In the past few weeks, ABC has begun airing a show called "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution," and I've gotta say, it's a pretty solid hour. It really touches on something I've been increasingly finding at once both liberating and frustrating, and something that is going to play a huge role in American life in years to come. It all really comes down to the issue of an over reliance on heavily processed and pre-packaged food and an jarring rejection of anything resembling actual cooking.
Hearing that the show was to be set in West Virginia, I had to assume that the problem was that the locals were overdoing their possum stew and raccoon meat. Unfortunately, this all came down to just a matter of the locals devouring frozen pizzas and chicken fingers like they were breath mints and having coronaries at age 46.
The cast of characters reads about the way you'd guess, and while it borders on being a little predictable, they all seem to fit together pretty well. We focus have our struggling hero Oliver, a likable and earnest figure trying to make sense of all the deranged opposition. Among the most notable opponents are a surly radio host working to maximize his prick quotient at every opportunity and school administrators puzzled at what possibly could be wrong. It's amazing with the school crew, as they somehow manage to be both ambivalent as to what's happening and yet protective of the status quo. It's the equivalent of a 2006 New Orleans noting that there was a little bit of a water issue, but not a big deal. And who doesn't like swimming, right?
Most acutely serving as the primary villain, Oliver and the viewer are confronted by a lunch lady appearing to be the twangy offspring of a "Lord of the Rings" orc and Nurse Ratched. She's hellbent on tossing deep fried frozen crap into the oven and responds to most of Oliver's requests as though he's asking to wipe her hair net on his balls. Most troubling was her admission that she only had become a school cook for the money (wow, didn't see that one coming. Move over hedge fund managers, you've now got rivals in the yacht market). I'm still weighing whether this is more an indictment of the school or her, but either way she makes a hell of an antagonist. While ABC needs to make sure they don't get too heavy handed with her, but I actually fear they may have some corny turnaround and they all become friends over broccoli and apple slices.
But we're not there yet, and far from it. It's clear from both the show and life in general that most kids would eat their parents and the family dog if they came as a nugget with barbecue sauce. But that being said, blaming an 8 year old for food choices is the same as blaming a raccoon for raiding the trash or The Situation from tanning too much (damn I miss that show). It's ultimately the responsibility of the school and parents, and in the case of this West Virginia disaster, they seem to be in a contest to be the most inept.
The turning point we're working toward is the gradual transition to actually making kids and families understand the enormous importance of knowing what they're eating and the actual simplicity and savings of just taking responsibility for what happens at the table. It drives me CRAZY when people piss and moan about being too busy to actually make something decent and having to rely on this pre-made crap. Here are 2 facts: (1) it's cheaper than people think; and (2) most of these people have enough time to do something totally reasonable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking quail eggs and filet mignon with creme brulee. I'm talking crock pots, pasta, and frozen vegetables. I know some people are really busy, I really do. I grew up in one of those households and I get it. That being said, no one can convince me that there's enough time to throw some frozen peas in a pot for 8 minutes. If people can find an hour to watch bad singers on American Idol, they can throw dollar a pound chicken into the oven.
That's the part of the show I like most, overall. The stuff Oliver's pushing is, at its heart, easy and filling stuff that isn't what people think of under the title "Food Revolution." It's just a matter of making spaghetti for 4 people in about 20 minutes as opposed to baking a frozen pizza in the same amount of time. Hell, make the damn pizza yourself and you're still ahead of the game (it's much easier than you'd think and tastes like the $20 bistro stuff). Admittedly, I drive the wife crazy with running the grocery bills on dinner and exclaiming "this all cost $5.50 for the whole meal and we'll eat it again tomorrow!" But at the end of the day the point's completely valid, and that's the underlying fact that needs to be driven home: you can eat better and cheaper if you open your eyes and just think about what you're doing.
The trouble here is getting that point across to the enormous segment of the population that is so reluctant to buy into this idea. In a lot of ways, the focus really has to be on the younger generations in school now, and on trying to promote the idea that most of your meals shouldn't come from a cartoon character. I love that he's trying to teach some basic skills, and that's where the gains are going to be made. It's a waste of time just banging the anti-KFC drum without offering up something as an alternative that people can throw together fast and cheap.
Of course it's a little tricky because the people selling all that shit as real food are making big money off of fat third graders. Do you think Sysco (they did all my school lunch food growing up) is excited to lose any of their $36 Billion in annual revenue? Oh Helllllllls no. Of course they're lobbying for all these crazy administrative rules that confuse what can be served. It's easy to rip on Mickey Dee's for what they're pulling, but there's no excuse for school administrators to completely whore out students for food suppliers when they can do it themselves with some decent planning and some sweat. Hey, I love me some lunch ladies and if they can hack it, then I say great. But do you think it's odd that the makeup of restaurant cooks is completely different than what you'll see in every school in America? If we need to reshape the whole system, so be it. There are omlettes to be made, and in the end there may be no way to avoid some broken eggs.
So to wrap it up, check out the Oliver show on Friday nights and start paying attention to ways we can promote a little more self-reliance on what we eat. I'm sure there's a term for this already, and I'm obviously not making up new concepts here (I'll leave the exact phrasing for the better foodies than myself). But we have to be cognizant in the end of what's happening in our schools and the ways that public policy decisions directly impact health patterns leading into years ahead.
And if that doesn't work, we'll just outlaw nuggets.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
A Few NFL Updates
It's been a little while since I've written anything, so I'll jump back into the fray with a little NFL talk. Lot of stuff going on, but I suspect we may look back and see it as a lot of action without much impact on the serious contenders. Remember the wildness over Albert Haynesworth last year? Exactly.
- At this point we have to assume that the economy has hit the Rust Belt worse than we thought and Cleveland hasn't had electricity or outside communication in the last year or so. That's the only explanation for the hands down worst decision of the NFL offseason, the Browns' gift of a 2-year deal to Jake Delhomme, the biggest meltdown of 2009. Seriously, Bernie Madoff had a better 2009 than Jake Delhomme. How unwanted was Delhomme? The Panthers had signed him to a new contract that they just decided to eat after 1 season, despite the fact that they're paying him $12 mil this year. He was that bad. They're paying him $12 mil to leave town. And what do the Browns do? They hand him another $7 mil for 2010 to throw awful picks to the AFC North. He'll never see the 2011 money, so forget about the second year of the deal. It's amazing, when you think that people get paid a ton of money to make these decisions.
- I actually really liked Julius Peppers to the Bears. I don't think they're as far away as you'd think, considering last year's debacle, and if they can shore up that garbage heap of an O-line, they could make a push (they had to bring in Piano-crate sized casket the 1,000 pound guy got buried in to take away Orlando Pace). Tough division though, with the Packers and Vikes overall better clubs. But Peppers gives them a playmaker on the defensive front 7 who can create problems, and that's hard to come by.
- The Pats actually did real well by overpaying to keep their key players instead of tossing big money at a scarce free agent market. It makes big news to pay Karlos Dansby $45 million, but was anyone ever scared by the Arizona defense when he was there? Ummm...no. Paying Wilfork 125% of his market value was a good move in an uncapped year, and shows the crew management's on their side. Same thing for Bodden, who's the second best corner in the division.
- Cleveland, be prepared to be let down by Ben Watson. His hands are inconsistent and he doesn't block. But if it comes down to a Tight End 40 meter dash contest, you're in great shape! Nice work you goddamn morons. If one of the best passing offenses in the league can't make much use of him, I'm sure Mangini and Delhomme will fix things. Good use of $12 mil. Maybe next time just pile up $6 mil and just set it on fire. At least then it won't take 3 years to get rid of it.
- I don't like the Jets moves as much as everyone else. If Antonio Cromartie is really a stud cornerback, why the hell is San Diego sending him away for a 3rd round pick? And what's with the swap of Thomas Jones for a clearly washed up Ladainian Tomlinson. I understand that Jones is probably on the downside of his career, but how is the best solution to bring in a guy who's not only at the bottom of the hill, but in a ditch at the bottom of the hill.
- As for the draft, the Rams just have to take Sam Bradford. They just do. Try to integrate him into games where you can, but realize that this is going to take a couple of years. Actually, following the Detroit plan can work. I like the Lions' big picture plans and they're putting together a solid roster of good players. I love Ndamukong Suh for them at #2, and with a good draft they're an 8-8 team in 2011. If they were in the NFC West, I'd take them to win the Division in 2011. But they're not, so they won't.
- I don't like all the talk about safeties going high in the draft. This just never works, even if Kiper and the crew are all in love with Eric Berry. Even if he's a great safety, these guys don't lead crappy teams to the playoffs. I hope the Chiefs don't do it. The Chiefs are my emotional #2 team and I have to root for them. But dammit guys, help me out here. I'm ok with Cincy at 22 or Philly at 24 (even though I sure wouldn't reach for these positions), but a top 10 on a safety is a bad, bad move.
- I like Baltimore getting Anquan Boldin, but he's not the difference between them and the elite. He's essentially a better version of Mason at this point, the other receiver they have, and doesn't do much downfield. I saw some good metrics on him and he's very specific in what he does, mainly the intermediate stuff. I like what they did with Stallworth, assuming his head's on straight after the prison sentence. How troubling is it that we have to factor that into the equation?
- Ugh. Buffalo is going to be bad. Bad Bad Bad. Like 2-14 bad. Who are they paying on that team? Is there anyone who would start for more than 50% of the teams in the league? Anyone? Maybe Lee Evans, but even that's pretty iffy.
- Ugh. So are the Rams. Like 3-13 bad. Maybe another win, but not much more than that.
- I have some concerns about the Giants. They're getting a little older on both lines, which is the clear strength of the team. I don't see any real playmakers right now, unless the 2nd year wideouts like Nicks really kick it to a higher level.
- I still like Dallas a lot. They seem to be well positioned to make a solid run, and I'm guessing they put up a 12 win season next year.
- Kind of a big quiet story in the works is the attempted revamping of the Indy offensive line. They bounced starter Ryan Lilja after he had a mediocre game against the Saints, and they're trying to change the unit to become more physical. Sounds good, except that the key to this team is consistency and good pass blocking, so a decline there has a "one step forward, two steps back" feel to it.
- Finally, my early read on the Pats is that they'll be better next year than this season. Remember Brady is a full season removed from his monster knee injury, so he'll be better. The defense should be tougher and faster, but they'll need to figure out how to get a little more punch in the receivers if Welker isn't ready. I like Tate and Edelman to step up, although I'd like a receiving tight end like Greg Olsen (Bears) or Aaron Hernandez out of Florida to lighten the load.
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Time Is Now
"America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination, and unbeatable determination to do the job at hand."
~Harry S. TrumanRight now the Congressional Democrats and Obama Adminstration stand on the cusp of driving through critical insurance legislation that stands as a major first step in the healthcare overhaul at least a decade overdue. At this juncture the only potential means for passing the legislation will be through a rare but fully legal step known as reconciliation, in which the House would need to pass the Senate bill approved in December (before Scott Brown's win ,when it had 58 Democrats and 2 Independents), and then work out changes that satisfy both the House and Senate. There is some indication that a handful of the House Democrats are going to get antsy, but my guess is that they'll get into line eventually to avoid pissing off literally everyone on their side, especially Barry O.
It's clear that once this becomes a realistic possibility, the Republicans are going to go apeshit claiming that this is some sort of government takeover and the death knell for freedom. Glenn Beck's face might actually melt off "Raiders of the Lost Ark" style (Dear God I hope so. One way or another, there will be tears from that man. Mark it down now--he's going to cry on his show.). The total hardliners will beat their breasts in anger and more than likely, it's going to feed the same sort of Teapartiban acts of terrorism that we saw in the plane attack on the IRS office in Texas (as a side note, how awful is it that people like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) are rationalizing this clear-cut act of domestic terrorism and facebook support pages are popping up? He tried to murder over 100 ordinary hardworking citizens and somehow he's a hero to these people.)
Both the public and Congressional Democrats need to man up and get real about what's been happening. No more bullshit, it's time for action.
The GOP has had endless opportunities to offer up possibilities for real change over the last year, and they've done everything possible to flat out sabotage any meaningful progress. Instead of useful cooperation, they've offered us the following concepts: (1) Death Panels (although it did give me my fantasy football squad name); (2) Scrapping everything to start from scratch, when they had nothing new to offer; (3) the whole "this is the end of capitalism" rant; (4) Vilification of happy, functioning places like Canada; and (5) Nearly irrelevant, drop in the bucket solutions like setting caps on malpractice. The problem with this malpractice argument is that it's always been a tiny part of healthcare costs (as in 3%), and is 110% a red herring to distract people from real issues. And even at that, the vast majority money that is going to malpractice is going to completely legitimate victims and litigation costs, not frivolous junk suits, as this great report from the New England Journal of Medicine outlines.
Nope, instead of offering anything useful the GOP has remained hellbent on maintaining their position as health insurance whores to the detriment of the American populace. And for this reason it becomes even more critical that the option of reconciliation be used for the crisis at hand. By this point, the conservatives have made it clear that they had no intent to cooperate on anything substantial the party in power has tried, as denoted by filibustering 80% of his major legislative acts last year. When once the civil and judicious thing to do for the voting public was to vote your position and let the chips fall, they've instead used these rules to prevent any meaningful legislation to even come to a vote. These are historically high numbers, and essentially demonstrate that one party is simply opting to gridlock the Federal government until they can muster enough support for their plans, American people be damned. The worst thing of all for the GOP is that they don't even have any plans for the future. It's simply to prevent the other side from making real differences. The gloves are off at this point, and for better or worse the Democratic majority has to recognize that and respond.
The good news is that we've dealt with terrorists, kidnappers, and extortionists before, so we've seen this story play out. They say they want something, be it a new bill or a duffel bag of unmarked cash, but we all know that won't solve the problem. Are the Somali pirates suddenly going into retirement if you pay them off once? Oh hells no. It's the same here. The Democrats need to respond to political aggression with a similar conviction, and force through what needs to happen. No one's going to care how the bill was passed in 6 months if it gets done. Again, the time for jockeying, the politicking, and the preening is over. The final step starts now.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
From Here To Eternity (But More Specifically June): Part I
Now that the NBA trade deadline has come and gone, we can get a pretty good outlook at what teams have coming down the home stretch. All but a few teams have taken the approach of making a run for it or tearing up their teams with a chainsaw to clear cap room for the upcoming off season. The ones in the middle either are improving but too young or injured to seriously compete for a title (OK City, Houston) or just crappy and still trying to figure out how to get their heads above water.
I liken it to the scenario of going out to your car and finding a rabid raccoon tearing up the seats, and your decision is basically decided by what you're driving.
Your options:
1) 2010 Cadillac: You've got to get that damn raccoon out of the back seat before the foam stains the leather. There's the high risk/high reward option of shooting the raccoon inside the car repeatedly (Cleveland trading for a good but aging and expensive Jamison) or the conservative route that might not work, like opening the window and hoping like hell the raccoon just leaves before he finds the stereo (Boston trading for Nate Robinson).
2) 2001 Nissan: You can still get around in this ride OK, but it's fair to say you're not going to turn many heads. The best option now is probably to let the raccoon wear himself out and then try to get the insurance money to seriously upgrade everything when the sale comes this summer (Chicago dumping Thomas for 50 cents on the dollar and the Clips sending Camby to Portland).
3) 1986 Hyundai: This is a complete piece of shit and everyone knows it. The best option is set the car on fire (don't worry about the raccoon, he'll make a run for it) and start from scratch. Just do it. That raccoon's rabid, remember? You had nothing before, and you're walking for awhile, but at least you can put all the insurance money into the new car. Of course, there are only about 3 cars that can drive you anywhere exciting, so nothing's guaranteed. This, my friends, is the NY Knicks and Sacramento.
So who really can contend moving forward?
(Note: I'll do the East in a Separate Post)
Western Conference:
Lakers: 40% Chance of winning West
The Lakers do look tough, but I think they're a step down from last year and the rest of the Western elite have improved. Kobe is banged up but still elite, and Gasol remains a big time threat. But otherwise, it's not the same Lakers. Artest is always up and down, and Bynum goes back and forth between looking like an elite interior presence and a foul-prone journeyman. The key player here is Odom. When he's on, he creates enormous matchup problems and creates for the other guys. If he's ineffective, teams can pack it in low and force Kobe to beat them with jumpers. He'll get a few of them, but not enough to consistently beat elite teams. Derek Fisher is absolutely killing them right now because he's about 120 years old and still 6'1''. And for whatever reason, they suddenly have started clanging free throws like a PAL team. But as always, the Mamba makes you dangerous as all hell in the clutch, an element you can't escape.
Denver: 40% Chance of winning West
These guys look substantially better than last year and appear ready to get it done. They have everything you'd want in a contender, although they might be a little shallow in terms of paint scoring. Fortunately, Carmelo creates enough mismatches that he can get the easy buckets to ensure offensive flow. I love their backcourt depth with Lawson and JR Smith giving them totally different looks from the starters. They're hungry, deep, and talented, and I would take them in a matchup with the Lakers right now, with Billups and Lawson both having big series. I'd be a little nervous about the potential for front court injuries, since their big guys have been a little injury prone over the years, but overall they've held up well so far this season.
Dallas: 15% Chance of winning West
People are sleeping on this team and it's a mistake. I love their starting 5 and they have solid backcourt depth with Terry in the rotation. Nowitzki's playing extremely well and they seem to have solid balance throughout the lineup. The trade with the Wizards was a total steal for this year and the guys they brought in are playing well. My biggest concern is the frontcourt depth. They have Haywood at the 5, but the only other size they have is Nowitzki at the 4 (not exactly on the Barkley/Oakley level of physicality, you could say) and the rickety corpse of Erick Dampier. This could be a major problem against LA, but likely less so against Denver. Matchups are the key here.
The Rest: 5% Chance of Winning the West.
I'm sorry, but Utah, Portland, OK City, and the others aren't going to win the conference. They might challenge in a series and even pull an upset, but they nobody's going to go through all of the first teams listed on the road and do it 3 times. Probably OK City is the most dangerous team, because Durant could go for 45 any night of the series, but it's unlikely he'll do this enough to go further than round 2.
Note: We'll finish this and talk about the East in another post coming soon.
I liken it to the scenario of going out to your car and finding a rabid raccoon tearing up the seats, and your decision is basically decided by what you're driving.
Your options:
1) 2010 Cadillac: You've got to get that damn raccoon out of the back seat before the foam stains the leather. There's the high risk/high reward option of shooting the raccoon inside the car repeatedly (Cleveland trading for a good but aging and expensive Jamison) or the conservative route that might not work, like opening the window and hoping like hell the raccoon just leaves before he finds the stereo (Boston trading for Nate Robinson).
2) 2001 Nissan: You can still get around in this ride OK, but it's fair to say you're not going to turn many heads. The best option now is probably to let the raccoon wear himself out and then try to get the insurance money to seriously upgrade everything when the sale comes this summer (Chicago dumping Thomas for 50 cents on the dollar and the Clips sending Camby to Portland).
3) 1986 Hyundai: This is a complete piece of shit and everyone knows it. The best option is set the car on fire (don't worry about the raccoon, he'll make a run for it) and start from scratch. Just do it. That raccoon's rabid, remember? You had nothing before, and you're walking for awhile, but at least you can put all the insurance money into the new car. Of course, there are only about 3 cars that can drive you anywhere exciting, so nothing's guaranteed. This, my friends, is the NY Knicks and Sacramento.
So who really can contend moving forward?
(Note: I'll do the East in a Separate Post)
Western Conference:
Lakers: 40% Chance of winning West
The Lakers do look tough, but I think they're a step down from last year and the rest of the Western elite have improved. Kobe is banged up but still elite, and Gasol remains a big time threat. But otherwise, it's not the same Lakers. Artest is always up and down, and Bynum goes back and forth between looking like an elite interior presence and a foul-prone journeyman. The key player here is Odom. When he's on, he creates enormous matchup problems and creates for the other guys. If he's ineffective, teams can pack it in low and force Kobe to beat them with jumpers. He'll get a few of them, but not enough to consistently beat elite teams. Derek Fisher is absolutely killing them right now because he's about 120 years old and still 6'1''. And for whatever reason, they suddenly have started clanging free throws like a PAL team. But as always, the Mamba makes you dangerous as all hell in the clutch, an element you can't escape.
Denver: 40% Chance of winning West
These guys look substantially better than last year and appear ready to get it done. They have everything you'd want in a contender, although they might be a little shallow in terms of paint scoring. Fortunately, Carmelo creates enough mismatches that he can get the easy buckets to ensure offensive flow. I love their backcourt depth with Lawson and JR Smith giving them totally different looks from the starters. They're hungry, deep, and talented, and I would take them in a matchup with the Lakers right now, with Billups and Lawson both having big series. I'd be a little nervous about the potential for front court injuries, since their big guys have been a little injury prone over the years, but overall they've held up well so far this season.
Dallas: 15% Chance of winning West
People are sleeping on this team and it's a mistake. I love their starting 5 and they have solid backcourt depth with Terry in the rotation. Nowitzki's playing extremely well and they seem to have solid balance throughout the lineup. The trade with the Wizards was a total steal for this year and the guys they brought in are playing well. My biggest concern is the frontcourt depth. They have Haywood at the 5, but the only other size they have is Nowitzki at the 4 (not exactly on the Barkley/Oakley level of physicality, you could say) and the rickety corpse of Erick Dampier. This could be a major problem against LA, but likely less so against Denver. Matchups are the key here.
The Rest: 5% Chance of Winning the West.
I'm sorry, but Utah, Portland, OK City, and the others aren't going to win the conference. They might challenge in a series and even pull an upset, but they nobody's going to go through all of the first teams listed on the road and do it 3 times. Probably OK City is the most dangerous team, because Durant could go for 45 any night of the series, but it's unlikely he'll do this enough to go further than round 2.
Note: We'll finish this and talk about the East in another post coming soon.
Monday, February 22, 2010
My Day of Olympic Glory
Sunday marked the peak of my Winter Olympic viewership and interest, a mix of the entertaining, the exciting, and the purely baffling. We were already feeling like world class athletes in our own right. Earlier in the day, the lady and I started our tennis careers a day after getting some sweet new rackets. We've since decided that we were in fact born to be child tennis prodigies and have been working under that presumption. This mainly involves shouting "PHENOM!" every time we hit the ball well (about 5% of the time, overall) and pouting extensively.
Catching the action on a mix of live and delayed-feed, we started out watching some early skiing with Bode Miller and a guy named Axsel. While I thought the "s" in Axsel was pretty unnecessary, he seemed to have a good story about coming back from a face-crushing injury. That being said, I can't tell the difference well at all on most of the skiing and really only get interested when they shout about someone winning or crashing. It's kind of like watching NASCAR, although I don't immediately dislike all of the skiers.
After that we went to the biathlon, which is fast climbing as one of my favorite Olympic sports. Not only do the skiiers have to ski around for awhile and shoot like a squadron of spandexed commandos, they have to do a lap in the loser loop for every miss (note: I don't care what the official name for the penalty area is. I want it to be called the "loser loop" or "chump dump." Those are the only options.). Finally one emerged as the winner, but I couldn't help but wonder if some rogue competitor ever shot a rival on the course either to win or just to screw somebody else. This must have happened at least once, right? Again, this goes back to the skiing issue where I kind of wanted someone to be gunned down at the finish line, WWF style.
We eventually reached the big USA-Canada hockey game, oddly shown on MSNBC. For one thing, if it's on MSNBC they should have had Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow doing the play by play, leading to smarmy comments like "I haven't seen anyone miss on a shot that badly since Dick Cheney!" and "The way they're going, the Canadian defensemen are going to need some enhanced interrogation to figure out those American power plays!"
I realized about halfway through the game that this was the first hockey game I'd watched in about 8 years, and actually contemplated catching more of the games in the tournament. The problem with this game was the extent to which it really highlighted what's gone wrong with the NHL over the last 15 years--a lethal mix of placing teams into puzzling markets like Tampa Bay, Phoenix, and Atlanta, as well as failing to modify rules to allow for the open style of hockey we see in the Olympics. As for the game, it was exciting as all hell and there were enough 1980 team references that we were compelled to shout "Miracle!!" every time they scored. Great game overall, and undoubtedly the highlight of the day. Miracle 5, Canadians 3.
After a brief return to more of the skiing that I really didn't follow very closely (Bode Miller won over some other people who, based on what the announcers said, didn't ski very well), the night took a MAJOR turn towards the bizarre. That of course means only one thing: ice dancing. The instructions for the night appeared to be some theme along the lines of "Dress up like some sort of insanely over the top version of what you think another country might be like, and then skate around in a way that makes no sense except for being potentially offensive." And boy did they ever follow orders. Probably the most common approach was to dress up like gay cowboys and strippers (reflecting America and Canada, obviously) and to skate in circles to Johnny Cash. I'm sure Mr. Cash would be proud. I can't even explain how troubling I found the brother-sister combos that had to grab each other pretty intimately and pretend to be lovers in a deranged Western flick. Maybe I'm a square, but I can't picture myself with a potential sister like this. In case you were wondering, he's driving her as a truck. I think. I hope.
No doubt the most controversial element was the Russian team who opted to represent the Aboriginal tribes of Australia by wearing full-body blackface suits and putting fake leaves on their skates. Also, apparently the Aborigines also have employed the same hair stylist as Pebbles Flintstone. They had modified the suits somewhat to make them allegedly less offensive, although I think it's probably a good rule of thumb for skating or really, life in general, you should probably rethink what you're doing if it results in this or this. Just a good little rule of thumb, you know? Actually, I thought they looked more like a pair from the Jersey Shore crew, like Pauly D and Snookie with more foliage on them. Better get some Ron-Ron Juice, team!
All in all, a pretty solid day for the Olympics. Exciting at points, completely odd at others, and generally interesting for the majority of the day. I suppose that's way it is for most people, and at once both the strength and weakness of the games. They're familiar enough you can follow what's happening, yet uncommon enough that there's a novel feel to everything. That's what makes it work, and why we can get so engrossed every 4 years without really knowing much about what's happening. I say for 2014, count me in.
Catching the action on a mix of live and delayed-feed, we started out watching some early skiing with Bode Miller and a guy named Axsel. While I thought the "s" in Axsel was pretty unnecessary, he seemed to have a good story about coming back from a face-crushing injury. That being said, I can't tell the difference well at all on most of the skiing and really only get interested when they shout about someone winning or crashing. It's kind of like watching NASCAR, although I don't immediately dislike all of the skiers.
After that we went to the biathlon, which is fast climbing as one of my favorite Olympic sports. Not only do the skiiers have to ski around for awhile and shoot like a squadron of spandexed commandos, they have to do a lap in the loser loop for every miss (note: I don't care what the official name for the penalty area is. I want it to be called the "loser loop" or "chump dump." Those are the only options.). Finally one emerged as the winner, but I couldn't help but wonder if some rogue competitor ever shot a rival on the course either to win or just to screw somebody else. This must have happened at least once, right? Again, this goes back to the skiing issue where I kind of wanted someone to be gunned down at the finish line, WWF style.
We eventually reached the big USA-Canada hockey game, oddly shown on MSNBC. For one thing, if it's on MSNBC they should have had Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow doing the play by play, leading to smarmy comments like "I haven't seen anyone miss on a shot that badly since Dick Cheney!" and "The way they're going, the Canadian defensemen are going to need some enhanced interrogation to figure out those American power plays!"
I realized about halfway through the game that this was the first hockey game I'd watched in about 8 years, and actually contemplated catching more of the games in the tournament. The problem with this game was the extent to which it really highlighted what's gone wrong with the NHL over the last 15 years--a lethal mix of placing teams into puzzling markets like Tampa Bay, Phoenix, and Atlanta, as well as failing to modify rules to allow for the open style of hockey we see in the Olympics. As for the game, it was exciting as all hell and there were enough 1980 team references that we were compelled to shout "Miracle!!" every time they scored. Great game overall, and undoubtedly the highlight of the day. Miracle 5, Canadians 3.
After a brief return to more of the skiing that I really didn't follow very closely (Bode Miller won over some other people who, based on what the announcers said, didn't ski very well), the night took a MAJOR turn towards the bizarre. That of course means only one thing: ice dancing. The instructions for the night appeared to be some theme along the lines of "Dress up like some sort of insanely over the top version of what you think another country might be like, and then skate around in a way that makes no sense except for being potentially offensive." And boy did they ever follow orders. Probably the most common approach was to dress up like gay cowboys and strippers (reflecting America and Canada, obviously) and to skate in circles to Johnny Cash. I'm sure Mr. Cash would be proud. I can't even explain how troubling I found the brother-sister combos that had to grab each other pretty intimately and pretend to be lovers in a deranged Western flick. Maybe I'm a square, but I can't picture myself with a potential sister like this. In case you were wondering, he's driving her as a truck. I think. I hope.
No doubt the most controversial element was the Russian team who opted to represent the Aboriginal tribes of Australia by wearing full-body blackface suits and putting fake leaves on their skates. Also, apparently the Aborigines also have employed the same hair stylist as Pebbles Flintstone. They had modified the suits somewhat to make them allegedly less offensive, although I think it's probably a good rule of thumb for skating or really, life in general, you should probably rethink what you're doing if it results in this or this. Just a good little rule of thumb, you know? Actually, I thought they looked more like a pair from the Jersey Shore crew, like Pauly D and Snookie with more foliage on them. Better get some Ron-Ron Juice, team!
All in all, a pretty solid day for the Olympics. Exciting at points, completely odd at others, and generally interesting for the majority of the day. I suppose that's way it is for most people, and at once both the strength and weakness of the games. They're familiar enough you can follow what's happening, yet uncommon enough that there's a novel feel to everything. That's what makes it work, and why we can get so engrossed every 4 years without really knowing much about what's happening. I say for 2014, count me in.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
We Just Need Some Space
In the past few weeks, there has been a growing rumble as to the future of one of the flagship American entities, NASA. In essence, we're seeing a serious reevaluation of the entire structure of NASA and the way we're allocating our energy, funds, and focus on space exploration generally.
The idea here is to shift a lot of the routine (routine being a relative term, of course) operations to private companies for the low Earth orbit stuff and shifting NASA's main focus onto deep space exploration and Mars (I believe Hobbits would still be in charge of Middle Earth transport). The corporate elements would generally entail moving scientists and astronauts back and forth between Earth and the space stations that currently orbit the planet. My guess is that this would also cover the possibility of Russian oil tycoons paying to go into orbit, but we'd have to see.
The argument in favor of this privatization is mainly that it isn't that complicated since it's what we've been doing for years, and requires such a substantial outlay of maintenance and operating costs that it's draining too much money from the major exploration projects like getting to Mars. Obama is actually pushing this pretty hard now, and I can understand his point. Getting to Mars and potentially beyond is clearly the on cutting edge of modern space discovery, and it's something that can only be attained through bold actions designed to make it happen. We're not going to just stumble onto Mars, folks, and we need to start now to get there in the next 20-30 years.
In 2004, President Bush initiated a program called Constellation that was focused on getting us back on the Moon by 2020. It was noble in terms of being a "rah rah! We're the Best!" thing, but it wasn't actually going to be that useful since we don't really need to be on the Moon. We've been there, and there's really not a heck of a lot of reason to go back. It would be like refocusing the Navy for 10 years on checking the Pacific for new islands--even if we find a new small one, so what? There's no substantial belief that there's some magic rock or secret on the Moon that's going to be useful, so why spend 10 years and tens of billions of dollars going back, except for all the back slapping that could result.
Obama's already made it clear that he's scrapping Constellation because it's a waste of time and money. The idea is that by dumping this program and moving NASA out of the ferrying game, NASA can really key on developing technology to put astronauts on Mars and potentially futher (although we're talking at least 20 years). It's going to be a completely different type of technology that gets humans on Mars and beyond. The petroleum combustion operations we've been using to get us to the Moon and into orbit aren't going to be enough, since we need a much larger vehicle capable of greater speeds. By reallocating our focus, we can more effectively get to places like Mars that could be useful down the road, instead of spending 10-15 years trying to get somewhere that we know isn't going to be of use.
Why Mars? Because it's the only planet we could reasonably colonize and make use of down the road, and because there are potentially enormous sources of minerals that we could use both now and in the future. It's the greatest potential source for human expansion into space and it could be the way mankind survives in case of a crazy global disaster in the next century (like an asteroid or nuclear war, not another "Jay Leno Show" or the Detroit Lions). That's why.
So what are the drawbacks? Well clearly, there is a huge potential problem of quality control. This plan looks a hell of a lot worse after a sloppy private company kills 15 scientists because nobody looked into the "check engine soon" light or because Rocketmart duct taped on a discount booster. There is going to need to be some sort of quality control oversight from NASA or another agency to make sure everything is done technically sound and without cutting corners. My guess is that this could be done reasonably effectively, but you get nervous when you see things like this Toyota brake recall. The good thing is that the technology isn't novel and NASA has been contracting out a lot of the work for years, so it's not a secret how to shoot a rocket into space.
The other element is how to control cost and try to maintain actual competition. You can't make the argument right now that it's going to follow a model like commercial air transportation because you don't have the enormous number of consumers who would actually use the services. For awhile, it would really be just the governments of the United States and a few other major nations who would be using this. As a result, we may be looking at a scenario where one private company does almost all of the flights and serves only a handful of consumers at a huge price. Not an ideal situation at first, but in this case I guess we'd have to hope that it becomes more financially efficient down the road.
In total, we're on the verge of a change in the way the US handles space exploration unlike anything since we decided we were going to the Moon in the 1950s. That plan took over a decade to come to fruition in 1969, and this one certainly will as well, if at all. Although I have concerns over the functionality of turning over the low-tech transports to the private sector, it appears to be the best way to reach the larger goal of exploring Mars and deeper into space. The American space program has taken criticism in the past for becoming somewhat complacent, and this may be the best way to ultimately kick-start the entire field into gear as we progress into this century.
The idea here is to shift a lot of the routine (routine being a relative term, of course) operations to private companies for the low Earth orbit stuff and shifting NASA's main focus onto deep space exploration and Mars (I believe Hobbits would still be in charge of Middle Earth transport). The corporate elements would generally entail moving scientists and astronauts back and forth between Earth and the space stations that currently orbit the planet. My guess is that this would also cover the possibility of Russian oil tycoons paying to go into orbit, but we'd have to see.
The argument in favor of this privatization is mainly that it isn't that complicated since it's what we've been doing for years, and requires such a substantial outlay of maintenance and operating costs that it's draining too much money from the major exploration projects like getting to Mars. Obama is actually pushing this pretty hard now, and I can understand his point. Getting to Mars and potentially beyond is clearly the on cutting edge of modern space discovery, and it's something that can only be attained through bold actions designed to make it happen. We're not going to just stumble onto Mars, folks, and we need to start now to get there in the next 20-30 years.
In 2004, President Bush initiated a program called Constellation that was focused on getting us back on the Moon by 2020. It was noble in terms of being a "rah rah! We're the Best!" thing, but it wasn't actually going to be that useful since we don't really need to be on the Moon. We've been there, and there's really not a heck of a lot of reason to go back. It would be like refocusing the Navy for 10 years on checking the Pacific for new islands--even if we find a new small one, so what? There's no substantial belief that there's some magic rock or secret on the Moon that's going to be useful, so why spend 10 years and tens of billions of dollars going back, except for all the back slapping that could result.
Obama's already made it clear that he's scrapping Constellation because it's a waste of time and money. The idea is that by dumping this program and moving NASA out of the ferrying game, NASA can really key on developing technology to put astronauts on Mars and potentially futher (although we're talking at least 20 years). It's going to be a completely different type of technology that gets humans on Mars and beyond. The petroleum combustion operations we've been using to get us to the Moon and into orbit aren't going to be enough, since we need a much larger vehicle capable of greater speeds. By reallocating our focus, we can more effectively get to places like Mars that could be useful down the road, instead of spending 10-15 years trying to get somewhere that we know isn't going to be of use.
Why Mars? Because it's the only planet we could reasonably colonize and make use of down the road, and because there are potentially enormous sources of minerals that we could use both now and in the future. It's the greatest potential source for human expansion into space and it could be the way mankind survives in case of a crazy global disaster in the next century (like an asteroid or nuclear war, not another "Jay Leno Show" or the Detroit Lions). That's why.
So what are the drawbacks? Well clearly, there is a huge potential problem of quality control. This plan looks a hell of a lot worse after a sloppy private company kills 15 scientists because nobody looked into the "check engine soon" light or because Rocketmart duct taped on a discount booster. There is going to need to be some sort of quality control oversight from NASA or another agency to make sure everything is done technically sound and without cutting corners. My guess is that this could be done reasonably effectively, but you get nervous when you see things like this Toyota brake recall. The good thing is that the technology isn't novel and NASA has been contracting out a lot of the work for years, so it's not a secret how to shoot a rocket into space.
The other element is how to control cost and try to maintain actual competition. You can't make the argument right now that it's going to follow a model like commercial air transportation because you don't have the enormous number of consumers who would actually use the services. For awhile, it would really be just the governments of the United States and a few other major nations who would be using this. As a result, we may be looking at a scenario where one private company does almost all of the flights and serves only a handful of consumers at a huge price. Not an ideal situation at first, but in this case I guess we'd have to hope that it becomes more financially efficient down the road.
In total, we're on the verge of a change in the way the US handles space exploration unlike anything since we decided we were going to the Moon in the 1950s. That plan took over a decade to come to fruition in 1969, and this one certainly will as well, if at all. Although I have concerns over the functionality of turning over the low-tech transports to the private sector, it appears to be the best way to reach the larger goal of exploring Mars and deeper into space. The American space program has taken criticism in the past for becoming somewhat complacent, and this may be the best way to ultimately kick-start the entire field into gear as we progress into this century.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Fact: Valentine's Day Requires Red Cake
In honor of this weekend's Valentine's Day festivities, I'm linking the IWICQYTB up to another blog for a fun and info filled primer on making Red Velvet Cupcakes. Dear friend Andrea has a fantastic food blog called "Alphabeet Soup" and recently posted a video we shot discussing how to make Red Velvet Cake, Cupcakes, and Whoopie Pies. We used two pretty normal modern recipes for the first 2 batches and then a third that used beets for its coloring. They all turned out really well, although the one with beets had a flavor like, well, beets, and almost went more of a savory cake direction. Good, but different.
One final note: 2 of the recipes, like almost every recipe you'll see now, did use red coloring to bring out the coloration. Way back when, you might not have needed to because the cocoa didn't undergo a treatment called "Dutch Process" and so it kept more of the natural cocoa coloration, yielding a sort of brick color. For a long time though, cocoa producers have done this Dutch Process which makes the cocoa a little more alkaline (less acidic) and darker brown, but also better tasting. So that's why now we have to add the red coloring. Keep in mind also that the old way of making this in the pre-Dutch Process era didn't have that Canadian Flag red we see now.
The Link:
http://alphabeetsoup.blogspot.com/2010/02/red-velvet-bake-off.html
One final note: 2 of the recipes, like almost every recipe you'll see now, did use red coloring to bring out the coloration. Way back when, you might not have needed to because the cocoa didn't undergo a treatment called "Dutch Process" and so it kept more of the natural cocoa coloration, yielding a sort of brick color. For a long time though, cocoa producers have done this Dutch Process which makes the cocoa a little more alkaline (less acidic) and darker brown, but also better tasting. So that's why now we have to add the red coloring. Keep in mind also that the old way of making this in the pre-Dutch Process era didn't have that Canadian Flag red we see now.
The Link:
http://alphabeetsoup.blogspot.com/2010/02/red-velvet-bake-off.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)