I just came back from a trip to an alternate universe, where in Ames, Iowa, the state fair is home to one of the major media events for the Republican Party. I speak, of course, of the nationally-recognized Ames Chili Cook-Off. I prefer the Chili Cook-Off to my home universe's Straw Poll, because the Cook-Off is just as accurate and relevant to national politics, but far more entertaining. I was able to get a taste of all the candidates' chili (including Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, who chose to enter in this alternate universe), and I've shared my tasting notes below.
Mitt Romney: No chiles, spices, or salt...just bland...I remember his chili as once having these and some kick, Gov. Romney denied this. Basically a poor tomato soup.
Tim Pawlenty: Looked promising...Gov. Pawlenty told me he took chiles out, didn't want to offend taste buds. Said it was better than Michele Bachmann's. Disappointing.
Ron Paul: Minimal ingredients – no extras here! Grew everything himself, no gov't inspection...worried me with the meat. Expensive, and preferred payment in gold, but took credit card. Inexplicably, recipe is popular on the internet.
Newt Gingrich: Gladly, no newt in chili. Looked appetizing and quite familiar...Too familiar, in fact – ingredients expired in late '90s! Declined to taste, wife was understanding...at least, might have been wife?
Herman Cain: Lots of publicity – radio and YouTube...unfortunately, just a bowl of tomato sauce from Godfather's Pizza. Would have rather preferred a slice of pizza.
Michele Bachmann: Very fiery, but strange...why are there nuts in this? Why are there communion wafers?? Why is she staring at me like that???
Jon Huntsman: Similar to Romney, except with Chinese spices...more exciting – served off the back of his ATV. Huntsman wearing a flannel shirt.
Thaddeus McCotter: Has flying squirrel meat – odd. Acting like a snake oil salesman, and dressed the part...claims the chili cures dysentery...I get it! His name is real old-timey! Not funny.
Rick Perry: Tastes familiar...recipe close to the winner from 1999, but better looking. Served in communion bowl – nice touch...very dry. Asked for some water, he said pray for it.
Rick Santorum: Very straight chili...almost too straight, though detected slightly fruity notes. Tastes slightly past its prime, like left in the closet too long. Wait a minute...
Sarah Palin: Showed up, no actual chili...just her waving and screaming, “look at me!” Sad.
Overall, I ended up getting sick that night. I blame all the chilis. So, in conclusion, this alternate universe's Ames Chili Cook-Off can tell you a lot about the candidates, but if you go, make sure you bring some Pepto Bismol.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The Zangief Kid: A Lesson in Bullying
In recent years, parents and the media have paid more attention to the occurrence of bullying at schools, mostly because those groups and individuals have finally realized that bullying has major ramifications (what can we say? Some people are just slow...). There may be some who do not agree with the importance of the issue, compared to bombing in Libya, earthquakes in Japan, and everything else on the world's plate. But this issue is important. We expect our schools to be a place of safety, without the fear of emotional or physical trauma. It happens though, and it happens more often than you think.
Our story today comes out of Australia. Casey Heynes is a 15 year-old boy. He's a little chubby, and a little awkward as most young teens are, but altogether seems like a sweet kid. He's been bullied for a while, because of his weight. Upon starting high school, the few friends he made abandoned him once the teasing started, and since then he's been called names, slapped upside the head, tripped, and generally abused. He was even duct-taped to a pole. According to an interview, he even contemplated suicide because of the bullying. Among his tormentors is a kid younger than him by three years, named Richard. One day, this younger bully and his friends thought it would be a fun idea to video Richard beating up on Casey, and then post it online.
The video starts with Richard shoving Casey against a wall, then punching him in the face. Read that again. Punching him in the face. Casey takes the hit like a champ. He takes second and third hit to the face like a champ. Casey blocks a fourth shot, but the bully gets more punches in.
That's the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were.
Casey shoves Richard back. The bully tries for another hit, but Casey grabs him. Using his size and weight advantage, he lifts Richard up and throws him down in what could best be described as a suplex. The other tormentors, stunned, do nothing as Casey walks away. Both boys were suspended for fighting (rumor is that Casey got 2 days, Richard got 20). But Casey became a hero – immortalized in internet lore as the Zangief Kid (Zangief being a wrestling character from the video game Street Fighter), or Casey the Punisher.
This was self-defense. There was no further kicking or stomping or attacking of any kind by Casey. Richard started it, Casey stopped it, and walked away – that was all.
Did he go too far with the suplex? Perhaps. It was the best use of his advantages in the situation – height and weight, and altogether is probably the result of heat-of-the-moment and fight-or-flight. He might be too slow to throw a punch, and a missed punch would result in a far worse beat-down from the bully. Did Casey have the right to defend himself? Absolutely. At essence, is Casey in the right? You bet your ass he is. Even the bully's mom, in an interview, said her son got what he deserved. You read that right.
What else is Casey going to do? He can't just stand there and take the punches, or try to run away. He's surrounded, and the resulting video would go up online and make his life worse. There's no faculty to get to, and based on the history of bullying Casey's received, it seems that they really don't give a damn what happens to the kids, until someone either gets seriously injured/killed, or it makes the school look bad on YouTube. Negotiate or plead with the bully? When? In between face-punches 2 and 3?
Sometimes, you have to fight back. That's what Casey did. In an interview, Casey does realize the danger posed to Richard from the suplex, but he is not in the wrong. Kids have to learn that violence – in all its forms – has its consequences; punch somebody enough times, don't be surprised if your nose gets broken – or you're suddenly lifted off the ground and thrown. Maybe if bullies realize that they are as at risk as the victim, we'll see less bullying.
For now: Casey Heynes, a hero to the millions of the bullied around the world. I salute you!
Our story today comes out of Australia. Casey Heynes is a 15 year-old boy. He's a little chubby, and a little awkward as most young teens are, but altogether seems like a sweet kid. He's been bullied for a while, because of his weight. Upon starting high school, the few friends he made abandoned him once the teasing started, and since then he's been called names, slapped upside the head, tripped, and generally abused. He was even duct-taped to a pole. According to an interview, he even contemplated suicide because of the bullying. Among his tormentors is a kid younger than him by three years, named Richard. One day, this younger bully and his friends thought it would be a fun idea to video Richard beating up on Casey, and then post it online.
The video starts with Richard shoving Casey against a wall, then punching him in the face. Read that again. Punching him in the face. Casey takes the hit like a champ. He takes second and third hit to the face like a champ. Casey blocks a fourth shot, but the bully gets more punches in.
That's the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were.
Casey shoves Richard back. The bully tries for another hit, but Casey grabs him. Using his size and weight advantage, he lifts Richard up and throws him down in what could best be described as a suplex. The other tormentors, stunned, do nothing as Casey walks away. Both boys were suspended for fighting (rumor is that Casey got 2 days, Richard got 20). But Casey became a hero – immortalized in internet lore as the Zangief Kid (Zangief being a wrestling character from the video game Street Fighter), or Casey the Punisher.
This was self-defense. There was no further kicking or stomping or attacking of any kind by Casey. Richard started it, Casey stopped it, and walked away – that was all.
Did he go too far with the suplex? Perhaps. It was the best use of his advantages in the situation – height and weight, and altogether is probably the result of heat-of-the-moment and fight-or-flight. He might be too slow to throw a punch, and a missed punch would result in a far worse beat-down from the bully. Did Casey have the right to defend himself? Absolutely. At essence, is Casey in the right? You bet your ass he is. Even the bully's mom, in an interview, said her son got what he deserved. You read that right.
What else is Casey going to do? He can't just stand there and take the punches, or try to run away. He's surrounded, and the resulting video would go up online and make his life worse. There's no faculty to get to, and based on the history of bullying Casey's received, it seems that they really don't give a damn what happens to the kids, until someone either gets seriously injured/killed, or it makes the school look bad on YouTube. Negotiate or plead with the bully? When? In between face-punches 2 and 3?
Sometimes, you have to fight back. That's what Casey did. In an interview, Casey does realize the danger posed to Richard from the suplex, but he is not in the wrong. Kids have to learn that violence – in all its forms – has its consequences; punch somebody enough times, don't be surprised if your nose gets broken – or you're suddenly lifted off the ground and thrown. Maybe if bullies realize that they are as at risk as the victim, we'll see less bullying.
For now: Casey Heynes, a hero to the millions of the bullied around the world. I salute you!
Friday, February 11, 2011
Fall of a Pharaoh - What Now?
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. And then we fucked up the endgame." -- Charlie Wilson
What we have seen in Egypt is utterly incredible. It'll be talked about for decades, and the results of this revolution (which I think should be called the Friday Revolution, since most of its major gatherings occurred on Friday) will have major ramifications on the Middle East and the world for the next thirty years.
The Obama administration's handling of the event was very good. It was careful, balanced, rational, and well-timed. I cannot help but think that Mubarak's resignation today had something to do with the strong words from President Obama yesterday announcing support for the protestors. The questions remains: how should the United States proceed from here?
The army is in control of the government at this moment. Fortunately, the relationship between the American military and the Egyptian military is quite good, and has been for some time, particularly because we provide ample funding. We must maintain our good relationship, and at the same time convince the military that allowing for democratic elections and a revised constitution. Keep in mind, most of the senior government officials were military men, so the fact that the military now runs Egypt is not too different than what it has been for the past 60 years. The U.S. should work to make sure the police state comes to an end.
The United States should also work with opposition leaders (including the Muslim Brotherhood? Perhaps. We do need to clear up once and for all whether they are the radicals people claim they are). Provide funding, provide advice if they desire it. Perhaps most importantly, help them get back the money Mubarak stole from the people. First of all, a lot of it is money that we gave to Egypt to help the populace - it's OUR money that was stolen. Second, it is a sign of good faith that we are willing to back the Egyptians now to form a democratic government.
This is too important to fuck up the endgame. What else should the U.S. do in Egypt?
What we have seen in Egypt is utterly incredible. It'll be talked about for decades, and the results of this revolution (which I think should be called the Friday Revolution, since most of its major gatherings occurred on Friday) will have major ramifications on the Middle East and the world for the next thirty years.
The Obama administration's handling of the event was very good. It was careful, balanced, rational, and well-timed. I cannot help but think that Mubarak's resignation today had something to do with the strong words from President Obama yesterday announcing support for the protestors. The questions remains: how should the United States proceed from here?
The army is in control of the government at this moment. Fortunately, the relationship between the American military and the Egyptian military is quite good, and has been for some time, particularly because we provide ample funding. We must maintain our good relationship, and at the same time convince the military that allowing for democratic elections and a revised constitution. Keep in mind, most of the senior government officials were military men, so the fact that the military now runs Egypt is not too different than what it has been for the past 60 years. The U.S. should work to make sure the police state comes to an end.
The United States should also work with opposition leaders (including the Muslim Brotherhood? Perhaps. We do need to clear up once and for all whether they are the radicals people claim they are). Provide funding, provide advice if they desire it. Perhaps most importantly, help them get back the money Mubarak stole from the people. First of all, a lot of it is money that we gave to Egypt to help the populace - it's OUR money that was stolen. Second, it is a sign of good faith that we are willing to back the Egyptians now to form a democratic government.
This is too important to fuck up the endgame. What else should the U.S. do in Egypt?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Plug for a Friend!
My dear friend Scott Resnick is campaigning for Alderman in Madison. He has just released his first policy paper on alcohol policy, available here: http://www.resnickfordistrict8.com/
Check it out!
Check it out!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Tuscon Tragedy: Fallout
First, let me start off by expressing my deepest condolences for those affected by the shooting in Tucson. My deepest sorrow is reserved Christina Taylor Green, the nine-year-old cut down before she reached her true potential. That she was born on September 11th and died in this horrible event is saddening; a life bookended by terror. It is indicative, I think, of how we live in an age of fear.
I won't be discussing the events directly, or the shooter, or the debate over the causes. We've heard them all, repeatedly. I am interested in solutions; finding means to insure tragedies like this become rarer, and eventually non-existant. What follows is a list of ideas.
Immediate Solutions
1. Outlaw the sale of high-capacity magazines. Why does the civilian population need a magazine that holds twenty or thirty rounds? Hunters shouldn't need more than two, maybe three bullets to take down game. If you need more than two rounds to defend yourself, you need the police more than you need your gun. Bottom line, I cannot think of a rational justification for civilians to own high-capacity magazines.
2. Improve the background check system. Currently the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) works like this: a prospective purchaser fills out a form. This form asks relatively simple questions, such "have you been convicted of a crime," or "do you currently suffer from mental illness." Notice the first problem. While it is relatively simple to ascertain the truth regarding criminal record, mental illness can go undetected and there may be no record. If the dealer is in a Point-of-Contact (POC) state, the dealer will then contact the POC, an automated system that accesses the NICS, which is linked to a number of federal information systems (criminal records, basic identifications). These records are federal only. They do not contain records held by the state, and some states do not run background checks on their own records. I would recommend that all states run additional background checks on the state level in addition to the federal background check.
Intermediate and Long-Term Solutions
3. Increase funding, at all levels, for mental health care. As a particular few of my friends will tell you, the brain is perhaps among the least-understood organs. From what I gather, care for mental illness barely reaches parity with physical illness. I am hoping that some of my more medically-inclined friends can expand on this point, but I don't think I am far off in recommending better funding for, access to, and education about mental illness and mental health care.
4. Better parenting. This is probably going to sound really soft. The origin of the Tucson tragedy, as with many tragedies, is hate. Loughner shot Giffords because, among other things, he hated the government. Shelley Shannon killed George Tiller because Shannon hated abortion, Sirhan shot RFK because Sirhan hated Israel (and Kennedy's support for that state), James Earl Ray killed King because Ray hated black people. Like it or not, hate is the primary motivator for people to take a gun to other people. We need to do a better job teaching that it's not ok to hate. Look at the bullying incidents of the past few years; those kids were not taught that it is not ok to hate. In some cases, they were taught it was OK to hate. Until people are able to know the difference between disagreement, dislike, and hate, then there will be more killings.
What else can we do to avoid future Tucsons?
I won't be discussing the events directly, or the shooter, or the debate over the causes. We've heard them all, repeatedly. I am interested in solutions; finding means to insure tragedies like this become rarer, and eventually non-existant. What follows is a list of ideas.
Immediate Solutions
1. Outlaw the sale of high-capacity magazines. Why does the civilian population need a magazine that holds twenty or thirty rounds? Hunters shouldn't need more than two, maybe three bullets to take down game. If you need more than two rounds to defend yourself, you need the police more than you need your gun. Bottom line, I cannot think of a rational justification for civilians to own high-capacity magazines.
2. Improve the background check system. Currently the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) works like this: a prospective purchaser fills out a form. This form asks relatively simple questions, such "have you been convicted of a crime," or "do you currently suffer from mental illness." Notice the first problem. While it is relatively simple to ascertain the truth regarding criminal record, mental illness can go undetected and there may be no record. If the dealer is in a Point-of-Contact (POC) state, the dealer will then contact the POC, an automated system that accesses the NICS, which is linked to a number of federal information systems (criminal records, basic identifications). These records are federal only. They do not contain records held by the state, and some states do not run background checks on their own records. I would recommend that all states run additional background checks on the state level in addition to the federal background check.
Intermediate and Long-Term Solutions
3. Increase funding, at all levels, for mental health care. As a particular few of my friends will tell you, the brain is perhaps among the least-understood organs. From what I gather, care for mental illness barely reaches parity with physical illness. I am hoping that some of my more medically-inclined friends can expand on this point, but I don't think I am far off in recommending better funding for, access to, and education about mental illness and mental health care.
4. Better parenting. This is probably going to sound really soft. The origin of the Tucson tragedy, as with many tragedies, is hate. Loughner shot Giffords because, among other things, he hated the government. Shelley Shannon killed George Tiller because Shannon hated abortion, Sirhan shot RFK because Sirhan hated Israel (and Kennedy's support for that state), James Earl Ray killed King because Ray hated black people. Like it or not, hate is the primary motivator for people to take a gun to other people. We need to do a better job teaching that it's not ok to hate. Look at the bullying incidents of the past few years; those kids were not taught that it is not ok to hate. In some cases, they were taught it was OK to hate. Until people are able to know the difference between disagreement, dislike, and hate, then there will be more killings.
What else can we do to avoid future Tucsons?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Prof. Feingold: Class is In Session
Former U.S. Senator and all-around good guy Russ Feingold has been appointed as a visiting professor of law at Marquette University. In addition to writing a book (something all of us in academia must do at some point), Professor Feingold will be teaching a course entitled Current Legal Issues: The U.S. Senate. This upper-level elective will be offered this coming semester.
It goes without saying that, with few exceptions, Russ Feingold is uniquely suited to teach this course. (Interestingly, Arlen Spector is also entering academia at UPenn's law school). Many professors are able to teach about American legislature, how bills are made into law, and the nuances of Congress. Few have actually been in office long enough to tell you how everything really works. I have a feeling that Professor Feingold's class will be invaluable to any law student with political aspirations, whether that student agrees with the professor's politics or not.
Now, to proceed to a question I am sure all Badgers are asking: why is Russ Feingold teaching at Marquette, and not at UW? He's a Badger alum (B.A. '75), he lives in nearby Middleton, and the University of Wisconsin is the flagship of the public university system of the state. Well, allow me to hazard a couple guesses.
First, as a state school, UW is under scrutiny by a deeply partisan legislature; you cannot deny this. If the university were to hire a former Democratic senator who was just ousted in the last election, I would venture to say there would be bickering going on in the Capitol. The university doesn't need that right now, especially with a new governor and legislature. Marquette, on the other hand, is a private university that doesn't have to answer to the state with regards to who it hires. Besides, if I were a Dem who lost in 2010, I just wouldn't want to hang around Madison just now.
Second guess, and far more mercenary: Marquette offered a better financial package. Or, Russ, in addition to teaching and writing, will be back practicing law, and he wanted to work somewhere besides Madison.
Overall, I'm glad Marquette hired Russ, and I'm insanely jealous of the students who will attend his class. Obviously, there are some blowhards out there that think it's wrong for Russ to be in the classroom, influencing the opinions of the youth and all that crap. Well, 1st: the youngest law student is 22, plenty old enough to think for himself. Russ isn't teaching kindergarten here. 2nd: what else should he do? This way he continues to give back to the community in the form of teaching, and he imparts his particular experiences and knowledge to the next generation.
Well, what else should he do?
It goes without saying that, with few exceptions, Russ Feingold is uniquely suited to teach this course. (Interestingly, Arlen Spector is also entering academia at UPenn's law school). Many professors are able to teach about American legislature, how bills are made into law, and the nuances of Congress. Few have actually been in office long enough to tell you how everything really works. I have a feeling that Professor Feingold's class will be invaluable to any law student with political aspirations, whether that student agrees with the professor's politics or not.
Now, to proceed to a question I am sure all Badgers are asking: why is Russ Feingold teaching at Marquette, and not at UW? He's a Badger alum (B.A. '75), he lives in nearby Middleton, and the University of Wisconsin is the flagship of the public university system of the state. Well, allow me to hazard a couple guesses.
First, as a state school, UW is under scrutiny by a deeply partisan legislature; you cannot deny this. If the university were to hire a former Democratic senator who was just ousted in the last election, I would venture to say there would be bickering going on in the Capitol. The university doesn't need that right now, especially with a new governor and legislature. Marquette, on the other hand, is a private university that doesn't have to answer to the state with regards to who it hires. Besides, if I were a Dem who lost in 2010, I just wouldn't want to hang around Madison just now.
Second guess, and far more mercenary: Marquette offered a better financial package. Or, Russ, in addition to teaching and writing, will be back practicing law, and he wanted to work somewhere besides Madison.
Overall, I'm glad Marquette hired Russ, and I'm insanely jealous of the students who will attend his class. Obviously, there are some blowhards out there that think it's wrong for Russ to be in the classroom, influencing the opinions of the youth and all that crap. Well, 1st: the youngest law student is 22, plenty old enough to think for himself. Russ isn't teaching kindergarten here. 2nd: what else should he do? This way he continues to give back to the community in the form of teaching, and he imparts his particular experiences and knowledge to the next generation.
Well, what else should he do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)