Response to "Will Brownback stay with Kansas?"

I have to admit, despite being an avowed political junkie, I didn't catch all the similarities between Gov. Brownback backing Gov. Perry for president and Gov. Sebelius backing President Obama.

It is very likely Gov. Brownback is aiming for a spot in a Perry administration (although considering Gov. Perry's recent debate performance and the Florida straw poll results, that seems a little less likely today), but I wonder to what ends. However, I do think Brownback might prefer to be Governor for a little bit longer. When appointed to the cabinet, Sebelius had served as Governor for a little more than 6 years. Brownback on the other hand would have put in about half that.

Another reason I don't think Brownback would be so quick to jump ship is that he has had considerably fewer obstacles than Sebelius’ two and a half terms. Brownback has had super majorities in both chambers that have been happy to pass his agenda. If Perry wins in 2012, it is doubtful the national climate will be hospitable for Democrats. Perhaps they can chip away at the Republican majorities since 2010 was something of a high water mark for the GOP, but it is doubtful they can capture either house next year. Many Republican state executives would envy Brownback's position.

But let's say Brownback tires quickly of his power once his agenda is accomplished, or the Democrats pull an amazing comeback in Kansas even as Obama loses to Perry. What cabinet position could Brownback be hoping for?

Secretary of Agriculture seems the most likely spot given Kansas' agriculture based economy and Brownback's past experience as a state Ag-Sec. Secretary of the Interior also makes sense for the same reasons. But how desirable are those positions? Cushy, sure, but if Brownback's hoping to build a national profile and run for the Presidency in 2020, Secretary of Agriculture is hardly the place.

Gov. Brownback is most known as a right-wing crusader for social issues. It's hard to see any cabinet positions as a perfect fit for that political mold. Decades ago, Brownback was an attorney, so perhaps he is hoping to be Attorney General. That’s certainly more high profile than the Agriculture or Interior departments, but it's sure to be a competitive slot. I'd think someone like Virginia Attorney General and darling of the right Ken Cuccinelli would be a more likely choice. Or maybe one of the many state Attorney General's who've filed lawsuits against Obama's health care law.

Perhaps the cabinet isn't Brownback's ultimate goal. Perry isn't likely to pick another white, male, social conservative to be his Vice President when he has a diverse selection of relatively fresh faces in the GOP like Florida Sen. Rubio, and Govs. Martinez and Sandoval. He also might want to temper his radical image with a more moderate, Blue state Governor like Chris Christie.

Maybe Brownback is hoping for a more... permanent position? It's very likely at least one Supreme Court justice will be retiring in the next few years. Gov. Brownback probably isn't at the top of most Republicans list (judges are usually the first choice for the Supreme Court), but it's not out of the question to pick Senators and Governors. The social conservative base would probably be ecstatic about a choice like Brownback. By committing to back Perry early and strongly, Brownback could be trying to put himself at the top of the list.

Should the Republican candidate fail to win this year, regardless of who the nominee is, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Brownback once again gunning for a cabinet position in 2016. That would perfectly match Sebelius' path, and without much left to do after being Governor, a cushy cabinet position will probably be exactly what Brownback wants.

Basketball legends back in the Fieldhouse

Kansas’ Legends of the Phog charity basketball game on Sept. 24 felt like a video game. Something like a daydream imagined by a half-sleeping accountant who left Lawrence five years prior.

How else could 23 players and two coaches, separated by several decades but who together accounted for three National Championships, 54 conference championships, 13 Final Fours and 2,038 all-time victories at Kansas, reunite in Allen Fieldhouse for a pick-up game on the same court?

Somehow, though, it was real and 16,300 fans sold the place out.

“Only at Kansas,” coach Bill Self said in his opening remarks. “Only at Kansas would something like this be possible.”

Sure, the game was fun to watch. It was a slow-paced, high-flying scrimmage with no defense. It was a mix of current-NBA players and grown men who now have real jobs.

But any Kansas basketball nerd knows, whether they attended or not, that the actual game was the background story. This was a celebration of one of the most storied college basketball programs in the country on a September afternoon in the middle of football season.

During the game, the place was quiet. There was not one to boo, no opposing fans to shout over or heckle, no rooting interest in the outcome of the game. It was simply about bringing the Kansas basketball community to a small family reunion. For everyone involved it was a trip down memory lane and a unique opportunity to see a snippet of basketball history in one gym.

But the event did more than let Kansas fans gloat. The event was a recruiting tool.

Several sought-after high-school seniors were in the crowd and Bill Self probably had to hide the smile on his face. The event did most of the talking for him.

Ryan Roberston threw alley-oops to Cole Aldrich. Marcus Morris guarded Brandon Rush. Billy Thomas swished three pointers from downtown and coaching greats Larry Brown and Ted Owens coached, or overlooked, the two sides.

During one timeout, Paul Pierce, NBA superstar and Kansas great, took the microphone and thanked the city and the fans while the sold-out crowd wouldn’t shut up. For an 18-year-old choosing where to attend school, the message from Kansas was loud and clear: this place is about tradition and passion.

Fittingly, the game ended in a 111-111 tie. Pierce made a three-pointer with under ten seconds remaining to put the Blue team up 3. Mario Chalmers then answered with a three-ball for the White team, tying the game up and leaving .01 on the clock. Game over.

Two of the great clutch shooters in the history of the program, and two current NBA players, match three-pointers to send everyone – including the recruits, we hope - home smiling.

Only at Kansas.

Will Brownback stay with Kansas?

Governor Sam Brownback announced his official endorsement of Rick Perry’s bid for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination last Thursday. This new development didn’t surprise those who have been tracking Brownback’s movements his first year in office.

However, many of us are wondering if this is a first step to gaining an appointment in the presidential cabinet, provided Perry wins the presidency.

Brownback has so far denied wanting anymore than his Kansas governorship, but to us, this pattern seems a little too familiar.

In 2008, Governor Kathleen Sebelius got behind the Obama campaign with an early Jan. endorsement. Sebelius spent much of the year denying she would ever leave Kansas. But, in 2009, an appointment came that she just couldn’t pass up.

Will Brownback’s endorsement of Perry be a case of history repeating itself? It may take some time, but we believe so.

Brownback has made no secret of his political aspirations over the years. He started his political career as the Kansas Secretary of Agriculture. He later moved on to the U.S. House of Representatives and then ended up replacing Bob Dole as U.S. Senator.

In 2008, Brownback ran unsuccessfully to get the GOP nomination. Unfortunately he was unable to gain enough backing and dropped out of the race in September to back Senator John McCain instead.

Then last year, Brownback took up office as Kansas governor. But we don’t think it will stop here. If Brownback is as aggressive for national office as he has proven to be over the last two decades, we think he’ll be aiming for the presidential cabinet no matter what he says now.

Reviewing a reviewer (who doesn't really do reviews)

This recording in which we teach you how to review a cult TV hit and by doing so also manage to a) examine society; b) examine society especially with regard to the state of the patriarchy, i.e., where feminism stands today; c) provide a masterclass on how cultural criticism works on the web; and d) make you want to be a better writer: Molly Lambert reviews Mad Men

Molly Lambert is a pop-culture blogger, a title that, not very long ago, would very frequently make me and my “print-centric? who, me?” mindset very much cringe. She was, when I first came across her work, the managing editor of a niche online magazine for literary types who also enjoy the Muppets called This Recording. She now writes for the phenomenal long-form sports writing site Grantland, where I’m convinced she is capable even of making a largely male audience care about Jennifer Aniston.

I had read This Recording once in a while for a while when I came across Lambert’s long, richly layered and heavily hyperlinked post called “Can’t be tamed: A manifesto”, which is a list of tips for being a successful woman in a boys’ club. It is also (kind of) a review of the AMC period-piece Mad Men. Kind of.

The manifesto is an outlier in Lambert’s This Recording work in that it’s peppered with screencaps of Mad Men, but not once does it refer to the show or its characters explicitly. Rather, it came about when even people who live under rocks and don’t own TVs like me were hearing all the time about the show, its loyal following and its anachronistic (or is it?) portrayal of women, given that several are raped by the end of the first season. More than a review, it’s a cultural response - a web-friendly enrichment of This Recording's audience's experience.

Lambert did do slightly more traditional Mad Men reviews, but none are anywhere near the standard you-should-go-see-this/you-should-go-see-this media consumerism criticism that is far too often tepid and almost always irrelevant in today's digital environment.

My favorite one (other than the stellar boys’ club piece) starts off by comparing the insufferable Stepford wife character Betty Draper to docile 2011 cultural stereotype Taylor Swift.

Lambert is not kind. She is foul-mouthed, sexually explicit, unapologetic. Her work doesn’t give two Julie Andrews about the artists’ work.

And this is why I admire her so – she’s an incredibly good information synthesizer. She writes with authority on how the small parts add up to the whole, be it of a Mad Men episode itself or how Mad Men represents/fits into overall American (pop) culture.

It's mainly about feminism. But it's also about music, books, film -- all of our media, and it's about how all that media still portrays a still deeply troubling relationship to/with women. Again, it's all about the complex layers of experience that our cohort has with media, which, to me, makes it a brilliant example of what cultural criticism should be, especially in this day and age in which it increasingly isn't -- value in to itself.

--

Mad Men, by the way, is brilliant, too. I finally decided to finally devote a few hours to it after hearing Jon Hamm's reading from one of my favorite works of poetry, Frank O'Hara's Meditations in an Emergency, which, it turns out, becomes a major plot point:

But my New York School love aside, it's brilliant because it's deeply character-driven, and, in this reviewer's opinion, Peggy Olsen and Pete Campbell are two of the most interesting characters on TV in a long, long time.

Messages from Reality TV

In 2009, CBS rolled out a series called “Undercover Boss” where corporate executives of huge companies transform themselves to “ordinary workers.” The show follows CEOs, managers, and presidents, and owners of multi-million dollar corporations as they leave their cushy corner offices with the bay windows and head out to work the grunt jobs flipping burgers or washing dishes to better understand the inner workings of their companies.

More often than not, when the boss’s life is highlighted, he lives in a big mansion that was expensively decorated, has a wife and 2.5 kids, and a three or four car garage. The next segment shows the boss changing out of what can only be construed as a very expensive and well-made suit into a uniform that some of his employees are made to wear. The show then follows the boss working along side other employees in different cities and in different positions to learn how big decisions actually affect the regular employees.

While this reality show attempts to show that big executives can get dirty with regular employees and perform the same tasks, it really highlights just how big of a social gap there is in social class. The affluence of the boss is highlighted by the shots of his house, cars, furniture, and clothing. The show brands him as a product and sells the idea that being an executive is the key to getting wealth, which is then in turn the key to finding happiness.

Bosses also sometimes can be heard saying things like ‘I’ve never done this job before’ or ‘I’ve never had to clean the kitchen to get where I am today’. This is the opposite of the ‘American Dream’ that we are told to believe in. This demonstrates to viewers that the boss did not work his way up from the very lowest position, which is often the tale that accompanies the ‘American Dream’.

The employees that are followed on the show generally have a personal problem which is said to be the reason why they are working a blue collar, minimum-wage job. This suggests to the audience that were it not for this one personal problem, the employee would not be poor.

While reality shows are promoted as revealing real life scenarios that are relatable, shows like “Undercover Boss” are only advertising their product in a very long, very drawn out segment. So when you flip on your TV to settle in for a night of mindless shows, be careful about believing what you see to be true, because often times, viewers never see the real in reality TV.

Bake-Sale Makes a Statement, Causes Controversy

We've all been there. We find a policy offensive and come up with a retort in our minds of what we could do to make a statement vocalizing our views. In the case of the University of California Berkley (UCB) and the Campus Republicans, they caused an uproar on campus and in national news after posting a controversial event on Facebook as a means of expressing their viewpoint:

The UCB college Republicans created a bake sale that has the following price scale:

• White Men: $2.00
• Asian Men: $1.50
• Latino Men: $1.00
• Black Men: $0.75
• Native American Men:$0.25
• All Women receive $0.25 off those prices

As CNN reports, this bake-sale is to make a statement against the proposed California law allowing the University to take into account the race of a potential student when making admission decisions.

The bill clearly states, "The University of California may, consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors,

in undergraduate and graduate admissions, so long as no preference is given."

Politics aside, the real issue at hand is how students are deciding to handle their views. Instead

of making a flyer and having students sign a petition in opposition of the bill,

they decided to make a statement through being offensive. Many students of many different

races are offended by the bake sale - as they should be. It was meant to be controversial and raise hell. But isn't

there a better way of stating your beliefs? Not everything has to be jaw dropping to be effective.

To the Campus Republican's credit, they have brought this issue to the forefront of many

individual's minds. Unfortunately, their public displays of racism have caused most people who otherwise may have listened to the Campus Republican's viewpoint to be turned off and closed to their ideas.

The bake sale will still take place on September 27. Hopefully, the Campus Republicans at UCB

realize their desire for student's attention has turned into student's glares of disgust.

Suck for Luck and Unfavorable Chiefs Fans

Suck for Luck.

That's the campaign that has started for the Kansas City Chiefs this year.  The season has started with the Chiefs 0-2 and "fans" are already calling for a new quarterback and hoping for a season without a win.

If the Chiefs go 0-16, they will no doubt receive the number one draft pick in the 2012 NFL draft.
The number one prospect right now is Andrew Luck from Stanford.  Suck for Luck.  This is the call in Kansas City.


Andrew Luck may be the best player in college football.  He may even be one of the best quarterbacks that the NCAA has developed in a while.  Any team that gets him in the draft will have a strong rookie on their team.
That doesn't make it okay though for a city to wish their hometown team to lose.  Not just lose but to not win a single game.
This is not "fandom".   The 'Suck for Luck' campaign is sickening, and, to a lifetime Kansas City Chiefs fan, it's disheartening.


I remember watching Chiefs versus Raiders whether it was a holiday or not.  I remember being eight years old and broken hearted as the Chiefs lost to the Buffalo Bills in the AFC Championship.  I remember the ups.  I sure remember the downs.
A fan is someone that although they are mad at their team for an unbelievable loss, they are still hopeful that the next game will be better.  They look forward to a time when their cheers are for a win.  They don't hope their team loses just for a better draft pick.  A fan realizes that one player does not make the team.

These so-called fans in Kansas City need to take a long hard look at themselves.   If they are truly fans, they need to take down the posters, the Facebook profile pictures need to be deleted, and any t-shirts need to be thrown away.
Instead, grab a beer, make some nachos, and sit down and watch the games.  Stomach a loss, hope for a win.  Wish the team the best and hope they deliver their best.
Learn to lose with dignity.  Teach our younger fans what it means to lose, but still have the drive to win and prove others wrong.
In the end it's just a game.

Netflix Instantwatched: I Saw The Devil

I'd been wanting to watch I Saw The Devil the second I heard that critics were both raving and lambasting the Korean revenge film. I'm happy to report that I fall into the former group. I'll admit that contrary to many of the films dissenters, I'm not one to have problems with movie violence. But this movie's brutal, stylized violence is not shallow, voyeuristic torture porn. It highlights an important connection between the films two main characters; Dae-hoon, a secret agent and Kyung-chul, a serial killer who murders the wife of Dae-hoon. This understandably drives Dae-hoon to seek retribution, but the violence underlies the films central theme; the line between good and evil.

Like any good story about revenge, the line between what is right and wrong must inevitably blurred. But here, that line is shattered, shredded, and shanked (literally). Dae-hoon doesn't just plot revenge against his foe: he toys with and tortures him. What made this rather simple reversal between the protagonist and antagonist so fascinating was how the film played with the typical tropes of serial killer films. Despite all the violence inflicted on Kyung-chul, one of the most devastating things Dae-hoon does to him is simply to deny him a kill. Eventually, these two characters become reflections of each other, to the point where it's hard to consider Dae-hoon anything more than an outright villain. And I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention the superb and innovative cinematography: I was bombarded with more creative framing and frenetic staging in this single movie than nearly all the other movies I've seen this year combined. Add I Saw The Devil to your Netflix Watch Instantly queue today.