Cornucopia, The Horn of Plenty

Judgment Eve

2009-04-03T00:12:00.007-06:00

Fingers crossed everyone. . .

Some Thoughts on a Gute Reise

2009-01-06T06:58:00.009-06:00

After school was over I had the opportunity to travel around (mostly) Northern Europe for a little while to meet new people and see new stuff. On the itinerary: Riga, Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Munich. Here’s a quick recap of the trip.

Riga

Riga is ice cold. If you travel there in December at three in the morning after attending a huge, free-alcohol, school-sponsored party, and then you walk around the city with wet feet gazing at the Baltic-gothic churches and architecture, you’re sure to get sick as a dog.

And so it was with me, wasting away much of my time in the fetal position in my bed in the hostel. Luckily, I was only guest staying in the hostel for the three days I was there, so others were spared my hacking, shivering, and whining. Plus, it was a fairly good environment in which to involuntarily spend time. The kitchen, all shiny and clean and advertised on HostelWorld as “the best kitchen in Riga,” was not a disappointment. Nor was the staff, who offered me biscuits and insider tips on the best pharmacies to visit in Riga.

Since I was the only one in the hostel, I took turns watching movies and television series with the complete rotation of workers. One pleasantly sarcastic Latvian girl --when the movie was paused, she would always say “hurry up, you’re missing it”-- and I watched about 8 hours straight of Dr. House. I told her through my sniffles and coughs that a medical drama/comedy was a good program for me to watch because at the end of the night I would have assimilated enough med-talk to be able to diagnose myself.

The one major thing that I DID have time to see in Riga was the Occupation Museum, which I found to be both sobering and inspirational. I also thought a more appropriate name for this museum would have been the Latvian National “Please Leave Us the Fuck Alone!” Museum.

Its purpose was basically to highlight the many downsides of hosting an occupying force in your country. For instance, I learned that the occupying guests almost always overstay their welcome: brutally suppressing any nationalist spirit or sign of criticism, sending dissenters to Gulag-esque labor camps, and almost never taking their shoes off at the border before coming into the country. Some guests.

In particular, the museum chronicled Latvia’s occupation first by the USSR around 1920, then by the Germans during WWII, and then again by the USSR until relatively recent times.

The highlight was looking at all the cool knick knacks and objects of art that the political prisoners made while imprisoned. Not just shivs and that sort of fare, but beautiful chessboards, furniture, and clothing.

Copenhagen

In Copenhagen I used Couchsurfing.com to find a couch to sleep on. It was kind of short notice, but luckily a woman named Linda was nice enough to take me into her house for a couple nights.

It was my first time using Couchsurfing, and I found it to be the height of cultural exchange.

The first night she made me a very traditional Danish Christmas meal (smeared black bread), played me some Danish pop music (Supine?) and laughed at my Danish pronunciation. And the next night I made American “Macaroni and Cheese,” played some blues on her piano, and marveled at her accent-free English. She was also kind enough to take some time out of her day and give me a walking tour of Copenhagen. That’s the big benefit of a site like couchsurfing, the personal connection with someone who knows the city and is willing to teach you about it. That’s tough to find at a hostel.

Plus, you might even meet other couch surfers in addition to your host. For instance, the second night a doctor from Tanzania named Wilson stayed with Linda and took the two of us out to a birthday party one of his Danish friends was having. Another great Danish experience.
A party, some new friends, a walking tour, and traditional food. Who could ask for more?

Stockholm

After Copenhagen it was on to Stockholm, where a friend of mine named Catia was staying for a couple of nights. This was great for a couple of reasons: 1) Catia is a good-souled and interesting human being and 2) when we hang out we speak exclusively in German.

Since I only had about week left to completely master ever single facet of the German language, and was currently still struggling with the difference between 17 and 70, a bit of practice was welcome.

Since neither of us are actual German masters (Catia is a native French speaker and I an English one) the results are somewhat hilarious. I’m sure for native German speakers it’s like listening to six-year olds blabber on. And that’s exactly what it’s like for us too. But that’s also the fun of it, the challenge of communicating. And armed only with smiles, a limited vocabulary, and childlike declarative sentences, we persevered and faced that challenge.

As far as sights and activities in Stockholm, we decided to go to the Nobel Prize museum. The national art museum might have been fun too, but we’d both seen Van Gogh sunflowers or Gauguin Polynesians before; the Nobel Museum, on the other hand, was something unique to Stockholm.

I still haven’t quite made up my mind about it. The museum was not only incredibly small, but it was also home to surprisingly few historical objects. A handful really. Some slippers from physicist X, a beaker from chemist Y, that sort of thing.

Luckily, there was a pretty cool temporary exhibit that took up about half the floor space of the museum. It dealt with how Ingmar Bergman (non-Nobel Laureate, but Swede, and one of Woody Allen’s idols) staged the productions of 5 Nobel prize-winning playwrights: Eugene O’Neil, Albert Camus, Luigi Pirandello, Harry Martinson, and a Swedish feller' named Par Lagerkvist. The exhibit was composed of, among other things, a bunch of great photos of Bergman in action by photographers who I’m sure are of great importance to people who know about that sort of thing.

Another highlight was the “Listening” section, where guests are invited to listen to acceptance or other speeches from past laureates. This was very cool.

There was a great little American section are where one could listen to post WWII American Nobel Laureates Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, and Toni Morrison. I had never heard Hemingway or Faulkner speak before. I was a bit surprised to hear Hemingway speaking almost exactly as he writes: in short, clear sentences (e.g.-- “My next book is about X. I hope it is good.”). I also very much enjoyed being exposed to Faulkner’s Southern twang and surprising modesty.

In contrast, I had heard Toni Morrison speak before. As always, I found her to be a very talented speaker with the odd gift that, as soon as she begins to speak ,the audience finds itself with the strange urge to begin weeping immediately for the pain and beauty of the human condition. It’s almost like a superpower. Admittedly, it’s not as cool a superpower as what Professor Xavier has, but probably cooler than whatever Jubilee does.

Munich

In Munich I stayed with another Couch Surfer named Florian who saved me from a hostel at the last moment. Florian gave me a little walking tour around the gates, churches, and squares of Munich and then I spent the rest of the day at the Pinakothek der Moderne (tons of Max Beckman and a great design and jewelry section). Later that night the two of us had a great dinner with 4 other couchsurfers (above) at a guy named Christian’s place.

That’s another one of the beauties of couchsurfing, the spontaneous hospitality. I wasn’t staying with Christian, but had met him at a couchsurfing meeting the previous night in Munich. After about two minutes of chatting he immediately invited me over for dinner the next night.

After dinner we drank Becks and red wine until well into the morning and eventually agreed on how to solve at least 30% of the world’s problems.

It was another great couchsurfing experience.

Amsterdam

Right now I am in Amsterdam for two days before heading home to the United States. My hostel is a bit dirty and the staff isn’t particularly friendly, but there’s wireless in my room and some interesting old hippies are here so I guess it’s a wash.

I’ll let you know how it goes. Then it’s back to Iowa. Hope to see you soon!

Save the Date: Arguments for Justice

2008-12-08T04:10:00.006-06:00

Friendly reminder that the oral arguments for Iowa's gay marriage case are tomorrow, December 9th.

It should be a really tough case to decide. On the one hand you have the kind of justice and equality that are consistent with the principles laid out in our state's constitution, and on the other you have arbitrary discrimination and backwardness driven (it would appear) only by contempt for our fellow man.

Oh wait. I guess it isn't that tough.

I haven't cheered this hard for Iowa since the Penn State game. Go Justice.

And for some further reading: here's the Chicago Tribune's write-up, and here's Iowa Independent's recap of how we got to where we are.

Iowa City Keeps on Winning

2008-11-21T12:49:00.003-06:00

In case you missed it, UNESCO just designated Iowa City as an official "City of Literature." Here's the U of I press release. As of now, there are only two other cities in the world that have received a similar designation: Edinburgh, Scotland and Melbourne, Australia.

And if that doesn't impress or inspire you, check this out:

Go Hawks.

U.S.A! U.S.A! -- A Great Party and a Great Speech

2008-11-05T15:08:00.010-06:00

What an amazing night. The first results here in Germany came in at about midnight, but the festivities kicked off much earlier at the law school.

In collaboration with the U.S. Consulate in Hamburg, Bucerius Law School hosted a massive election party that Vanity Fair listed as one of the best places in Germany to watch the election.

Starting at about 7:00 p.m. there were videos, lectures on American politics, bands, and several television stations broadcasting various panel discussions live. Attendees were offered a selection of fine American cuisine: hot dogs, hamburgers, freedom fries, and Jack Daniels. American flags were EVERYWHERE.

It was kind of a big deal.

The crowd of around 2000 even had to pass through metal detectors to get in. (You know, because whenever you get to many Americans together, guns can’t be too far behind. . .).

The Germans loved Obama. I had heard recently that about 80% of Germans supported Obama. After last night I feel that number may be closer to 98%. Signs, t-shirts, buttons-- everyone was completely outfitted with the latest Obama fashion. It was almost creepily uniform for what was ostensibly a bipartisan event.

Earlier that evening, one of the news reporters bouncing around the halls of the school had asked me (in considerately slow German) if I had spoken to anyone who was voting for McCain.

“Nein,” I replied. She moved down the line with the same question and the others replied that they hadn’t either.

“No McCain supporters?” I thought. That was a bit much. I actually began to feel a bit sorry for him.

So I ended up wearing both an Obama button and a McCain button (Obama button slightly higher) in an attempt to be diplomatic and inclusive.

When people asked me what the hell I was doing, which happened incredibly frequently, I responded that I was an Obama supporter, but that I was practicing a “new kind” of politics.

Ha!

This was half joke and half real. Half joke because I’d love a filibuster proof Senate as much as anyone, and half real because I really was trying to give a polite nod to bipartisanship and cooperation.

We were getting dangerously close to becoming hundreds of group-thinkers, congratulating ourselves endlessly on our superior judgment and gloating about the utter domination that was about to take place. That tends to be a little alienating.

That’s why I loved the tone of Obama’s victory speech.

Howard Dean “Yee Haw!” it was not.

I thought about the worst thing that Obama could have done was to frame this election as the climactic end of a long struggle. Thankfully, he did the exact opposite.

Though his supporters were ecstatic and crying and drinking, he was sober (both meanings I think) and restrained and purposeful. While we were off giving high fives to this awesomely magical future paradise, he was reminding us that this kick-ass future we are imagining has yet to be created. George Bush might talk a lot about resolve, but last night Obama seemed to be the personification of it.

Plus he gave his daughters a puppy, which I thought that was a pretty cool and touching moment.

So here’s to a great speech that reminded us of the work that lies ahead. And here’s to a great night of American Democracy in action. And Here’s to gift-puppies, and to Obama, and most importantly, here’s to us—the engaged and committed electorate that will INSIST upon a better future. What the hell, why don't we just go ahead and start with health care?

As a wise man once said really, really recently:

"This victory alone is not the change we seek -- it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you."

--Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States of America

Good TV

2008-10-31T14:41:00.006-06:00

If anyone out there is looking for some good, edgy British comedy, I highly recommend a little number called Peep Show that I just watched obsessively for about a month.

My friend Stu (illustrations to right) brought a bunch of episodes while he was visiting in September and quickly got me hooked.

In fact, I’m tempted to say that Peep Show is the best incarnation of the “odd couple” premise that I’ve ever seen. Jez is the crazy, hedonistic slacker while his roommate Mark is the play-by-the-rules, socially awkward type. It’s got solid acting, unforgettable characters, and creative scripts.

It’s also kind of technically innovative. The camera gives a first person point of view, and whenever the audience is looking from Mark or Jez’s perspective we are allowed to hear their internal monologues. (Think Mel Gibson’s “What Women Want,” only raw, funny and less anti-Semitic).

Anyway, if you want to laugh your arse off, go buy or rent as many episodes as you have time for. You Tube also has a pretty good selection if you're interested in more clips. Until then, here’s a bit from the first episode of the first season to give you a taste.

And a warning: though Peep Show is not nearly as adult as the title suggests, it can at times be somewhat crass and profane.

Enjoy.

Language Acquisition 101: Or, Becoming Germanick

2008-10-29T05:09:00.006-06:00

So last week I completed my first wave of finals here in Germany. WTO, Venture Capital, EU Law, Comparative Intellectual Property. Check, check, check, and check.

Now, after a feverish week of studying and test-taking (4 days straight of early-morning exams), I have an entire week off. Many in the exchange group are traveling and enjoying themselves. I have decided, somewhat masochistically it turns out, to remain here in Hamburg and take intensive German classes for 4 hours a day.

The class itself is one of the more diverse collections of people you’ll find outside of a meeting of the General Assembly of the UN. In our group of 10 we have representatives from: Albania, Poland, China, Croatia, Mexico, Brazil, Britain, Kenya, and the US of A.

The people are friendly and the peer environment supportive and non-judgmental.

The teacher/student dynamic, however, is a bit different.

It’s not so much that he points out our plentiful errors, which, fair enough, is kind of what we pay him to do. No, it’s that he sees every mistake as a reason to mock us mercilessly with some sort of long stand-up routine.

Mercilessly.

To give an example of what I mean, imagine you are a non-native, limited-ability English speaker. You are trying to say that the boy “was running” around town, but you make an error and say “the boy was runny” around town.

That's mildly funny right? Sure.

Now imagine that the teacher, even though he is perfectly aware of what you mean, looks at you incredulously.

“Runny? The boy was runny?” he says, a faux-confused look on his face. “Like, he was a liquid? What, was he melting? Was he some sort of alien or mutant or something that had special powers and could turn his body into liquid?”

You quickly correct your error, but the class has begun to laugh at his outlandish examples, encouraging him.

“Was he like some sort of snail-man who oozes snail goo all over the place?” He continues, pointing at you and gathering steam and doing his best impression of what a snail-man would move and speak like. “Hey, everybody, look at me, I'm half snail, half man! Does this creature even exist? Who knows? Apparently Nick thinks he does. Nick literally thinks that there is a creature out there that is half snail, half man. Don't you Nick?"

He pauses and looks at you, as if he expects a real answer, and you nod wordlessly and hope he begins to start mocking someone else soon.

This, as far as I can tell, is his method. I have mixed feelings about it.

On the one hand, it’s cheap and mean and dehumanizing.

On the other hand though, I’m starting to think it might be kind of brilliant. It might even be the best way possible to learn a language: one humiliating mistake after another.

Take law school, for example. The only way I can ever guarantee that I will remember something from class is if I screw it up. Or I suppose if someone else screws it up. I still remember a kid in 5th grade running out of class crying because he couldn’t remember the answer to a question about the human body (answer: tibia).

And that’s the point. You know all those memories that make you catch your breath in shame or embarrassment when you think about them? These tend to be instructive memories. And there’s this place in your brain where those memories are all indelibly recorded in high-definition to be replayed for the rest of your life. I think ideally, you need to get all your language mistakes into that part of your brain to succeed.

This is the Bob Knight school of language acquisition. And though the Bob Knight philosophy never really worked for me in basketball (it caused me to freeze-up and become erratic), I’m hoping it will be more effective in this field.

So, Mr. Professor Man, I’m going to put my faith in you. I’m going to trust that you know what you’re doing and that you are, like Bob Knight, a professional. Go wild. Next time I misuse the dative, pick up a chair and throw it against the wall. Next time I misconjugate a routine verb, call me an asshole, punch me in the gut and storm out of the classroom. Seriously, do it. You’ve got my blessing. The more outlandish and memorable the better.

It’s the only way I’ll learn.

On the Birds and the Beasts

2008-10-17T05:50:00.004-06:00

I seriously debated whether or not to post this shot. One the one hand, it seems kind of adolescent and, possibly, even a bit inappropriate for my more conservative readership (Hi Grandma!).

On the other hand. . .

I saw lions having sex at the zoo!

Spectators excitedly called to their friends, parents shielded the impressionable young eyes of their children, and cameras flashed paparazzi-style from all angles. It was incredible.

It was by far the coolest thing that I’ve ever seen at a zoo, and I’ve touched a tiger (Eric, vouch for me here).

Plus the photo turned out really, really good. Note the bite on the back (feral passion), the arched necked of the lioness (exquisite bliss), the intertwined tails (True Love). This shot has it all. Even the testicles seem to lend a certain gritty realism to the composition.

A masterpiece.

A Magical Paradise Awaits You!

2008-10-10T10:02:00.009-06:00

In about 20 minutes I’m going to participate in a “present your school” event here at the Bucerius Law School in Germany. This gives the German students the opportunity to browse the different partner schools and see which one they would like to attend.

Sometimes coming to the Midwest from abroad is a tough sell, but being a big fan of Iowa City and a strong supporter of the Iowa College of Law, I can’t wait to make the case. Sure, you could go to NYC or San Francisco, I’ll say, but would that really be a “college town” experience? I don’t think so.

That’s going to be my angle. I figured I’d just bring my laptop, show everyone a few pictures of Iowa City, and open up a tab on some site like Wikipedia to give everyone the vital statistics of the city.

Which brings me to my point.

Has anyone ever looked at the Wikipedia entry for Iowa City? It’s hilarious.

Two of the first three categories are: “2006 Tornado” and “2008 Flood,” and the pictures at the top of this post are two of the first pictures that you encounter on scrolling down the page. If you didn’t know better, you’d think the entire town was composed exclusively of flotsam and refugee camps.

"Will we die in Iowa?" my classmates will ask, furrowing their brows with concern and confusion.

"Don't be silly," I'll say. "Tornado Season and Flood Season are usually broken up by Unbearable Winter Season, so you'll hardly even notice them."

I’m recruiting here. I can’t work with this kind of material. So, at least until someone edits the Wikipedia page (or Mother Nature stops picking on us), it looks like I’ll be sticking to shots of the ped mall and photos of tailgating.

Yes, rain or shine, we'll always have tailgating.

Go Hawks!

A Poet and Don't Even Know It

2008-10-01T13:59:00.004-06:00

This article is awesome.

Hart Seely from Slate went through three Sarah Palin interviews, pulled a few statements verbatim from them, lumped them into stanzas and then called them poetry.

The concept seems pretty straight-forward, but the results are beautiful.

Keep in mind, this isn't just a cheap shot at Palin for not being the most informed or clear candidate. I think this same process could probably produce amazing results for any politician (or any person for that matter). But I do think that Sarah Palin has the ability to be a really prolific poet if she keeps at it.

Here is one of my favorites. Especially note the deft use of repetition in the first stanza and the intentional ambiguity of the last line.

Absolutely brilliant.

"Outside"

I am a Washington outsider.
I mean,
Look at where you are.
I'm a Washington outsider.

I do not have those allegiances
To the power brokers,
To the lobbyists.
We need someone like that.

(To C. Gibson, ABC News, Sept. 11, 2008)

Check out the article for more great hits like "On Good and Evil" and "Befoulers of the Verbiage."

Reeperbahn Festival Day 1

2008-09-27T07:36:00.005-06:00

I remember once reading an Onion headline that went something like this:

"Entire Town Secretly in Love with Lady who Works at the Coffee Shop."

That's one of the reasons why The Asteroids Galaxy Tour was my favorite act from last night. She's going to be a star.

Enjoy!

The Presidential Debates: A Modest Proposal

2008-09-26T03:42:00.006-06:00

Here’s a little secret:

I’ve never been a huge fan of watching the Presidential debates.

I do it, but I'm not always happy about it. I find them to be, by and large, unsatisfying. A bit like eating empty calories or staying at the bar too long.

I wasn’t always this way. When I was younger I kind of romanticized them as some super important civic duty that all intelligent adults participated in. All the adults would watch the debates, judiciously weigh the merits of the arguments, and then cast their ballots for the candidate most fit for the job.

What a bunch of mature, democratic participants they all were. I couldn’t wait.

But now that I’m all grown-up, I know (like most people) that the debates are mostly bullshit. They’re two candidates bandying about worn-down-to-the-nub talking points for a bunch of people who have already made up their minds who they’re voting for. If all goes well, the candidate you are cheering against will make some sort of horribly embarrassing linguistic misstep and the candidate that you are cheering for will make the audience laugh.

Don’t get me wrong, the debates aren’t all bad. In fact, some of the weaknesses of the whole production also produce some of its strengths.

You know how we always have a graph to see if the audience is reacting positively or negatively to a candidate? That’s great. I love that kind of stuff. We find out all sorts of sociological stuff about how an audience reacts to speeches. Or at least how they say they react. Or, at the very least, how they think the should be reacting.

We're also able, luckily, to find out all sorts of things about the candidates themselves. Like if they’re attractive or sweat a lot on stage or speak with a funny voice.

Which is fine. We’re not really there to break down a wide range of complex policy issues in a couple hours. If that's what you’re about then roll up your sleeves, go to the internet and start doing your research.

But debates aren’t for that. Debates are, for better or worse, all about rhetorical ability, eloquence, stage presence, facility with language, likeability, tone, and, most importantly, the ability to make quasi-factual policy arguments that most of us have already heard a number of times before in past presidential debates.

Let me reiterate. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. Given the relatively negligible policy differences between the Democrats, it’s for exactly some of these reasons (attractiveness, eloquence, je ne sais quoi, etc.) that I supported Barack Obama in the caucuses. Since the American people eat this stuff up, I felt like he was probably the best positioned of the lot to implement a left-of-center platform.

And, of course, the pageantry part of the race is actually quite fun to hash and re-hash. Who looked more presidential? Who seemed overly aggressive? Overly-passive? Who shouldn’t have answered question #1 so quickly but should have definitely taken a respectful little pause before launching so quickly into #2? Who got more laughs from the crowd? Who was more comfortable?

If you don’t have answers to any of these questions yet, don’t worry. You’ll have them formed for you as you watch the next two days coverage of every national news outlet in the country.

Although some of the qualities listed above may be important for evaluating such things as consensus building and diplomacy, many of them are not of critical importance for evaluating the merits of the different policy positions of a specific candidate.

So, as we arrive at the day of the first presidential debate of the year -- one that may or may not take place-- I’ve been thinking: is there a way we can evaluate all of these qualities in a more creative and viewer friendly way?

Which leads me to my idea.

If the debates really are all about things like quick-wittedness and poise (they are), why not strip the whole charade of its faux-gravitas and make it more transparent. Let’s make them debate something completely inconsequential.

Like a favorite color.

Here’s how this would work:

Jim Lehrer:

“Colors are a very important part of American History. They bring life to our films, make our surroundings more livable, and allow for ambiguity in a political environment which, as we are learning more every year, is not so black and white. Which brings me to the first question of the night. . .(dramatic pause)

Which color do you prefer: green or orange? And why?

Senator Obama, you have one minute to respond.

Obama:

Jim, first of all thank you for moderating this historic debate and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the American people about the important issues that we’ll have to face in the future (audience experiences first feelings of self-importance. Audience poll approval up 2%).

Now let me begin by saying this: I understand that there are many, many supporters of orange out there in the audience tonight and also across our great country. Orange has played a vital role in how we understand ourselves. It is the sun in our sky that brings warmth to this earth, the basketball on the court where our children play, the citrus crop that grow in fields across our great nation. . . especially Florida (mild laughter).

That being said, I choose green. And no, it’s not because I want you to vote green (more mild laughter from audience). That gave us the last 8 years (wild clapping at Bush-slam, audience approval up 2%). And it’s not because, as my opponent wants you to believe, that I myself am a little green (cocksure grin, laughter). Because, as I’ve said before, I’ll have the experience debate with anyone.

It’s because green is the color of growth. Green is money. It’s using that money to build an economy that works for everyone. Green is sustainable growth and an energy policy that doesn’t rely on archaic, fossil fuel technology.

Jim: Mr. Obama, you’re time is. . .

Obama: Just a second Jim, it’s an important point I’m making here about colors. And I think it’s important for the American people too. The American people know that I respect orange and realize that orange has many contributions to make. Orange certainly gets a seat at the table, no doubt about that. But green is my choice. And I ask you this to conclude: have you ever seen any growth without a little bit of green at the root? (Audience approval up 2% for confusing, money-growth-environment tie-in on the fly).

Jim: Senator McCain, you have 30 seconds.

McCain:

Frankly Jim, I was raised thinking the most important colors in this country are red, white, and blue (pause for audience laughter, wild applause, admiration, and an 8% increase in audience poll approval). And while I appreciate the question, I’m just not willing to believe that green and orange are the only two options.

And that might not be what the people want to hear, but, I’m sorry to break it to everyone, the President of the United States isn’t always going to be able to tell the people what they want to hear (audience approval rating plunges 12%).

Jim: Mr. Obama, a 15 second rebuttal.

Obama:

I’m sorry Jim, but this is politics as usual, implying that because I didn’t mention red, white and blue that I’m somehow not as patriotic. Enough is enough. Mr. McCain’s refusal to answer the question outright I think exhibits a sheer unwillingness to face the real problems that our country is facing. We don’t always get to answer the questions we WANT to; sometimes, we have to answer the questions that we HAVE to. (Audience appreciation and corresponding 4% rise in audience approval rating, all of whom are fickle idiots).

So that’s how it would work. Pretty cool right?

And you know what’s so great about this type of format?

We'd still discover all sorts of things about the candidates’ attractiveness, poise, sense of humor, public speaking ability, and ability to form arguments. We could evaluate it all. And at least we’d be honest to ourselves about the bullshit that we’re evaluating.

Of course, variations of this format could go on ad infinitum. The next debate could be the “Would you rather debate?” (E.g. --Senator McCain, would you rather be Spiderman or Superman? And Why?)

And the one after that could be the Rorschach inkblot debate (“Right-side-up it kind of looks like Hope, but upside-down it looks more like Change”).

But I’ll let CNN work out the details.

Unless they think this whole idea is just a bunch of bullshit.

Which, of course, is exactly what it is.

Hamburg: A City of Two Tales

2008-09-07T03:17:00.005-06:00

Tale #1 in Present Tense:

My Guardian Angel or: You Only Get One Chance to Make a First Impression

So the first place I seek out when I arrive at the airport is the information booth. I have a general idea where I am going, but would love the reassurance that comes with the input of an official looking person.

The woman at the information desk is very helpful. “You will take bus #110 to Ohlsdorf and then take the U-3 to Feldstrasse,” she says, smiling. “You can either purchase a one ride ticket or an all day ticket.”

I am about to nod and say my thank yous when I hear a man from the other end of the counter. “Or, you can take my ticket,” he says, also smiling.

And then he gives me his ticket. A 5 Euro all day pass for the bus. He has already arrived for his flight so it is not a problem. He strongly resembles Michael Stipe.

“I love Hamburg already,” I say excitedly, punctuating the remark with an American-sized thumbs-up. The two Hamburgers wave me goodbye as I make my way to the bus stop.

What a charitable, friendly city, I think as I walk away, ticket firmly in hand. I am so amazed that I quickly lose my way.

“Over here,” says a man. It is Michael Stipe again (although from this angle he bears a closer resemblance to Moby). He is waving me over. He politely explains my error and then, lest there be any confusion, personally walks me to the bus stop.

In our 45 second walk he explains that he is a student at the University of Hamburg and that I am going to love the city. This kind of thing (helping people) is not at all unordinary in Hamburg, he explains. Then he shakes my hand, says “Have a great life,” and walks back into the throngs of the airport, eventually disappearing into a delicate mist (vaguely resembling gossamer wings) that floats slowly into the sky.

How’s that for a first impression. Hand that man an ambassadorship.

Tale #2 in Past Tense:

My First Foray into Vigilante Justice or: When Things Become Hostel.

On Thursday night I came back to my hostel at around 11:30 after going out to a bar with some of the Bucerius University people. When I arrived, I was delighted to find that I was the only person in the 8-bed room. No people, no bags, nothing. I had the entire room to myself, which was great because I had Orientation early the next morning.

It seemed almost too good to be true. . .

And of course, it was.

At about 3:00 in the morning, 4 loud, drunk Germans came into the room. They immediately turned on the lights, cracked open their beers and began singing (the song had no lyrics just “na na na na” ). They also began to--and I’m not exaggerating-- POUND ON THE WALLS.

Now, I’ve slept in my fair share of hostels. I am aware that a certain amount of partying and noise is unavoidable (details here). That’s part of the risk of staying in a hostel. People talk, people come in at late hours; they trip and fall and swear and, occasionally, hook-up. But this was far beyond the pale of what is acceptable behavior, even for a hippy backpacker hostel. This was a grave breach of hostel etiquette.

I sat up in my bed, looked at them and said “Seriously guys?” The four of them gave me one of those “what’s the problem?” looks. I explained, as I would to a four-year-old, that it’s harder for some people to sleep when there is singing and pounding than when there isn’t.

“Ja Ja Ja,” they replied, “We turn off the light.”

Great. The light.

The light went off, and there was a reduction in the brouhaha, but the singing did not end. And it took about 30 minutes to completely wind down.

Bide your time Gregory, I said to myself. And bide my time I did.

At around 6:30 am, when my alarm went off.

On waking up I saw that the four young men, having sung and drank themselves to sleep, were now snoozing away like babies. It was adorable.

And more importantly, it appeared that the tables had now turned.

Advantage: Gregory.

I savored the process of getting up and packing my bags. I slammed lockers, kicked empty beer bottles, and opened the window so that the human and automobile traffic could be heard at full volume. My fits of coughing were prolonged and intense; I even unnecessarily zipped and unzipped my backpack. Absolutely no action was too trivial to be done noiselessly. I ran around the room like the proverbial bull in the china shop.

“Was?” several of them said, confused and sitting up in their beds.

And that’s when they saw me in my vengeful, noisy glory and hazily began to recollect their offenses from the previous night.

Having apparently recognized the genius of my plan and righteousness of my cause, they were generally good-natured about their premature awakening. Two of them clapped and chuckled. Another simply couldn’t be bothered.

I wish I would’ve said something cool or memorable as I left. Maybe something that some exotic, evil-genius villain would say in a movie (“It appears, my friends, as if zie hunter has become zie hunted”).

But I opted for the significantly more prosaic: “Have a great day friends.” And then I gave everyone a thumbs-up (again, American-sized) and left the room confident that justice had been served.

It was a very exhilarating and inspiring start to my day. Like having two extra cups of coffee.

And now, I leave you to contemplate a relevant quote by Bill Murray in the movie The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (paraphrase):

Reporter: “If this is the only shark of its kind, what would be the scientific reasons for killing it?”

Bill Murray: “Revenge.”

Oh See Eye: On Word Games and Interview Season

2008-09-03T10:21:00.005-06:00

First things first. I promised myself when I started this blog that I would never, ever apologize for not writing. I always hated tuning into a blogs and read something along these lines: “Sorry I haven’t written for a while, but . . .” What am I, your editor?

Stop with the apologies and write something.

Or don’t. What do I care?

The point of having a blog at all is that you don’t have deadlines, nobody forces you to write, and for the most part, nobody reads it. That being said, this particular period of textual drought was particularly egregious, so I figured I would at least acknowledge it.

Consider it acknowledged (Jon).

And yes, I have been a little bit busy for the last few weeks. Why? OCI.

There is this crazy thing at the end of the summer (and fall and spring) called “On Campus Interviews.” It’s where law firms visit the campus in search of the students they believe would make a good fit for their firm. For around 5 days you and your peers will interview, schmooze, drink, eat, and charm your way to positions in firms from around the nation.

So, in the last three weeks I’ve spent around 27 hours speaking to approximately 52 lawyers in several cities from about 15 different firms. I also went to the State Fair. Twice. (Hi Katie!)

And the great part about this whole OCI thing was that I actually found the vast majority of it to be quite enjoyable. Nearly everyone I met was collegial, chatty, and had a good deal of helpful things to teach me about the practice of law. Plus the food was excellent and the drinks plentiful.

Here’s a breakdown of what to expect should you ever go through a similar situation.

The interviews on campus

A lot of people don’t like the endless interviewing because they find it tedious and superficial. I don’t mind it one bit. Honestly. And it’s not just that I’m a desperately lonely and love-deprived hermit who craves eye contact and probing questions (although that’s obviously part of it).

It’s that I don’t mind small talk. I don’t mind engaging complete strangers in conversation and seeing where it leads. I’ve never minded striking up conversations in a bar, waiting in line, or sitting on a plane or bus.

True, this can backfire. There’s nothing worth than starting a lengthy conversation with a voluble dullard whilst a stellar book sits neglected in your backpack.

Or there was that one time I was seated next to a soul-saving-proselytizer.

Shoot. Me. Now.

Of course, interviews don’t have this problem. Even if you don’t absolutely hit it off, the interview’s only scheduled for 20 minutes, so you have an easy out. One interviewer and I compared the whole process to speed dating: an opportunity to get to know as many people as quickly as possible in the hopes of finding that cosmic match along the way.

The interviewer noted that she would have liked to have had more time to ask her questions. I actually thought that 20 minutes was too much. Which makes sense because my history indicates that I tend to say something inappropriate after right around 17 minutes of uninterrupted conversation.

I actually think that they could probably do the same thing in about 5 minutes. For me, it tends to be about warmth, tone, and effort, all of which can be determined shortly after the personality leaves the gate. (The downside to this foreshortened approach is what speed-datalogists call the Hans Solo/Princess Leah conundrum: when a relationship begins with outward hostility but ends with a galaxy-saving/empire-destroying union of two perfectly matched souls).

So I guess it’s a trade-off. You might miss out on your Hans Solo, but you can certainly weed out the Chewbaccas. (Hint: they hit people and scream incomprehensibly a lot).

In my opinion the best interviews were the ones that for some reason or other were unique. The interviewer was exceptionally candid or the discussion was particularly lively and interesting. That sort of thing.

For example, in one of the best interviews I had, both interviewers told me stories about how, at one point they had left their firms, only to eventually come back. The reason for their triumphant returns? They missed their friends.

AAHHH.

At the time, it was the most endearing endorsement for the intangibles of a law firm that I had heard all week.

Then there was the interviewer who continuously assured me that his firm had one of the lowest “Asshole Quotients” ( AQ’s) he’d ever seen. He was incredibly excited about the whole thing. Obviously, he explained, you’re never going to find an asshole quotient of zero, but his firm comes pretty close. Since he seemed to be about the farthest thing from an asshole I could conceive of, I believed him.

Then there was the interview outside in the sun on a bench. Nice touch.

So those are my thoughts on the interviews. Largely positive. True, there are a few downsides: you’re nervous and it’s kind of an artificial situation that and sort of thing. But if you don’t mind small talk you should be just fine. Besides, from what I found, the AQ at these kinds of things is incredibly low.

The Receptions

If the interviews weren’t really your style-- too stuffy and formal—then there’s a good chance that you were at the receptions that the different firms were hosting. These receptions were very valuable because they offered the employers and employees a chance to get to know each other in a more informal setting. And they also had booze.

During OCI Orientation we were encouraged, like always, to drink responsibly. I think the laughably low figure of one drink was thrown around as being a prudent amount.

But who really gains if we all stick to one drink? For those of you interested in politics, you are probably familiar with the term “kick the tires.”

These receptions are the hiring partners way (and ours as well) of “kicking the tires.” Sure he’s tolerable in an interview for twenty minutes or so, but what happens when we expose him to a free bar?

Does he begin dropping plates? Is his nametag on upside down? If we give out large bouncy balls as a party favor, will he begin to bounce it before leaving the function? (He will).

The basic idea is that you will have the opportunity to socialize with the person that either a) has already interviewed you for a job, or b) will be interviewing you for a job the following day. Since the students tend to far outnumber the interviewers the whole enterprise has a kind of ingratiating and ass-kissing feel to it.

That’s not a dig at the event. In fact, given everyone’s unusually pleasant and polite disposition, I think it’s an endorsement. Every joke is well received and every smile freely given as the students try to make a favorable impression on their fondest firms. And if you’re having trouble catching the attention of your latest crush/firm, you can hang out and have a couple of drinks with your friends. It’s an absolute ball.

Usually these kinds of receptions were hosted at a local bar, but the most bizarre and post-modern, (and surely the one most open to interpretation) was hosted at the Englert Theater in downtown Iowa City. At the theater, students smiled, mingled and drank expensive drinks on a lighted stage while decisions concerning their fate were being conducted by mysterious and powerful entities behind the scenes. I almost felt like I was watching my own personal version of Mulholland Drive. Of course, consistent with Lynchian tone and sense of humor, the seats of the theater remained dark and empty.

Make of that what you will.

The Errors

If I was giving myself a rating for the last few weeks, I would say that I batted .289 with a couple of homers and maybe 5 errors. This means that I will not win a golden glove award for flawlessness, but I feel like I can contribute on someone’s roster.

Error #1

Of these errors, the weirdest and most notable by far was putting the word “Scabble” on my résumé instead of the more commonly used “Scrabble.” For those of you unfamiliar, Scrabble is a popular household word game. (Note: though I contemplated listing Scrabble under the “skills” section, I eventually included it under the “interests” section or my résumé).

To begin, this is quite possibly the most ironic typographical error in the history of résumés. Ever.

To paraphrase Churchill (or somebody), it is a layer of irony wrapped in a nougat of unexpectedness and stuffed in a riotously funny Russian doll of humor.

First, the word Scrabble is itself a sort of made up word. As far as I know, it doesn’t exist in dictionaries nor is it a playable Scrabble word. So technically I misspelled a fake, made-up word. Funny stuff.

Second, and most glaring of course, was that Scrabble is a word game in which one must correctly spell a word to be successful. Thus, my claim that I have both an interest in and aptitude for the game instantly becomes unconvincing.

Let me repeat: I MISPELLED THE NAME OF A WORD GAME ON MY RESUME !

Of course, when it was brought to my attention I immediately uploaded a revised edition of my résumé for potential employers. Apparently though, all the employers had all downloaded the original version and had it lying out in front of them before the interview even began. The damage had been done.

The funny thing about this? It might have been colossally stupid, but it might also have been unintentionally brilliant. The first three minutes of every interview were spent dissecting the implications of such a bizarre typo. Several people “challenged” my spelling. One wondered if I was really as good a “scabble” player as I claimed to be and followed it with a hearty chuckle. Everyone seemed to be at least mildly amused at the novel and unconventional nature of the faux-pas.

At this point I've convinced myself that the error was at the very least a wash and moved on with my life.

Error #2

Though it wasn’t nearly as grave as the Scabble situation, I was also bit directly in the face by my friend’s bulldog just two days before several call-back interviews. She was just playing, but there was a noticeable half-inch gash between my eyes. A friend of mine suggested make-up, but he works in broadcasting so that’s his solution to everything. In the end I sucked it up and finished out my week.

Conclusion

In executive summary form, here are my suggestions for completing a successful OCI:

· Enjoy the food
· Enjoy the drink
· Enjoy the conversation
· Learn something
· Spell check
· Avoid bulldogs

A Fitting Metaphor for Obama's Candidacy

2008-08-04T21:34:00.006-06:00

I have a friend who happens to be very good at basketball. The other day he joined his workplace basketball team and played his first game with them. He shot around 7-8 from three point land and scored around 30 points in the game. He said the next day at work, and every subsequent day, his coworkers were unusually warm and friendly to him. They offered him praise, told him jokes, and showered him in smiles and compliments. Of course, he attributes this to the fact that his coworkers were now aware of his athletic prowess.

We both noted that it was odd that the world worked like this.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I ran into this Obama video over on John Deeth's blog. A lot of people have probably already seen this clip, but it was new to me so I wanted to pass it on. McCain's a good guy, but you almost start feeling sorry for him when you see stuff like this. Obama is scary good.

Especially note the soldiers' unbridled enthusiasm for the man who could be their next commander-in-chief.

Sharing Funny Stuff

2008-07-23T12:08:00.005-06:00

I was recently rewatching some of the hit web television series "Wainy Days," starring David Wain. I almost forgot how funny that show was. It's the kind of funny that you just want to share with the world.

Here are two of my favorite episodes. They only last about 5 minutes a piece. Enjoy.

(The episodes contain both adult language and situations, so if that kind of stuff doesn't interest you, please refrain).

Puppy Love: New Dog Inpsires Woman to End Human Relationship

2008-07-16T12:48:00.006-06:00

After several days of nonstop attention and slavish obedience, local Yorkshire Terrier “Terry” finally convinced his beautiful owner Julia Larson to dump her chronically under-performing boyfriend Doug Schroeder.

Though she had been contemplating the split for months, it wasn’t until discovering the sense of companionship and intimacy offered by dog ownership that she ultimately decided to become a single woman.

“You know, I just thought, I’ve really been enjoying these last couple days with Terry. I feel like he makes me happy. And every time I start talking his ears perk up really high like this,” explained Julia, placing her index fingers, doglike, next to her temples. “That’s when I know he’s listening to me.” Julia added that such perkiness has been noticeably absent in Doug’s flaccid, cartilaginous ears “for at least the last couple of months.”

“Plus every time I leave Terry for even a second he gets all scared and sad looking and I think it’s so cute. When I leave my boyfriend though he’s like ‘Bye’ and I’m like, ‘Bye.’ He doesn’t even whimper or run to the door or anything. Whatever. Dick.”

Before deciding to let go of the man whom she had once referred to quite openly as her life partner, Julia undertook an exhaustive comparative analysis of the two males. According to Julia, Terry won in the majority of categories, including: affection, obedience, listening, cuteness, cuddling, and loyalty.

By contrast, Julia’s boyfriend Doug Schroeder was able to secure victories in only two categories: “usually able to poo in the appropriate place” and “as tall as me.”

Doug, whom sources revealed has been a constant disobedience problems in the past, from staying out late, to playing video games, to failing to heed when called, found the news to be shocking.

“At first I thought the dog was kind of cute,” said Doug. “But then I started sensing something sinister, like Terry was consciously creating a wedge between Julia and I. Like everything I could possibly bring to the relationship Terry could do it even better.”

“Like for example,” Doug continued, “the other day I remember saying something that I thought was really funny and Julia kind of politely nodded, you know, like she was going through the motions. Then like three seconds later that stupid dog fell off the couch and Julia laughed her ass off for like, I’m not exaggerating, 5 straight minutes.”

Though Julia described the two males as having “similar senses of humor”, she later conceded that Terry is probably the funnier of the two. “The other day you should have seen cutey wooty little Terry fall off the big bad couchy wouchy,” said Julia, clutching her sides in laughter, obviously taking a moment to savor the event anew. “I think it’s really important to have something in your life that knows how to make you laugh.”

Though Doug concedes that the split is a setback, he insists that the event will not deter him from pursuing other positive projects as soon as he is able. Among potential projects, Doug lists “returning to school,” “feeling sorry for himself” and “continuing to play the victim” as activities that he is likely to pursue in the near future.

Nevada: Still Got It

2008-07-15T15:40:00.003-06:00

In 1995 some guy named Norman Crampton published a book about the top 100 small towns in the United States. His criteria for rating the towns included things like: the quality of schools and hospitals, per capita income, downtown commerce, recreational facilities, education of the population, tax levels, and the cost of home ownership.

Extra points were awarded if you were a county seat (take THAT Ames!).

In 1995 Norman Crampton listed Nevada, IA as #26 on his comprehensive, definitive list. Predictably, the town went completely ape shit. Assemblies were held, tee shirts printed ("26 is #1!"), explanatory papers assigned, and the #26 basketball jersey, formerly ignored, was now hotly contested athletic apparel.

What's that? Incredulous parents would say, the 26th best small town in the state of Iowa?

No you idiots, the children would reply, offended and indignant. We are officially the 26th best small town in the NATION. All the data is in, all relevant factors have been weighed by impartial judges; the results have arrived and we are #26. This is practically scientific.

And until a few days ago, I had thought that it was all over. That all that remained of Nevada's storied heyday were my own dim memories, a few threadbare tee shirts, and around 300 copies of Mr. Crampton's book collecting dust in the Nevada Public Library.

Which is why I was relieved to find out that this isn't even remotely the case.

The other day my mother was going through old clippings and files and handed me an article about a war protest that she had organized in Nevada. My eyes immediately drifted to this headline in the column to the right: "Nevada: Still listed among best small towns" (pictured above). (For a more humorous reading, please note the delicious juxtaposition of the headline immediately to the left: "Residence searched for meth lab").

Apparently, 7 years later, Mr. Crampton released another book and, once again, Nevada made the list. It's kind of a downer because he just published a list of 120 towns, in no particular order, so we don't know if we've moved up or down on the Cramptometer. All we know is that, according to at least one person in the nation, we are among the 120 best small towns in America.

Also noteworthy are the four other Iowa towns that made the top 120: Decorah (one of the prettier towns in Iowa), Grinnell (happy home of the most liberal campus in the world), Spencer (always on these kinds of lists), and Washington (I hear it has a cool fountain).

Until the next book I'll just be keeping myself busy printing up some new tee shirts. I feel like "A figure between 1 and 120 is #1" has a kind of nice ring to it.

Call me if you'd like to place an order.

God Charged With Solicitation

2008-07-13T09:50:00.003-06:00

Officials in Iowa City yesterday revealed that they would be seeking charges against God, the Eternal Father, for the inchoate offense of solicitation.

Though the news has been met with resistance from various theological and legal organizations, county officials insist that the crime, which they define as “any act which incites or induces another to commit a crime,” has been committed.

County Attorney Doug Schroeder claims that such solicitation is explicitly enshrined in the Bible, a book authored by God at the beginning of time and transcribed by mortals the following Tuesday. Though the original mortal conduits have long since passed away, Schroeder noted that the “existence of some troubling passages could lead to some pretty sticky legal issues for this God feller.”

Amongst other passages, Schroeder noted Deuteronomy 13:7-11, which reads “If your brother. . .or your son or daughter. . .or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ . . . you must not consent. . . you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . .”

Critics are divided about how to attack Schroeder’s claim.

Some , like historian Andy Jenkins, claim that the case is simply one of misinterpretation. “What Schroeder doesn’t understand is that, through the ages, and through all the translations, the words have lost their original meaning. For example, stoning, in Biblical times, actually meant kisses. And death--this is kind of funny and counterintuitive-- actually meant ‘happy life.’ So you see, what the Bible really urged people to do was ‘kiss nonbelievers to happy life.’”

Others claim that, though the passage speaks for itself, and is indeed urging people to kill their fellow humans for their liberated, independent thoughts, they claim that Schroeder has unfairly picked passages that portray God in a singularly bad light while deliberately refraining from showing all the beautiful, heartwarming passages about not stoning the non-believers to death.

Schroeder responded, “Look, we just put a union leader in prison after a speech he made the other month. Now, he might have made all sorts of great claims about brotherhood and solidarity, but when he urged people to start bombing the factory and killing the scabs, he crossed the line and committed solicitation, plain and simple.”

When reached for comment, God scoffed at the allegations. While He has conceded that subject matter jurisdiction exists in the case, and that, being omniscient, He had received proper notice long before the complaint was filed, He contends that because his primary place of business is in Heaven, He is outside of personal jurisdiction as is outlined in the governing precedents of Interntational Shoe and its progeny.

“That’s just not true,” replied Schroeder, producing a well used Bible from beneath his desk. “It says right here in Mathew 8:20 that ‘where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.’”

“Now, because God acknowledged that those are his words, it seems to me that he is collaterally estopped from claiming otherwise. Assuming this is the case, and being well aware of the amount of churches and religious services in this state, we’re forced to conclude that these contacts are systematic and continuous enough to subject him to general jurisdiction in our courts.

In addition to his challenges personal jurisdiction of God has also offered the affirmative defense, little used in common law since Henry the VIII, of infallibility. Representatives for God said, “Though we don’t contest that the words alone might qualify as solicitation, we are arguing that in this case, God’s acts are excused by the ineffable and infallible nature of his being.”

The argument has been readily pushed in a number of Amicus Curiae submitted by such luminaries as, among others: Zeus, Loki (written in invisible ink), Ganesh, Thor, Apollo and Quetzalqoatl, the Feathered Serpent God of the Aztecs.

Again, Schroeder was incredulous. “I’ve heard that that one before,” said the seasoned County Attorney, chuckling and rubbing the stubble on his cheeks. “Good luck trying to convince the judges of that. The judges I know are pretty ineffable themselves.”

Though God is unemployed and qualifies for representation by a public defender, sources say that he will most likely represent Himself.

Tips For Playing Scrabble in Guanajuato

2008-07-10T13:03:00.007-06:00

The Basics

Here’s the setup. The only board we have was found at a rental house, so we have to make do. It’s a Spanish board with Spanish tiles, so all English and Spanish words are acceptable. If there is a challenge of an English word, we will search in the official scrabble tournament word list online. If there is a challenge of a Spanish word, we will use the nearest Spanish/English dictionary that’s handy.

After challenges have been made, it is requisite that all players at the table sound off on how arbitrary/stupid/ridiculous it is that the disputed word is/isn’t a playable word. If you’ve been drinking heavily (which you will have been) please act especially outraged at the injustice of it all.

Choosing a teammate

If you are playing on teams, plan ahead when picking your teammate. In a sense, this is a bit like picking a vice presidential candidate; you should have someone that shores up your weaknesses and complements the ticket. If you are not a Spanish speaker, make absolute sure that you have someone who speaks (or more importantly, writes) it well; if you’re completely drunk, select someone who voluntarily refrains from the bottle; if you’re illiterate, choose someone who has experience with letters and words. You get the idea.

If you have failed to complement your inadequacies with superior talent, don’t fear. Played at a rather European pace, games in Guanajuato can last upwards of three hours, meaning that either you or your teammate will probably have lost interest and left the table long before the game’s completion.

Point values

Be careful of the point values on the tiles. While q may be an extremely potent letter in English Scrabble, due to the relative ubiquity of q’s in common Spanish words (que, querer, queso, etc), its influence in this game has been halved. It is now worth only 5 points.

On the other hand, get an “ll” and you’re in for a treat. It’s worth 8 points and may be used as simply two l’s in English.

A final note on tile usage, the ñ may be used simply as an “n.” This rule, though established by ample precedent in previous matches, will also surely be disputed a number of times throughout the game.

Bonus Points, First Category

The basic rule is that any sex-related word is automatically doubled. Of course, what constitutes a sex-related word is a perpetual bone (sex related word?) of contention.

In order for a word to be considered a “sex-related” there must be an official table roll call. Though there is no hard and fast rule on this, at a table with 8 players, 4 votes is usually the de minimis standard that one must reach in order to be awarded double points. A rule concerning the quorum necessary for a vote to take place has never been officially established.

If at all possible, avoid dual-usage words such as “date” or “bed.” Usually, someone will say something like “Feb. 17th is a date, that’s not sexual.” This will be followed by a dispute and various lobbying efforts in an effort to secure votes. Instead, try to stick with words like “coitus” (the opening word for one of our games) or “whore,” which generally do not allow for more than one legitimate meaning.

Before you play your word, make sure you have thoroughly formulated your argument for why it should be considered “sex-related.”

I ran into this problem playing the word “roadies,” which I claimed was both a seven-letter and sexual word. Though I won over several votes quickly, I ran into a stiff resistance from people familiar with the distinction between groupies and roadies, and ultimately lost the case. "Anus" was also shot down after a lengthy discourse on the fine differences between its nominal (anus) and adjectival (anal) forms.

Note to the world: this is what happens when you get a bunch of lawyers together to play an otherwise civil board game.

Remember, though the match may seem good-natured and friendly, at its heart it is an example of board-game-realpolitik at its most vicious and unforgiving. In all likelihood, the “goodwill” of your opponents is probably based on shady political alliances or some sort of long-term, self-serving strategy.

Thus, even if you feel like you have a word that is unquestionably “sex-related,” it might not fly. This is especially ture if the game is tight. This means that your opponents are more willing to sacrifice good sportsmanship and the respect of their peers for their sweaty quest for victory.

Be aware of this and form alliances early on.

Bonus points, Second Category

In addition to sex-related words, one other category of words will be selected as having double point value. This category will be chosen according to the night the game is played on. If it is the night before your academic finals and you should be studying, double points will be awarded for words concerning international transactions. If it is the last night of the NBA Finals, sports words will be awarded double points.

For example, playing the word “pathetic” would be sports-related because it aptly describes the performance of the L.A. Lakers and, especially, Kobe Bryant (sorry Ryan) in their final match against the Celtics. "Rejoice" and "smug" would also be acceptable words because they were illustrative of my reaction to that lopsided victory.

And yes, if you can play a word that is both sex-related and sports-related, (“balls” for instance) you will be awarded quadruple points.

Of course, the holy grail of point combinations would be playing a seven letter word (+50 points) that is sex-related (x2), sports-related (x2), and falls on a triple word score (x3). I think a strong argument could be made that the word “ballers,” if appropriately played, would fall into this category.

Parting Thoughts

That should give you a pretty good start. And don’t be afraid of all the rules changes. Equipped with these tips and just a little bit of self-confidence, you’ll be able to go out there and show all those lawyers how the game is played. Just remember, you’re a baller.

One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Abused Man-like Hominids

2008-06-26T13:25:00.004-06:00

Wow. Spain is taking the lead in granting certain limited rights to the great apes. For all you speciesists out there, don't worry, it's not the right to own property or speak freely or anything like that. It's basically the right not to be tortured. Can we all at least agree on that?

The detractors have a point though. Even though the intent behind this legislation appears to be humane and admirable, the legislation will only make the heavily financed chimpanzee lobby (pictured above) all the more powerful and unstoppable. You really do have to strike a balance.

The Extremely Belated Final Dart Post of the Year: Another Doubleheader Sweep. But Questions Abound for Next Year

2008-06-09T17:47:00.004-06:00

The season came to an end several weeks ago with a win, leaving our team a record of 7-7-1. I don’t have all the details of the games, but from what I understand, both were lopsided victories.

That means we started the season 2-5 and ended the season 5-2-1. We were on fire. For reasons unknown to me, there are no playoffs after Spring League.

To close out the season , I’m going to cut and paste this article that I just read that’s kind of interesting. The article originally appeared in the June issue of the Iowa City Dart Digest.

Predicting the Club Car's Fortunes

By Doug Schroeder

After being dubbed the darling of the playoffs two years ago when they made a run to the semifinals out of the B-League, and one year ago, when they took home first place in the B league--a feat for which they were awarded both a plaque and individually-engraved metals-- team Club Car finally had a chance to play in the A league this year.

Though the Club Car’s .500 (7-7-1) season might be viewed as a passable showing for the young squad’s first season in the A League, others think the group took a step backward this year. Rumors are swirling around what kind of changes, if any, the GM’s are going to make. Join ICDD as we take a quick look at the fate of what has become one of the most dynamic and dangerous teams in the league:

The Manager:

Though team manager Brad “Griff” Griffith has quite competently guided the team to the respectable position in which it currently finds itself, privately fans are beginning to wonder if he has what it takes to make it to the next level. His board-side antics were down this year, and new psychological research has called into question his management strategy, which consists long tirades abuse sprinkled with moments of enthusiasm and coddling. Sources close to the GM have indicated her desire to get a championship to the Club Car, and have been wondering quite openly if this manager still retains the gusto and motivational skills that made him a B-League legend.

Our Take: Though a few fans have begun to circulate their disappointment in dart chatrooms and forums, in all likelihood, Griff will be given a few more years to take this team to the next level.

Personnel:

The lineup itself may be in line for a shakeup as well. Erratic but handsome dart-thrower Nick “Grady” Gregory will be departing after accepting an offer to throw for a German outfit next semester. Though he finished the season with the lowest power ranking on the team, his winning percentage was the highest and he has been impressive in a number of outings.

Our Take: Though Grady has always been dubbed as a player with a lot of “potential,” he has generally been inconsistent and unspectacular. What’s more, his improvement has stagnated, making him extremely expendable.

Ryan “Murphy” Murray will also be departing to play next fall in the Kansas City Municipal Dart League. Murphy was a surprise sensation and rookie of the year two seasons ago, and GM’s agree that he was probably the best free-agent pickup in the league.
Management has remained mum about the size of his salary, but sources close to the organization reveal that the Club Car paid a pretty penny for his services. This means his departure could open up some much needed room under the salary cap to allow the Bombs to make a play for another elite player.

Our take: It’s a wash. Though Murray’s departure may cost the team wins, it will also save the team money and make them less disgruntled, as Murphy traditionally won the money games that followed the matches.

That leaves three returning players to shuffle around.

The surprise of the season was Kyle Weiner, who hit a hot streak late and ended up with a # 22 ranking overall. But questions remain? Is Kyle a franchise player? Is he the type of player that the Club Car can build a solid program around? Or are the GM’s going to go out and try to fill the void left behind by Murray?

Will Goodman, one of the most effective and dangerous darters in the league several years ago, has struggled of late. Keeping him on the team, however, is always a threat. Our sources say that Griff has been subjecting him to a battery of workouts and dry runs in the off-season in an effort to recapture his past confidence and glory.

Excepting a bizarre move by management, it is widely thought that player/manager Brad “Griff” Griffith will be back for another shot at the title. Last year he had a full-size practice area built in his home and he keeps a strict workout regime even in the off-season. He’s built the program from the foundations up and no one doubts that he has the commitment and wherewithal to see the thing through to the end.

Final Take on next year: ICDD thinks that next year will be similar to years past. The Club Car Bombs rebuild and have another solid year in the A League. A run in the playoffs to the semifinals ends tragically to some lame, douchebag team that doesn’t deserve it. Possibly Shakespeare’s.

Let the Fun Begin: Barack Obama vs. John McCain

2008-06-04T09:14:00.009-06:00

With the prelims out of the way, it´s time to get ready for the main event and decide who will lead us into the next decade.

In a superficial sort of way, I really like Obama´s chances.

Guanajuato (Guana-what-o?)

2008-06-03T09:00:00.006-06:00

The mummy museum:

A while ago the authorities in Guanajuato started digging up the graves of people whose relatives couldn't afford to pay the graveyard fees (two guarantees: death and taxes right?). It turns out the minerals in the soil in Guanajuato naturally preserve human tissue and (especially) clothes, so they had all these creepy loooking mummies on their hands. If the mummies are presentable enough to make the cut, they put them in this museum.

This might be the coolest and most truly macabre museum I’ve seen in my life. My favorite bit? the little baby mummies perfectly preserved in cute, perfectly preserved baby blue cardigans (see above). In addition to the spooky music that keeps you on your toes as you make blind turns into new exhibition rooms, interpretations on Simon and Garfunkel play in the background free of charge. (Seriously).

Spanish speaking:

I’m currently doing the majority of my sightseeing with two excellent Spanish speakers, both who more or less speak it as a first language. This is obviously a plus and a minus. Plus: I can listen to them speak and crib notes and ask them questions. Minus: Whenever there is any millisecond break in communication or pause for reflection they are quick to the rescue. Eso es la vida.

The Basilica in Guanajuato:

It’s quite beautiful and impressive, but it’s under construction so I haven’t taken a picture. On one occasion I raised my camera, ready to capture her majesty, imperfections and all. But then felt a little dirty, like I was taking a picture of someone who wasn’t fully clothed without their permission. When the scaffolding on the walls of the basilica has been removed, I will get the shot that both I and the Basilica deserve.

The Ex-Hacienda Outside of Town:

The Ex-Hacienca included the luxurious mansion and immaculate, sprawling gardens where the nobles lived and played while the peasants slaved away in the hot Mexican sun. Some of them were over a million acres large. A million acres. Diego Rivera and Grant Wood would have been rolling, mummy-like, in their graves. Viva land reform!

Why Diego Rivera is the Grant Wood of Mexico, or Vice Versa

2008-06-03T08:33:00.006-06:00

As soon as I find someone who claims to have even passing knowledge of both Grant Wood and Diego Rivera, I’m going to make this bold statement: “You know, if you think about it, Grant Wood was really the Diego Rivera of the United States,” and see what comes out of it.

I will concede at the outset that this post will be written with the aid of hazily remembered facts and an imperfect understanding of the stylistic nuances of the visual arts (read: please don’t fact check this post). That being said, in quickly cobbling together the little that I know about the styles, eras, and politics of the two iconic painters, I think you’ll agree that the similarities are uncanny.

Where to start? Both were born in smallish, land-locked towns in the Western Hemisphere; Wood in Anamosa, IA and Rivera in Guanajuato, Guanajuato. Both began painting at a very early age and continued to study the arts through high school and college. Both went to Europe during the Impressionism craze and painted various impressionisty/cubistical looking pieces that hardly even resemble their more famous works. And for both Wood and Rivera, it was after being exposed to these colonial influences that both painters ended up finding their unique voices that, in many ways, were a reaction to and a rejection of these continental influences.

Rivera returned to Mexico and began to paint what he knew: the peasants, the indigenous peoples, farmers, laborers using bold, bright colors and simple figures. Wood returned, stepped out of his home near Iowa City, and began to paint scenes of farms and country folk performing everyday tasks using a similarly bright and bold color scheme on his canvasses, although usually with a tad more attention to detail.

And there’s more. They were also both ardent lefties. Rivera was an admirer of Emiliano Zapata, from whom the leftist Zapatista rebels (a group still active in the state of Chiapas) take their name, and a member of Mexico’s Communist party. Wood became close friend to Vice President and Iowan Henry A. Wallace, who ran unsuccessfully for President with the Progressive Party after being dropped by Roosevelt for being, get this, too liberal (and over-crazy). Wood even did Wallace’s portrait for a Time Magazine cover that appeared during his glory days. Both artists had successful academic careers teaching painting, Rivera at some University that I can’t remember, and Grant Wood at the University of Iowa.

Appropriate to their politics, both painters also played major roles in New Deal type policies. Rivera was chosen to lead various government funded mural projects when the government was looking to put people to work. Wood became the leader of several major public works art projects in the Midwest during the New Deal.

These appointments makes sense, as both men were proponents of murals as a more democratic form of art. Murals beautified cities and made art part of the landscape of one’s everyday world. They were also major projects and called for the work of many men to complete. Rivera has his murals at, among other places, the Palacio Nacional in Mexico City; Wood has his at, among other places, the Iowa State University Library.

Possibly the most striking similarities between the two mural-painting, revolutionary-loving, farmer-depicting lefties, was their philosophy about painting and art. Rivera revolted against all things colonial: customs, religion, class, cruelty, etc. Wood too revolted, but it was against a different kind of colonialism. He revolted against a blind acceptance of the artistic forms, subjects, and styles that had filtered from the cultural centers in Europe, through the East Coast of the States, eventually to be adopted by the heartland as not just fine art, but the finest art.

In his manifesto Revolution and the City, Wood called this kind of trickle down capacity for artistic creation or appreciation “Cultural Colonialism.” That’s right, the man wrote manifestos. And some critics refer to him and his work as quaint. Quaint people don’t spend sweaty nights pumping out manifestos. Wood took on the art establishment and he won. His victories might have been short lived, but they were on his terms. And at the time, this was revolutionary. To think, a painter in Iowa could step outside of his home, paint the land and his neighbors, and call it Art. The gall.

Of course, of the two, Rivera is viewed as the more revolutionary, probably because 1) he was a communist who participated in Communist revolutions; and 2) he was more overt in his critiques of religion, which always tends to get a rise out of the faithful. Case in point: one of the murals at the Palacio Nacional features a Priest with a bottle of liquor in one hand and a prostitute’s arse in the other. Then again, I still think there is a strong argument that American Gothic actually is a subtle critic on religion and conformity.

But let’s not stray to much from the thesis. When you get down to the heart of the matter, the two aren’t that different. They were both anti-colonialist skeptics who celebrated the simple beauty of the worlds that surrounded them. Revolutionaries both, through and through.

Viva Rivera! Viva Wood! Viva La Revolution!

Diego Rivera: 1886-1957
Grant Wood: 1892-1942

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Eat 'Em

2008-06-02T09:33:00.005-06:00

I couldn't help passing on this article, which a lot of people have probably seen because it was posted on the Druge Report today. It's about the idea of eating nutritious insects as an alternative source of protein. Though I was aware the practice is widespread in many parts of the world, it seems like with the right kind of marketing campaign, insect-eating could really catch on in certain niche markets in America as well.

Here is my favorite little bit:

"As for pesticides, some experts have pointed out the irony of using chemicals to get rid of bugs that are more nutritious than the crops they prey on.

In Thailand when pesticides failed to control locusts, the government urged locals to eat them and distributed recipes."

In essence, Thailand adopted the, "if you can't beat 'em, eat 'em," approach. Take notes rest of world, because this is creative problem solving at its finest.

Maybe one day we'll just have a couple token crops in a field to lure in all those tasty bugs. Come harvest time, we'll kill off the few worthless, bug-damaged plants, leaving a large bounty of delicious critters to harvest and devour. Something to think about.

Some Thoughts That May or May Not Concern Mexico City

2008-06-01T09:43:00.008-06:00

On the whole, I find travel stories to be boring and self-indulgent (calm down, I’ve been witness to 100’s of exceptions). This being the case, I’ll try to make it quick.

The Flight:

If I fly a million times in my life, I doubt I will ever tire of looking out the little double-paned window during take-offs and landings. The matchbox-sized cars pulsating through the main arteries of the city, the personal pools dotting the suburbs, the grid-like organization, the verdant parks and the symmetric and well-manicured baseball fields, I love it all. Occasionally I see someone with a window seat reading a magazine. Invariably, he looks exceptionally cool and seasoned. I, on the other hand, have my face pressed, 6 year-old-like, firmly against the pane for 10 minutes straight, admiring the millions of hours of human blood, sweat, and blueprints that brought us the modern day metropolis. Impressive.

Flying in to Mexico City was no exception. Its size is mind-numbing, and there were plenty of cool streets, buildings, and smog to keep a spectating passenger occupied while landing. And the best part of its massive size, as the Museum of Mexico City points out in its permanent exhibit about the city, is that “it all fits in a basin.”

Ha! Humor in museums? I love Mexico already.

The Hostel:

I think a great idea for a reality show would involve filming the revolving cast of characters that occupy the cockroach infested rooms of international hostels. German loners, American middle-school teachers, New Zealand surfers, British students, Canadian skateboarders (all of whom were present at Hostel Amigo) under one roof, reading their enormous, eco-political books, swapping travel stories and getting wasted on alcohol and diarrhea while the cameras captured it all.

Obviously, turnover would be a problem. So by the end of the show you’d have a catalogue of some 5000 plus characters. But given Altman-like direction and an audience open to the idea of a different kind of character development, it just might work.

As for my hostel, I couldn’t complain. Seven dollars for a room, breakfast, dinner, free internet and a pool table. Also included, free of charge, was the late night music. The music, apparently DJ'd by Donald Rumsefeld, was played just loud enough to shake the floors and make sleep impossible, but not loud enough to physically hurt you.

The Diego Rivera Murals in Mexico City:

One of the more impressive murals in the Palacio Nacional depicts a jumbled mass of over 2000 people, many of them historical figures. That’s 2000 individual faces, painstakingly painted.

And thank God I found a guide. Sure, I could have seen the murals by myself. I even would have appreciated them. But having a guide explain the history behind the images was fantastic. I think there’s part of our brain, probably from being read to as children, that craves to have pictures explained and described. “The running goat is happy,” says my mother, pointing to the image. And sure enough, there is a goat. And he’s running. AND he’s happy! To a child, the descriptive power of language is almost like a magic trick.

I think that’s kind of how I felt looking at the murals in Mexico City. Our guide would explain the way in which the Aztecs collected taxes, and sure enough we’d look up and see the whole scene it being elaborately played out in a historic, pastel snapshot 10 feet tall.

Somebody’s Got a Case of the Mondays

In Mexico City, all parks, museums, and zoos are closed on Monday just ‘cause. Make sure you take advantage of this day to ride aimlessly on the metro or wander around markets.

The Bus to Guanajuato

I can say, without the slightest bit of hesitation, that the bus from Mexico City to Guanajuato was the nicest bus I have ever had the privilege to step foot on. Though my previous experiences are limited to school buses (three to a seat!) and greyhounds (vagrant-drug-sex in the back row!), I have a hard time even imagining a bus more comfortable than the one provided by ETN. I officially support ETN buses.

Stay tuned for news from beautiful Guanajuato.

Basic Economics of Flying 101

2008-05-23T08:53:00.009-06:00

I feel like some of my greatest contributions to civil society are made on the airplane.

During boarding, the typical passenger is unpacking his things or distractedly reading through a People Magazine and doing his best to relax. I, on the other hand, am anything but relaxed. I know that something is wrong. I can sense it. And I'll be damned if I'm going to just sit back and do nothing.

I am perfectly still in my seat and my senses have kicked into high gear. Like an unseen tiger stalking his prey from the dark jungle, I am watching and waiting for my opportunity.

Suddenly I see it. A man 3 rows up is making motions to a woman seated next to me. His voice is barely audible, but he begins to mouth some words. "Do you think we can find someone to switch with us?" he says. I see fear in his eyes. He is weak-willed and confused. Perhaps he and his significant other are wearing matching outfits. I've seen enough.

I heroically jump into action, nearly tripping over myself to be the first to the rescue. "I will be the man to make that sacrifice," I say in a booming voice, rising from my seat, basking in the awe of my fellow passengers. We make the switch, exchanging pleasantries, and I accept the couple's gushing gratitude with a quick, self-deprecating wave of my hand. The Iowan in me has diverted disaster once again.

Do I ask for the same selflessness out of others? Never. Nor would I expect others to offer it up gratuitously. Not only do I feel perfectly comfortable spending two hours on my own in the big, bad airplane, but the risk of awkward rejection usually prevents me from acting.

That being said, my flight to Phoenix was a real eye opener. Let me set the scene.

I am seated about 5 rows ahead of my girlfriend. There are three people in my row. In fact, there appear to be three people in every row on the plane except one: my girlfriend's row. She is seated next to the window and another woman is seated in an aisle seat, leaving an open seat in between them.

Perfect, I think. I won't even have to ask anyone to move in order to take the open seat. As it becomes clear that no one else will be boarding, I rise and begin to make my way back to the open seat. Emily, out of courtesy, says to the woman in the aisle seat, "Do you mind if my boyfriend sits here?" The woman, who, it should be emphasized, has not been asked to sacrifice her seat, simply rolls her eyes and looks the other direction. Though this is done without my knowledge, Emily whispers it into my ear during the flight.

Part of me wishes she hadn't told me this en route. It made the rest of the flight vaguely awkward and it forced me to spend a significant amount of time thinking about the ethics behind our behavior. Does this woman have a claim? Surely she didn't purchase the seat in between her and Emily did she? Was there a husband (perhaps tired of her standoffishness) who failed to show? Possible, but unlikely. And if that was the case, why not say something?

For a moment, I try to empathize with her. She had something of value, a buffer seat in between her and a stranger. Now she does not. So in a sense, she has a right to be a little indignant. This is assuming of course that we think of the buffer seat as being "her's" to begin with. Regardless, I think her behavior is extremely short-sighted. She would do well to look at the big picture.

Though she may have lost something of value, someone else further up the plane has gained something of equal value when I got up. In fact, since I was also in a middle seat, the open seat that I left actually conferred a benefit upon two people. So already we have a net gain of 1 unit of happiness/comfort.

But of course, the equation doesn't stop there. The happiness that I will derive from being next to my girlfriend who is super awesome and makes me laugh a lot also has value. There's another unit of happiness. Emily, will also derive happiness from the transaction, but the quantity of happiness will be less than me for two reasons: 1) I am not as cool as her 2) She had a buffer seat and now does not have a buffer seat. Let's say she gets 1/2 of what I get out of the deal. In all 5 people are affected by the transaction. Here's the rough calculus:

Happiness of woman who lost buffer seat: -1
Happiness of woman who gained buffer seat: +1
Happiness of woman 2 who gained a buffer seat: +1
Nick's happiness: +1
Emily's happiness: +1/2

Net gain of happiness: 2 1/2

Invisible hand anyone? Sure my initial act was selfish, but look at all the excess happiness that one act of selfishness generated. Invisible or not, does this woman sitting next to me really not see this equation?

And in reality, my estimate of a simple 2.5 u/h gain is, if anything, conservative. For example, with all that surplus happiness floating around in the fuselage, it's pretty likely to cheer up the flight attendants. A couple extra smiles here, a couple extra thank yous there. You get the picture. The flight attendants interact with the captain (I think), which means he/she might be happier too. A happier captain means a less depressed captain, which means less chance of the captain flying off the handle and dive-bombing into a Kansas cornfield.

As is clearly illustrated above, I simply cannot overstate the amount of people that could stand to gain from this move.

Like I said, I empathize with her plight. Without the proper safety nets in place to ease her suffering (passenger subsidized pillows, on board nurse, entertainment, food, a place to sit), the invisible hand stops being just invisible and begins to disappear altogether. But in my situation, when the happiness of the entire plane is taken into account, and the safety nets are in place, switching seats is undeniably the best way to go.

I think about explaining these numbers to her but don't want the rest of the flight to be more awkward than it already is. As a concession to my own ego, I resolve to make my calculations known to her in the event that we begin plummeting to our deaths.

Though part of me is quietly hoping for a mid-flight disaster, so that I can give this woman a pre-death lecture on civility and collective happiness, we land without incident. And I think of how sad it is that she will think it was a horrible flight. She might even start lobbying her local carrier to prohibit this type of activity, ultimately affecting all flight passengers, possibly even herself, in all sorts of adverse ways in the future.

And if you just listened to her side of the story, you'd never believe that from the time that flight took off to the time it landed, that very same flight she thought was so horrible had actually experienced a huge 2.5 unit surge in happiness. And what's more? It was all due to the selfish, happiness-generating acts of one humble person.

Is there any flight I can't make happy?

And Then There Were Two

2008-05-04T18:14:00.005-06:00

I'm aware that this story is a little dated, but I thought that it was noteworthy that, after Bruce Braley (UI Law alum) endorsed Obama several days ago, there are now only two Iowa superdelegates left to make a decision.

According to Congresspedia, the score is currently 6-3. Here's the breakdown:

Obama: Congressman Dave Loebsack, Congressman Bruce Braley, Governor Chet Culver, Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald, DNC Member Richard Machacek, Deputy Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party Sarah Swisher

Clinton: Congressman Leonard Boswell, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, DNC member Sandy Opstvedt

Undecided: Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Scott Brennan.

And Another Fun fact from Congresspedia I stumbled upon:

Obama has contributed $10,000 to Tom Harkin's campaign in an effort to woo him, while Clinton has donated a measly $25.

Twenty five dollars!? Is she Harkin's grandma?

"Hey Tom, here's 16 bucks I collected from some of my staff. A couple of the fives are soggy but if you lay them out to dry they should be all right. Anyway, hope everything's ok. Vote Hillary!"

This is getting embarrassing.

I Bet I'm Celebrating Law Day Harder Than You Are

2008-05-01T20:34:00.005-06:00

It's that time of year again. The one time of year when we set aside all of our differences, get together with our friends and family, exchange heartfelt gifts, and give the Lord our humblest thanks for all the Law he has given us.

Happy Law Day to all!

When I was young we used to go around the table taking turns saying which Law we were most thankful for that year. Mine was always a tie between the Laws that stopped people from unlawfully taking my property and the ones that stopped people from murdering me. My mother made us do this so we would never forget how truly lucky we were to be living in a country with such a bounty of Laws. I hope that each and every one of you takes a moment out of your day today to appreciate this truly special day.

Though our family has trouble getting together like we used to, I decided to do a little celebration of my own. This year I celebrated, like most Americans, by attempting to master an entire area of law (Evidence) in a single day; and by compiling long lists of questions for our state's legal experts at the Boyd Law Building. It truly was a treat and reminded me once again of how lucky we are to be in a place that recognizes an important holiday like Law Day.

Go Hawks: Our Health Care System is Probably Less Bad Than Yours

2008-05-01T18:09:00.009-06:00

I was pleased to read a couple of days ago in the Daily Iowan that Iowa ranks third in the nation for the percentage of its population with health insurance. All told, we manage to get around 91% of our population insured. Though I'm of the opinion that the system is flawed, and this ad hoc, for-profit system is just an ill-fitting band-aid until we get real comprehensive health care reform, it's nice to know that we have one of the best quality ill-fitting band-aids around.

Who's number one? A different study conducted last year by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation focused on health care, came out with this ranking:

1. Hawaii

2. Iowa

3. New Hampshire

4. Vermont

5. Maine

The bottom five were Nevada, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma.

For more on the study, including what kind of indicators that were used (access, quality, cost, etc) check out this CBS news article.

Go Hawks.

Dart League Week 13: Oh Captain My Captain, has the Streak Ended?

2008-04-26T14:59:00.004-06:00

When I walked into the Club Car at about seven o’clock, I knew we were going to be in for a rough night of darts. The team captain, long an exemplar of prudence and dedication, had been spotted leaving the premises an hour earlier. My quick inquiry of all credible sources revealed that he had been “completely wasted” at the time of said departure.

Long story short: we couldn’t field a team, but our opponents over at Charlie’s couldn’t field a team either. Everyone seemed to be a little bit embarrassed and apologetic, so we all went home early with vague plans to meet at a future date.

Now the only question that remains is whether our impressive winning streak, which we extended to two games last week, is still intact. If one team forfeits and the other is prepared to play the game, I think it’s quite obvious that the team that is prepared should be awarded a victory, and their unprepared opponents credited with a loss. But what is the rule if both teams are unable to compete? Two wins? Two losses? Something in between?

Until I get a call from the Commissioner of the Iowa City Area Dart League notifying me otherwise, I will consider the Club Car’s two game winning streak to still be valid.

Anyway, maybe that week off will prove to be beneficial to our team in the long run. As is usually the case in darts, the team that is most capable of making a run late in the playoffs is usually the team that hasn't suffered injuries throughout the season. With such a long and grueling schedule, last week was a great opportunity to keep our guys off the line, keep them fresh, and most importantly, keep them healthy to be a serious contender during the playoffs.

End of the Year Law Book Reviews: From Violent Courtroom Thrillers to Rollicking Constitutional Laugh Fests

2008-04-26T11:07:00.010-06:00

Book Review 1:

Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition,

By Saltzburg, Diamond, Kinports, and Morawtez

Do you love page turning courtroom thrillers? How about seamy tales of the dark, criminal underbelly of society? If so Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition, might be just what you’re looking for.

The beauty of Saltzburg’s latest work isn’t the sensational depictions of widespread sex and violence which keep you turning the pages; although that’s certainly one aspect. No, the beauty is that that the narrator tells these tales of violence, loss, and retribution so thoughtfully, with such depth, that we never lose sight of the moral dilemmas and philosophic underpinnings of the modern criminal justice system in which the characters operate. In that sense, reading Crimianl Law, Cases and Materials, Second Edition, is a bit like reading Crime and Punishment if Dostoevsky had written it while engaging in a late night drinking session Irvine Welsh and Johnie Cochran.

And while it’s true that the sensationalist, bloody nature of the substance kept me turning the pages, formally the work was a bit more challenging. Instead of a straightforward linear narration of the plot, Saltzburg presents the reader with vignettes in a very fragmented style.

One moment we are in 1923 witnessing a highly publicized bootlegging case. The next moment we are in 1983 for a nuclear protest case. Was the brother from trial 4 the same man who had a duty to act to save his wife in trial 92? Did the lawyer who prosecuted the gang member in trial 7 in 1962, become a judge, only to deliver a verdict for the subsequent gang member in 1992? What is the connection between these two events and what sort of relevance should we give to them?

Other questions jump out at the discerning reader. For example, what kind of significance should we give to the inclusion of a 20 page index at the end of the book? Should we take it at face value as a handy organizational tool? Or is it instead a tongue-in-cheek tribute to post-modern aesthetics? And what should we make of the studiously academic, almost clinical tone of the omniscient narrator?

In this sense, the book is much more Joyce than Grisham. And just as Joyce, its scale and scope are certainly daunting. But don’t let the size of the book, weighing in at 1002 pages, scare you off. Take it from me, Saltzburg has a gift for narrative economy, and easily packs more violence and contemplation into 1002 pages than most authors of the genre could pack into 1160. I’ll admit, it’s difficult for the reader to make sense of it all. God knows I tossed Gravity’s Rainbow against the wall 20 times before it all became clear. But stick with it, and remember, even if it doesn’t make sense, at least there’s a felony-murder scene just about every five minutes to make sure you keep turning those pages.

Book Review 2:

Constitutional Law, Sixteenth Edition

By Sullivan and Gunther

If you enjoyed the 1st through 15th editions, of Constituttional Law, be sure to pick up a copy of the sixteenth and you won't be disappointed.

It all starts out typically enough. The nation is in peril. Crime, racism and prejudice are rampant and plague every cranny of our society. The political divides are deep and the disparity of wealth is running out of control. Only one thing can stop a complete and total breakdown. . .

The confused, bumbling, and hilarious members of the United States Government.

Once the goofball legislators in Washington realize there’s a problem, they try to legislate it out of existence. But can they? Not if the Federal Judiciary has its way. The stern and humorless Supreme Court is in no mood for monkey business, and is ready to strike down any cockamamie congressional initiative it can get its judicious hands on.

Slapstick abounds as the legislators continue their futile attempts at lawmaking. A bill to protect civil rights? (Boing!) Unconstitutional! A bill for the enforcement of labor and environmental regulations? (Boing, Boing!). Not in our courtroom fellas.

And just when you think things can’t get any wackier, in comes the President. . . and he’s brought the states with him. The states are saying that they can fix these things on a local level, the President refuses to enforce what Congress has authorized him to do, and Congress is stripping the Court of its jurisdiction faster than the Court can invalidate its legislation. Pretty soon the entire cast of crazy constitutional characters is standing in a room seeing who can yell “Separation of Powers Doctrine” in their most grating voice.

Will Congress find a way around the unyielding, temperamental justices? Will the states hare-brained notions of sovereign immunity be honored? Will the President get to line-item veto that ill-advised spending provision? Or maybe, will this crazy cast set aside their differences, save a nation, and learn the value of teamwork along the way? I think that originalists and functionalists alike would agree. . .

Compact Federalism has never been crazier.

Book Review 3:

Civil Procedure, sixth edition

by Stephen C. Yeazell

This book is about Civil Procedure. That is all.

A Follow Up on Meat from a Tube

2008-04-23T09:42:00.002-06:00

William Saletan over at Slate just sounded off on the NYT article about meat in a tube. The article, if you're interested, can be found here.

Enjoy.

Earth Day Special: A Lazy Person's Guide to Being an Environmentalist. Plus, PETA's New Strategy

2008-04-22T21:57:00.014-06:00

Every once in a while I have a recurring conversation with friend X that goes something like this:

Friend X: “Have you heard about widespread abuse of animals in food industry Z?”

Me: “No.”

Friend X: “It’s really awful, you should read about it.”

Me: “I’m sure it is awful. But I’m playing Scrabble. If it’s something that keeps you from getting sleep at night, there’s one really great, fool proof way to ensure you have a clean conscience. Stop eating meat.”

(Author’s Note—obviously this isn’t “fool proof” in the strictest sense. There may be other indirect ways you are supporting the industry: owning stock, supporting legislators, etc. . . but let’s keep it simple).

Friend X: “I like meat. I just want to make sure that the practices are humane.”

And then that’s it. We go on with our lives. Friend X gets to be concerned with animal suffering, AND she gets to eat her meat with a clean conscience because she says “Yeah, it should definitely be done humanely.” Essentially, she gets to have her meat and eat it too.

I’ll have a similar discussion with friend X about substitutes for meat. It goes something like this:

Friend X: “I wish I could stop eating meat, I think it’s a good idea for (insert reason here: health, environment, responsible management of resources, waste, animal treatment concerns, etc), but I just love eating steaks. I couldn’t live without my steak.”

Me: “I agree. Meat is tasty. But what if scientists were able to create a meat substitute that was indistinguishable, not just to your senses, but molecularly as well, from that steak you’re eating now. Surely you’d choose the substitute because of concerns ( health, environment, animal treatment, etc.) that you cited above, right?”

Friend X: "I don’t think that would be possible."

Me: "Ok. But assuming it was, surely because of the considerations above you would choose the substitute, right? Keep in mind that it is molecularly indistinguishable. The ONLY difference is that we didn’t use a shit-ton of feed (usually around a 10 to 1 calorie ration) and loads of land and water, and that there was never an animal alive to feel pain, to be slaughtered, or even, admittedly, to feel happiness." (For those of you who disagree with that last bit, I doubt you’ve spent any significant amount of time in a pasture in Spring, hanging out with your best friends, chewing away on a big old mouthful of cud as the sun warms your hindquarters. It’s absolute HEAVEN).

Friend X: "I don’t think that’s possible. I can’t imagine a substitute like that."

I swear to God I’ve had this conversation with people. I won’t say who (my mother), but this exact conversation has taken place. That’s what’s kind of weird, even people who are sympathetic to the cause are reluctant to concede that “given an indistinguishable substitute” they would prefer it.

Now, I’ve never been convinced that a real, indistinguishable--molecularly or otherwise-- substitute would be available, so it was with a great deal of interest that I read in the NYT today, that PETA is offering 1 million dollars to the first company to come up with commercially viable fake meat at competitive prices by 2012.

This article was insane. I figured when it came around, this indistinguishable fake meat would be the product of soy, red food coloring, lots of taste scientists working their magic, and maybe an atomic hyperaccelerator somewhere on the West Coast. It turns out I’ve got a lot to learn about the fake meat industry. Here’s a paragraph from the NYT article:

“For several years, scientists have worked to develop technologies to grow tissue cultures that could be consumed like meat without the expense of land or feed and the disease potential of real meat. An international symposium on the topic was held this month in Norway. The tissue, once grown, could be shaped and given texture with the kinds of additives and structural agents that are now used to give products like soy burgers a more meaty texture.”

Tissue cultures. I should have known all along. Here’s another quick quote from someone who appears to be engaged in a reasonable search for the truth:

“Henk P. Haagsman, a professor at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and an in vitro meat research pioneer, said he welcomed the prize competition.

But he said he would not like to see the field dominated by the animal welfare issue, since environmental and public health issues are such important ‘drivers for this research.’ The Netherlands has put $5 million into in vitro meat studies.”

Right on, Professor Haagsman.

If all goes well, being environmental might just get a whole lot easier, and tastier, for those of use who try not to eat meat.

Now, my views aren’t completely in alignment with PETA. For example, I don’t think that animal suffering should be the driving force behind a push for a less meat heavy diet. Sure, there’s an argument to be made there. If I have the option between kicking the shit out of a dog. . . and not doing that. . . . I tend to opt for the latter. Most people I speak to tend to be in agreement on this point. So at least at some level, when given the option between inflicting pain and not, humans think that the unnecessary infliction of suffering is at the very least, less preferable than the alternative.

But protecting animals just isn’t my number one priority. Why? Like I told friend X, I’ve got other stuff to do. Like what? Well, like playing video games, for one. Or (God forbid) studying for finals. Or, here’s one that’s pretty appropriate for Earth Day: deciding how we humans want to manage OUR own resources to ensure the comfortable survival or OUR species. At its heart, I believe that the argument for reducing the meat that we consume should be framed like this “What can we humans get out of it to make sure that our lives are comfortable?”

You see, deep down inside, I’m a speciesist. I love humans. I count some of them among my dearest friends, family, and neighbor acquaintances. If I’m sitting in a lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with two buddies and a dog. The dog goes overboard. Did I say overboard? I meant eaten. No questions asked. He doesn’t get a seat at the table, he doesn’t draw straws with that non-opposable thumbed paw of his. He gets, IF HE’S LUCKY, the least painful vicious murder we can give him.

If it’s me, one buddy, my arch nemesis (Hi Jerry!), and a dog are in the raft? The dog still goes. But it’s a closer call.

So, no, I agree with Professor what’s-his-name from above, animal suffering should not be the primary force compelling humans to consider a less meat-heavy diet.

So what should be? Should health concerns be the driving force? Well, it’s true that there are substantial benefits to be had, but those aren’t really my main concerns either. If they were, I would have given up binge drinking long ago.

In fact, the driving force behind my own efforts to cut down on meat eating (a practice I prefer to call “intermittent vegetarianism," or "doing my best"), is based on two important reasons: 1) I suffer from a severe guilt complex of the Woody Allen variety, and 2) I’m lazy.

If you suffer from either of these symptoms, you might find this rationale helpful. Let’s start with,

GUILT COMPLEX

Here is a basic syllogism

1. Our Earth has a finite amount of resources.

2. To ensure our present and future comfort, we should manage these resources in a responsible way with an eye toward global sustainability and an ever-increasing population.

3. Meat, being about the most inefficient, soil eroding, waste producing, resource eating (literally), rain forest destroying, pollutant emitting way imaginable to produce food, does not ensure that we are managing our resources responsibly.

4. Therefore, people should try to eat less meat.

So, back to our lifeboat example:

This time I’m in a lifeboat with my friend, a dog, and about 100,000 calories worth of sandwiches. My friend requests one of the sandwiches. I say I would prefer to give them to the dog to “beefen” him up and eat him at a later date. My friend, aware that this is a horrible calorie trade off, and unwilling to use our limited resources in this way, scoffs and begins to gnaw on the most supple part of my calf. Do you see the tragedy here? The choice to feed the sandwiches to the dog would be stupid because, even if we survived, I’d never play basketball again.

Now, let’s change that hypothetical just a bit. Let’s pretend that the lifeboat, instead of being in the Pacific Ocean, is in the Milky Way. And instead of me and my friend and a dog on it, there are billions and billions of people and livestock on it. Oh, and we’re pretty sure we’re not going to be picked up by an ocean liner any time soon. We need to start deciding what we want to do with those sandwiches.

So there's the guilt complex bit.

Now, we move on to,

LAZINESS AND LETHARGY

Having accepted the above premises as being true, but generally lethargic and unmotivated, what am I to do? I’ve taken the one step that takes absolutely no effort on my part to do; I’ve tried to reduce the amount of meat that I eat. Does this make me better than you? Probably. But that’s only part of the reason that I do it. The fact is that it happens to be the most effective legal environmental non-action that any single human being could do is a nice little perk too.

PARTING THOUGHTS

Pursuant to this lazy, guilty mentality, long ago I made a studied, conscious decision to do two things that I would urge all lazy/environmentally concerned people to do to both maximize their environmental impact and assuage the dirty, guilty conscience that comes with living in a modern, resource hungry world:

1. Reduce the amount of meat you eat.

2. Only have one child each for you and your life mate/cosmic partner.

Go for it; do everything you want, recycle, clean up trash, plant a couple trees in your yard, lobby your congressman, write letters to the EPA, march in green protests, ride your bike to work every day, join the sierra club, spend more money on a hybrid. There is no way you will be able to match the enormous impact that these two non-activities have in reducing your carbon, environmental, resource use, etc footprint. It just can’t be done. You could spend every waking hour recycling every little piece of plastic that you’ve ever used, and you know what? If you have that 9th kid it’s all wasted. That’s one more mouth to feed, one more body to heat, Nintendo controller to be used, refrigerator to power, gas guzzling car to fill, and so on. . . for an average or 77 YEARS. How much did you say they gave you the last time you took your cans back? $2.35?

I thought so.

And do you know what these two non-acts take? Nothing. No affirmative act on your part at all. It takes two sacrifices:

1) Eating meat with less frequency. This is obviously a sacrifice because meat is tasty.

2) Not having that one extra bundle of joy you thought you were going to have. This, depending on your view of bundles of joy, isn’t even a sacrifice at all.

See how easy it is to be environmental? Eat great pasta and get an appropriately timed vasectomy. That’s it. You’re already doing a lot better than most other humans. And you’re probably doing a lot, lot better than most other Americans.

And on last note,

FOR THE CYNICS

Obviously, if you don’t have a raging guilt complex, this advice might not be very useful to you. I’ll admit that the alternative philosophy, “Why do I care what happens to the Earth after I’m gone. . .Let’s Party!” is an appealing one. Doubly so considering that I am expecting no moral evaluation at the end of my life by God or Zeus or the EPA or my offspring. If I was a bigger man, perhaps it’s the route I would choose.

But for some reason I can’t do that. I think in the end it comes down to my trouble with waste. Maybe it was the fact that my parents always had me clean my plate or were always encouraging me to turn off the lights, or turn off my stereo when I wasn’t in the house. Maybe deep down I just can’t stop hearing my mother’s voice. But that’s probably a good thing. After all, to ignore all that advice, to forget all those words, to not hear that voice telling me to turn off the lights, well. . .

That would just be a waste.

I ALWAYS Miss the Apocalypse

2008-04-19T10:03:00.005-06:00

Anyone who’s spoken to me for any length of time is probably aware of my fascination with natural disasters. Especially tornadoes. The mystery, the power, the purple skies and levitating livestock, what’s not to like? It’s like a backstage pass to the Apocalypse every time the sirens start sounding.

The problem is, I’ve never actually seen any natural disaster live. Nothing. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no mudslides or volcano eruptions, and I absolutely refuse to count the floods of ‘93. And to be honest, I’ve always felt this odd sense of inadequacy at having lived in Iowa for roughly my entire life and never, ever laid eyes on a tornado. Every night, as my friends congregate at the bar to exchange the week’s crazy tornado anecdotes, I always find myself embarrassed and trying to change the topic. Sure, if we were having a conversation in the abstract about tornadoes, I’d be all for it. But people with the experience can always one up you. Nobody wants to listen to you drone on about some lame Discovery show you were watching, when the guy next to you is talking about how his dog was freakishly lanced through a tree and still lived to fetch another ball.

Just once I‘d like the opportunity, when talking to non-tornado-alley outsiders, to boast about my close encounter with Earth’s most impressive natural disaster. “Have YOU ever seen a tornado?” They would ask me, mouth agape, eyes expectant. “Yes,” I would reply bravely, “but I don’t want to talk about it.” Then I’d start to walk away, only to stop briefly, shake my head, look at the ground and say “You’d better pray to God you don’t see one in your neighborhood.”

Which brings me to my main point.

Yesterday morning, a natural disaster that was literally IN MY HOUSE. . . and I failed to appreciate it. How fucking hard is it to miss an Earthquake? It’s not even something you can go out to chase, you just have to sit back and EXPERIENCE IT. The only thing required to take part is consciousness, and I failed.

And now I know everyone’s going to be sitting around hashing and rehashing their crazy experiences with the great earthquake of naught 8, and I’m going to be sitting there bleeding from my ears out from boredom. Every once in a while I’ll say something about how similar that must have been to the Great Floods of ’93. People will nod politely and then go back to their crazy earthquake having stories. And there’s nothing I can do. It’s always going to be like that until I experience my first natural disaster.

Until then, if anyone wants to talk about routine flash flooding, you know where to find to me.

It is Unfathomable That Any Doubt At All Lingers Anywhere as to the Total Rightness of Me

2008-04-16T00:39:00.005-06:00

One of the things that I love about reading pages upon pages of legal opinions from law textbooks. . . .Ok, the ONE thing that I like about reading pages upon pages of legal opinions from law textbooks, is that you start seeing the same funny language over and over.

For example, here are seven sentences that I found in one night of reading that say essentially the same thing:

1. It is uniformly conceded that. . .
2. It can scarcely be doubted that. . .
3. There can be no doubt that. . .
4. It is well-established that. . .
5. It cannot be contended that . . .
6. The conclusion is therefore inescapable. . . .
7. (My favorite) The general correctness of this statement cannot be doubted. . .

I love it. Doesn’t get much more forceful and authoritative-sounding that that. Often times when I’m reading I’ll just nod along and say to myself, “God, I wish I could have doubted that, but I’m shackled. . .it’s WELL ESTABLISHED.”

It’s really a pretty brilliant strategy of argument. In fact, I wish I would have discovered this tactic as a young boy when I found myself engaged in vicious, no holds-barred arguments with my older brother:

Brother— Let’s watch MTV
Nick—No, let’s watch Full House. (Go on, judge me if you will).
Brother—MTV is better.
Nick—MTV? You must be joking. It is unanimously conceded, and cannot seriously be doubted, that Full House constitutes a higher quality level of television programming. The fact has been well established and does not admit serious discussions to the contrary.

Does everyone see the overwhelming force of that argument? There’s nothing my brother could have done but hand over the controller and start writing fan mail to Uncle Joey. It CAN’T fail.

For those of you who get into arguments at home with your spouses, friends, parents, rivals, etc., here’s a little cheat sheet so you can play along at home.

1. Take one of these words: uniformly, comprehensively, globally, unanimously, solidly, unconditionally (or other similar adverb),
2. Add one of these words: admitted, conceded, granted, accepted, acknowledged, recognized, agreed, (or similar past participle)
3. Throw on the phrase “It is. . .” to begin the sentence. . .

And Presto. . . you’re a Circuit Court Judge!

For those of you who spurn courtesies and prefer to infuriate and/or demean your adversary, try the more negative “Bill O’Reilly” variations. Here’s just a few to get you started.

1. It would take a fool or a simpleton to postulate that. . .
2. Idiots often maintain that. . .
3. Only a really big stupid asshole would ever argue that. . .

(Note: for maximum effectiveness, try yelling “Shut up” as loud as you can immediately upon finishing your thought).

So next time your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/spouse wants to argue, just let them know that what you think, indeed, the absolute correctness of your thoughts and ideas, simply CANNOT be doubted. It’s well established.

Trust me, they’ll LOVE that.

Dart League Weeks 11 and 12: A Doubleheader Sweep

2008-04-15T21:35:00.004-06:00

And just like that a winning season is possible. After our last two winning matches we now stand at 5-7, meaning that a streak at the end of the season here could put us over .500 for the year.

Here's a recap of the last two weeks:

Club Car 23, Martini's Backdoor Bandits 20

Club Car 22, Gus' Gun Show 21

Two nailbiters. I don't have much information on these matches because I didn't play in either of them (which may or may not explain why we won them both). But that's the basic recap.

Tune in next week for more comprehensive coverage of what will hopefully be the continuation of our first legitimate "streak" of the season.

Tack on a Few More Pulitzers Linked to the Writer's Workshop

2008-04-11T08:53:00.004-06:00

Seems like every year there are a few more.

Here's a link to the DI story.

The CAT'S Out of the Bag: CIA Interrogators Run Amok at Guantanamo

2008-04-11T00:33:00.005-06:00

Tonight, I relax.

I just finished emailing my final brief of the year to my professor and boy does it feel good. It feels like I can finally sleep after having been denied it for days. . . like I have finally been allowed to sit after standing for hours. . . like I have finally stopped drowning. . .like the incessant blaring music has finally come to an end. . . like the questions have stopped. . . like the burlap sack has been removed from my head. . .like. . .

Well, you get the idea. The torture is over.

The issue of this brief? Whether the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (sleep deprivation, short shackling) that the CIA has been employing at Guantanamo Bay constitute torture.

I argued that they did. It was not a moral choice. If I had been assigned differently, I would have argued that they did not.

Just following orders.

Here's an executive summary of the assignment:

In 1984 countries across the land got together and agreed not torture people. I suppose at the time it was a novel concept. This agreement was called the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Torture was roughly defined as "inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering" on a detainee. A ton of countries, including the United States, signed on.

United States went home, and by 1992 had enacted its own statute, The Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340), to implement its commitment to the CAT in domestic law. The language was virtually the same as the language found in the CAT.

Fast forward to circa 2003. In our fake case for class, a detainee who is about to be tortured (or if you prefer euphemisms: "enhancedly" interrogated), is suing the government and all of the officers who have signed off on these enhanced techniques for violating the statute.

Government says the claim is outrageous and they don't torture, and even if they use short shackling and sleep deprivation, that's not torture.

Therein lies the dispute.

And now to my main point of writing this blog. In the assignment, the detainee is suing people like John Yoo from the Office of Legal Counsel, William Haynes III the General Counsel to the Pentagon, and even Alberto Gonzalez when he was at the Department of Justice. But this might just be the tip of the iceberg.

It turns out, after last night's story on ABC NEWS, he could've been suing some other notable people as well: Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Condoleeza Rice, George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell, all of whom signed off on the methods IN DETAIL.

Here's the story that came out yesterday about how all of these public officials sat down in a smoke-filled room in the basement of the White House and started brainstorming in a way I like to call "thinking outside the statute."

If you'd like to watch the story that aired on TV, feel free to go here.

Here's a bit that I found particularly disturbing:

"According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: 'Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.'"

How Nixonian. With statements like that, it's going to be pretty tough to make the argument that you had no idea that you might be doing something morally wrong or even breaking the law.

But I guess I'll worry about that later. For now, I'm done wrestling with this issue. All that research, all that time formatting and struggling, it might not have been torture, but it was certainly and enhanced amount of suffering.

And now I'm ready to relax.

Two New Blawgs at the University of Iowa, and Brief Discussion of My Hypochondriasis

2008-04-08T23:53:00.008-06:00

It's just recently come to my attention that two new blawgs have sprung up in the past couple of weeks.

There's the UI Law Blog, which seems to have been created after the uproar of the Law School's three-spot, world-altering, student enraging slide in the upcoming U.S. News Ratings. Thus far they've provided pretty straightforward content dealing with the goings-ons at the Law School.

And there's also a blog called The First Floor that looks to have enlisted the help of some astute and playful bloggers to get them going and should be a pretty good read. Special kudos to the designer for making such a viewer/user friendly and handsome blog. Here' s a link to what I found to be the best post thus far, called "Law Student Tourette's."

In other news, I'm always kind of fretting about all of the awful, degenerative things that could be going on inside my body without my even being aware. I hear stories about people with brain tumors going undetected for years until they're the size of tennis balls and I think "is that happening to me right now?" In fact, I think about it so much that I give myself a headache. Which makes me think I have a tumor. Which makes me. . . etc.

So I'm always kind of fretting about things like that while still going about my daily activities and trying not to let it affect me. But lately something has changed. I'm beginning to think that resistance might be futile, that my environment is destined to get the better of me.

Take water for instance. Though I have long railed against bottled water as being an anti-environmental elitist perversion, I have recently grown very suspicious of the cloudy, chemical smelling liquid coming out of my faucet.

A few things have made me rethink my commitment to using cheap and easy tap water. First, in a Civil Action, which we were compelled to read for Civil Procedure this year, the kids who drank cloudy water ended up getting cancer and dying. Point taken. Second, the recent news in the DM Register a couple days ago brought it to my attention that we have a major ammonia problem with our water supply. Third, when we signed our lease at the beginning of the year I had to sign some sort of release about lead poisoning. I know it was a long time ago, but I still think about it when I turn on the tap after a late night jog.

Though I'm not ready to start importing Norwegian glacier water just yet, I might start trying to fill up my nalgene bottle at the law school for a little while and see how that works. Which brings me to another carcinogen (assuming we can count "water" as the first carcinogen) that I initially resisted.

Mobile phones.

They used to say things like "Get a cell phone," or "Why don't you have a cell phone?" or, more frequently, "Nick is the stupid person who doesn't use cell phones." They used to taunt and ridicule me for my studied, Amish-like (Amish-ish?) obstinacy. The abuse, the jeers, the rocks hurled in spite and disgust, it's all coming back to me. And all because a little boy didn't want to use a cell phone. In the year 2003 the burden became too heavy to bear, and I broke down and purchased a cell phone of my own.

For all of the convenience and handiness of cell phones, it is a decision that I will probably come to regret.

It turns out that cell phones are probably causing cancer too. A study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded that

"Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos. . ."

More than smoking? Really? Are you still considered a hypochondriac if the things you fear are REAL threats?

Feel free to read more about your imminent demise here.

My Bracket Was Ruined When Iowa Got a #27 Seed

2008-04-02T23:47:00.003-06:00

It seems Iowa just can't catch a break.

First Drake falls due to a last second shot from Western Kentucky.

Then Iowa falls due to an elaborate, yearly calculus using a number of arbitrary factors from the people at U.S. News and World Report.

Apparently, Iowa's ranking in the annual U.S. News publication is going to fall next year from #24 in the nation to #27.

A blogger from the University covers the implications of this rankings slide pretty comprehensively in a couple of posts at a blog called Obscure Minority.

For the record, I'd like to note that I consider myself at least partially responsible for this slide. Specifically, I can recall at least three times the first semester that I missed classes; my understanding of the many provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code was less than complete; and just today I spilled a piece of popcorn on the floor and failed to pick it up.

An institution is only as good as the people traverse its halls. And in this respect, I have failed the University miserably.

Dart League Week 10: Are You Kidding Me?

2008-04-02T13:01:00.004-06:00

After we won our 4th straight team game on Monday to advance to an 18-10 lead, I had already mentally chalked up the win in my head. If I was a basketball player, I would have taken a seat at the end of the bench with the substitutes, taken off my shoes and started mugging for the camera and laughing a lot and playing with the radio commentators shit at that big, long table. At some point I would have had a towel on my head.

In my mind, I was practicing saying things like "great game guys" in my most gentle and condescending voice. In darts, nothing is more painful than hearing those hollow, meaningless words at the end of the game; I wanted to be sure I was ready to inflict that kind of pain when our last winning dart found its mark.

After all, 4 team games in a row! How do you stop momentum like that?

I'll tell you how: you win the next four to win going away by a score of 25 -18. Damn the luck.

Here are some highlights:

As a team, we probably hit more 5, 6, and 7 marks than we have all year in any match. Individually, I won my first 5 games, only to give an uninspired effort in the 6th game which could have given us the win.

17 Briefs Filed in Iowa Gay Marriage Case

2008-04-02T08:43:00.003-06:00

I feel like this quote from Dennis Johnson, the former Iowa Solicitor General of Iowa, pretty much sums it up:

"We have always been ahead of our neighbors in fighting for civil rights, and now is the time for our state to take the next step in ending inequality."

Here's a story from Lambda Legal, about the 17 friend-of-the court briefs that flooded the Iowa Supreme Court this past week on behalf of 6 gay couples seeking to get married.

Here's the DI's story.

Here are just a few of the signatories, in addition to the more than 200 faith leaders and Iowa Law School's own Angela Onwuachi-Willig, that I saw while scanning the articles:

Joy Corning, former Lt. Governor of Iowa
Salley Pederson, former Lt. Governor of Iowa
Dr. Kevin Mumford, History Professor at the University of Iowa
Dr. Dianne McBrien, Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics
Randall Wilson, Legal Director at the ACLU of Iowa Foundation

Iowa: Converts Welcome!

2008-03-30T14:31:00.005-06:00

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

2008-03-26T08:38:00.004-06:00

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

2008-03-19T20:42:00.004-06:00

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!

2008-03-19T20:06:00.008-06:00

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

2008-03-11T21:37:00.006-06:00

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

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

2008-03-11T14:25:00.004-06:00

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

2008-03-04T16:05:00.006-06:00

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!!

2008-03-03T23:06:00.003-06:00

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

2008-03-03T17:32:00.011-06:00

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.

Trouble in Cameroon

2008-02-27T22:06:00.004-06:00

A friend just notified me that Cameroon is having some major problems originally stemming from a taxi strike. Here's the article from IRIN for those of you who are interested.

Dart League Week 5: The End is Nigh

2008-02-27T14:20:00.002-06:00

Last week we suffered our worst loss since, maybe ever. I'll have to check on that. We lost 32-11 behind all-around poor team performances. Part of the problem was probably the snowstorm. And part of it was the discordant singing of our adversaries, which I found to be thoroughly unpleasant and annoying. Our captain went as far as to plug in his ipod and put headphones on to block out the distractions. Hostiliy was thinly veiled on both sides of field. And another part of the problem was probably our low handicaps, and the noise, and forgetting the score sheets, and getting stuck in the snow, and starting a 1/2 hour late, and wet socks, and superdelegates, and bright lights, and bad beer, and the subpar service. And on and on and on.

Excuses are coming faster than defeats these days. And that's saying a lot.

Iowa Connection to the Oscars

2008-02-25T12:16:00.002-06:00

My girlfriend just informed that, Diablo Cody, the lovely woman who just won the Academy Award for screenwriting, is from Iowa. As Wikipedia points out, she received her media studies degree here in Iowa City and was a dj at KRUI 89.7 FM.

Cornucopia, The Horn of Plenty congratulates her on her success and wishes her well with her future endeavors.

Go Hawks.

Making Link-Love with the UIMA

2008-02-24T13:37:00.003-06:00

So, I just began using google analytics today, which is basically an online data collection tool that enables you to see which sites are linking to your site and what-not. Since my readership consists of about 10 people, all of whom are known to me, I never really figured it was worth my time.

But yesterday I decided to run it just to see how it worked and what kind of information it collected. I was very pleased to learn that, just in the last few days, one of the sites that linked to Cornucopia, The Horn of Plenty, was the University of Iowa Museum of Art Blog Art Matters. Apparently someone had stumbled across my post of the Robert Wilson Voom show at the Museum of Art and decided to link to it, along with two other blogs, in a quick post called "Web Chatter on Voom."

What's more, a fair number of people actually picked up on the link and came over to visit. Isn't that nice? Thanks for coming. Who knew that google analytics could tell you so much?

So, I figured I'd return the favor and send a little link-love to Art Matters so that those of you who are interested in a more comprehensive coverage of the Voom show or any other shows coming to the U of I can take a peak. It looks relatively new blog (their archives go to this past January), but they're already doing a good job of posting photos from events and keeping it updated frequently.

And if you still haven't gotten over to the show (this means you Em), you've got until March 30th, so set a date now.

A Fantasy I've Been Having of Late. Or, What I Think About When I've Accomplished Nothing on a Sunday Morning

2008-02-24T01:43:00.009-06:00

There's a particularly optimistic saying that goes something like this: everyone is the best in the world at something. Though I may never realize this dream, I think I know what I would be best in the world at. I would make an awesome patient at a mental health facility.

Hear me out.

I think what go me started thinking about the idea was several years ago when I was talking to a good friend of mine. That good friend had recently spent several days in jail on account of an unfortunate drinking/driving decision. When we showed up to pick him up (or, as we called it at the time "spring him") from jail, he detailed his several days of captivity. The majority of his time he spent reading and working out and laying in bed. He explained that he found it to be incredibly boring, but the entire time he was thinking "you know who would like this? Nick Gregory."

And it's true. His description of jail almost made me a bit envious. One week to spend away from work, away from the world, to read and write and think and have all of your meals prepared and served to you. There was certainly something appealing about the rigid daily structure and the odd sort of freedom that jail had to offer.

And so, in theory, I'm pretty sure that I make a perfect inmate. There's just one hitch, the prospect of jail/prison is terrifying. I've seen those "inside the slammer" shows on A&E, and I'm not sure that's the kind of nurturing, life-affirming environment that I'm looking for.

So, if I were to create a list of the benefits and drawbacks of penitentiary life it would look something like this:

Benefits: structure, food, reading time.

Drawbacks: shankings, gang violence, race wars, feces throwing and perpetual fear.

If, god forbid, I was ever sent to prison, I would request to be placed in a room by myself and have zero contact with the other inmates. Though the reading time would be great, I still need interpersonal contact with other humans. Despite the obvious upsides of the institutional life, I just don't think I'd be able to thrive in that kind of environment.

Luckily penitentiaries aren't the only heavily structured institutional settings that America has to offer. I quickly ran through the list: the Army? Too much yelling and hierarchy. The monastery? Too much assigned reading from one source. And that's when it hit me: I would make an excellent patient at a mental health facility.

In my mind, I would take to this kind of environment like a fish in water. It's the perfect fit. I was thinking about this fantasy the other day while studying, and I'm pretty sure that if I ever lived in a mental health facility my life would look a little bit like this:

I wake up at the crack of dawn. On the "outside" I had always been a late-riser, but on the inside, with no late night distractions, I finally become that child of the morning I always knew I could be. The sun is just peeking into my locked-from-the-outside room. It takes little time to dress because I have chosen to wear the scrubs that are provided to all the patients. I like the simple garment because it takes the guessing work and st res out of part of my morning. No longer must I hand-wring in deciding whether to go with the sweater or the button up-shirt. The choice is made FOR me. I love it. For some reason it seems like a very democratic way to go about things. I remember in high school writing a persuasive paper in favor of school uniforms. I still believe that, in institutional settings, a uniform dress code is the best way to go.

Next I knock lightly on the locked stainless steel door that leads to my room. I like this stainless steel. It makes me feel protected and special. A man's home is his castle. And my castle is impenetrable. Or at least inescapable. Which for me, is probably better. I remember on the outside, sometimes someone would call up and say "Hey you want to go have some beer?" I would have loads of homework and a paper due, but setting aside my better judgment, would agree. Now, if I get that same call, it's easy to do the right thing because, once again, the decision is made FOR me. I've finally found a way to protect prudent, far-sighted Nick, from impulsive, short-sighted Nick.

Gary, the morning guard, opens my door. As is our morning ritual, I say "Howdy captain," and give him a high five. He responds in kind and shoots me a grin from ear to ear. I know I am his favorite because I have never once tried to urinate on him.

And even when people do try to urinate on Gary, Gary does not, like a penitentiary guard, get angry or vindictive. Instead, he is understanding. That's the kind of place we're in: a nurturing, helpful, gentle place. We're here to help each other out. And that's why I love it.

I proceed to the cafeteria, where, like every morning, I am the first to arrive. The food smells incredible, and what's more. . .it's ALL FREE. Throughout my life, I have been an ardent defender of high school cafeteria food and those who prepare it. This is no different. I shamelessly praise the quality of the food and watch as the cooks pile extra hashed browns onto my plate and wink at me.

I read the morning papers from cover to cover as I eat and watch my friends shuffle in for another day of self-development and evolution. Throughout the day I read and work out at the physical therapy center. There is a gym there, and I am one of the best basketball players at the facility. I play enough every day to be in excellent physical condition.

I have successfully lobbied the board of supervisors, through an elaborate power point presentation, to purchase a ping pong and a billiards table. There are a number of patients who spend a great deal of their time doing nothing but playing ping pong. The tournaments are intense and like everything else, accompanied by inappropriate yelling. My overall record at the ping pong table is 563-94. I collect statistics and publish monthly data on records and have created a complex formula for deciding power rankings within the institution. Each month's winner of the power ranking wins a gold trimmed certificate, also paid for ($2 a piece) by the board of supervisors. Many of the psychiatrists have attributed the progress of their patients to their newly-acquired obsession with ping pong.

For those patients who have difficulty with the game, I help teach them the basics and spend hours mastering the simple, zen-like back and forth of the game. I experience all of the fun and camaraderie that Jack Nicholason found in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," but without incurring the ire of those in charge of the facility. In fact, I actively try to ingratiate myself into their good graces. I think that currying their favor will give me the best drugs and most smiles in the hallway. They treat me gently and encourage my various pursuits and over-rejoice in my triumphs.

I usually meet with my psychiatrist once a day. My psychiatrist is a bit like Robin Williams from Awakenings, or if you prefer, Robin Williams from Patch Adams. The cinematic reference is fitting, because, as it happens, these therapeutic meetings play out a bit like clips from Woody Allen's most beloved films. I explain my deepest thoughts, and obsessions, and my psychiatrist often encourages me to superimpose my own psycho-analysis onto his. It is this kind of productive partnership that produces the most successful and rewarding sessions. I honestly believe that the psychiatrist enjoys these sessions and, though he would never admit it, considers me something of a friend. He has to fight the urge to invite me to dinner with him and his family because that would be a gross violation of the doctor patient relationship.

The bill for these cathartic analytic sessions? Zero dollars and zero cents. While Woody is paying hundreds of dollars an hour for his outlet, I get my own personal, daily psychiatrist to help me work through the perpetually mysterious and confounding pathways of the human mind. No thought goes unspoken, no behavior unanalyzed, no feeling undissected. In fact, I am as fit mentally fit as I am physically. During the day, basketball for my body, in the evenings, therapy for my mind. My entire existence has been nurtured and encouraged and I am finally approaching something akin to a Nirvana on earth.

And, having finally reached that Nirvana, having climbed to the top of Mt. Nicholas and looked at the view, I feel as if I am ready to face the world. I decide to be discharged (I have voluntarily committed myself) and a huge party is thrown in my honor. People messily eat cake and dance awkwardly to the chicken-dance song. My friends, the staff and the patients offer me hugs and cards and drawings for the road. Gary unlocks the door to the outside world and bids me farewell. A single tear can be seen dramatically rolling down his cheek. "Good bye" captain, I say. And he smiles and gives me one last high five for the road.

That Saturday night, February 24th, for the first time in years, I stay up all night watching movies. Specifically, I watch High Art and I, Robot. I get up at around noon and begin writing a blog post. At 1:15 I still haven't finished the damn post as it begins to take on a life of its own. I think: "It's nearly 1:30 pm on a Sunday morning and I haven't accomplished anything today." And then I realize what my life is missing:

Just a little bit of institutional structure.

A Futile Attempt to Break the Language Barrier

2008-02-19T23:54:00.006-06:00

I met with my language buddy today to speak for 1/2 hour before enslaving myself to an essay for the remainder of the evening.

Here is an exchange that we had in English at the end of our meeting which I thought was kind of humorous:

Me: "Thanks for speaking with me today."

Buddy: "Thank you too."

Me: "Next week I'll be sure to bring my A-game."

Buddy: "What does that mean?"

Me: "Um, I wasn't too alert today, I was making all sorts of mistakes. Next time I'll do better."

Buddy: "Oh, I see."

We had just spent 1/2 hour speaking in Spanish. Sure we made all sorts of mistakes and pauses and searched around for very basic words, but there was very little miscommnication between us. Then, in switching back to English, which we have both spoken since birth, I immediately say something that is totally incomprehensible to her.

Go figure.

Dart League Week 4: The Losses Begin to Accumulate. The Time to Despair is Now.

2008-02-18T23:20:00.004-06:00

We had a rough night at Martini's tonight. Final score: 29-14. Highlights: I went 4-2 and played passably. My individual record improved to 6-2. But I'd trade it all in for a championship. Darts isn't an individual game, it's a team game. I have a paper to write. I'm going to bed.

Paying It Backwards: A Horrible Miscarriage of Charity

2008-02-17T22:24:00.006-06:00

So, I'm standing in line at Kum and Go. I have two items in my hands: a gallon of 1% milk and a twix candy bar that I impulsively picked- up after seeing it displayed attractively near the check-out counter. There is a man in front of me, maybe 25 years old, who is holding around four 20 ounces of Pepsi-Cola. As a supporter of Coca-Cola, I instinctively distrust him.

Despite our manifest differences, I politely take my place in line behind him. Just as he is about to move forward to purchase his shitty Pepsi products, a woman approaches, sees the line that has formed, and stops. He looks at her and says with a warm smile "You can go ahead."

Please note that this offer is made with neither my input nor consent.

Now, I'm all for paying it forward. If this man was the only one in line, I would have no problem with his action because he would be the only person adversely affected by his own act of chairty. If I had just completed my purchase and then saw him do it, I might even respect him for it . But the fact that he decided to assist one stranger at the expense of another I find completely unacceptable.

Imagine this, I see Old Lady 1 robbed at gunpoint. I arm myself, find Old Lady 2, rob her and then give the proceeds to Old Lady 1. Have I done something good or admirable or respectable? No, I've acted like a moron and conferred a net benefit of zero on those whom I have interacted with.

Someone needs to tell this guy that being first in line doesn't make you the KING of the line. It does not vest you with any special powers or permit you to decide who goes first, second, or third.

I guess I could have been the one to explain this to him, but unfortunately, I didn't act when I had the opportunity. I could have objected, I could have said somethign like this: "I don't agree with what is happening right now." Or "Sir, I think you're misunderstanding what it means to pay it forward." But I didn't. To be honest, I was just too dumbfounded by his gall, his confidence in the pure selflessness of his actions, that I didn't know how to react. And the worst part about this whole thing? That smug asshole is going to go to sleep tonight thinking about what a great thing he did today by letting that woman go ahead of him.

God I hate Pepsi.

American Gothic

2008-02-12T19:38:00.001-06:00

It has come to my attention that I still haven't posted the photo of my Halloween costume from last year. I'd like to rectify that mistake right now. Above, you will find my beautiful girlfriend Emily and I giving our interpretation of the heartland classic, American Gothic. We're Gothic. We're American. It works.

Dart League Week 3: Gut Check Time

2008-02-12T19:17:00.001-06:00

I can tell this year things are not going to be quite as easy as they were last season. We're going to have to bite and claw for every point, focus on each toss, go in for the kill when are opponents are down. In short, unlike in the B League where we won 10 straight, we can't afford to get lazy.

Last night, once the dust settled and we wiped the sweat beading on our brows, we looked up at the scoreboard: a 27-16 loss. The loss was against the number 1 team in the league. They politely told us that we were the first team to keep them under 30 points this year, but under their hollow, condescending praise, I could hear a different message. That message: "Welcome to the A League."

After last week's loss against Shakespeare's, that makes two defeats in a row. It's gut check time. It's time to figure out if we deserve to be playing with these guys or not. If we're good enough to be here, then we've got to prove it. If we're not, well, we might as well hand in our gear (darts, beer) right now.

I just paid for new darts, and God knows I'm not going to stop drinking beer, so that only leaves one option.

See you next week.

Note:

Despite the loss, we were able to muster some highlights. Murray went 4-2, and he and Brad have yet to lose the final game (worth the most points). And I had a hat trick (3 bulls eyes in three darts) and my first ever league 9 mark (triple 17, triple 15, triple 15) to cinch a victory in a tight match.

Short Film Apology

2008-02-10T13:11:00.000-06:00

So I just went and watched some of the short film. I don't think I realized how jumpy the clips became when I uploaded them. It's kind of a pain to watch. The original clips are smooth as silk. I'll try uploading them to a different program soon and see if that works better. Stay tuned.

A Complete Video Weekend: A Short Film by Nick Gregory

2008-02-10T12:58:00.000-06:00

After the Robert Wilson show, I decided to do a little video work myself. Yesterday I created a 9 minute short film that's entitled "Wine Tasting with Nick Gregory." I can't seem to post it because I worked with jumpcut instead of youtube, so follow this link to enjoy the fruits of my labor:

http://www.jumpcut.com/fullscreen?id=13ED22F2D77511DC9C00000423CEF5F6&type=movie

New York, Los Angeles, Moscow, Naples, and Iowa City

2008-02-10T12:22:00.000-06:00

That's a list of the first 5 cities that get a peek at Robert Wilson's new video portrait show that's making the rounds. Apparently Robert Wilson did some work at the Univeristy a couple decades ago and he's always had a soft spot in his heart for us ever since. I went a couple days ago with my friend Jesse and we oohed and aahed and reflected and giggled the day away at the University of Iowa Art Museum. Above is the video portrait with Steve Buschemi.

The show consists of around 30 different celebrities, movie stars, dancers, animals, and non-celebrities posing for what appear to be still photos, but on closer examination are video portraits. You'll see Johnny Depp trying to keep his fingers absolutely still, and, for the most part succeeding, until a blink of the eye gives him away.

In some of the portraits, like the humorous, suspense filled take on Brad Pitt in is underwear, the movement is more prounounced. But in others, the only thing that keeps you from thinking that the shot is a still frame is the slow, shallow breathing of the subject, or a reflexive twitch of a muscle. It's almost like walking through one of those Scooby Doo castles where the eyes of the old portraits of barons begin to follow you around. In fact, the entire show, like Scooby Doo, or a haunted house, has a kind of faux-macabre feel to it. The premises are kept as dark as possible to intensify the brilliant colors of the portraits, and each time you take a blind turn you run into another creepy character (my favorite was the sad/bored talking black panther. What a beautiful, dangerous-looking animal). Of course, the cuts don't last forever, so it's always interesting to see how he's going to loop a 2 minute of 5 minute cut back onto itself.

The show is called the Voom series because all of the portraits are on crystal clear HD "Voom" television sets. Extremely impressive. My friend must have noted 3 times that it felt like you could reach in and touch the subjects. That's technology for you. What CAN'T it do.

So, if you're in the area I highly recommend checking out the show. In fact, give me a call and we can go together. I miss that beautiful talking black panther already.

Cornucopia is Officially a Special Interest: What I Expect from My Money

2008-02-07T23:58:00.000-06:00

I just made my first EVER donation to a political campaign. Now, I officially consider myself "special interest" and I expect to be catered to as such.

Here are my demands from Barack Obama: represent the interests of ALL Americans and make the kinds of progressive changes that we, as a nation, can be proud of.

Oh. . .and please, please, please. . . don't fuck up the general election.

But that last bit shouldn't be a problem. You just keep doing what you've been doing for the past20 years or so and the people, including the 100's of thousands people who have contributed to your campaign, should be begging you to take the post in November of 2008.

And now, I leave you with a youtube clip of what looks to be some kind of study abroad trip in Shanghai by people whom I am unacquainted with. But notice the song that it's synced to: we got the money!

I don't even know the real name of this song, all I know is that it's on one of the Pavement albums that I listen to every once in a while and it is not called "We've got the money," although that appears to be the only lyric. Anyway, it's the perfect soundtrack for the self-congratulatory feeling I have right now.

Buying influence never felt better. . .

That Law Dic is a Bit Wordy

2008-02-06T18:27:00.000-06:00

One of the things I don't like about law school is the way it restricts the way I express myself. Given, these restrictions are self-imposed, and probably due mostly to a certain degree of neuroses, but they exist nonetheless.

Allow me to explain. As a non-law student, I think I typically peppered my speech, as many people do, with law related terms and phrases.

For example, two years ago I might have been involved in a conversation like this with a friend:

Friend: Yeah, so the old lady was on my case again.

Nick: Really? What was it this time?

Friend: I forgot to pick up some garlic salt at the grocery store like two months ago and she's finally getting around to pointing out my admitted failure.

Nick: That's a shame. You'd think some kind of statute of limitations had run on that.

Friend: I wish.

HA! And that would be a perfectly acceptable conversation for pre-law school Nick Gregory to have because a phrase like "statute of limitations" is widely used and has made its way into the social vernacular of America.

But fast forward to now. Now, I would feel incredibly uncomfortable saying that exact same thing in a similar social context. In fact, if one of my law school friends said something like that, I'd probably think something like this: "Does everything you say or do have to be about law? Is that it? Have you no other means in which to express yourself? Experiences from which to draw from? Insights with which to convey your wisdom?"

And then I'd walk away thinking "what a prick."

And that's basically the problem I have. The use of law related terms by people uninvolved in the study of law is all fun and games and can often be quite appropriate. But the use by people actively studying the law lends an obsessive quality to those same terms, as if every minute of their waking life must be dedicated to legal-speak.

Today, here's what a similar scenario would look like (dramatization, not based on real events):

Friend: The old lady is accusing me of flying to Nicaragua every week to use drugs and be promiscuous.

Nick: What kind of evidence has she offered in support of this claim?

Friend: Evidence? Oh, I see, you're going all lawyer on me now.

Nick: What word would you want me to use? I think it's quite appropriate and a word that I've probably used freely since about the age of 11. Plus, you used the word accuse, that could probably be considered a law word too.

Friend: Whatever. Prick. Thanks a lot for the help.

Because I fear disapproval and hostility, I'm going to avoid this certain-to-happen scenario. And, in an odd counterintuitive twist to immersing myself in the law, I'll actually be using commonly uttered legal terminology less than I would before law school. Because I don't want to be a prick.

And, as we all know, being a prick, well, that would just be criminal.

Iowa City Celebrity Sighting

2008-02-05T23:27:00.000-06:00

A few days ago I was attending a panel discussion with famous whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg. The discussion was great and filled with all sorts of anecdotes and analysis of the extent of freedom of the press.

There were probably about 20 people who had stuck around for the panel discussion and the Q and A session that followed it. The moderator was taking questions about the first amendment when someone all of a sudden shouted out "How long am I going to have to listen to Pat Buchanan?"

People looked confused, so the man began to explain himself. Ultimately his question, if I interpreted it correctly, was concerned with the ownership of the airways, and who decides what kind of content is broadcast around the nation.

You don't need to know the response to his question. All you need to know is that that man was none other than John Heard, who, among other things, played the father of Kevin in Home Alone.

That is all I have to say about that.

Welcome to Beautiful. . . Guanajuato!

2008-02-05T23:08:00.000-06:00

It's official. I'll be spending part of my summer (June 1 -- an undecided date in July) studying international law related things in Guanajuato, Mexico.

I had been seriously considering doing the study abroad that the University of Iowa does in France, but the plunging dollar and my newfound love of spicy food forced me to take a long, hard look at programs south of the border. In doing so I found the perfect fit: magical Guanajuato.

Here's what my limited research has revealed to me about Guanajuato thus far:

1. Guanjuato is home to some of the most productive silver mines in the world.

2. It is a several hour bus ride from Mexico City

3. The word Guanajuato means "place of frogs," in the local indigenous language.

That's it. I'll be supplying more information after picking up a tour guide. For those of you interested in Guanajuato, here's the link to the wikipedia write-up.

Adios!

Dart League Week II: An Undefeated Season Comes to an End

2008-02-05T20:39:00.000-06:00

We are now 1-1 for the spring season. Last night was an awful, inexplicable 26-17 loss at the hands of cross-town rival Shakespeare's Ravens.

Things you need to know about this season:

1. After dominating the B League last season, we've been bumped up to the A League. The money is the same, but the A League carries with it significantly more prestige and a larger fan base.

2. Though last year I fared much better in team dart matches than individual, this year is proving to be the opposite. As of last Monday, I am still unbeaten in individual matches, taking a 4-0 record into next week.

More statistics will be forthcoming as they are released.

Spring Dart League Week 1: REDEMPTION

2008-01-29T00:09:00.000-06:00

Tonight was the inaugural night of the spring season of dart league. That's right, the team had just seven short weeks from the end of last season to the beginning of this season to relax and enjoy ourselves. Some of the guys played golf, some went on vacations with their families, and all of us took time to reflect upon the disappointing end to last season. And now, after less than 2 months of break, we're back to the daily grind of being weekly dart players.

Grueling, I know. But that's why we get paid the big bucks. Last year we took in more than any non-champion team in the league ($150). I can't imagine this year will be any different.

Why? Let's take a look at the numbers: 5 returning starters, 5 players in the top 45 in the league, a 10-4 record, a 10 game winning streak mid-season, and the highest total winning percentage in the league.

In fact, if you erase our awful quarterfinal loss to the best team in the league, Joe's Place, we might just have been returning champions this year. But that's not how it works. Even Michael Jordan and the bulls lost to the Pistons their fair share before they found a way to seal the deal You can't erase losses, you can only wait until the next season to seek your revenge.

And that's exactly what happened tonight.

In an ironic twist of fate, in tonight's season opener we were pitted against the exact same team that knocked us out last season by the embarrassing score of 23-3.

And we had to confront a question: would we shrivel up and concede defeat, or would we fight like the warriors we know we are?

The answer came in a hard fought 26-16 victory for the Club Car. Just like last year, there were a lot of close games. But unlike last year, we won more of them than we lost. Last year, I don't know if we would have had the experience or talent to pull it out. This year we did.

For those of you keeping score at home, here are the figures you need to be concerned with:

Record: 1-0.

Potential: unlimited.

In Light of New Evidence, Cornucopia Officially Withdraws Support of Apes

2008-01-27T23:43:00.000-06:00

Doesn't it always work like this? You speak in support of the ape community and then then one of them does something to make you regret it. Just goes to show how one bad apple can ruin it for everybody. I've never been more embarrassed in my life.

Planet of the Apes

2008-01-26T16:14:00.001-06:00

I had always hoped that once we were able to communicate with our chimpanzee/bonobo brothers, we would be able to explain to them that we (humans) were extremely sorry for all the pain, misery, and underestimation that we have put them through these past several millenia or so. In my perfect world, the chimp would then say something like "I can't forgive you, but I will probably forget, because my level of cognitive development, while still high, is not as advanced as you humans."

Well, it turns out, that hope of mine was in vain. Why? Because the memory of a chimpanzee leaves nothing to be desired. This fascinating/mind-blowing article relates how a chimpanzee recently beat all comers (including a champion memory guy) in a series of memory related tests.

So, chimp community, I'd like to officially apologize for my species selfish and dismissive attitude toward the rest of the animal kingdom. I just hope that when the revolution takes place, and you hunt us down like like dogs and exact revenge upon us for the slights that we committed to your forefathers, you remember those of us who came forward to embrace your superiority and trumpet your cause.

And I have no doubt that you will remember that. Because that's what chimps do so well.

Enter Bill Salier: Failed politician, Voiciferous Opponent of Justice

2008-01-25T15:22:00.001-06:00

The DI carried a story this morning about a failed politician named Bill Salier who has collected a bunch of signatures to have Hero/Judge Robert Hansen impeached. This comes after Robert Hanson's decision that the Iowa Constitution protects certain partnership rights of people. Not just some people. ALL people. Imagine that, a constitution interpreted to protect the rights of all people. What a radical.

Here's the entire AP story (from the QC Times because I couldn't find it on the DI's site). As always, here's the lede:

A conservative activist on Thursday delivered petitions with more than 6,000 signatures calling for the impeachment of a district judge who struck down the state's ban on gay marriage last summer.

Bill Salier, founder of the nonprofit group Everyday America, said Polk County Judge Robert Hanson overstepped his authority in issuing his ruling in August.

"What we're driving for here is to stop a runaway judiciary," said Salier, who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2002.

Bill Salier was also the Iowa Campaign Manager for your favorite race-baiter and mine, Tom Tancredo. Here he is talking about the monumental day that Tom Tancredo joined the top tier of candidates. You remember that day right? Right? Who's with me?

A Follow Up: My Favorite TV Shows Ever

2008-01-25T00:28:00.000-06:00

So Stella is great, but where does it rate on my FAVORITE TV SHOWS EVER?

Seeing as I love lists, I decided to spend a few minutes creating a list of my top ten favorite TV shows ever. A quick note on criteria. I considered 5 factors in determining the relative quality of these shows. The factors are:

1. Peak Performance. How good was a show when it was running on all cylinders?

Obviously the writer's strike version of the Daily Show is facing difficulties that they did not when they had their full contingent of idea generators.

2. Average Performance. If I select a show at random from a series history, how good is it likely to be?

Here, the basic point would be not having many "bad" episodes. Simpsons at its best might be unimpeachable, but who knows when you're going to get one of the down episodes?

3. Output. Did the show entertain people for years or did it fizzle (even if it was funny) after 6 months?

A show like the aforementioned Stella wouldn't score well in this category because of its regrettably short lifespan.

4. Formative influence on Nick Gregory. How important was the show to me during different periods of my life? What kind of formative effect did it have on my own comic sensibilities?

David Letterman is a good example here. Though I rarely watch his show anymore, when I was in High School I assimilated his every word and gesture.

5.. Innovation. Was the show fresh and funny? Did it make us see comedy in a way we hadn't seen it before?

Most the shows on my list were innovative in some way. A notable example would be something like The Real World, which, despite scoring extremely high in this category, suffers in some of the others and therefore didn't make the cut. Colbert has that same thing going now.

I didn't assign a numeric value in all of these categories or anything because that would be really tedious. But that's just an idea of some of the things I'll be taking into consideration. That being said, here is the list of Top Ten TV shows in the World According to Nick Gregory:

1. Simpsons-- It is impossible not to place this show first: 19 seasons, millions of laughs, a cultural revolution. Rarely do I pass a day in my life without citing and/or having a Simpsons episode cited to me.

2. Seinfeld-- Took the cadence of the stand-up routine and morphed it into the cadence of friendly banter. Seinfeld, along with the Simpsons, provided the one, two Fox syndication knockout punch that made (and continues to make) coming home from school so pleasurable.

3. The Late Show with David Letterman-- Invented college humor and nurtured me when I was young.

4. Daily Show w/ John Stewart-- Finally, the smart kid sitting at the back of the class cracking jokes also turns out to be a hard worker, an incisive interviewer, a subversive, and a vital component of our democracy.

5. The Colbert Report-- Why isn't this show listed higher than the Daily Show? I don't know, I can't explain it either. It's funnier, and Colbert at his best is better than Stewart at his best. Maybe it's the 100's of hours I've spent watching The Daily Show. Maybe it's the fact that Stewart created Colbert. Colbert 1 year ago might have been in the top 10, but barely. Now he's threatening Stewart for a Top 4 spot. I have never seen a comic who can do what he does as well as he does it. Brilliant.

6. Stella-- See below

7. Blind Date-- This is probably the selection that people will disagree with the most. I have never met anyone in the world who has defended this show over the years more than I have. I think the main problem that people have with Blind Date is that they confuse it with all of the other dating shows that are really awful. Take MTV's Fifth Wheel for example. Fifth Wheel is a mean, pointless show that encourages people to be incredibly rude to each other in competition for the affections of some lame guy/girl. In Blind Date, the people might be rude, but it's at their own peril, because they're trying to win the affections of the only other person on the show. It doesn't matter how you slice up the participants: 2 lame people on a date, one cool person and one lame person, 2 cool people, stupid people, smart people, funny people, boring people, posers, gentleman, badasses, wisecrackers, egomaniacs, basketcases, limelight seekers, . . . it's ALWAYS fun to watch. Add on the incredible writing (in the form of blurbs and fake dialogue) and you've got both a hilariously funny/heartwarming show and a thoughtful meditation on the bizarre and inexplicable world of the human courting ritual.

8. Curb Your Enthusiasm-- I almost feel kind of like a poser putting this on here because I haven't even come close to watching all of this series. But maybe I'm just being a extremely neurotic and hyper-obsessive. Like Larry David.

9. Dr. Katz-- Along with Stella, probably one of the most underwatched Comedy Central shows ever. It successfully mixes the stand-up, observational humor of Seinfeld, with the visual flexibility of the Simpsons (it's animated), and the obsession with psychotherapy of a Woody Allen film. I remember once in high school catching an episode and immediately trying to watch it whenever it was on (which wasn't very often). About 18 months ago I finally got the full first season and have never looked back.

10. Conan O'Brien-- In many ways I feel like, had several circumstances been different, Conan could have been sitting in David Letterman's #3 spot. Out of everyone on the list, Conan O'Brien is the only person who I've seen in person, making a trip to see his show during a week-long theater binge in NYC. So he's go that going for him. He also might be the most naturally funny person in the world. You know that part in Seinfeld where George is asking Jerry not to be funny and then everyone decides that it's not possible for him? That's not true. I've seen Jerry be unfunny. I've never seen Conan not be funny. I think the main problem for Conan, as it has always been, is scheduling. If he was on just one hour earlier. . .

Notable Omissions:

A lot of people might be wondering where the hell some of their favorite shows are. Keep in mind that this is just a snapshot of a single moment in time. Like I said, last year the order would have been different. The world of preference ranking is an inherently mutable place. Plus, some of the criteria (formative influences on Nick Gregory's life, for example) is going to make this an inherently personal list. That being said, these are just a few of the exclusions which might cause so much discord that I feel like I should probably explain.

1. South Park-- I've never taken to South Park in the same way that some of my friends have. When it first arrived on the scene I remember it being self-consciously crass, artificially subversive, and studiously "controversial." These are some of the exact same concerns that I have with Family Guy. Over time I have warmed to its (what I still consider to be) hit and miss genius. A good friend calls me up frequently to relay plot synopses to me and I find the plots to be creative, novel, and hilarious. But then again, I find my friend to be creative, novel, and hilarious, so maybe South Park deserves less credit for that than I originally thought.

2. The Office (British version)-- This was the hardest show for me to leave off. I watched all the seasons straight through and it has had an indelible impact on my life. I'm going to stop talking about it or I'll have to find some space for it in the Top 10.

3. The Office (American version)-- Incredibly solid counterpart to the British version, but lacks points in the "innovation" category because I came across the British version first. As Dwight would say: Question: will this show, after repeated and more intense viewing, ever make it into my Top Ten? Answer: only time will tell.

4. Arrested Development-- Something tells me that if I watched the entire series, first episode to last, of this masterpiece, it would be included in the list. As it stands, I've only seen the entire third season of this show, which at the time was as good as anything on TV. It's like looking at the Sears Tower on a really cloudy day. I'm pretty sure its one of the tallest buildings in the world, but I'd still need to see it unobstructed by clouds before I start singing its praises to the world.

That's my list. At least until I'm convinced otherwise, which I invite you to try to do. Feel free to add your own two cents or your own top ten list.

Stella: What I'm Currently Pushing

2008-01-24T23:50:00.000-06:00

Those of you who talk to me with any kind of frequency have probably listened to me rave about the television show Stella, which was pulled after one season on Comedy Central.

Two days ago I received my very own copy of Stella in the mail. It was a very thoughtful and generous Christmas present given to me, Nick Gregory, by me, Nick Gregory. It was long overdue.

If you are unfamiliar with the show, allow me explain. Three men-- Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter, and David Wain -- put on suits and ties and do nonsensical things during the course of nonsensical plots for 1/2 hour. They also say funny things in funny voices and break into spontaneous song and dance numbers and/or perform open heart surgery.

What's not to like? It's comic genius.

Though the show was critically well received and probably one of the funniest and innovative shows to ever air on television, it was, tragically, canned after ten episodes. (Note: this is all the more tragic considering the show of unwatchable quality that replaced it in the time slot: Mind of Mencia).

For those of you who would like to watch all ten episodes that were created before the show was pulled, feel free to contact me. For those of you who'd like to get a taste of the style and humor of this troupe of comedians before making such a commitment, I found an assemblage of clips on YouTube that should help you out.

Keep an eye out for Janeane Garofalo, ally of Cornucopia, who makes a cameo as an author at the bookstore in the clip.

Enjoy!

Mitt Romney Makes Me Laugh

2008-01-23T23:59:00.000-06:00

Just in case you missed this on the Daily Show last night:

A Sign of Things to Come?

2008-01-20T17:50:00.000-06:00

Here's an interesting case that came out last Friday about the adoption by a gay woman of her partner's children.

Executive summary: The District Court ruled that the adoption violated the state's adoption laws. The Supreme Court of Iowa politely explained that it didn't, and it was the equivalent of a step parent adopting a child. Justice Michael J. Streit, above, authored the opinion.

For those of us eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on Justice Roberts decision on gay marriage, let's hope this mentality is a sign of things to come.

For a nice post on this, as well as a meditation on weak-willed politicians in general, and Governor Culver's spinelessness specifically, visit the essential estrogen post here.

Procrastination: A Legitimate Pleasure Maximizing Philosophy

2008-01-11T14:06:00.000-06:00

As part of my shadow yesterday, I showed up at the Johnson County Courthouse to watch arraignments.

There were several DUI type cases, a domestic abuse case and a possession of marijuana case. The majority of the people there pleaded not guilty.

After they pleaded not guilty, the judge rushed them through a few formalities, most notably, the "do you wish to exercise or waive your right to a speedy trial?" formality.

As far as I could tell, everyone being arraigned responded that they would like to exercise their right to a speedy trial.

Being a life-long procrastinator, I found this peculiar. Why expedite pain and suffering if you could push it off for a few more days?

Sure, there are many out there who subscribe to the "let's get it over with" philosophy. In fact, I know a few people who can't take homework home with them. They prefer to get everything done at school. Which is great. If they find that the most psychologically satisfying method in which to approach their lives, then I commend them for postponing gratification until their work has been completed.

I however, subscribe to the Harry Burns "perpetual anticipation of death" theory. Many of you will remember Harry Burns as Billy Crystal's character in When Harry Met Sally. Harry, you will also remember, used to read the last page of a book first so that, if he died, he knew how it ended. Pretty morbid huh?

This is the kind of philosophy I'd apply to any speedy trial issue I was presented with. Assuming I'm not stuck in jail and couldn't pay bail or whatever, if the county attorney wants to wait a few more days to make his case against me, I've got absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I would probably encourage him to take a couple years. No rush buddy. I'll just spend those next two years not paying fines or serving jail time. No skin off my back.

Why? Because I might be dead in two years. I don't know what the exact chances are (and have no desire to consult the actuarial tables on this), but any chance at all justifies postponing your punishment as long as you can. Let's say for some reason you've been arraigned and it does take two years to begin your trial. Let's say the county attorney is just overworked and every time your case comes to her desk she says, "we'll just pass on that because we've got to get this other case to trial in 6 days or it gets dismissed." So your case sits there for 2 years. That's 730 days that you might mistakenly walk out in front of a truck, or be struck by lightning, or be diagnosed with an incurable disease.

It's the ultimate bet-hedging maneuver. If you want to maximize the amount of earthly pleasure that you experience within the finite amount of days you'll be here on earth, then postponing that trial is the rational thing to do. Sure you don't want to die in the next two years, but if you should die in the next two years, your former self (the one that was alive) will be incredibly happy that he was playing Mario Kart instead of raking lawns for community service.

But let's not get carried away, obviously there are limitations to the effectiveness of this philosophy. One, if you are in jail and can't post bail, you'll probably want the trial to take place as quickly as possible. Two, if you really think that the trial might not happen for whatever reason within the mandated time period, then if you've exercised your right to a speedy trial, the charges will usually be dismissed.

To make the procrastination argument a real argument instead of a jokey reflection (which it undoubtedly is) you would need all sorts of data, for example: the % of defendant's who, having exercised their right to a speedy trial, get a speedy trial; % of defendant's who, having waived their right to a speedy trial, have trials that fall outside the accepted time limit had they exercised their right; the difference in days waited for trial between someone who exercised this right and someone who waived this right in similar jurisdictions for similar offenses; % of time county attorneys will prioritize one case over another based on the speedy trial designation. All sorts of data like that would surely help you decide if you want to use the "Get it over NOW approach," or the "Harry Burns/Procrastination/take your time approach."

Other than that, feel free to keep playing Mario Kart until you get that letter in the mail.

For those interested, here are the basic Iowa rules on speedy trial as far as I could tell in five minutes of internet searching. These are culled from the Iowa Court Rules, and I assume, are not even close to exhaustive:

1. A person arrested for a public offense must be indicted within 45 days or the case will be dismissed (unless good cause to the contrary is shown or the person has waived his right to speedy trial.)

2. A person indicted for a public offense must be brought to trial within 90 days or the charges will be dismissed (unless good cause to the contrary is shown or the person has waived his right to a speedy trial.)

3. A person charged with a criminal offense must be brought to trial within 1 year from that person's initial arraignment (unless good cause to the contrary is shown or the person has waived his right to a speedy trial).

And now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a bunch of awesome stuff to go do. And seeing as I have a .00000000011 % chance of dying within the next one hour, I better get a move on.

Reading Between the Lines: My Second Appearance in the New York Times

2008-01-09T19:56:00.000-06:00

My old Peace Corps Country Director had an Op-Ed in the New York Times this morning. It's called Too Many Innocents Abroad and it is about the lack of quality volunteers that the Peace Corps is able to place in the field. He explains that "freshly minted" college students who have little experience in something like agricultural work are nonetheless sent to a strange country, given a 3 month crash course, and then expected to provide services that people need.

My first thought on reading the article was this: would the article have been more effective if it had been entitled Too Much Innocence Abroad?

My second thought was this: Hey he's talking about me. And he was.

Near the end of the article he writes this:

"One volunteer told me that the only possible reason he could think of for having been selected was that he was a native English speaker."

I am nearly positive that I am the volunteer that he was referring to.

I remember it like it was yesterday. We were riding back from my post to the capital city Yaounde, a roughly 7 hour trip, and discussing many of the issues that he discusses in his column. I commented on how I thought that the experience was incredible for the volunteers themselves, but the returns for the country were more suspect. I also commented on how I thought that there should be a more stringent screening process and a demonstration of a minimum level of competence within a field before being selected.

He said that he agreed, I made my funny native English speaker comment noted above, he laughed, and then we pulled off the road because a logging truck had tipped over and 17 giant logs were strewn across the road. *

AAHH. I miss Cameroon and all of its unpredictable transportation predicaments. Those were the days.

Anyway, the Nick Gregory NYT ticker stands like this:

1. November 2003, photo on the front page, above the fold, of the NYT style section. The last section I ever thought I would conquer.

2. January 8, 2007, indirect reference from country director on the op-ed page.

*Incidentally, the bit about the trees strewn over the road is actually kind of a funny story. These enormous bulgy muscled locals had begun to clear a way around the logs and were letting cars pass through for a small fee. This put my country director in an awkward situation. On the one hand, Peace Corps has a staunch "no bribe" policy. I don't remember exactly what the sanctions were for bribing officials, but it easily could have been dismissal from the country. On the other, this wasn't a bribe. This was a bunch of people putting in a lot of work to clear a path through dense jungle so that circulation could continue. These people were not government workers, in fact, they were probably unemployed, and rightly expected to be compensated for their labor.

I saw cars passing through in front of us with little dispute. When we rolled up, however, I could see the hesitation on our director's face. He was torn. Set a bad example, or hold up traffic and refuse to pay. There was some minor banter with the man taking the money, but eventually, of course, there was really only one option. He paid and we moved on. But I remember driving away thinking about how odd that interaction was. I noted the way he held out for a little while we sat in the middle of nowhere, 100's of miles from the capital, as if the men who had spent time clearing the jungle would just give us their charity. In a way it was kind of cute. Kind of, oh, I don't know. . .

Innocent.

I'm Back Baby!

2008-01-08T19:10:00.000-06:00

Never have I felt better to hear a knock on my door than when the Fedex guy showed up tonight with my laptop.

The OTHER Iowa Caucus

2008-01-08T18:53:00.000-06:00

People said that Jon Holstine's sweater wasn't ugly enough. They said that he'd have to go negative if he wanted any shot of winning the coveted ugly-sweater-pig. But he didn't. He stayed positive the entire race and was rewarded by winning the ugly sweater caucus by just one vote.

Cornucopia, Jon's adviser/manager, was extremely proud to be a part of that magical campaign.

Imagine if Obama would have worn that sweater/vest combo on January 3rd? He would have crushed EVERYONE.

What Good is Having Super-Huge Lung Capacity if Nobody Notices?

2008-01-08T17:47:00.000-06:00

Every time the doctor puts the stethoscope on my back and says "Now take a deep breath," I take it seriously. I take the longest, deepest breath I can take. I can't imagine what it sounds like in her ears; probably like standing in the middle of a hurricane. I wonder if she's ever heard such a deep breath in her life.

Just once I wish the doctor would look at me and say "You have an impressive amount of lung capacity sir." And then I would nod my head and smile modestly and then we would continue the check-up.

Is that so much to ask?

Thoughts on Watching the Republican Debate

2008-01-06T18:27:00.000-06:00

THE CASE FOR A PRIVATIZED SECURITY FORCE:

A Stump Speech from an Anonymous Republican Presidential Candidate

The way I see it, there isn't much that government can do that the private system can't do better. This country is founded on free market principles and if we put the incentives in the right place, a functioning market can solve just about any of our problems.

That's why I'm getting sick and tired of "America's Finest" running around helping any old person who cries thief when he's getting robbed.

A system of law enforcement that responds to the needs of any citizen in need, even if they haven't paid for it is just stupid. It's more than stupid. It's socialistic. And that's not what this country is about.

Why isn't it what this country about? Well, first of all, because it's government controlled. You show me someone who says that government can do something better than private enterprise and I'll show you someone who's about to get my fist in his mouth. (Laughter from the audience).

I'm tired of having everyone mooch off of me for police protection. I haven't been robbed once in my home, or mugged, or needed to investigate the murder of a family member. So why am I footing the bill for those that have? Do you have any idea how much it costs to send policemen to someone's house to end a domestic dispute? You don't even want to know. This kind of socialization of our legal enforcement forces makes absolutely zero sense. I'd like to emphasize that this is socialistic and possibly communistic. And I'd like to re-emphasize that this isn't what America is about because it's not using the free-market.

That's what disgusted me the most about 9/11, not the senseless loss of human life, but the way that those NYC police just went around helping everyone regardless if they had paid their fair share. It's simply disgusting. Everyone time I saw a "brave" NYC police officer reach into the rubble and pull out a thankful victim, all I saw were the numbers in my bank account diminishing exponentially.

That's why I'm for "security insurance" for every member of our society. Everyone out there in the audience knows that if we can just get "security insurance" for each and every person out there the whole system would be a lot more efficient. We could finally rid ourselves of the inefficiency that is big-government law enforcement. Insurance is the answer.

I know this is a relatively new concept, but applying the basic American principle that people should be paying for the services that they receive, here's basically how it will work. Let's say you are a 50 year-old woman and a burglar is breaking into your home. You've hidden yourself in the closet and are trying to call your local private security provider to help you.

If you're a bad citizen and an inadequate supplier of necessities to your family because you're lazy and don't want to work --that means you Jose, remember how I offered you $5/hour to pick my tomatoes and you were too good for that?- (laughter again from crowd)-- then you don't have the necessary security insurance and you'll have to pay the consequences, which means being robbed. This is the free-market functioning as it should.

Now if you're a good citizen and you don't waste your money on drugs and prostitutes, which means you have enough money to purchase "security insurance," you'll call your national security service provider and he'll try to direct you to the local service provider to take care of your problem. In this case let's say it will be 20 minutes.

What's that? There's a security provider right down the street from you who could be there in time to disarm the intruder? Well, you may be right, but that security provider is actually outside of your policy. In fact, it's a whole different company. Now why would we send that guy if he doesn't even work for us? That's kind of a silly question isn't it? You obviously don't understand the concept of the efficiency of free markets. (laughter from crowd).

After all, you did have the choice to choose that provider when you got an insurance plan. You should have operated as a rational economic actor, comparing the reputation, price, coverage, proximity, and accessibility of the different policies when you had the chance grandma.

What's that? You got your security insurance with your job? Well, don't come crying to me. You knew full well exactly which company operated exactly which locations across the country when you meticulously read (as rational actors do) your insurance policy upon taking that job. It was your choice to take the job after all. Nobody forced you into it. That's why this is such a great country. If you wanted, you could have shopped around until you found the perfect job with the perfect insurance company that operated a security office as close as possible to your domicile. And don't even try to tell me you didn't have time for that because I know you were watching America's Next Top Model for like three hours last weekend. You reap what you sow.

So anyway, now let's say you're in your house, and the burglar has you tied up. You've played by the book and been connected to your security provider.

Help arrives and you're so happy to see them. Tied to a chair, you explain that you are a policy holder of Company X. The security forces very capably secure the household. The quality of their service leaves absolutely nothing to be desired. They are efficient, calm, and in charge. There suits are crisp and professional looking and they have the latest in hi-tech gadgetry. Why is this? Because security companies are raking in record profits and buying all sorts of cool shit for their staff. Finally, we don't have to look at those drab old communist outfits that our pathetic cops used to wear. Who's with me? (laughter from audience.)

After securing the home, they begin to ask you questions about what happened where. You tell them that you were in your bedroom when the attacker arrived and bound your hands and demanded that you remain silent. The man who appears to be in charge frowns and jots it down. The security brigade eventually departs after finishing their work.

Soon thereafter, you get a bill for $1200. They must have made a mistake, you think. You have security insurance, this should all be paid for. So you call up your provider and the woman on the other end of the phone line, a perky, well-meaning woman named Lacy with three kids at home explains to you that the break-in wasn't actually covered. "Why not?" You ask? "I don't have $1200. I thought I had insurance."

The woman, used to this kind of imbecilic complaining, explains the miscommunication to you as simply as she can, "Actually, Your policy covers incidents that took place in all communal areas and bathrooms, but as you explained to our investigator that night, it doesn't cover incidents that took place in bedrooms."

"But, but," you exclaim, "he drug me out into the living room after tying me up in the bedroom. Doesn't that mean anything?"

"I'm afraid not," the woman replies. "As the policy clearly states, if an incident began in any bedroom in the house, even if such incident is continued in other rooms of the house, You aren't covered. I'll send you a copy of the policy so that you can look over it. It's quite clearly written in 1345 (a) (6) (13) (ii). I've no idea how you could have missed it. If only you could have hidden in the living room closet. Oh well, live and learn I guess." The woman says cheerily.

You spend hours going over this policy, mailing letters, receiving rejections from the company. You make phone call after phone call all to no avail.

And now, here's the kicker, then you start whining about how this kind of industry needs to be regulated. REGULATED?!

And then I, anonymous Republican presidential candidate say: Who the hell are you? StalinLeninCheFidel? Sure, why don't we just socialize our entire police force? Ha. That'll be the day. The naivete of your views on economic policy make me disgusted that you're an American.

But you won't hear my words, because before that burglar left he made sure to work you over a little bit with a tire iron, leaving you deformed and deaf in both ears. And you, like the DUMBFUCK that you are, didn't have health insurance. . .

which would have fixed everything.

SUCCESS!!

2008-01-05T17:02:00.000-06:00

Still waiting on my laptop, so this is pretty dated. Nonetheless, I wanted to sound-off on my caucus experience.

On a macro-level:

Looks like Edwards dominated in the South, winning a block of around 17 counties, including Jasper, where his former Maytag employee ads seemed to have an impact.

Hillary was incredibly successful in North Central Iowa and the West.

Obama dominated in Eastern Iowa and most of Central Iowa, including Polk, Story, Dallas, Marshal, Hardin, Grundy and many others. In Johnson County, where he won by the largest margin, he received over 50% of the vote.

Here's the Register's map for a look.

On a micro-level:

My caucus (IC precinct 3) had 208 people show up, which seemed like a lot, but I have since been informed that it was slightly less than four years ago. Though the majority of precincts saw an increase in turnout, the fact that the caucuses had been moved up to January 3rd prevented a lot of students from turning out in the dorm centered precincts.

After the first alignment, the O-Bomb was the only viable candidate, with both Richardson and Edwards just a few shy of the 32 necessary for viability.

After the reshuffling, both Richardson and Edwards attained viability. For Richardson, it was thanks in large part to the pregame speech and caucus-time wheeling and dealing of law professor Nick Johnson, whose blog is blog-rolled on Cornucopia's homepage. History professor Shelton Stromquist ably represented Edward's interests. He outlined his commitment to labor and universal health coverage, including a shout-out to Kucinich supporters that I believe won Edwards some second choice supporters that night.

As for Obama, the staffers and volunteers were running around madly, hopping on tables and issuing instructions, trying to make sure that their people weren't picked off. Every once in a while you would hear a cheer erupt from the Edwards or Richardson camps when an Obama supporter would have a change of heart. By and large, however, the Obama people stayed strong, ending with around 109 people caucusing for him. The final tally was Obama: 3 delegates, Richardson 2 delegates, Edwards 1 delegate. I'm not sure what the final equation looked like, but I feel like it must have been fairly close to Obama having a fourth delegate.

When Hillary's numbers were read and it was evident that she would not be viable, Obama supporters cheered (jeered?) the announcement with what I considered to be just a little too much enthusiasm. I overheard a couple of women say something to the effect of "I'm definitely NOT going to Obama."

So that was probably a bit of misplaced energy, but probably not all that determinative of where her supporters were going to go. If I'm a Hillary supporter, the absolute LAST place I go is to the Obama side, even if the Obamians hadn't taken pleasure in my downfall.

As expected, the caucus was followed by revelry. First at Joe's Place, where I drank heavily, won $15 playing darts, and watched the results roll in. And later at the Picador, where I danced my ass off and wished, like always, that I could break dance.

On to New Hampshire.

Gobama!

Bill O'Reilly Resembles Physically Overdeveloped 9 Year Old

2008-01-05T16:25:00.000-06:00

Here's a little story that I hope doesn't get lost in the media blitz surrounding the caucus/primary results. The story is about Bill O'Reilly shoving an uncooperative Obama staffer at an event in New Hampshire. John Dickerson is a highly regarded political correspondant for Slate magazine and was personally on the scene to cover the story, and coudln't stop himself from telling him to "grow-up." Though O'Reilly is a physically imposing presence and often takes a threatening tone on his stupid TV show, I don't know if I've ever seen any stories of him resorting to physical violence. For someone that clamors for law and order on a nightly basis, this seems like odd behavior.

Cornucopia, the Horn of Plenty, while advocating for a more sensible approach to our nation's drug policy and general incarceration rate, takes any violent crime very seriously and supports the notion of strict punishment for violent offenders. Perhaps that's why I find this story so interesting.

Even if, as the article suggests, an Obama staffer was blocking his view, this doesn't give him the right to shove the staffer out of the way, pure and simple. In fact, Obama doesn't even have to speak to him if he is not so inclined. Bill O'Reilly might just have to learn that even nationally famous TV commentators don't always get the shot that they want. And when they don't get that shot, if they resort to pushing people around there may be consequences. The evolving lawyer part of me is hoping to see headlines of a lawsuit in the not-too-distant future. I honestly hope we haven't heard the end of this story.

Note-- The best part of the story is when some in the crowd intoned the word "falafel" during the rally. This was an allusion when Bill O'Reilly confused the word loofa (a device for scrubbing one's body) with "falafel" (a prominent component of middle eastern cuisine) whilst sexually harassing a former co-worker.

The case was settled out of court but my sources (gut-feeling) say that Mr. O'Reilly has never touched falafel since.

Here Come the Reinforcements!

2008-01-03T15:24:00.000-06:00

On January 1st, Dennis Kucinich encouraged his supporters to cacucus for Barack Obama as a second choice.

Today, Iowa Independent reports that Bill Richardson's campaign is doing the same thing, and asking their field organizers to direct Richardson supporters to Obama's camp should they fail to reach the 15% viability threshold. Richardson's national campaign has denied this strategy, but it sounds unconvincing. It's well known that such strategies exist, and in this case it also makes sense for the Richardson campaign to support a strong Obama finish.

Why? A Clinton victory ends it for everyone, so he can't direct them to her. However, Richardson can't support 3rd place Edwards either, because strong numbers for Edwards will make him look like a distant fourth. Process of elimination, they've got to go Obama. If Obama wins and Richardson finishes a strong fourth just behind Edwards or Clinton, Richardson's camp will be happy.

On behalf of the Obama campaign we are thankful for the generous charity offered up by both Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kucinich.

Laptop in Tennessee

2008-01-03T14:45:00.000-06:00

People are operating on my laptop in Tennessee right now. I wrote a lot of that last post in MS Word and then pasted and apparently that kind of screws up the format.

I would like to apologize for the formatting problems and any collateral problems that this caused for the reader.

Oh, and also for any grammatical errors or typos too.

And for going 1/5 from the line in that high school basketball game.

I assure you that all of these things will be taken care off when my computer comes back from Tennessee. I promise.