Not All Credit Hours Are Created Equal

A short opinion doc created for J636 class at the University of Kansas. Created by Clayton Ashley, Alec Tilson, and Kristen Grimmer.

Hey, students — this holiday season, celebrate by volunteering!

It's the time for giving.

But for students, scrapped for time and cash, it can be challenging to find ways and means to give back to the larger community.

And some service organizations have been burnt by the crazy college lifestyle — students commit to volunteering but then fail to follow through, said Lori Johns, director of Lawrence's Roger Hill Volunteer Center.

But Johns is hopeful that more students will find unique and specially tailored opportunities to give their time and talents for good causes. Short-term, community-organized events such as a day of raking leaves or cleaning food pantries are good options for the civic-minded but low on availability, she said.

Many students, including freshman Lindsay Holtvedt, choose Jubilee Cafe, a food kitchen for the homeless and precariously housed, as an occasional giveback to the greater Lawrence community.

Holtvedt says that she got involved after hearing about it from a friend and now attends every week, satisfied with — and willing to get up early for — the fuzzy feeling she gets by providing a hot breakfast to those in need.

College students should take opportunities like Jubilee Cafe to volunteer. There's the selfish reasons — showing well-rounded-ness on post-grad applications, the good feelings boost that certainly doesn't hurt in times of stress — but more importantly, there's the demonstration of the selfless.

We owe it to the communities that take us in, at least temporarily, to try to leave them nicer than we found them.

So this holiday season, consider stepping up. Resources to find a good fit for you here in Lawrence are plentiful — and the saints who run these organizations can always use an extra pair of (young) hands.

Playing with a different sex

Where did all the cool genderqueer music go?



I am not as hip as I used to be.

Perhaps I never was (strike that, I know I never was), but I at least had an “in” with cool, indie, college-radio tunes as a DJ and reviewer for what was used to be an institution of cool – in a cold, snobbish-but-smart way. It’s not what it used to be, either, but it remains one of the best college radio stations in the country.

Regardless, I say this to caveat my eventual point with the following: Perhaps I’m just out of the loop.

Perhaps I’m out of the loop as to what the cool kids are listening to these days, but from my perspective, I can’t help but be sad to see the death of genderqueer in the alternative music scene.

Where are the Stephin Merritts? Is there no legacy to Riot Grrrl? What ever happened to those oh-so-cute gender benders of twee? Poly Styrene, sadly, is literally dead.

Perhaps it’s as I’ve seen posited elsewhere that the battle is over — in an age in which our greatest trash pop culture hero blends boundaries, it’s no longer cool & 'alt' to be weird.

I'd like to take the more positive slant that the alt scene, like the wider world, truly is different these days — that culture is nearing a post-gender existence in which we no longer need a hetero-appearing man to sing a lovesong to his boy walking down the street because, well, acceptance is overall high.

Pitchfork (not exactly a bastion of cultural capital at the moment, but I enjoyed this piece) recently took this stance, slightly, with Riot Grrrl, opening an extended essay with an anecdote on girls too young to have been alive to see the release of Pussy Whipped (full disclosure: I was 5) enjoying proto-all-girl-group Dum Dum Girls. Enjoying and, we should note, reveling in the "coolness" of both their rocker status and unabashed (would ballsy be too weird an adjective? no) femininity.

I'd like to say this "is it even a big deal anymore?" is where we are not just with feminism but also with the related vein of overt gender-bending as a stick in the eye to the normative. But that's not the case.

The genderqueer issue brings up a larger one in alternative music today. Instead of subcultures and scenes, we're beyond fractured into a million tiny blogs, with a lack of sharing between them that stunts the kind of swapping growth that always used to exist in the music underground.

There is no culture of rebellion, because there is no one culture to rebel against.

I'm assured the genderqueer tunes are out there, but they're more about niche markets related to identity than the they are about the quality of music. (Translation: It's a lot of club music, which is fine, just not my thing.)

I realize fully that at 23 and having never been a scenester, I'm not qualified, really, to make this sweeping damnation. But it's hard not to feel that, outside of a few covers here and there, the true stars of the field don't have the courage or interest (cajones?) to do it.

And though I stick to my guns like the grumpy old spinster I'll always be that alt music has declined in originality and quality since the late 1990s, I'm happy with what I think is part of the "problem": It really isn't shocking to be androgynous anymore. Where did all the cool genderqueer music go? Good heavens, I might have to be optimistic and say it's a victim of its own success.

Just don't mind me when I still sneak off to disconnect with the big scary interwebs to enjoy my Au Pairs 45s.

cross-posted: needmorefriends

Paradise never

Paradise Now: 2005; 90 minutes; Oscar-nominated; PG-13; dir: Hany Abu-Assad; star: Lubna Azabal, Ali Suliman, Kais Nashif; available on Netflix disc, Netflix streaming & YouTube

Paradise Now is an extremely good film. Full stop.

It's not just a good film that explores — and, even more notably, unpackages — highly troubling political issues. (Though it is that, too.) It's not just an exotic work put together impressively on a teensy budget; it's not just a good film made by, for and about Palestinians. (Though it is, of course, that, too.)

The reason Paradise Now gets away with its explosive subject matter is that it is just an extremely good film — emotionally true, artfully written and shot, deeply human. Paradise Now is an extremely good film that seeks to understand, but neither condone nor condemn, suicide terrorism. It's a gutsy subject matter, to say the least, but it's extreme success is its approach. The approach is carried out so dutifully well, it transcends politics and becomes high art.

It's best summed up, thankfully, in the words of director Hany Abu-Assad, as told to the New York Times in 2005:

"As a filmmaker, you cannot be led by political issues. You just look at it as a story, and you give it the form of a film."

In this film, we watch two friends, Said and Khaled, over the course of two days as they learn they've been selected for a suicide mission. We watch them prepare, record martyr tapes and embark on their journey into Tel Aviv.

When their cover is blown (again, I apologize for the unavoidable metaphor/pun) just across the border, Said (Kais Nashif) becomes separated from Kahled (Ali Suliman), who ditches with their handlers back into the West Bank.

To share rest of the plot, I'm afraid, would be to give only spoilers. And the film's too good to give away — if you can divorce the very human side of you that rightfully condemns the plans of these two young men, the emotional tension that develops between them and the amazing well-acted, powerful female lead, Suha Azzam (Lubna Azabal), becomes genuinely heartbreaking.

SOPA and the future of Internet freedom

America is about to commit a self inflicted wound of historic proportions in the form of a massively over-reaching Internet copyright bill. Known as Protect-IP in the senate and SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in the house, the law is ostensibly designed to fight copyright infringers on the Internet. What it'll actually end up doing is crippling creative freedom and innovation on the Internet and ultimately bring China-style censorship to the Internet.

The main concern about the bill is its total disregard for the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'. If an IP holder suspects your website contains 'infringing content' (which could be anything from honest to goodness piracy or 1st amendment protected parody) they can ask your advertising services and payment processors (like Paypal) to stop doing business with you. They can also have you stricken from search engines like Google. But the scariest part of the bill is that it can force ISPs to remove your website from the Internet entirely using DNS filtering. This type of filtering (which is used in the Great Firewall of China) isn't a targeted form of censorship: it won't just block the offending video or page. Instead, your whole website can get blocked for one infraction.

If your website relies on user generated content (like Youtube) or allows users to comment and post media (like Facebook), you can be held responsible for 'not doing enough to prevent piracy'. Your whole website could be blocked because a single user keeps posting pirated content.

Problems like these already happen on a smaller scale due to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but this law would open the flood gates to abusive claims of copyright infringement. The next Youtube or Facebook would never even get a chance on an Internet like the one this law envisions.

Copyright isn't the only possible ramification of this law. Because the law also applies to those who simply 'facilitate' piracy, like the anonymity software Tor, the law could also threaten human rights. Software like Tor already helped countless rebels in the Arab Spring hide their communications from oppressive governments. Sure, it probably helps a few pirates too. The question becomes, would hurting a few pirates really be enough justification to take such an important tool away from those who fight against totalitarian oppression?

The tables are stacked in favor of the bill passing, but some very influential and important technology and Internet companies are fighting hard to prevent its passage. Already more members of congress are souring on the bill, but the fight to save the Internet is far from over. You can help by letting your congressional representatives know you're against this bill. The Internet's future may depend on it.

When we all lose control

1979 was the best year in the history of alternative music. It was the zenith of postpunk, the genre most important to the independent music being produced today. It was the year of Unknown Pleasures.

Control, released in 2007, is a film – biopic? maybe – by first-time filmmaker Anton Corbijn – rock photographer? maybe – about the man behind and full of Unknown Pleasures, Joy Division frontman Ian Curtis.

It’s not a film for non-fans. There’s no path within it to access the band’s importance if you don’t already know it, no reason for your heart to skip a beat at mention of The Factory if you didn’t grow up, like me, sustaining yourself in all the dark joys of its output.

But it does depict, honestly, the extremely rapid rise and fall of a man, Ian Curtis.

This is a man who was, briefly, a social worker. This is a man who was, briefly, a husband and father. This is a man who was, briefly, an epileptic, crippled by the fear he may become worse – that he may, in no uncertain terms, lose control. This is a man, who, out of nowhere, presumably, and quite literally, changed the face of rock ‘n’ roll.

In Control, Curtis comes off as a bit of a psychopath in the jump-cut scenes of his early days and courtship with soon-to-be wife Debbie, who, to my amazement after watching, had quite a large role in its production. It’s jarring, even if I divorce the part of myself that’s a fan of Joy Division (and its later incarnation, New Order, admittedly) and cuddle up to the part that just wants to watch a good movie – one that’s tragic, sure, but tragically beautiful. Instead what I get in Control is an archetype of miscreant man – selfish adulterer trapped in his own head.

I glorify Curtis, I know, because I love his music. And what Control gives, in its beautiful and stark black and white, to its credit, is a portrait of how he actually was – a flawed, talented, Wordsworth-loving human being, never a rock star. And it is for the best, ultimately, for Hollywood needs another glorified depiction of mental illness like all its audience members need a hole in the head.

But would it be so much to ask of a piece of art independent of its subject matter to have an appeal to its main focus – an emotional relatability behind the pathos to which Curtis eventually succumbs? I guess for Corbijn – ironically a fanboy before such a thing existed – it is. Instead what we get is a portrait of a man growing up to become more and more of a child.

We see Curtis get high with a friend, we see Curtis apply makeup and listen to his hero, Bowie; we see Curtis review the album art for Joy Division’s debut, which we learn he paid £400 to record, right before he told Debbie “let’s have a baby.” We see Curtis, apparently in London for the first time, spit out a mid-bridge section of the game-changing, life-altering, all-the-superlatives-you-could-think-of closer to Unknown Pleasures, “I Remember Nothing.”

We don’t see, quite, how he goes from bare-chested record consumer in his parents’ Greater Manchester flat in 1973 to the great contributor to modern rock (and pop, for god’s sake, let’s just admit it – Peter “Hooky” Hook’s bass contribution is everywhere). Again, if we don’t yet know why we should give a shit about the life of Ian Curtis, we get no clues.

We do see the beginning of the end of Curtis as a man: The epilepsy he was so afraid to surrender to, the affair with Belgian hobby-journalist Annik Honore (the extremely beautiful and extremely promising – where has she been since 2007? – Alexandra Maria Lara), the “Love Will Tear Us Apart” lyrics set to the resounding themes of divorce and death.

I guess Control isn’t a biopic. It’s a film about Curtis’ suicide.

Curtis hanged himself in May 1980, in the house – where Control, amazingly, actually filmed – he occupied with his very much estranged wife and baby daughter, at age 23, no older than I am today.

What Control gets right is the music. And I don’t just say that as a fan of Joy Division, I say that as a fan of rock music. The concert material, which makes up the bulk of Control and its most moving moments, a bit sadly, is all actually recorded live, by the actors. It would have been easy to film syncing, but, amazingly, the actors picked up the instruments and recorded the material raw. The result is that we see a group of pretenders actually join up in the togetherness that, despite whatever flaw that ultimately tears them apart, joins a band as a group of humans seeking love. It’s to Corbijn’s credit that he allowed this to happen – it wasn’t originally intended – and to the actors’ credit that it saved an otherwise mediocre film.

Sam Riley gets Curtis right – as much as I’m annoyed with the writing of an ultimately selfish and unlovable man, Riley devotes all his emotion and physicality to depict the fitful (in more ways than one) man. Again, he is as he is – as he was. The singer-at-his-heart Riley gives a performance that’s as wonderfully claustrophobic, acidic and tragically beautiful as Curtis’ music, throwing his gangly frame into a performance that outshines the equally annoyingly passive victim, the better-known Samantha Morton as his absurdly suffering wife.

We, as an audience, are most on Curtis’ side as Riley awkwardly dances to his music and belts out, winningly, the lyrics we see in the most touching moments of Control we see he gives so, so, so much to deliver.

Mortison, as is fated, it seems, does ultimately give the most human performance in screaming, at the very end of Control, the "Can anybody help me?!" with her baby daughter, after Curtis' death, extolling the visceral grief of suicide and helplessness.

Knowing as we do how the film will end, I’ll argue its most poignant moment comes as bassist Peter Hook (played wonderfully sarcastic by the equally promising Joe Anderson) teases the fragile Curtis following an epileptic fit that forces him prematurely off stage.

“Right, who won the fight, then, Ian or Ian?” He says of the “fight” of Curtis’ seizure.

That’s not all the options. When genius enters the bloody struggle to make art, it’s only ever the audience that wins.

Occupy Wall Street

I think it is safe to say, if you don't live in New York City, you may have no idea what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about. Even with all of the stories published by the New York Times or the Washington Post, or those that run on the evening news, it's been very unclear as to what the goal of this movement is.

Finally, CNN posted a great video today that helps clear things up. But why has it taken this long? Is it because the journalists themselves are unclear as to what the purpose of the movement is? Are journalists so busy covering the protests and the evictions from parks that they have missed the point?

I think this could be the case. Many times journalists get wrapped up in what's happening right now, that they don't publish stories dealing with anything deeper than the action. I wonder if this is because many journalists who are covering the story are either pressed for time to get it done, or because they are trying to be objective?

I think it's important for journalists to remain objective no matter what story they're covering, but I also think that sometimes what you are given to put in your story may seem like information to bias the audience. That's where good, old fashioned reporting comes in. I'd like to see more than just "what's happening now", I want to hear some expert opinions, responses from more than just the local government, and a good analysis or commentary. And I'd like this to be more than just a blip on a back page. If something like Occupy Wall Street is happening, do your job and tell me what the heck it is and what these people want.

CNN Video

Sports Rules

Baylor vs. KU.  It was a great game except for the first and fourth quarters.

In the fourth quarter, Baylor came back from a three touchdown deficit.  Not a good day to be a Jayhawks fan.  That, however painful to watch, was not the worst part of the game.

Apparently, replay has taken over sports, and not just in the professional arenas.  In the first half, around 8 plays were reviewed.  It was strange though; most of them were reviewed without flags thrown by the coaches.

The fact that so many plays were reviewed wasn't even the main problem.  The problem was that there was  a string of several plays in less than a quarter of football that were reviewed.  It seemed like every time the fans got a chance to watch some football, the play was being reviewed.

It became so ridiculous that at one point in the first half, while waiting for the refs to make a decision, a Baylor player picked up a leaf off the field and started tearing it slowly watching as it flew in the wind.  It was like watching a bored child trying to find something entertaining to fill his time.

It is sad when the rules of a game are restricted to the point that the rhythm of the game is so drastically changed.  It is becoming this way in a lot of sports that have replay.  Refs are so afraid of getting a play wrong that anything and everything is reviewed.  

Part of the game is getting screwed.   How many plays can we watch in the past and see that the decision was wrong?  Oh well.  Those games are in the record books.  All teams will get plays called the wrong way; it kind of evens out.

Everyone loses with such strict replay decisions.  Games are lengthened, rhythms of games are changed by the refs, and players lose momentum.  The refs are not the players and should not be the main attraction of a game.  Just call the game as you see it.  If a coach throws a challenge flag, then review it.  If it's under two minutes and the play is contested and could change the game, fine, review it.

But for everything else, the KU fans chanted the right answer Saturday.

"Let them play."

Don't eat your heart out

As the holidays approach, it’s time for rest, relaxation and good food. But the continuous feasts, scrumptious desserts and endless leftovers can leave you feeling stuffed. To avoid loosening your belt or wearing sweats to the table to give your stomach a little more room, follow these few helpful tips.

No more grumbling. Don’t show up to the table on an empty stomach. It’s tempting to skip breakfast or lunch during the holidays when you know there will be a big meal later on in the day, but skipping meals will cause you to overeat and you’ll consume more food than normal.

Divide the dish. It’s okay to indulge in the holiday goodies, but use a smaller plate. A smaller dish will help you keep portion size under control. If you’re hungry after you finish the first plate, it’s okay to have seconds, but wait about 20 to 30 minutes to make sure you really are still hungry. It takes about that long for the stomach to send a message to the brain that its full.

Beware of the beverages. Alcohol is full of calories and sugar and no nutrients so be careful about how much you consume. It can also induce over-eating. Enjoy a cocktail or two, but don’t go overboard.

Palatable pastries. The dessert table can be tempting and all of the different kinds of pies, pastries, cookies and brownies look good enough to try. Feel free to sample them all, but limit yourself to slivers. If you want to eat a multitude of desserts, only take a bite of each to avoid packing in calories.

Bottom line, indulge yourself a little bit, but don’t go nuts. Just because its the holidays and time for celebration with family and friends doesn’t mean the calories don’t count and the pounds won’t pack on. If you remember moderation is the key, you’ll be free to eat all the yummy foods you want.

The 2012 Presidential Election Is Going To Be Decided By Europe

Public debt as % of GDP in countries using the Euro. Source: CIA World Factbook

If you want to make God laugh, make a plan. Or an election prediction. Knowing full well that I'll likely be completely wrong, I'm going to make a bold electoral prediction: the winner of next years presidential race is going to be decided by the big issue none of the candidates are talking about. And that issue is what happens in Europe.

There are two reasons no one is talking about it. First, it's extremely complicated. From what I can gather, multiple European countries, including Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain, and Portugal are wallowing in debt. The danger comes from all the people and institutions that are now connected to that debt via 'credit default swaps'. These nasty little insurance policies are essentially bets that a certain debt won't default. They're also the same financial gimmick that led to the 2008 financial crisis. You can think of Italy as Lehman Brothers, but much, much bigger. If one of these countries throws their hands up in the air and says 'I can't pay off this debt, I'm bankrupt', then all the credit default swaps attached to that countries debt are supposed to be paid off. The problem? There isn't enough money in the banks that sold the credit default swaps to do that for a country like Italy. So Banks collapse, pensions and retirement funds disappear, and stock markets plunge. Again, like 2008, but much, much worse.

Secondly, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. Right now the wealthier European countries are debating how much money they need to put up in order to bail out countries like Greece. That's hardly a popular notion in those countries, so just try to imagine an American politician saying we need to help bail out Italy.

What this means is the 2012 presidential election is in the hands of the European Union. If they can minimize and contain their fiscal crisis through bailouts and austerity and prevent any member countries from defaulting, Obama stands a good chance of being re-elected based purely on the incumbent advantage (and so long as nothing else hurts the economy). But what if the EU can't get its act together and a member country defaults, or worse, leaves the Euro? The global economy tanks, perhaps worse than it did in 2008 (and keep in mind, the economy before the 2008 crisis was doing a lot better than ours is now). Try as he might, Obama won't be able to explain another worse recession as 'Europe's fault'. At that point, Mitt Romeny would be a shoe in, and a Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain could probably narrowly defeat him.

Amazon and the war over ebook rights

Last week Amazon once again stirred up the publishing world by making a contract with D.C. Comics for exclusive rights to their ebooks. Now that Amazon has put their own version (Kindle Fire) of the tablet computer on the market full color comics can finally come straight to your home via their electronic device. It seems like an awesome step in the right direction, I mean now we don't even have to go out and buy our comic books, or wait for them to come in to the bookstore. We can get it all with the touch of a button.
But apparently this isn't all a good thing. Books A Million and Barnes and Noble were so outraged about Amazon getting exclusive rights that they yanked D.C. Comics off their shelves. They contended that if they couldn't have the electronic rights, then they didn't want the books themselves. I suppose that's a wise move, maybe.
However, I don't think it'll do anything in the face of the ebook wave. Besides, these massive bookstore chains aren't considering their competition from Apple and iBook. Although Apple has licensed relatively few books compared with Amazon, the market's still trending toward electronic publishing rather than hard copies in bookstores.
Audiences these days are fickle, if they can't get it at the touch of a button, they may decide they don't want it at all - well, aside from the die-hard fans. I think this means Books A Million and Barnes and Noble may have to cut their losses before it turns into an all out war. One that I'm sure they won't win.

A Harry Potter Obsession

When I was 9, my Uncle who visits England regularly brought me home a book that was "all the rage" overseas. It was titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone." I read it, and instantly needed to know what happened next. And so went the next 10+ years of my life: going to the book premieres, seeing all of the movies in the theater (dressed up of course), and relying on these characters to get me through the hardest times of my life.

When someone falls in love, there is an unspoken level of comfort with that other person. I dare say, I fell in love with the Harry Potter series. Maybe that makes me a looney-tune, but it's the truth. In good times and in bad, I want to pick up those books and be around my best friends, and escape into a world so magical that my problems seem to drift away.

Many people, including myself, were heartbroken when the seventh and final installment of the book series came out. The same emotions were held when the second part of the final film was released this past July. Now, just a few short months later, the final film will be released on DVD and the same heartbroken feeling washes over me - it's over, it's really over.

While it feels like I'm closing the book on my youth with the Harry Potter series, I discovered just yesterday how wrong I was. I started in on "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" (Sorcerer's in the U.S.) and couldn't put it down. I've read these books in upwards of 20 times, but the magic is still there. There is still a level of escape with those books that I don't feel reading anything else. I encourage those who love the films, but who have not read the books to give them a chance. Pick up the first book and try reading one chapter a night. I guarantee you will find yourself more intrigued than you think.

The final film can be purchased on DVD and Blueray on 11/11/11. Here is the trailer to that film.

The feminist case for Gaurdasil for boys

Sometimes the greatest challenge in public health is the public itself.

NPR's Shots health blog reported today on why giving the vaccine against human papillomavirus to boys may actually be an easier sell than for girls.

Wait for it - the "shocker" of the story is right at the end. The recent CDC approval for boys as young as 11 is likely less controversial than the six-year-and-counting push to vaccinate girls against the disease, which can cause cervical cancer, because, well, what is it? Oh yeah, I guess it's because it's easier to accept that boys just might have sex.

I hope the absurdity here is obvious. For one thing, if the majority of the population is heterosexual, with whom are they having this sex? But that point, actually, is neither here nor there. It's obvious that in 2011, double-standard views of sex are alive and well.

Regardless of my outrage on that harsh truth, I can understand a parent's (wholly unrealistic) hope that the difference here is that it's not about attitudes of men vs. women re: sex, it's about children, and we'll hope that children of any gender won't be sexually active too soon.

Hope isn't good enough. Hope doesn't prevent disease. Vaccination now protects the patient whether he or she becomes sexually active at that time or years afterward. In fact, if there is a case against vaccination, it's for the adults of my cohort who probably already have or have had one type of HPV. (This issue is another post in itself.)

So if we support HPV vaccination, should we support it for boys? Yes. Even if I don't agree with the logic behind it, it will help the generation of girls who will be exposed to the boys who might get the vaccine. After all, girls are at least somewhat more likely to get any STI, just by virtue of anatomy.

I'll continue to oppose the double standard, but because of the way herd immunity works, any increase in vaccination helps reduce the risk to the entire population.

In the meantime, the public of the American middle classes, sometimes the greatest threat to public health is just silliness.

Why aren't we talking about Keystone?

UPDATE: The State Department announced last week that TransCanada's application will be delayed until after the 2012 presidential election. News analysis of the announcement reflected its political overtones, but the official line acknowledges not the objections of Nebraskans but rather concerns over the objectivity of the investigators.

As soon as the news broke, I texted the friend mentioned below. "Delay = victory?"

His response? Nope, just politicking. But I think it's a victory on the call-to-action I give below. More time means opportunity for the real people who will be affected by this process to take control of it.

A friend of mine went to a protest against the Keystone XL project this week in Washington, D.C. He also went to Occupy Wall Street - you know, the real one, actually on Wall Street.

I got into an extensive text message exchange with him last night but after about an hour, I realized even I was unfairly lumping the two groups together. And I had the great sinking feeling of "goodness, I don't actually know what I'm talking about." I felt silly, but that got me thinking - why don't I know more about this?

Our debate was effectively about the efficacy - or lack thereof - of the Keystone XL protest.

The human chain formed around the White House was, as my friend confirmed, an emotional appeal to the president to deny TransCanada's application for a building permit by executive order. It was organized, had leadership and clear goals. It was, in short, a highly successful protest. And it will likely do nothing.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

TransCanada, the oil/logistics powerhouse that owns the pipeline, has a great explanatory, interactive map on its site. The pipeline already goes through Kansas, carrying tar sands oil to the refining Gulf ports of the south. A proposal to extend and enlarge the pipeline - the "XL" of discussion - has been up for review for more than a year at the Department of State, which has the final say to approve or not because of it crosses an international border.

If "tar sands" sounds dirty, that's because it is. Anti-Keystone XL bloggers cite 14 spillsthroughout the existing pipeline since June 2010. The extension project would go through the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides the drinking water for more than 2 million people in the midwest. Just today, NPR ran a story on Nebraskans and their opposition to the project.

The truth is, I don't know where I stand in this debate. Both sides make very valid points - the risks of great environmental harm with little payoff on one side, job-creation and a lowering of foreign dependence on oil on the other.

What I do know, with great frustration, is that it's not actually a true debate here in Kansas. We simply aren't talking about it and we should be. The final approval will come from executive order, but the Nebraskan senators show this is a state-by-state issue, with influence to sway a no vote, should that be what state citizens want, lies really only with these state politicians. But with the exception of a few protests in the capitol in September, the conversation just doesn't seem to be happening here in Kansas. Perhaps I'm blind to it, being as I am in the "bubble" of Northeast Kansas, so unlike the great majority of the state. But as our national and hyperlocal discussion continues to include so many references to #occupy whatever, the truly local - the state-level issues, whatever they may be - need to take precedence.

As shown in the video above, opposition to the project here seems extremely unlikely. Gov. Sam Brownback is a supporter, and Reuters reported in February that Wichita-based Koch Industries stands to be a huge financial winner. Arguments against may be increasing, but it's unlikely they'll ever compete.

Regardless of your stance, though, mine remains this: All sides deserve for this to be an issue all Kansans understand and openly and frequently discuss.

Why aren't we talking about Keystone? We should be. That we aren't is a real disgrace.

Christmas in July

The zombies haven’t even crawled back to their graves yet and already Thanksgiving and Christmas decorations are displayed in stores. Why is it that stores feel the need to set up their displays and advertise in newspapers, on TV and on websites months before a holiday?

I understand that window displays are part of what entices the customer and draws shoppers into the depths of the store to spend money, but why do Christmas decorations have to be set up in October? What happened to being in the moment and celebrating the holiday of today instead of two months from now?

Maybe the fast-paced society of today has a hand in it. In the age of instant gratification, when we want something, we want it yesterday. Sure, some people like to shop early and get things crossed off of a to-do list, but most people in today’s world are last-minute doers. So then why all the fuss to rush the chocolate off the shelves and replace it with candy canes?

This commercial first aired on Oct. 29, 2010.

The race to set up the fake snow, tinsel, and plastic trees could have a connection to the sluggish economy. Stores could be using windows, pamphlets, and commercials in an effort to drag their revenues up. The promotions might entice shoppers to purchase more while in the store, or they often offer discounts on future purchases, ensuring the customer returns. But I think it’s something else entirely.

Competition. Shopping, in a way, is a sport. It’s competitive, cut-throat, and strategic. And the store who has the best revenue or the most customers, wins. Some stores play on tradition, dredging up memories or tugging at heart strings. Other stores shove promotions at any and everyone. And others yet, bring in celebrity guests to promote a certain theme.

Instead of the holiday season being about spending time with family and friends or relaxing for a couple days in today’s rat race, it has become about which chain store can drag the holiday out for the longest period of time. At this rate, Christmas really will be in July.

No Shave November in KC

No Shave November.  It didn't last too long in Kansas City.

For those that don't know, No-Shave November is a silly tradition that some people do where they take bets and see who can grow the best beard.  Some even compete in categories: creepiest, bushiest, most non-existent.  No clue where it came from, but, hey, it's here.

It's a sad November day for Chiefs fans here in Kansas City, though.  Our hopeful winner of this year's contest will most likely be shaving his beard off after today.  The Chiefs lost in a beat down by the winless - previously winless, sorry, it's still a sore point - Dolphins.

Todd Haley had said he would not shave his beard until the Chiefs lost.  He kept his word for four weeks before this first November game.  It didn't matter that he didn't shave October 31st so that he started fresh like everyone else; it just mattered that he made it through November with his beard in tact.

"A month?  I did this in 2 weeks. "

Now, a decision has to be made.  Since Haley has lost his handicap - well you know, the fact that he was winning - who is the new front-runner for this year's trophy?

Maybe Haley can keep his lead.  He's a likable guy, sometimes, but the odds are stacked against him.  He can start the beard anew next week with a win against the Denver Broncos.  They are sitting at the bottom of the division with a QB that's starting on a week-by-week basis.  After that though, well, it's going to be rough for him to keep a lead.

The Chiefs round out November with the New England Patriots and the Pittsburgh Steelers.  The Steelers; there's a chance there.  The Chiefs have been the long shot against them before and pulled it off. It'll be a really tough game, but in Arrowhead, anything is possible. (Just ask the Dolphins; still a sore point)  The Patriots, though, that's another story.  Monday night in New England against a Patriots team that has been struggling of late.  They're going to take the opportunity to thrash the Chiefs if they get it.  Hometown pride aside, it'll be rough.

So is there anyone else in the area that can grab the title?  Bill Snyder had a chance until his Wildcats lost their past two.  The rest of their schedule doesn't look any better.   Gil Turner maybe?  Depends.  Can you refuse to grow your beard until your team wins?  If so, he has the best chance of all.

Haley, I was rooting for you.  But now, I am just going to have to bet on that scraggly guy that came to Lawrence almost 10 years ago and comes back every year with a swagger that you can't help but root for.  With a healthy team, Bill Self may just be the new fan favorite.

"Hmm, I do make this look good."

Sorry Coach Haley.  Maybe next year you'll have a shot.  Unfortunately, the fans of Kansas City have been saying that since Joe Montana left.  But hey, maybe you can prove us wrong.  For once.

What do Iowa and New Hampshire really tell us?

Note: This was made with the HTML5 animation software Hype. Because it is Webkit based it is most compatible with Safari and Chrome. If you're are having problems with the application try using one of those browsers instead.

In politics, especially around big elections, you're liking to hear supposed truisms: no modern president has won without Ohio (except for JFK), Missouri is similarly a bellwether state (not counting 1956 and 2008 of course), and everything rests on winning the Iowa caucus (which this graphic shows to be completely false).

In fact, the fast approaching 2012 Iowa caucus won't be very predictive at all (unless of course Mitt Romney can pull a narrow win in the split field). For Republican nominees, New Hampshire is the far more important state to win and it looks like Mitt Romney already has the primary all wrapped up.

University of Missouri, you need to quit it. Stop the nonsense, stop the posturing, stop pretending to be someone you’re not.

You tried this last summer, when you told us the Big 10 invited you to move north to its neighborhood. You threatened to pack up your things. We texted and called you and asked you to stay and you pretended you’re phone was on silent. Or dead, we don’t remember exactly.

Turns out, the popular kids didn’t invite you to their party. They didn’t want you there. They wanted our mutual friend – Nebraska. You were just a friend of a friend. You’re false alarm caused Colorado to run for the hills, now they live way the hell out west.

Look Missouri, we’ve been knowing each other for a long time. We butt heads, but any good friends do. Hell, I’d be worried if we didn’t. There are times we don’t speak to each other. It’s nothing personal, I mean, let’s face it, we bring out the best in each other. Something about our differences make us strangely compatible. Gosh that sounds weird.

Enough with the sap though, we both know we’re not close like that. I called in hopes of convincing you to stay in the neighborhood. I know, I know – the housing market sucks. A couple friends moved out already and it feels like this place could turn into Sandusky.

But you need to stick it out. This is where we grew up!

If you move to the Southeasternville, you’ll live on the edge of town. The people who live there are cliquey. You’ll have to earn their respect and they’ll beat up on you for a while. And even if you stay long enough, seniority rules. You’ll always be the new guy - think Baylor. That and you’ll be the third person with the last name Tiger! Sure the streets might be cleaner, the houses more lavish, but that’s not you.

Oh, and if you thought the bullies here were bad – we both hate Longhorn and Boomer – you don’t want to meet Gator and Bulldog and their little cousin Rebel. They mean harm.

Anyway, I won’t beg you. Just know that we know. We know you’re putting on a front. We’ve watched you grow up, we’ve fought it out in the streets together, we even know you’re fear of trophies. We know you.

Alright, we’re not the most popular kids. We don’t have as many televisions. We don’t have as many dollars. Just remember, though, that’s what makes us, us. When the wine cooler runs dry and you stumble back to you’re new house on a hill in Southeasternville, it’s going to get lonely. You’re really gunna wish you stayed home. You’re going to find that it’s not the house you live in, but what’s inside the house. And those you live among.

I’m sorry? Oh, my apologies, this is Kansas. Sorry, I thought you knew it was me. Did you already delete my number?

Entertaining without going to the extremes

As a person who enjoys watching commercials only during the Super Bowl, I have to admit, I find myself paying attention to Target’s ads throughout the entire year— they’re genius. The ads are simple, direct, and entertaining. There are no tacky voiceovers, no one telling you to do this or that in order to benefit the most, and no obnoxious demonstrations of whatever product the ad is pushing.

The 15-second ad is the perfect time span for an ad because a viewer’s attention is usually lost after that. And, the ad gets the point across without having a spokesperson screaming about the product to grab the viewers’ attention.

But going beyond that, Target advertises products that people actually need. Everyday things like bread for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, shampoo and diapers are products that hit close to home in most demographics.

Target, and its advertising department, clearly understand the company’s demographic and know how to effectively reach the target audience. The commercials span all generations for all different types of everyday needs, but they effectively communicate who is the ad is aimed at and what product they promote without having to shove the product in the viewers’ face.

Ending the commercial with a screen shot of the product and the price it’s selling at also allows the ads to be direct in a short amount of time. Target has figured out a way to promote and sell their product by taking everyday life occurrences, such as bad breath, and simply suggesting the product that will remedy the situation found in the commercial, and in real life.

Could a Balanced Budget Amendment Even be ratified?

Over the summer, during the debt limit fight (or hostage situation, depending on your point of view), the most conservative Republicans were demanding one thing in particular: a balanced budget amendment. This amendment would essentially restrict the federal government from spending only as much as it takes in, except in national emergencies. Ignoring for a moment how horrible this would be or that such an amendment could pass both the partisan House and democratically controlled Senate with 2/3 majorities, could such an amendment ever realistically be ratified by 38 state legislatures? Well, because I'm a total political nerd, I decided to examine just such a possibility.

In order to be ratified by a state legislature, both chambers of the legislature (or Nebraska's Unicameral legislature) must ratify the amendment. Neither the president nor the governors of the states have a say in the matter. Assuming a chamber controlled by the Republican Party will always ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment, there are 26 state legislatures where the Republicans control both chambers and would pass the amendment right now. Nebraska's legislature is non-partisan, but the conservative leanings of the state make it likely to ratify any such amendment, bringing the total up to 27. Therefore, Republicans would need to sway or capture 11 more state legislatures to ratify the amendment, meaning the amendment wouldn't be ratified in this year or the next. But that's not typical for constitutional amendments anyway, which can await ratification by the states for years (or in the case of the 27th Amendment, 203 years!) The question then becomes, how hard would it be to get 11 more state legislatures to ratify the amendment? Very.

Currently, there are eight states where Republicans control one body of the legislature. In Alaska, where Republicans control the State House, the state senate is split 50-50. Alaskan Republicans had control of the state senate as recently as 2008, meaning they could very easily win back control of the chamber. I'm unsure of whether the state senate president could make a tie breaking vote, but either way Alaska could probably be relied upon to ratify the amendment. Similarly, control of Oregon's state house is shared by both parties, but because the State Senate is democratically controlled, it is unlikely to ratify a balanced budget amendment any time soon.

Beyond Alaska, the Republicans don't have many legislatures within in their reach. Controlling 27 state legislatures is likely something of a high water mark for Republicans, brought on by their 2010 wave election. Total control of the legislatures in states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, North Carolina and the volatile New Hampshire is unlikely to last long (and with the recall elections in Wisconsin, perhaps not even past August). States can rescind their ratification of an amendment, meaning that even counting Nebraska and Alaska, the 28 that could ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment are potentially fleeting. That said, if Republicans ratify it while they have control, they need only hold on to one branch to prevent a rescission, which makes it easier for them.

That said, Republicans still have a chance. Like I previously mentioned, a constitutional amendment can await ratification for centuries. In the next few decades, might some state legislature become more conservative? I'd say the writing is already on the wall for democrats in the south. Control of Mississippi's state senate is slipping away from Democrats, and Arkansas is fast becoming a more conservative state. Kentucky and Iowa certainly aren't becoming more liberal any time soon and could conceivably be captured by Republicans in the next few decades. And all four of these states might have enough conservative democrats willing to support a balanced budget amendment even before Republicans take complete control. Oregon, despite being reliably democratic at the presidential level, could realistically be captured by Republicans at some point. The state senate is currently only 2 seats away from their control and the Republicans need only capture one seat in the state house to swing it to their side.

So if Republicans can ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment in 28 states within the next year and a half, prevent any of those states from rescinding their ratification, they might have another 5 states join them in the next decade or so. That brings the potential number of states legislatures to 33. Are there 5 more that could ever logically ratify the amendment? West Virginia continues to elect democrats at the state level despite its turn toward Republicans at the presidential level. I don't think it's a stretch to say West Virginia's state legislature might someday be controlled by Republicans. Virginia and Colorado, where Republicans already control one branch of the legislature, could revert to their recently conservative pasts after going blue in 2008 (though Colorado democrats weathered 2010 surprisingly well). Nevada and Washington's state legislatures are both controlled by democrats presently, but not by overwhelming margins.

Are these the 5 states that could push ratification over the edge? The rest of the states currently controlled by Democrats are that way for a reason: they are extremely blue states. I'm already heavily extrapolating on the last 3-5 states the Republicans would need, so who's to say New Mexico or some New England state doesn't take a hard right shift in the 2020's? And if I'm extrapolating in one direction, why not the other? At some point, demographics are going to change the politics of Texas and Arizona, and it'll probably be in the democrats favor. And though I said that most of the south is probably lost for democrats in the near term, a Republican shift in Washington or Oregon is probably just as likely as a democratic shift in Georgia and Florida, where demographics are also in flux. Florida is also heavily gerrymandered in the Republicans favor right now, but that could be undone by a new non-partisan redistricting this year. And if you really want to extrapolate pointlessly, consider the possibility that were two more states added to the union, any amendment would require 39 states to be ratified.

Something else to think about is the amount of money states get from the federal government. If a Balanced Budget Amendment were actually close to being ratified, would states dependent on the federal subsidies like Alaska and Mississippi actually pass it? Billions of dollars of federal subsidies would almost certainly be cut, and these states in particular see a great deal of federal largess. Same with agricultural states like Iowa and low population states like the Dakotas. Who knows, maybe some day a coalition of liberal states, tired of getting less money from the government than they pay it in taxes, will actually push for a balanced budget amendment.

So if I were a democratic strategist, I wouldn't be all that worried about this amendment actually being ratified, at least not in this decade. It would certainly be a constant political danger for democrats, always waiting for another historic Republican wave to unleash its powers to strangle the federal government. But if the best Republicans can do in a wave like 2010 is 27 legislatures, any wave capable of putting this amendment close to ratification probably means democrats have other things to worry about (like what weather's like in Toronto during the fall).

Dr. Pepper Ten Not for Women and Shouldn't Be For Men

To call Dr. Pepper 10's latest commercial sexist would be the understatement of the century. Watching this commercial my jaw fell:

As an avid Diet Dr. Pepper consumer, I have to ask why Dr. Pepper would create such a polarizing ad? The polarizing nature of this ad is not that the ad is targeted at men. There are plenty of products that are meant for men including razors, clothing, sporting goods etc. However, never have I seen a commercial that blatantly stats "Not for women."

This is offensive for many reasons. This is not a masculine running shoe, a razor specified to your face or a cologne - it is a soft drink. Soda, regular and diet, is consumed by both men and women. This soda is targeted for men because it only has 10 calories. Diet soda that does not taste like diet soda is commonly targeted to a male audience. For instance, Coca-Cola's Coke Zero line of soda is arguably targeted for a male audience. Compare their commercial to Dr. Pepper Ten's commercial:

Coke Zero will appeal to men without offending women. While diet soda that doesn't taste like diet soda may appeal more to men than to women, why would you risk alienating potential consumers of your product? There is a very large contingent of women who drink regular soda, and would probably appreciate a diet soda that tastes like regular soda. However, if I were a woman I wouldn't go within a ten foot pole of Dr. Pepper Ten. Not only should women boycott buying Dr. Pepper Ten, but men should boycott it as well. Why would you support a non-gender specific product that is sexist? It's offensive, it's sexist and it's further evidence of the stereotypes of men and women in the media.

Professionalism: A Learned Trait

Professionalism.  It is a trait that is neither given nor received.  It is something one must learn.  How does one learn to be professional?  Easy.  They learn by watching and learning from individuals in positions of power, leadership and mentoring.

However, what happens when the person that is learning has no one to learn from? Or, even, if the 'professional' teaches but does not act on their own advice?

In the college realm, students learn from their professors.   They learn the things that are needed for future careers, they learn basic skills that every student is expected to know, and they learn how to act.   For many, outside their parents, teachers are the first outside influence of what it means to be professional.

Professionalism is a trait that needs a little refining here in the KU area.  Over the last few years, students have had little to look up to for role models in the professional sense.  From Athletics to Faculty, there are gaping holes.  It may just be a few rotten souls, but they make the whole look bad.

What's the basic commandment for students?  "Thou shalt not cheat.  If cheating occurs, you shall pay."  Cheating and plagiarism are cardinal sins in the university life and professors don't let students forget it.  It's not so easy to tell a student not to do something, though, and to turn around and see a colleague censured for the exact same thing.

That is exactly what happened in the last month.  Two KU professors were censured for plagiarism.  What did they get? A slap on the wrist, a censure.  Not only are they telling students that they are not doing what they preach, but also are not held to the same expectation as the student.   A student would either receive an F, or be put on probation.  Should a teacher not be held to a higher standard?

A friend recently spoke of an incident at Barton Community College, while not nearly as disturbing, reeks of unprofessionalism.  The class, Western Civilization II, is a class that Barton CC holds for KU students looking for transfer credit.  For extra credit, the teacher ( or TA, sometimes one cannot tell in the class) asked for the students to pick the winner of the KU v. KSU game.  He added that while picking KSU wouldn't warrant more points, it would make him happier and would be a better post.  If there were KSU or any other school's students in the class, okay.   However, this is only KU students, or students wanting to go to KU.  When is it okay to insult your student's school or its athletic department?  A generic joke is fine; a singling out joke is not.

Professors must remember that they are role models for their students.   They must teach them how to be students and working professionals.  In doing so, they must also abide by the same rules they teach and expect consequences that may be more severe when they violate them.  If this doesn't happen, why should a student try to be professional?  They can say they didn't know any better; they wouldn't necessarily be lying.

A 'hello' can go a long way

At this point in my life, my mind is focused almost solely on what will happen after May 13, 2012. Graduation. The real world. A job.

It’s that last one that seems to keep nagging at me. As someone who has spent my entire life in Kansas — save for summers away at sleep-away camp and a semester abroad — I want to move. I want to live in a city, rely on public transportation, and be somewhere new. But as a broke college student, the idea of moving without knowing I’ll have a steady paycheck each month seems impossible.

I’ve been updating my resume, scouring websites and applying for jobs. But so far, nothing. So I reached out to some contacts — friends of my parents’, family, old bosses, the like. This got me thinking. Is it not enough anymore to have a packed resume, multiple internships and a good GPA to get a good job right out of school? Or even any job after graduation? Do you have to know exactly the right people in order to get where you want to go? I think so. But more importantly, I think you have to be courageous enough to reach out to people and let them know you are looking for employment.

While it takes courage to ask people if they can contact anyone on your behalf, I also think it takes a certain level of humility. Admitting that you’re not getting very far on your own during a job search can feel like defeat, but talking to people and just letting them know you are available can open doors you never even thought possible. Employees in the human resources department don’t know you, making it easier to say no to you. But reaching out to people that you have an established relationship with can help pave the way to a job you might actually be happy in.

I’m still in the process of looking, but throughout my search, I’ve found that people genuinely want to help. They won’t sandbag their contacts, in fact it’s the opposite. So take time to say hi to friends of your parents or send a quick email to an old boss. You never know who might be inclined to help you in the future.

Population Growth In The United States’ Biggest Cities: A Google Motion Chart

This chart shows the top ten cities from every United States census, starting all the way back in 1790. I made this chart using the extremely awesome Google Motion Charts API and historic Census data. It might look a little complicated at first, but this nifty little Javascript/Flash app can display the information in a ton of different ways. Here are a couple of suggestions:

• Try changing the x-axis to 'Order: Alphabetical' to see the cities grow and shrink side by side.
• If it's too hard to see population growth in the first 50 years, switch the y-axis from 'Lin' to 'Log'.
• Switch the 'Color' menu to 'Unique Colors' to see individual cities more easily
• If it's still too hard to see individual cities, you can zoom in by dragging a box around the area you want to see
• You can also switch the entire graphic to a bar chart or line chart in the upper-right hand corner.

Some notes on the data:

• At first I used the top ten cities for each Census, but that lead to cities popping in and out of the chart. I decided to keep cities in for at least 50 years after they last appear in the top 10.
• Washington D.C. remains in the chart for longer than it should because it actually reappears in the top 10 several decades after it got bumped off.
• After about 1900 I continued adding population info for most of the Northern and Midwestern cities to better illustrate their decline against the rise of the West and Southwest.
• Speaking of the Southwest, since many of the cities there only made it into the top ten in the past few Census years, I started adding in their population about 50 years before they actually made it into the top 10, again to compare them with other regions.
• I rather arbitrarily use the 'regions' defined by this incredible website.
• Keep in mind that some of the more dramatic population changes were actually a result of incorporating cities into one metropolitan area rather than a massive increase in people moving to that city.