next week.

Unfortunately, I did very little to contribute, winning my first two individual matches but losing every team match thereafter.

I would like to note that I played tonight despite having slipped on the ice earlier today. The fall was severe enough to rip my jeans and draw blood. The team physician said that I should probably be out several weeks for rehab., and my friends and family begged me to take some time off, but I disregarded their advice. If we we're going to be pulling off an upset I didn't want to be sitting on the sidelines while my teammates basked in the glory of our adoring fans.

I think it's safe to say I made the right decision.

Iowans on Becoming the Next Gay Marriage State: A Statistical Dead Heat

There was a new poll today in the Quad City times concerning Iowans' views on civil unions/gay marriage that I found kind of interesting. Here's the gist:

"The Iowa Poll shows that 62 percent of Iowans believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Thirty-two percent support same-sex marriage, while 6 percent were unsure.

More than half of those surveyed say Iowa should allow civil unions for same-sex couples. About 40 percent oppose civil unions and 4 percent were unsure.

The poll shows that Iowans are divided on whether the state constitution should be changed to ban gay marriage — 48 percent support changing the constitution while 47 percent are opposed."

Two points worth considering. First, civil unions could probably be done tomorrow. The numbers are in the House and Senate, and the will of the people has arrived. This point might be moot though in a little while, because of the second point : gay marriage is starting to look like a very real possibility.

The headline of this article is Poll: Iowans against gay marriage, back civil unions. But in my opinion, that's not a great reading of these numbers. Though 62% of Iowans believe that marriage should be "only between a man and a woman," only 48% favor changing the constitution to require this. In the end, it's going to be the 48% number that matters the most.

This reinforces an idea from one of my previous posts that people find it troubling to actively discriminate against other people. Sure, when the pollster calls up and asks what John Doe thinks about marriage, he might say that it should "only be between a man and a woman," and this might have something to do with him being married to a woman. But when it comes to legislating other people's lifestyles, many people (especially libertarians I might add) don't really see it as necessary for their personal happiness.

In a way, I think when some people answer this kind of question, it's almost like a kind of weird, defensive assertion/affirmation of their own sexual preferences. (Yes I'm attracted to women, how dare you?!) The pollster doesn't necessarily ask John Doe if he would rather be married to a man or a woman, but to John Doe, it kind of feels that way. So questions of should marriage be this or that are inherently misleading because people have a preconceived mentality of what they would want in the situation being offered.

Since more people engage in heterosexual lifestyles than homosexual ones, that is the knee-jerk response.

Here's a quick analogy to illustrate what I mean. A small, busybody lobby is trying to pass a law making sure that people open doors for one another. It's called the "Pay It Forward Act of 2008." In order to see what kind of support they have for their Act, the Register does a poll and asks 800 people this question: "Should people always hold the door for one another if they have the opportunity?"

Each and every person hears this question and says "Well, what would I do in this situation?" And they say things like "I'd open the door!" (or, by comparison, "I'd marry a woman/man!."). Because that's exactly what he/she would do in that situation.

Let's say that 92% of people say "yes, people should open doors for each other"(this is Iowa after all). You can imagine what the headline would be: "Iowans in favor of required door opening." But in reality, that preference has very little bearing on what Iowans think the law should be. It's just what they think people should do.

Now, I don't know exactly how the questions of this particular poll were posed, but I feel like something like that must be at play. How else do you explain the sudden drop, to below %50 of people who are in favor of amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. True, people opposed gay marriage in a general sense (becuase of religion or something), just like they're opposed to swearing or premarital sex or not opening doors or being late for class or staying up past 11 o'clock or whatever. But they aren't necessarily opposed to gay marriage in a legal sense, as in willing to impose this view on other people through a change in our constitution.

As noted earlier in this blog: the path to gay marriage in Iowa entails two steps: 1) a decision by the Supreme Court affirming Justice Robert Hanson's decision last year and 2) a successful defense against any attempts by Steve King to amend the constitution. If a constitutional amendment is attempted, it will need to get a majority in the legislature for two years in a row and then a majority vote by the general public.

This is why the 48% figure is so much more important than the 62% figure. As of this poll, there is a 1% difference (48-47) between people who would want to change the constitution and those who would refrain from doing so. This is a statistically insignificant amount, and it very well could decide whether or not we will be the next gay marriage state.

Maybe a better headline would have been this: "Iowans on gay marriage: a statistical dead

heat."

Note to the Register, Quad City Times, DI, and the AP: you are free to use this headline.

Go Progress.