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?