Article in Thursday's WSJ explained that the way the Vikings have built much of their current team defies NFL conventions:
The Minnesota Vikings have never won a Super Bowl. They play in a drafty old dome in a sensible Midwestern city where the average low temperature in January is four degrees.
But in each of the past four seasons, the Vikings have used a combination of charm, shoe leather, a private jet, clever legal maneuvers and gobs of cash to craft a roster that's full of the kinds of gifted free agents who almost never become free. While most NFL teams have very few imported stars, half of the Vikings' current starters—from quarterback Brett Favre and guard Steve Hutchinson to Pro-Bowl defensive end Jared Allen—were drafted or signed by other teams.
"Scratch, claw, all the things they've had to do to get these guys," says Ken Harris, an agent who represents Mr. Allen, "the Minnesota Vikings are a phenomenal story."
Despite this "phenomenal" story and the fact that the Vikings are hosting this Sunday's divisional playoffs in the Metrodome (where they're 8-0 this year), I don't get the impression that many true Vikings fans are all that confident that their squad will beat the Cowboys. Sure you hear a lot of false bravado on local talk radio stations and some of the younger cadre of Purple fans may honestly believe their team is Miami bound. But deep down the fans who have been around for a while, the ones who can all too clearly still recall the playoff and Super Bowl losses, know that when it comes to the Vikings letting us down it's not a matter of if but when. The Vikes very well might defeat Dallas this week. All that will do is postpone the inevitable letdown.
What best describes this attitude? Some might say cynicism, others fatalism. I would say it's more of a stoicism, taking the definition of the word commonly used today rather than the philosophy itself. We accept our destiny but continue to carry on anyway, impassive in the face of eventual defeat. It's almost as if Viking fans have taken on the persona of Bud Grant, a man well-versed in hiding the pain of crushing losses. Vox Day was the first one I recall to make that connection:
People occasionally ask me how I can persevere so stoically in the face of constant scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule. They marvel at my ability to shrug off the most scathing attacks with little more than a sardonic smile, and they wonder how I remain so blithely unmoved by criticism, dislike and hate.
I find it hard to understand the question. I am a Vikings fan. There is nothing you can throw at me that could make me feel any worse than I have felt before. I sobbed in 1974. I raged with burning fury in 1975. I cried in 1976. I felt sick in 1987. By 1998, there was nothing left inside but a frozen hollow. In 2000 and 2003, I barely blinked. That which did not break me has made me stronger and harder than you can possibly imagine.
We are cold and bleak, we men of the North. We are made of sorrow, snow and stone.
We are all Bud Grant.
And there have been plenty of crushing losses over the years. The Nihilist in Golf Pants has long argued that Viking fans have suffered more almost any other followers of professional teams. With a couple of World Series under their belts, Red Sox nation is no longer in the mix. While Cubs and Indians fans bemoan their long World Series droughts, the truth is that both teams have rarely really had a shot at the ultimate prize. In the last forty years, the Cubs have had what three good teams? The Indians may have had a few more than that, but they too have only been knocking on the door a few times.
In the NFL, those who follows the Saints, Browns, and Lions have also been long suffering. But again, how many good teams have these three franchises had in recent history (this year's Saints being an obvious outlier)? The Vikings had more good teams in the Seventies alone than these three franchises have had COMBINED over the last forty years.
While having a bad team is certainly not a lot of fun, it doesn't compare to the pain for fans when good teams fail. Being a Lions fan is like having a dull muscle ache. After a while you get used to it and almost don't even notice it's there anymore. Being a Vikings fans means getting a knife in the gut on a fairly regular basis. And then having it twisted and ripped out. You don't easily recover from having your insides torn apart.
The Vikings kicked off the Seventies by losing Super Bowl IV 23-7 to the Chiefs despite being heavily favored. They went on to lose three more Super Bowls during the decade. Only the Buffalo Bills can match that record of futility, but again other than their run in the early Nineties the Bills haven't put many good teams on the field over the years.
The Eighties were mostly a down decade for the Purple. But in the strike shortened 1987 season, a team with better talent than their record would indicate made a playoff run that ended when they lost the NFC Championship game to the Redskins 17-10. The Vikings had the ball at the Redskin six yard line with a minute left, but when a fourth down pass fell incomplete the season and hopes of reaching the Super Bowl died.
The Nineties require no further elaboration. The mere mention of "1998" causes Vikes fans to experience an involuntary twinge of pain. That was the last time that we suspended our disbelief and allowed ourselves to truly believe that this was the team of destiny that could not fail to deliver us our Super Bowl. Let us mention it no more.
The Vikings started the Aughts in 2000 by going 11-5 and reaching the 2001 NFC Championship game against the Giants. Even though the game was in New York, the Vikes were actually favored to beat the Giants and reach the Super Bowl. Instead they went out and suffered the worst loss in franchise history getting utterly destroyed 41-0. It wasn't nearly as painful as the 1999 NFC Championship game, but it was disappointing to see them mail in such a pathetic performance.
Here we are again in 2010. A 12-4 team with a good deal of talent on both sides of the ball. Could this be the Vikings team that finally breaks through, wins the Super Bowl, and ends the suffering that Viking fans have endured for so long? It certainly could be. Do Viking fans believe in their heart of hearts that it actually is? Certainly not.
As Vox Day explained in another post:
Fortunately, Vikings fans have no need of faith. We have no expectations, we have no heart, we simply watch in numbed catalepsy and hope for the best.
So on Sunday we'll put on our grim game faces, utter a stern "Skol!," and await our fate.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Beer of the Week (Vol. XXXVIII)
Another edition of Beer of the Week once again brought to you by the bon amis at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help bring joie to your vivre.
Anyone with the least bit of familiarity with modern European history no doubt recognizes the name Alsace-Lorraine. The region is nestled between France, Germany, and a little bit of Belgium and while it's now part of France, ownership of the area has been much contested. By 1798, it had officially become part of the French Republic. After the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, the German Empire annexed the region. It reverted to French control after the German defeat in World War One. In 1940, the Germans once again goose-stepped their way into Alsace-Lorraine and it became part of the Third Reich. Five years later, the Nazis were defeated and it once again became part of France and remains so to this day. At least until the Germans get feisty again.
Like France itself, when you think about the Alsace-Lorraine region and drinking, beer is not the first thing that comes to mind. But France is more than just wine, champagne, and cognac. This week's beer of the week is the second in the series to hail from the land of the Franks. It's Fischer Amber Ale which is now brewed in Schiltigheim, which despite its German-sounding name is indeed in France and is in fact a suburb of Strasbourg.
The bottle is brown, squarish, and weighty with the beer name and brewery etched on it. It has a nice hefty, old-style feel to it. There's really not much to the yellow label which wraps around the neck other than a church steeple and coat of arms.
Beer Style: Amber Ale
Alcohol by Volume: 6.0%
COLOR (0-2): Amber, very clear. 2
AROMA (0-2): Skunky in a good way. 2
HEAD (0-2): Light volume, off-white color, not much retention or lacing. 1
TASTE (0-5): Bitter but not overly sharp with slight hop flavor and some sweetness. Light body and thin mouth feel. 2
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Crisp, but a bit hollow. 1
OVERALL (0-6): This is a decent beer. Probably wouldn't pair that great with most food, but would make for a good party beer (especially at 6% ABV). Very drinkable and quite refreshing it goes down easy yet also satisfies the palate just enough to make you want to have another. 3
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 11
Next week's Beer of the Week will feature a very special, limited release brew that already has me drooling in anticipation.
Anyone with the least bit of familiarity with modern European history no doubt recognizes the name Alsace-Lorraine. The region is nestled between France, Germany, and a little bit of Belgium and while it's now part of France, ownership of the area has been much contested. By 1798, it had officially become part of the French Republic. After the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, the German Empire annexed the region. It reverted to French control after the German defeat in World War One. In 1940, the Germans once again goose-stepped their way into Alsace-Lorraine and it became part of the Third Reich. Five years later, the Nazis were defeated and it once again became part of France and remains so to this day. At least until the Germans get feisty again. Like France itself, when you think about the Alsace-Lorraine region and drinking, beer is not the first thing that comes to mind. But France is more than just wine, champagne, and cognac. This week's beer of the week is the second in the series to hail from the land of the Franks. It's Fischer Amber Ale which is now brewed in Schiltigheim, which despite its German-sounding name is indeed in France and is in fact a suburb of Strasbourg.
The bottle is brown, squarish, and weighty with the beer name and brewery etched on it. It has a nice hefty, old-style feel to it. There's really not much to the yellow label which wraps around the neck other than a church steeple and coat of arms.
Beer Style: Amber Ale Alcohol by Volume: 6.0%
COLOR (0-2): Amber, very clear. 2
AROMA (0-2): Skunky in a good way. 2
HEAD (0-2): Light volume, off-white color, not much retention or lacing. 1
TASTE (0-5): Bitter but not overly sharp with slight hop flavor and some sweetness. Light body and thin mouth feel. 2
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Crisp, but a bit hollow. 1
OVERALL (0-6): This is a decent beer. Probably wouldn't pair that great with most food, but would make for a good party beer (especially at 6% ABV). Very drinkable and quite refreshing it goes down easy yet also satisfies the palate just enough to make you want to have another. 3
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 11
Next week's Beer of the Week will feature a very special, limited release brew that already has me drooling in anticipation.
Increasingly Surly
Just got that the good word that Glen Lake Wine and Spirits now carries four varieties of Surly beer. In addition to Furious and Bender--which previously had appeared on the shelves--they now also have Cynic and Coffee Bender (our beer of the week from a few weeks back). It's a good time to stock up now for this weekend's NFL divisional playoff games and you can never have too much Surly on hand. Vikings fans in particular will want to have some Cynic nearby.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
I'll Take Manhattan
A couple of e-mails in response to the post yesterday on the bitter crisis. First up is Ben from Endless Apes:
I hadn't heard about the Angostura crisis. I use it once in awhile, but I prefer other, better products--including Peychaud's. But you really need to hunt down a bottle of Fee Brother's Whiskey Barrel Aged Bitters. It isn't cheap, but, oh my, is it ever good. Fee Bros. has raised its game in the past few years.
Kegworks.com also sells a bunch of interesting bitters, including everything in the Fees line--except--the Whiskey Barrel Aged, I'm afraid.
Next is Dave from Minnesota:
I defer to the Fraters knowledge of fine alcohol, but when I graduated from the Minnesota School of Bartending, bitters were not part of a Manhattan. The only drink they taught that included Angostura bitters was the made from scratch Old Fashioned. The recipes provided:
Manhattan-
1 1/2 shots whiskey
1/2 shot sweet vermouth
decorate with cherry
or a perfect Manhattan-
1 1/2 shots whiskey
1/4 shot dry vermouth
1/4 shot sweet vermouth
decorate with olive
Only the Old Fashioned has bitters-
1 pack sugar
2 dashes Angostura bitters
add ice cubes
1 shot whiskey
fill with charge water
What is your experience with a Manhattan?
I appreciate the fact that Dave defers to our knowledge in this arena. And with good reason in this case. I am sure that the five mixing guides I have behind my bar all include bitters in a traditional Manhattan. Wikipedia describes a Manhattan thusly:
A Manhattan is a cocktail made with whiskey, sweet vermouth, and bitters. Commonly used whiskeys include rye (the traditional choice), Canadian whisky, bourbon, blended whiskey and Tennessee whiskey. Proportions of whiskey to vermouth vary, from a very sweet 1:1 ratio to a much drier 4:1 ratio, some people even enjoy a 10:1. The cocktail is often stirred with ice and strained into a cocktail glass, where it is garnished with a Maraschino cherry with a stem. A Manhattan is also frequently served on the rocks in an old-fashioned glass (lowball glass).
The Manhattan is one of six basic drinks listed in David A. Embury's classic The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks. It has been called a drinking man's cocktail--strong, urbane, and simple. It has also been called the "king of cocktails."
In my mind the closet thing to a living "king of cocktails" today is the WSJ's Eric Felten, a man who I happily defer to in such matters:
And in the winter it is whiskey, in the form of an Old Fashioned (rye, bitters, sugar, lemon peel, orange slice and cherry) or a Manhattan (rye, sweet vermouth bitters), that I find most fitting.
In my experience and from all available information, bitters are an essential ingredient in any proper Manhattan. The fact that the Minnesota School of Bartending teaches something different may go a long ways in explaining why it's often difficult to get a decent cocktail in this town. Sigh. We really need to get back to the basics in education.
UPDATE-- Learned Foot e-mails to question the Minnesota School of Bartender's credentials on another classic cocktail:
Your MSOB correspondent flunked Old Fashioneds. As martinis are to Bond, the Old Fashioned is to me.
Insert your own joke here.
Making an Old Fashioned is more about technique than it is to ingredients. In fact, the default Old Fashioned booze in many parts of the country is brandy, not whisky. In other places, it's specifically bourbon whiskey. I prefer Irish, but to each his own. To make the One True Old Fashioned, the mixer must follow these steps in this order:
1. place an orange slice at the bottom of the glass.
2. One tsp sugar (more or less to drinker's taste) on top of orange
3. 2 or so dashes of -yes - Agnostura bitters into the sugar.
4. 1 Marichino cherry on top of sugar and orange.
5. Here's the important step: muddle the cherry and sugar into the orange, mashing up the cherry pretty good without totally pulverizing it.
6. Ice.
7. Pour in your booze and club soda. Stir.
8. Enjoy.
9. Repeat.
I hadn't heard about the Angostura crisis. I use it once in awhile, but I prefer other, better products--including Peychaud's. But you really need to hunt down a bottle of Fee Brother's Whiskey Barrel Aged Bitters. It isn't cheap, but, oh my, is it ever good. Fee Bros. has raised its game in the past few years.
Kegworks.com also sells a bunch of interesting bitters, including everything in the Fees line--except--the Whiskey Barrel Aged, I'm afraid.
Next is Dave from Minnesota:
I defer to the Fraters knowledge of fine alcohol, but when I graduated from the Minnesota School of Bartending, bitters were not part of a Manhattan. The only drink they taught that included Angostura bitters was the made from scratch Old Fashioned. The recipes provided:
Manhattan-
1 1/2 shots whiskey
1/2 shot sweet vermouth
decorate with cherry
or a perfect Manhattan-
1 1/2 shots whiskey
1/4 shot dry vermouth
1/4 shot sweet vermouth
decorate with olive
Only the Old Fashioned has bitters-
1 pack sugar
2 dashes Angostura bitters
add ice cubes
1 shot whiskey
fill with charge water
What is your experience with a Manhattan?
I appreciate the fact that Dave defers to our knowledge in this arena. And with good reason in this case. I am sure that the five mixing guides I have behind my bar all include bitters in a traditional Manhattan. Wikipedia describes a Manhattan thusly:
A Manhattan is a cocktail made with whiskey, sweet vermouth, and bitters. Commonly used whiskeys include rye (the traditional choice), Canadian whisky, bourbon, blended whiskey and Tennessee whiskey. Proportions of whiskey to vermouth vary, from a very sweet 1:1 ratio to a much drier 4:1 ratio, some people even enjoy a 10:1. The cocktail is often stirred with ice and strained into a cocktail glass, where it is garnished with a Maraschino cherry with a stem. A Manhattan is also frequently served on the rocks in an old-fashioned glass (lowball glass).
The Manhattan is one of six basic drinks listed in David A. Embury's classic The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks. It has been called a drinking man's cocktail--strong, urbane, and simple. It has also been called the "king of cocktails."
In my mind the closet thing to a living "king of cocktails" today is the WSJ's Eric Felten, a man who I happily defer to in such matters:
And in the winter it is whiskey, in the form of an Old Fashioned (rye, bitters, sugar, lemon peel, orange slice and cherry) or a Manhattan (rye, sweet vermouth bitters), that I find most fitting.
In my experience and from all available information, bitters are an essential ingredient in any proper Manhattan. The fact that the Minnesota School of Bartending teaches something different may go a long ways in explaining why it's often difficult to get a decent cocktail in this town. Sigh. We really need to get back to the basics in education.
UPDATE-- Learned Foot e-mails to question the Minnesota School of Bartender's credentials on another classic cocktail:
Your MSOB correspondent flunked Old Fashioneds. As martinis are to Bond, the Old Fashioned is to me.
Insert your own joke here.
Making an Old Fashioned is more about technique than it is to ingredients. In fact, the default Old Fashioned booze in many parts of the country is brandy, not whisky. In other places, it's specifically bourbon whiskey. I prefer Irish, but to each his own. To make the One True Old Fashioned, the mixer must follow these steps in this order:
1. place an orange slice at the bottom of the glass.
2. One tsp sugar (more or less to drinker's taste) on top of orange
3. 2 or so dashes of -yes - Agnostura bitters into the sugar.
4. 1 Marichino cherry on top of sugar and orange.
5. Here's the important step: muddle the cherry and sugar into the orange, mashing up the cherry pretty good without totally pulverizing it.
6. Ice.
7. Pour in your booze and club soda. Stir.
8. Enjoy.
9. Repeat.
Great Scott
If you think hockey fights are fake or that the players don't get hurt, watch this classic clock cleaning by John Scott in last night's Wild game:
SISYPHUS ADDS: Oh, this is a hockey fight. For awhile there I thought it was a Martha Coakley press conference.
SISYPHUS ADDS: Oh, this is a hockey fight. For awhile there I thought it was a Martha Coakley press conference.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
There is a bar they call The Bitter Sea
Manhattan cocktail faces bitter end
It's getting tough to get a Manhattan in Manhattan.
The classic cocktail has gotten harder to find as a worldwide shortage of one of its key ingredients, Angostura bitters, has left Big Apple bartenders and barflies hoarding what little is left of the pungent brew.
"People should drink the Manhattans while they can still get them," said William Tigertt, owner of the Lower East Side haunt Freemans Restaurant. "All the distributors are still out and are rationing bottles."
The cocktail crisis begins right at the source the Angostura bottling plant in Trinidad.
Officials with the House of Angostura, whose parent company, CL Financial Group, has battled liquidity problems, say the trouble stems from a dispute with the company that supplies their bottles.
"We couldn't get the bottles from our usual distributor, so we had to switch to a Chinese distributor, and that took a bit more time to get our shipments, which backed up our orders," said company spokeswoman Giselle Laronde-West.
The production shortfall hit late last year, and couldn't have come at a worse time, as a year-end surge in orders from England and Eastern Europe, where bitters-based beverages like pink gin and champagne cocktails are popular during the holidays, created an even deeper backlog, said Laronde-West.
You think the headline to this story was just a tad overstated?
While there are other bitters out there that are actually better than Angostura, it is indeed a crisis when the most widely available bitter is in short supply. Another reminder of why it's ALWAYS good to have a well-stocked bar in your home so as not to be left to the mercies of disruptions in global supply chains.
It's getting tough to get a Manhattan in Manhattan.
The classic cocktail has gotten harder to find as a worldwide shortage of one of its key ingredients, Angostura bitters, has left Big Apple bartenders and barflies hoarding what little is left of the pungent brew.
"People should drink the Manhattans while they can still get them," said William Tigertt, owner of the Lower East Side haunt Freemans Restaurant. "All the distributors are still out and are rationing bottles."
The cocktail crisis begins right at the source the Angostura bottling plant in Trinidad.
Officials with the House of Angostura, whose parent company, CL Financial Group, has battled liquidity problems, say the trouble stems from a dispute with the company that supplies their bottles.
"We couldn't get the bottles from our usual distributor, so we had to switch to a Chinese distributor, and that took a bit more time to get our shipments, which backed up our orders," said company spokeswoman Giselle Laronde-West.
The production shortfall hit late last year, and couldn't have come at a worse time, as a year-end surge in orders from England and Eastern Europe, where bitters-based beverages like pink gin and champagne cocktails are popular during the holidays, created an even deeper backlog, said Laronde-West.
You think the headline to this story was just a tad overstated?
While there are other bitters out there that are actually better than Angostura, it is indeed a crisis when the most widely available bitter is in short supply. Another reminder of why it's ALWAYS good to have a well-stocked bar in your home so as not to be left to the mercies of disruptions in global supply chains.
You'll Cry and Cry and Try To Sleep
While I got off to a rough NFL Wild Card Weekend start, by the time it was over my "do the opposite" system of picking games ended up at 2-2, a respectable showing considering the circumstances. Respectable enough that I will employ it again in seeking to divine the divisional playoff winners. Since there won't be three games that replicate the pairings from the week before it will require a little more creativity this time around.
Baltimore Ravens at Indianapolis Colts
In Week 11 of this season, the Colts came to Baltimore and silenced the Ravens 17-15. Baltimore returns the favor this Saturday by going to Indy and beating the team that used to represent their city 25-17.
Arizona Cardinals at New Orleans Saints
Applying opposite principles was tough here as the two teams did not meet in the regular season and neither has what you would call a storied playoff history. So I'll fall back to the last time they met which was in December of 2007. The Saints won that game at home 31-24. This time I'll take the Cards 34-21.
New York Jets at San Diego Chargers
On January 8th, 2005, the Jets defeated the Chargers in 20-17 in overtime in a Wild Card playoff game in San Diego. The Chargers will reverse field this Sunday and down the Jets 17-10.
Dallas Cowboys at Minnesota Vikings
The Cowboys and Vikings have met six times previously in the playoffs (seven if you count the 1969 Playoff Bowl). Yet it was quite easy to pick the one game to apply the opposite system to. On December 28th, 1975 the 12-2 Vikings faced off against the 10-4 Cowboys on the frozen tundra of Metropolitan Stadium. The Vikings lead 14-10, but with 24 seconds left in the game, Drew Pearson committed second degree assault against Vikings cornerback Nate Wright allowing Pearson to get open and catch Roger Staubach's desperation 50 yard pass for a TD. That blatant violation of the rules, to say nothing of human decency, handed the Cowboys a much undeserved 17-14 win. It lead one irate Viking fan to drill official Armin Terzian in the head with a whiskey bottle, an act that was deplorable for its intent while admirable for its accuracy.
It also lead one impressionable seven-and-half-year-old boy to learn an unforgettable life lesson. We were watching the game in Wisconsin, either at the home of my grandparents or one of my uncles. While I--almost undoubtedly clad in the ragged #10 Fran Tarkenton shirt that I would have worn every day of my life if allowed--fought to hold back the tears of frustration and anger welling up at the travesty that had just befallen my beloved Vikings, I noticed that my uncles were not similarly distraught. In fact, they appeared downright ecstatic with the result, laughing and chortling as my heart was breaking. With a wide-eyed, Cindy Lou Who-like level of innocence I asked my father, why? Why are they happy that the Vikings lost? Why?
His response was seared into my memory that day, "Because they're Packer fans."
Packer fans. Part of me was forever changed that day. I now could see things as they really were. The enemy of my enemy was my friend. Bad news for my enemy was good news for me. If my enemy was up, I was down and vice versa. Most of all, I was able to identify the enemy clearly. That enemy was the Green Bay Packers. So when Arizona's Michael Adams stripped Aaron Rodgers of the ball and Karlos Dansby ran it into the end zone for a game winning touchdown in OT on Sunday, my inner seven-and-half-year-old was screaming with joy. Actually, my outer self was pretty damn excited too. You get the point.
Anyway, back to this Sunday's game between the Cowboys and Vikings. It will again be a close, hard fought battle just like in '75. But this time, it will be Sydney Rice making incidental contact with a Dallas defender before hauling in a late touchdown pass from Bret Favre to give the Vikings a 24-17 victory and Viking fans just the slightest bit of redemption.
Excuse me now while I go dash off a couple of quick e-mails to my uncles in Wisconsin. The needling never gets old and the whirlwind must be reaped.
Baltimore Ravens at Indianapolis Colts
In Week 11 of this season, the Colts came to Baltimore and silenced the Ravens 17-15. Baltimore returns the favor this Saturday by going to Indy and beating the team that used to represent their city 25-17.
Arizona Cardinals at New Orleans Saints
Applying opposite principles was tough here as the two teams did not meet in the regular season and neither has what you would call a storied playoff history. So I'll fall back to the last time they met which was in December of 2007. The Saints won that game at home 31-24. This time I'll take the Cards 34-21.
New York Jets at San Diego Chargers
On January 8th, 2005, the Jets defeated the Chargers in 20-17 in overtime in a Wild Card playoff game in San Diego. The Chargers will reverse field this Sunday and down the Jets 17-10.
Dallas Cowboys at Minnesota Vikings
The Cowboys and Vikings have met six times previously in the playoffs (seven if you count the 1969 Playoff Bowl). Yet it was quite easy to pick the one game to apply the opposite system to. On December 28th, 1975 the 12-2 Vikings faced off against the 10-4 Cowboys on the frozen tundra of Metropolitan Stadium. The Vikings lead 14-10, but with 24 seconds left in the game, Drew Pearson committed second degree assault against Vikings cornerback Nate Wright allowing Pearson to get open and catch Roger Staubach's desperation 50 yard pass for a TD. That blatant violation of the rules, to say nothing of human decency, handed the Cowboys a much undeserved 17-14 win. It lead one irate Viking fan to drill official Armin Terzian in the head with a whiskey bottle, an act that was deplorable for its intent while admirable for its accuracy.
It also lead one impressionable seven-and-half-year-old boy to learn an unforgettable life lesson. We were watching the game in Wisconsin, either at the home of my grandparents or one of my uncles. While I--almost undoubtedly clad in the ragged #10 Fran Tarkenton shirt that I would have worn every day of my life if allowed--fought to hold back the tears of frustration and anger welling up at the travesty that had just befallen my beloved Vikings, I noticed that my uncles were not similarly distraught. In fact, they appeared downright ecstatic with the result, laughing and chortling as my heart was breaking. With a wide-eyed, Cindy Lou Who-like level of innocence I asked my father, why? Why are they happy that the Vikings lost? Why?
His response was seared into my memory that day, "Because they're Packer fans."
Packer fans. Part of me was forever changed that day. I now could see things as they really were. The enemy of my enemy was my friend. Bad news for my enemy was good news for me. If my enemy was up, I was down and vice versa. Most of all, I was able to identify the enemy clearly. That enemy was the Green Bay Packers. So when Arizona's Michael Adams stripped Aaron Rodgers of the ball and Karlos Dansby ran it into the end zone for a game winning touchdown in OT on Sunday, my inner seven-and-half-year-old was screaming with joy. Actually, my outer self was pretty damn excited too. You get the point.
Anyway, back to this Sunday's game between the Cowboys and Vikings. It will again be a close, hard fought battle just like in '75. But this time, it will be Sydney Rice making incidental contact with a Dallas defender before hauling in a late touchdown pass from Bret Favre to give the Vikings a 24-17 victory and Viking fans just the slightest bit of redemption.
Excuse me now while I go dash off a couple of quick e-mails to my uncles in Wisconsin. The needling never gets old and the whirlwind must be reaped.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Contemporary Comedy Service
Over at First Things, Patrick Rostrum has an on-going series of what he calls "Sermon Reviews." In these reviews he looks at different aspects of the church and the service that he attends. He rates the following areas on a scale from 1-10:
- Physical Aesthetics of the Church
- Precision, Reverence, and Aesthetics of the Service
- Precision, Reverence, and Rhetoric of the Sermon
- Music
These reviews have generated some controversy, especially over whether it's really appropriate to rate such things as sermons on a numeric scale. The latest sermon review of St. Ignatius Loyala in NYC lead to this comment from Commander Craig:
It's well worth arguing the relative merits of church architecture and rubrical adherence, and it's certainly worth calling attention to the homiletic purveyors of heretical Christology. However, a liturgical Michelin Guide, which would attempt to shoehorn the irreducible experience of the Mass into a ratings system, is a questionable project.
What's next, hiring the guys from Mystery Science Theater 3000 to do silhouetted running commentary?
While I'm sure all us of have sat through our share of sermons where an appearance by the MST3K crew would be a most welcome addition, it probably would prove to be too much of a distraction from the solemnity of the sacred proceedings to have them riffing during Mass. You'll have to content yourself with bad movies guys. We'll have to endure the pain of bad homilies laugh free.
- Physical Aesthetics of the Church
- Precision, Reverence, and Aesthetics of the Service
- Precision, Reverence, and Rhetoric of the Sermon
- Music
These reviews have generated some controversy, especially over whether it's really appropriate to rate such things as sermons on a numeric scale. The latest sermon review of St. Ignatius Loyala in NYC lead to this comment from Commander Craig:
It's well worth arguing the relative merits of church architecture and rubrical adherence, and it's certainly worth calling attention to the homiletic purveyors of heretical Christology. However, a liturgical Michelin Guide, which would attempt to shoehorn the irreducible experience of the Mass into a ratings system, is a questionable project.
What's next, hiring the guys from Mystery Science Theater 3000 to do silhouetted running commentary?
While I'm sure all us of have sat through our share of sermons where an appearance by the MST3K crew would be a most welcome addition, it probably would prove to be too much of a distraction from the solemnity of the sacred proceedings to have them riffing during Mass. You'll have to content yourself with bad movies guys. We'll have to endure the pain of bad homilies laugh free.
Mind If We Watch?
Last month, I noted that the CEO of the company that I work for was becoming more and more publicly outspoken about the dangers in the looming health care reform bill. Today, he has another op-ed that appeared on our internal website and I imagine will soon be published in the St. Louis Business Journal. Here's an excerpt:
Simply, the changes being proposed will have the negative effect of discouraging U.S. employers from hiring as the economy recovers, and will force them to pass on increased costs to employees and/or drop their health insurance benefits to let employees shop elsewhere or move to a government-based plan.
We have an opportunity to create real healthcare reform and make a difference now with smart, targeted, incremental programs, such as: giving small businesses and individuals access to interstate insurance pools; implementing medical malpractice reforms; requiring medical price transparency; and supporting community-based health centers that serve the uninsured, to name several.
Healthcare reform is a complex issue and there is room for honest disagreement on the best way it can be achieved. However, the Senate bill and the House companion fail to solve problems and instead increase government debt, decrease U.S. competitiveness and create one more reason for investment from around the world, as well as jobs, to go elsewhere. This is not the legacy any of us want for our nation.
I must add that equally as troubling is that Congressional leaders now want to slam the door on open debate at this critical point in the process of considering legislation that completely changes the nature of U.S. national health care policy. We can only hope that the Senate and House will do what Americans expect of them, and thats play by the same rules of fairness and openness they set for others and that are established by law. Negotiations and discussions to resolve issues going forward should be conducted in a transparent manner in Conference Committee. I completely agree with Senator Claire McCaskills position stated so clearly last week on this: let the C-Span cameras in.
Saint Paul may have just found a new business hero.
Simply, the changes being proposed will have the negative effect of discouraging U.S. employers from hiring as the economy recovers, and will force them to pass on increased costs to employees and/or drop their health insurance benefits to let employees shop elsewhere or move to a government-based plan.
We have an opportunity to create real healthcare reform and make a difference now with smart, targeted, incremental programs, such as: giving small businesses and individuals access to interstate insurance pools; implementing medical malpractice reforms; requiring medical price transparency; and supporting community-based health centers that serve the uninsured, to name several.
Healthcare reform is a complex issue and there is room for honest disagreement on the best way it can be achieved. However, the Senate bill and the House companion fail to solve problems and instead increase government debt, decrease U.S. competitiveness and create one more reason for investment from around the world, as well as jobs, to go elsewhere. This is not the legacy any of us want for our nation.
I must add that equally as troubling is that Congressional leaders now want to slam the door on open debate at this critical point in the process of considering legislation that completely changes the nature of U.S. national health care policy. We can only hope that the Senate and House will do what Americans expect of them, and thats play by the same rules of fairness and openness they set for others and that are established by law. Negotiations and discussions to resolve issues going forward should be conducted in a transparent manner in Conference Committee. I completely agree with Senator Claire McCaskills position stated so clearly last week on this: let the C-Span cameras in.
Saint Paul may have just found a new business hero.
Are You Still Decomposing?
From the Seinfeld episode The Summer of George:
[Doctor comes.]
Doctor: Mr. Costanza...your legs have sustained extensive trauma. Apparently your body was in the state of advanced atrophy, due to a period of extreme inactivity.
But with a lot of hard work and a little bit of luck, I think there's a good chance you may, one day, walk again.
[Doctor leaves.]
From an article in today's WSJ called Watching TV Linked To Higher Risk of Death:
In a provocative look at the impact of sedentary behavior on health, a new study links time watching television to an increased risk of death.
The results are supported by an emerging field of research that shows how prolonged periods of inactivity can affect the body's processing of fats and other substances that contribute to heart risk.
[Doctor comes.]
Doctor: Mr. Costanza...your legs have sustained extensive trauma. Apparently your body was in the state of advanced atrophy, due to a period of extreme inactivity.
But with a lot of hard work and a little bit of luck, I think there's a good chance you may, one day, walk again.
[Doctor leaves.]
From an article in today's WSJ called Watching TV Linked To Higher Risk of Death:
In a provocative look at the impact of sedentary behavior on health, a new study links time watching television to an increased risk of death.
The results are supported by an emerging field of research that shows how prolonged periods of inactivity can affect the body's processing of fats and other substances that contribute to heart risk.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Thin Ice
Just because you don't see these words strung together nearly enough, we want to note that the Bikini Ice Fishing Team--yes, that's right BIKINI ICE FISHING TEAM!--will be appearing this week at the 2010 Minnesota Sportsmen's Show in St. Paul. Exact dates and times don't seem to be available as yet, but if there is any justice in the world at all, one of their appearances will overlap with the NARN First Team remote broadcast from the Sportsmen's Show on Saturday from 11am-1pm.
Listening to Brian "St. Paul" Ward interview a couple of the gals (or even the entire team as a group) and discuss augers, drilling, tip-ups, dead sticks, slammers, and the dreaded chew and screw would be a radio experience for the ages.
SP NOTES: Good news, we are in negotiations now to have them on. I just hope they don't get bumped, what with the 50 minute interview we already have scheduled with Twiggy the Waterskiing Squirrel:
Listening to Brian "St. Paul" Ward interview a couple of the gals (or even the entire team as a group) and discuss augers, drilling, tip-ups, dead sticks, slammers, and the dreaded chew and screw would be a radio experience for the ages.
SP NOTES: Good news, we are in negotiations now to have them on. I just hope they don't get bumped, what with the 50 minute interview we already have scheduled with Twiggy the Waterskiing Squirrel:
Ask Not
In Friday's WSJ, Eric Felten wrote about how uncomfortable it can be when charity is Feeling Imposed Upon You:
If you shopped at any number of stores participating in the hospital's campaign--including Williams-Sonoma, Kmart, CVS drug stores, and others--you also were asked to contribute. Chances are, like me, you dutifully added to the kitty. But I wonder how many, like me, came away with a bad taste from the experience, an unpleasant sense of having been imposed upon.
I asked Leslie Lenkowsky, who is director of graduate programs at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy. He acknowledges that the practice involves some arm-twisting--"You get to feel badly if you refuse to donate"--but he thinks that the register pitch is not only effective but morally superior to indirect methods (such as when a store contributes on customers' behalf a small percentage of its revenues). "From the charity's point of view, this will be viewed as more ethical," he says, "since the donor has to make an affirmative decision to give." And if you are a customer/donor, he adds, "you get the product and the warm fuzzy glow."
Well, I'm not glowing. It's more like a slow burn. If I answer yes to the pitch, I don't feel the least bit generous; I'm left with the nagging sensation of having been made to cry "uncle." I never feel as though the offhand donation amounts to much—what, only a $5 donation when spending $100 on yourself?!—which leaves me feeling rather like a skinflint. And yet, if I don't pony up at all, there's the reflexive twinge of shame. Are these the emotions businesses want to produce in their customers?
Perhaps my reaction is unrepresentative. Retailers plumping for a little beneficence are confident that "the ask" helps them build a more intimate, involved and satisfying relationship with their customers. Emilie Antonetti, managing director of Brooks Brothers' charitable arm, the Golden Fleece Foundation, says that the company's clients have "embraced tremendously" the campaign as "an opportunity for us to come together and do something impactful." And in talking to a number of retailers, I was assured time and again that customers like being solicited for donations and that no one ever complains about being asked to give.
Yet I'm not so sure that a lack of complaints, or even robust levels of participation by customers, means that people like getting hit up for donations while they're shopping. Could it be that people made uncomfortable by being asked for a donation while their wallets are open and they're standing in front of a crowd at the register are just the sort of people discomfited even more by the thought of complaining about being asked to help children with cancer?
Now, I'm a big believer in charity and have no problem supporting worthy causes. Why just this last Christmas I made significant donations to the Human Fund on behalf of my fellow Fraters contributors. But I join Felten in decrying the rise in cash register charity pitches. There's something unseemly about putting people on the spot in such a public fashion and forcing them to say no to kids with cancer if they don't feel like making a contribution. I haven't experienced this pinch much here in the Twin Cities, but when I was on vacation in Miami every time I went to the local grocery store to pick up beer and potato chips I was asked if I wanted to donate to some charitable endeavor or another. It wasn't easy to summon up the will to say no, although I was able to resist the pressure play every time.
There are a couple of objections that I have to such aggressive asking. Chief among them comes from Matthew 6:1-4:
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 "Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
When you're publicly being asked to give, you're not only opened up to feeling shame for not giving, you also put in a position to blow your own trumpet if you do donate. Why of course I'll give a dollar to help that children's hospital. After all, I am a good person and that's what good people do. My giving is providing that public approval of my goodness.
The other is the way that charitable giving continues to move into areas where I don't feel its appropriate. I've written before on how I dislike the organized efforts to get you to agree to donate to charity at work, usually accompanied by plenty of implicit peer pressure. Now, I don't mind that companies provide their employees an opportunity to give. But at many companies, such charitable campaigns have almost become "opt outs" rather than "opt ins" and that isn't right.
This is the problem with the ask at the cash register. It forces you to say no. Having a jar where you can donate spare change is different. You initiate that action at your discretion. If you want to give, you give. If not, no one likely notices or is involved in the matter.
The ask also brings charitable giving into what is supposed to be a commercial transaction. I give you money that I've acquired through the sweat of my labor, you give me beer and potato chips. We both want to ensure that we're getting fair value in the exchange and so there's bottom line considerations about costs, price, and value that go into it (even if we don't always think about it that way). Now, when the transaction is almost complete, a third party is brought into the picture. The consumer no longer is merely dealing with bottom line financial concerns. There's the emotional appeal of helping sick children and the guilt that will come if you elect not to. A whole new range of feelings comes into play with no chance to really analyze the costs and benefits. In such an ambiguous situation, the easiest thing to do is say yes, part with your money, and move on. The dissonance is resolved and you probably even momentarily feel a little better about yourself as a person.
Until later, when you might start to wonder if you really want to shop a place that puts you in such an inappropriate situation in the first place. I know that I don't.
If you shopped at any number of stores participating in the hospital's campaign--including Williams-Sonoma, Kmart, CVS drug stores, and others--you also were asked to contribute. Chances are, like me, you dutifully added to the kitty. But I wonder how many, like me, came away with a bad taste from the experience, an unpleasant sense of having been imposed upon.
I asked Leslie Lenkowsky, who is director of graduate programs at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy. He acknowledges that the practice involves some arm-twisting--"You get to feel badly if you refuse to donate"--but he thinks that the register pitch is not only effective but morally superior to indirect methods (such as when a store contributes on customers' behalf a small percentage of its revenues). "From the charity's point of view, this will be viewed as more ethical," he says, "since the donor has to make an affirmative decision to give." And if you are a customer/donor, he adds, "you get the product and the warm fuzzy glow."
Well, I'm not glowing. It's more like a slow burn. If I answer yes to the pitch, I don't feel the least bit generous; I'm left with the nagging sensation of having been made to cry "uncle." I never feel as though the offhand donation amounts to much—what, only a $5 donation when spending $100 on yourself?!—which leaves me feeling rather like a skinflint. And yet, if I don't pony up at all, there's the reflexive twinge of shame. Are these the emotions businesses want to produce in their customers?
Perhaps my reaction is unrepresentative. Retailers plumping for a little beneficence are confident that "the ask" helps them build a more intimate, involved and satisfying relationship with their customers. Emilie Antonetti, managing director of Brooks Brothers' charitable arm, the Golden Fleece Foundation, says that the company's clients have "embraced tremendously" the campaign as "an opportunity for us to come together and do something impactful." And in talking to a number of retailers, I was assured time and again that customers like being solicited for donations and that no one ever complains about being asked to give.
Yet I'm not so sure that a lack of complaints, or even robust levels of participation by customers, means that people like getting hit up for donations while they're shopping. Could it be that people made uncomfortable by being asked for a donation while their wallets are open and they're standing in front of a crowd at the register are just the sort of people discomfited even more by the thought of complaining about being asked to help children with cancer?
Now, I'm a big believer in charity and have no problem supporting worthy causes. Why just this last Christmas I made significant donations to the Human Fund on behalf of my fellow Fraters contributors. But I join Felten in decrying the rise in cash register charity pitches. There's something unseemly about putting people on the spot in such a public fashion and forcing them to say no to kids with cancer if they don't feel like making a contribution. I haven't experienced this pinch much here in the Twin Cities, but when I was on vacation in Miami every time I went to the local grocery store to pick up beer and potato chips I was asked if I wanted to donate to some charitable endeavor or another. It wasn't easy to summon up the will to say no, although I was able to resist the pressure play every time.
There are a couple of objections that I have to such aggressive asking. Chief among them comes from Matthew 6:1-4:
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 "Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
When you're publicly being asked to give, you're not only opened up to feeling shame for not giving, you also put in a position to blow your own trumpet if you do donate. Why of course I'll give a dollar to help that children's hospital. After all, I am a good person and that's what good people do. My giving is providing that public approval of my goodness.
The other is the way that charitable giving continues to move into areas where I don't feel its appropriate. I've written before on how I dislike the organized efforts to get you to agree to donate to charity at work, usually accompanied by plenty of implicit peer pressure. Now, I don't mind that companies provide their employees an opportunity to give. But at many companies, such charitable campaigns have almost become "opt outs" rather than "opt ins" and that isn't right.
This is the problem with the ask at the cash register. It forces you to say no. Having a jar where you can donate spare change is different. You initiate that action at your discretion. If you want to give, you give. If not, no one likely notices or is involved in the matter.
The ask also brings charitable giving into what is supposed to be a commercial transaction. I give you money that I've acquired through the sweat of my labor, you give me beer and potato chips. We both want to ensure that we're getting fair value in the exchange and so there's bottom line considerations about costs, price, and value that go into it (even if we don't always think about it that way). Now, when the transaction is almost complete, a third party is brought into the picture. The consumer no longer is merely dealing with bottom line financial concerns. There's the emotional appeal of helping sick children and the guilt that will come if you elect not to. A whole new range of feelings comes into play with no chance to really analyze the costs and benefits. In such an ambiguous situation, the easiest thing to do is say yes, part with your money, and move on. The dissonance is resolved and you probably even momentarily feel a little better about yourself as a person.
Until later, when you might start to wonder if you really want to shop a place that puts you in such an inappropriate situation in the first place. I know that I don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)