The SoapBoxers

Joran Van der Sloot is expected to plead guilty to charges of murder today.  He faces as much as 30 years in prison for the death of Stephany Flores.

This means that Van der Sloot, still just 24, will be released before he turns 55.  Depending on the leniency of the judge, perhaps long before then.  This disturbs me greatly.  If the allegations against Van der Sloot are true, he is a cold, calculating monster with no conscience.  Even his own mother is distancing herself from him.

Let’s do a run-down.  Note that these are all allegations – none of the charges have been proven in a court of law.

• Van der Sloot first popped up on the radar as a 17 year old in 2005 when he was arrested for involvement in the disappearance and presumed murder of American teenager Natalee Holloway.  Holloway’s body was never found, and eventually van der Sloot was released from custody.  In my opinion, it’s unlikely that Van der Sloot will ever go on trial for Holloway’s murder.
• In 2010, he extorted money from Beth Holloway (Natalee’s mother) in exchange for disclosing the location of Natalee’s body.  Beth and her representative participated in a sting operation, and van der Sloot got $25,000.  Before charges could be filed, van der Sloot traveled to Peru.  The information about the location of Natalee’s body was determined to be false.  Talk about rubbing salt in the wound.
• While in Peru, he strikes up a relationship with Flores.  After spending time in a casino, they go to his hotel room early in the morning of May 30, 2010.  Violence ensues – likely due to a discussion of his involvement in Holloway’s murder – and Flores ends on the floor with a broken neck and blunt force trauma to the head.  By the time her body is discovered on June 2, van der Sloot has fled to Chile.  He was arrested on June 3 and eventually extradited to Peru.
• And the one that nobody talks about much – his involvement in the sex trafficking trade.  An investigate report by Dutch journalist Peter R. de Vries shows that Van der Sloot, at the time an owner of a restaurant in Thailand, sold Thai girls to groups involved in the sex trafficking trade.  Van der Sloot posed as a representative of a modeling agency to lure the girls, who were shipped to the Netherlands to become sex slaves.  For his efforts, Van der Sloot received a heathy fee of $13,000 per girl.

That’s a pretty extensive resume for a 24 year old.  While Van der Sloot often seems portray a lone wolf psychopath working along, it seems unlikely that this is actually true.  It’s fairly obviously that he has cultivated some relationships with other criminals.  How else could he have possibly gotten involved in the Thai sex slave enterprise?

I’m hoping the judge decides to impose the maximum penalty of 30 years in prison – and fear the day that Van der Sloot is able to walk out of the doors a free man once again.  How many other women will he kill after his release from prison?
 

 

Here we are 5 days into the New Year. I’m still struggling with hangover #1 for the year. This New Year I had the joy of discovering a new scotch. I actually discovered scotch last fall on a business trip, but have been “acquiring” the taste for it. I now have fully bought and paid for that appreciation for scotch. This New Year I appreciated Highland Park 15 year old which every scotch drinker will enjoy.

Politics

Iowa caucus results were Romney #1, Santorum #2 down by a mere 8 votes and then the whack job Ron Paul came in at #3. I understand the votes for Romney and Santorum as they both have qualities that make them electable and they are both on the conservative side of Obama. Ron Paul though? That really causes me to question the rationale of 26,129 Iowa voters. Let me just say…WHACK JOB.

What is going to happen with the GOP?

Romney is an excellent debater and has a great chance of beating Obama. He’s the most liberal of the GOP candidates and conservatives are left feeling funny endorsing Romney with many of the views that he has had. It’s difficult for people to go along with candidates that flip flop. It’s difficult for conservatives to endorse a candidate that has voted against the 2nd amendment, endorse homosexual unions and put through a state health care plan similar to Obamacare. Romney will probably pull more TRUE centrists though. His experience with business/economy and limited time in government is his greatest assets. In a debate, he’ll eat Obama for lunch.

Ron Paul is a serious whack job that will not be strong enough on defense for conservatives. There is no way he can walk away with the Republican candidacy. If Paul were to debate Obama I think he’d struggle. I only hope that Ron Paul doesn’t try a 3rd party run, the only thing he will do is be a spoiler.

Santorum is a core conservative that will excite the conservative base. He’s strong on defense, 2nd amendment rights, Christian values and family. He is not a strong debater and I question if he’ll gain the endorsement of TRUE centrists. I think we’ll see Santorum gain momentum as more caucuses and elections take place. I believe he has a chance of stealing the nomination from Romney although Santorum is the underdog with limited funding compared to Romney. I don’t believe that Santorum’s chances of taking the nomination are great though.

• Gingrich says he’s still in the race, but I don’t think that will last long.
• Cain was my favorite candidate, but has become unelectable after thinking too much with his little head.
• Bachmann has suspended her campaign after disappointing results.
• Perry is going back to Texas to consider his next move.

Other news

In other significant headlines, Iran is threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a much needed path to ship oil through. The US has an aircraft carrier in the area and Iran went on to threaten that if the aircraft carrier moves into that region, they will attack. My thoughts on this:

1. The military won’t be pushed around by Iran
2. We need to eliminate this need for oil from the Middle East.

Meanwhile, CBS is reporting that $5 gallon gas can be expected this summer due to all the problems happening with Iran. Need more reasons to expand US drilling on and off shore?

Nobama???

How could I neglect to include one of the most earth shattering news stories of the year! A Mexican “Grand Warlock”…pardon me, THE Mexican Grand Warlock (Brujo Mayor) has made a very pleasing prediction for 2012. He has announced that Obama will lose the election this year. I have a few questions that I’d love to run past the Warlock, I wonder if he’s available.

Have a Happy New Year and if I didn’t have the chance to tell you earlier, Merry Christmas!

Squeaky…

It was an interesting night in my home state of Iowa last night.  In the Republican caucus, Mitt Romney eked out an eight vote win over Rick Santorum.  The order of finish was:

1. Romney
2. Santorum
3. Paul
4. Gingrich
5. Perry
6. Bachmann
7. Huntsman
8. Cain

I correctly predicted the 1-6 order of finish yesterday on another site of mine, Donkey and Elephant Show (I didn’t bother including Huntsman and Cain, as it was apparent that they would do very poorly).

Romney, Paul, and Santorum each had more than 20% of the vote and emerge as the front-runners.  Huntsman decided to skip Iowa entirely and focus on New Hampshire.  This ensured him of a poor showing in Iowa, but might endear him to the voters of New Hampshire.

Perry’s going home to think about things and figure out if there is a path forward.  Considering the fact that he made a huge media buy in Iowa and still couldn’t crack the top 4, I’m guessing that there’s not a path forward.

Michele Bachmann seems willing to hang in for a bit longer.  I don’t see how she’s a viable candidate.  She represents a neighboring state (Minnesota) in congress, was born in Iowa, won the Ames Straw poll, spent a ton of time in the state over the past fews months, and despite all these advantages, still managed just 5% of the vote.

Many observers felt that Santorum picked up support from the anybody-but-Romney crowd.  He doesn’t have a lot of money, and it will be interesting to see if he can raise funds to be competitive in other states.  It will also be interesting to see if he can weather the storm of attack ads that is sure to be coming.  He peaked so late in Iowa that he wasn’t the target of many attack ads.

I’m sure that Paul’s third place finish comes as a shock to many of his supporters.  Crunchy had her own predictions on Yahoo yesterday, and one commenter left this doozy of a response (excerpt)

only about 90% of those who post comments and rate them online support Ron Paul. Romney is met with disdain and Santorum, derision. While the demographics are no doubt skewed here towards thinking people as opposed to sheeple, you can’t change 90% into third place without fixing it

Unfortunately, the number of vocal online supporters a candidate has doesn’t necessarily translate into the number of voters they will get.  While it’s important to have devoted followers, they are only one part of the mix.  You also need to get votes from people who silently support a candidate – the silent majority.

What should we expect in New Hampshire?  It’s probably that Romney will pickup a win in his back yard, but it’s possible that Huntsman could pull off  a surprise.  However, if some members of the GOP are unwilling to vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon,  then a protest vote for Hunstman wouldn’t make much sense, since he’s also Mormon. 

If Romney can consistently finish in the top 2 in the next batch of primaries and have his opponents split the time in the other spot, he should be in good shape for the nomination.  A large field works in Romney’s interest, and it splinters the anti-Romney vote in a few directions and makes it harder for any one candidate to surpass his vote total.

First we will start in the NFL, where the last of the playoff spots were sorted out. We learned a couple of things in the NFL this weekend.

1. Terence Newman is even worse than most Cowboys fans in my office thought. I have heard complaints about his lack of ability to cover himself with coat before stepping outside on a cold day, but he showed this weekend against the Giants that he simply is not very good.
2. It appears Tebow Time is over.
3. Matt Flynn just made himself some serious money looking towards next year.

Bowl Games

The College Bowls took seat front and center yesterday with the traditional January 1st bowl games moved to Monday due to Sunday and the NFL.

Worst game of the day had to be Penn State versus Houston. Neither team really wanted to be there but the fact is Houston has an offense and Penn State does not.

The best game of the day is up for debate, but my vote goes to the Oklahoma State win over Stanford. I would still have loved seeing Oklahoma State avoid the upset against the Iowa State Cyclones and be playing for it all due to their ability to score in bunches.

Better yet, how about a Cowboys versus Ducks matchup. I am after everyone would be handed 3-D Glasses to view the newest uniforms rolled out to each of these two teams, watching the actual game would remind anyone in their early 40’s of the glory days of play Super Tecmo Bowl. I would give the edge to Oregon in a shootout. 84-80.

Worst of the Worst – from Bowl Games

You have GOT to feel badly for a pair of kickers yesterday. First off Georgia Kicker Blair Walsh….While he became the Southeastern Conference’s career scoring leader with a field goal in the second overtime, he missed a 42-yarder in the first overtime and then had a 47-yard attempt blocked on the final play of the game.

You have got to feel even worse for Stanford freshman kicker Jordan Williamson, who missed 3 kicks – including one at the end of regulation to win the game and again another miss in overtime. On the game’s final drive, he reminded me of the pitcher throwing a no-no late in the game, he was all by himself, basically excluded from the rest of his team on the sidelines. He looked nervous to me on television, but he is only a dreshman, so hopefully he will bounce back.

Worst of the Worst – is two of the Marquee players in the Capital One Bowl, Alfonso Dennard and Alshon Jeffery get into a slugging match on the sideline and both players are thrown out. Not a great thing to do on the national stage, in your final game of your college career

An even Bigger bomb was dropped by the Capital One Bowl who selected Jeffrey with their MVP award for the game.

I am sure he was chosen for his “Hail Mary” catch right before halftime, which definitively turned the tide and the momentum of the game in South Carolina’s favor. However, giving an award to a person ejected from a football game for fighting with another player sets an exceedingly poor example, no matter how big the player’s impact in the game. You can’t select that person as the winner of an award on individual merits in this fame based on principal alone.

Boo Capital One….

Until Next Time, Stay Classy St Matthews, South Carolina.

I was travelling to visit relatives most of the last week.  This article is a hodge-podge of topics I discussed with my college age children during a combined 24 hours of car travel.

Politics

I live in Iowa and will be participating in the Caucus.  All of the voting age people in my house will be going participating as well.  Our participation is more to understand what the positions of the candidates are and what the major issues that will be championed by the party will be.  Yes we get to be part of the first in the nation guidance for the primary season, but that is secondary to learning as much as possible.  My father lives in Texas and will call shortly after the caucus to tell me if Iowa chose correctly or not.  Last time he was correct for both parties, as far as who the final nominees were.  Crunchy’s article about the caucuses matches my experience, except she left out the part about the cookies that are provided.  Ok, I guess that is not really important

Sports – College Bowl Games

The college football bowl season is moving along nicely.  We only have about thirty bowls to go (just kidding).  I have watched several of the bowls.  Most of them have been competitive.  Most of them have also had what appears to be low attendance.  This may be because of the venues (Yankee Stadium is not the best for football viewing and using professional stadiums that hold 100,000 people for a bowl that traditionally has 50,000 spectators will make it appear empty).  The best games are still to come, although my personal opinion is that the championship game is sort of a waste.  Why would you ever have a bowl with two teams from the same conference?  If Alabama wins, will they really be the champions or will it be shared with LSU since they would each have beaten the other once?

Sports – Professional Football

The playoffs are set.  I think it was great that the final week of the season actually meant something this year.  There was positioning as well as qualifying at stake, even in the last game late Sunday night.  The match-ups look good with some rematches.  Tim Tebow will be there, at least the first round, to keep the story line of the religious quarterback going.  Just a note, most football players have a strong and public faith life.  This comes from the fact that on any play, they can be injured and could be prevented from playing the game they love (and their livelihood).

In some ways it is the same teams in the playoffs again; New England, Baltimore, Pittsburg, Green Bay, New Orleans and New York have all been to the Super Bowl or at least conference championships over the last few years.  The notable new comers are the Houston Texas – congratulations on you first playoff appearance.  The notable missing team are the Indianapolis Colts – what a difference a quarterback makes.

Writing

I have been writing while I have been off for the holidays, but not nearly enough.  I am challenging myself to actually get my first book into the various electronic formats and out for the world to consider.  I am also challenging myself to actually complete my second book.  Then I have to actually work on my third effort, the one I failed to even get 50,000 words written for NaNoWriMo this year.  For Christmas, I received a short book on how to write and publish by an English Professor.  Although it was interesting to read his ideas, I would recommend Kosmo’s guide.  The main difference is that Kosmo provides actual advice, the professional drops of names and brags about his own publishing record, but provides little concrete help.

Productive Hobbies

A couple of articles ago, I commented that I was crocheting in my spare time.  I am happy to report that I have (almost) completed a afghan for my daughter to take back to college with her.  My next effort will have to be a little more complex to help me grow in my capabilities.  I have found that crocheting while watching TV has actually helped me in my quest to lose weight.  My hands are occupied and the urge to grab a snack or even sip a soft drink is really reduced.  So to sum up, Politics, Football, Football, Writing and keeping busy.

Marilyn vos Savant has the highest reported IQ in the world and writes a weekly column where she answers questions from the great unwashed. Often time, the questions are simple enough that a person with average intelligence could answer them. Sometimes, though, she does bobble one and give an obviously wrong answer. (I guess your editor can’t question your work if you’re the smartest person in the world.)

Let’s take a look at this recent question.

I manage a drug-testing program for an organization with 400 employees. Every three months, a random-number generator selects 100 names for testing. Afterward, these names go back into the selection pool. Obviously, the probability of an employee being chosen in one quarter is 25 percent. But what’s the likelihood of being chosen over the course of a year?
Jerry Haskins, Vicksburg, Miss.
 
Marilyn responds:
The probability remains 25 percent, despite the repeated testing. One might think that as the number of tests grows, the likelihood of being chosen increases, but as long as the size of the pool remains the same, so does the probability. Goes against your intuition, doesn’t it?

Yes, it certainly does go against my intuition.  There’s a great reason for this – the answer is wrong.

Is the answer counter-intuitive?

Before we actually analyze in any detail, ask yourself if this makes sense.  Do you really think a person has a 25% chance of being chosen over the course of a year, regardless of the number of tests?  So if the company tests 1 time per year or 700 times per year (arrival, lunch break, and right before you leave every day) John Q. Public on the assembly line has a 25% chance of being picked at any time during the course of a year?

Give Marilyn a point for correctly suggesting that her answer is counter-intuitive.

Walk through the 4 tests

OK, let’s walk through the selections in each of the quarters.

• Quarter 1: Of the 400 employees, 100 are selected and 300 are not.  At this point, we’ve broken the single group of employees into two sub-groups – those who have been selected and those who have not.
• Quarter 2:  100 of the 400 employees are selected again.  If the sampling is truly random, 25% of each sub-group will be selected.  This means that 25% of the 100 employees (25) who were selected in the 1st quarter will be selected again, and 25% of the 300 employees (75) who were not selected in the 1st quarter will be selected.  The “selected at least once” sub-group now grows to 175 while the “never selected” subgroup shrinks to 225.  From this point on, we’ll focus on the “never selected” group.
• Quarter 3:  The “never selected” group drops to 169.
• Quarter 4:  The “never selected” group drops to 127.

At the end of the year, 127 of the 400 employees (31.75%) have completely avoided the testing, while 273 (68.25%) have been selected at least once.  1 or 2 people would have been selected all four times.

Show me the math

As is often the case with probability, the easiest way to attack this is to computer the odds of the opposite circumstance and subtract this from 100%.  The odds of being selected one of more times would involve computing the odds of being selected once, twice, three times, or four times and then adding the results.

Alternately, we can easily calculated the odds of never being selected, and just subtract this from 100% to arrive at the likelihood of being selected at least once.

The odds of avoiding testing in any quarter is 75%.  Thus, we simple raise .75 to the power of 4 (.75^⁴) to arrive at the odds of never being selected for testing – .3164, or 31.64%.  Thus the odds of being selected at least once is 68.36%.  This differs slightly from the result above because the 68.25% involved some rounding (since we must use whole people and not fractions).

The moral of the story?

Don’t place too much trust (or dis-trust) in the messenger.  Pay attention to the actual message.

Commentary- Do you see that Paul supporters? Commentary. That means it is Commentary. NOT a news article. It’s like the Opinion section of the paper, not the front page. Then again, that doesn’t matter to Ron Paul supporters. If it isn’t something that praises St. Ron Paul, it’s trash. It’s stupid. It’s someone who should “kill themselves”.

Personal attacks by Ron Paul fans

Yes. In the comments in the last article I wrote, commentators told me everything from me needing to f-word myself to killing myself…and everything in between, including having my tubes tied so I didn’t have any more children. Nice. Mature.

I thought I was being a little rough when I referred to Ron Paul supporters as being “rabid”. They proved to me I was right on. Thanks for proving me right.

I believe in the 11th Commandment. “Thou shall not speak ill of fellow Republicans.” But I can still talk about Ron Paul. Because he’s not a Republican. He’s so far right, he’s wrong. He’s even been described as “left of Obama” by some of my friends who are Democrats.

The aforementioned article has almost 300 more COMMENTS than WORDS in the article. Looks like I hit a nerve. You’d think I said that Dr. Paul eats small kittens for breakfast…and I’m surprised I haven’t been accused of it.

I’m amused that the commentators took the time to check out my background. Yes, I do volunteer for a Paranormal Group. I think it is fun and interesting. I have also served as Co-Chair of the Polk County (Des Moines, Iowa) Republican Party, and like almost everyone else in Des Moines, I have worked for a large corporation (we have many in the area, Principal, Wells Fargo, Nationwide, ING). But I think that just makes my background diverse.

My husband served in the Iraq war, and after finding out about it, a Ron Paul supporter told me that I didn’t serve, only my husband did. ANYONE who is a spouse of a soldier also serves. Whomever says that the wife of a soldier doesn’t serve, has never been a soldier, or a wife of one. The same Paul supporter responded with, “if you somehow died while he was overseas, would you get a military burial?” Because only a military burial equates to serving? Some soldiers choose not to have a military burial. Moron.

As far as the articles I’ve written, they include more than just the barn and crayon stains. You can read about Why I support Santorum, Why I like him for the caucus, Iowa GOP Voter’s reaction to the national security debate…and more. If you did as much research into my articles as you did my personal background, you would have found them.

My concerns with Paul’s positions

Even though this is an opinion piece, the Ron Paul supporters seem to feel the need for me to back up my opinion with facts. Here’s why Ron Paul is dangerous, again, in MY opinion.

1. Ron Paul’s foreign policy is an epic fail. Example? Not taking Iran seriously. Dr. Paul’s lack of seriousness toward Iran shows a fundamental misunderstanding of international security. Iran is a country that doesn’t lend itself toward the kind of MAD balance of terror that gave balance in the Cold War. Iran, instead, upon getting nukes would be in a use’em or lose’em scenario. I can go through the game theory in more detail, but suffice it to say we either intervene in the Mid-East to stop Iran getting nukes, or you flip a coin to figure out if you have a major regional war in the Mid-East, potentially involving nukes.
2. Eliminating the Department of Energy. I don’t know if Dr. Paul knows, but the DOE runs our nuclear program (there’s a little facility out at Los Alamos he may want to familiarize himself with.) Sure, Solyndra is a scandal that is terribly embarrassing to the Democrats, but let’s not toss the baby out with the bathwater here.
3. Democrats may disagree with Republicans on appropriate military policy, but we all should honor our veterans. The way leftists treated vets post Vietnam is disgusting, and has no place in our political life. Soldiers and their families have a tough enough time without some idiot (or like I was subjected to, a Ron Paul supporter) undermining their sacrifice.

So there you go, Ron Paul supporters. Three talking points. As you know, I’m more than willing to have an open, yet mature dialogue. If you tell me to “kill myself”, it’s not going to happen. If you “plan to have your sister come and pound me in the ground”, it’s not going to happen. Maybe I’m the next Ann Coulter. And yes, I consider that a compliment.

As 2012 approaches and we begin to make promises to be the better, kinder, thinner people that we didn’t become after last New Years, I thought it would be a good idea to consider an artwork steeped in snarky wit and revenge.

I am obviously not a fan of New Years’ resolutions.

James Abbott McNeill Whistler was born in Lowell, Massachusetts, in 1834. The third son of West Point graduate and civil engineer Major George Washington Whistler and his second wife, Anna Matilda McNeill, the young Whistler spent much of his childhood in Russia after his father was charged with the construction of a railroad from St. Petersburg to Moscow. In the family tradition, he enrolled at West Point in 1851, but was dismissed for poor chemistry grades. Determined to be an artist, Whistler packed up his brushes and moved to Europe in 1855, never returning to his native country.

London and a patron

After a few years in Paris where he hobnobbed with avant-garde artists like Courbet and Manet, Whistler moved to London in 1859.  Whistler’s decision to settle in London had lasting impact on his artistic output. Had he worked in America, he likely would have been affected by Puritanical tendency to imbue art with moral purpose. Had he remained in Paris, he would have been caught up in the burgeoning modernism that inspired artists like Monet, Degas, and Renoir. As it happened, London allowed Whistler to develop his own theory of art, based on the idea that art needs no literary or moral narrative, and should exist solely for its own sake. His was the philosophy of aestheticism, which believed recognized beauty as the only requirement of art.

Whistler’s reputation for unusual art and a sassy personality were already well-established when he arrived in London. He was especially well-known for cutting barbs aimed at critics who disliked his work and arrogant remarks about his own talent. “I can’t tell  you if genius is hereditary, because heaven has granted me no offspring,” and “I maintain that two and two would continue to make four, in spite of the whine of the amateur for three, or the cry of the critic for five,” are merely two examples of his infamous acerbic wit.

Wealthy British shipping magnate Frederick Richards Leyland was one of Whistler’s most important patrons. The Leylands – Frederick and his wife, Frances – were enthusiastic collectors of blue and white Chinese porcelain, and the dining room of their home functioned as a display case for their magnificent collection. Whistler had even painted a portrait of famed beauty Christina Spartali in fashionable Oriental costume as a centerpiece for the room’s theme.

Even with the addition of his painting, Whistler was displeased with the room itself. He felt that the designer’s (famed architect Thomas Jeckyll) emphasis on neutrality and natural light as a foil for the porcelain didn’t celebrate the essence of the exotic objects.  In 1876, when Jeckyll fell ill and Leyland was away on business, Whistler proposed modest changes to the décor to his patron, which Leyland approved.  Where Jeckyll envisioned a sunny Chinese pavilion, Whistler wanted to create a stunning, intimate jewel box of a room. The room became a 3D painting, a work of art that you could walk around inside.

Not exactly “modest”

By the time Whistler had finished, scarcely a trace was left of Jeckyll’s design. The room was ablaze with gold and copper leaf, which covered nearly every surface. Whistler set these glowing metallics off with a rich blue-green. Even spaces hidden by shelving were decorated with tapestry-like patinas to set off the texture of the porcelain.  Whistler wrote Leyland a letter about the room, describing it as, “a gorgeous surprise.” What surprised Leyland most were not the actual “modest” changes that Whistler had made to the room, but the bill, which was almost 2,000 guineas more than he had expected (about $200,000 in today’s money – NOT a small amount.)

Revenge

When Leyland angrily said that he would pay only half of the projected amount, Whistler began another addition to the room’s décor – a mural of two peacocks on the wall facing his Princess. Titled Art and Money or The Story of the Room, two gilded peacocks prepare to fight on a field of Prussian-blue leather (the very fact that Whistler painted the very expensive leather was another slight to Leyland). The peacock on the right has excessively ruffled feathers, Whistler’s homage to the ruffled shirts that Leyland favored. At the feat of this peacock are silver coins – the money that Whistler believed Leyland was selfishly keeping from him. The peacock on the left is crowned by a silver feather; similar to the shock of white hair that Whistler was famous for. Legend tells us that after Whistler completed the work in 1877, Leyland declared that he would have Whistler horsewhipped if he came to the house again. He did, however, keep the room just as Whistler designed it.

For an artist who once proclaimed, “People will forgive anything but beauty and talent, so I am doubly unpardonable,” Whistler was ultimately pardoned and even vindicated for his design of what came to be known as The Peacock Room. After Leyland died, the room was purchased whole by Charles Lang Freer, an American railroad tycoon, who installed it in the dining room of his Detroit mansion. Thirteen years before his death, Freer bequeathed his entire Whistler collection to the Smithsonian, where the room has remained ever since, one of the most important examples of the aesthetic movement and interior design in the world.

It’s not like a regular primary. You don’t go to your normal polling location. It’s not something you can do before or after work. It’s quite different.

I can speak for the Republican caucus because I’ve been the Chair for my location. As far as the Democrats go, well, I only have to go off of what I’ve been told from my dad. Yes, my parents were registered Democrats. I was raised a Democrat. I turned them.

From what I understand of the Democrat caucus (when it is contested), you go to your caucus location and break into groups of the candidate you support. There’s a percentage your candidate must reach in order to be considered “viable”. When there is a group that isn’t a “viable” group, the other groups try to coerce the “un-viable” candidates to their group. It all just sounds a little too shady to me.

As far as the Republicans go, you go to your caucus location, listen to speakers, either the actual candidates or those who’ve been chosen to speak on behalf of the candidate, pass the “buck bucket” as a fundraiser for the party and then vote. Each person gets one slip of paper (usually colored paper to prevent fraud) and you write your choice. The votes are tallied (usually as more people speak) and the winner is announced. One person, one vote. Sounds fair to me.

It can take anywhere from 1 to 3 hours, depending on the speakers, the size of the precinct, and the questions (usually from Dems who have switched sides).

It may sound complex but the GOP event really is straight forward. Have fun, good luck and enjoy the process and blessing that we, as Iowans, get.
 

 

A lot of sites are highlighting the top news stories of 2011.  It’s pretty easy to do them in hindsight – how about a look forward at the top news stories of 2012.

Here are my three news stories to follow in 2012.

The presidential election

Hundreds of millions (or even billions) of dollars will be spent to obtain a job that pays a mere $400,000 per year.  Since I live in Iowa, I’ve been deluged with commercials for many months.  I can’t wait for the caucuses to be over, so that the politicians can focus on New Hampshire.  My prediction is that the economy will bounce back and Obama will ride the economic uptick to a re-election.  I’m not saying that he’ll cause the recovery, just that he’ll get the credit for it (which is fair, since presidents also get blamed for things they don’t cause.

In addition to the presidential election, there will also be elections for all of the seats in the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the seats in the Senate.  These don’t get as much attention, but they are just as important.  While the political writers on The Soap Boxers will cover the serious political news, I’ll handle the snarky stories (which coven will Christine O’Donnell join in 2012) on my new site, Donkey and Elephant Show.

The world will end

December 21 is just 359 days away.  If you happen to be in Australia on November 13 and fear that the end of the world has arrived early, don’t worry – you’re just seeing a total solar eclipse.  You’ve still got 38 days to live.

I’ve given some advice for the end of days.  Sadly, I do expect that quite a few people will saddle themselves with debt under the assumption that the world will end on December 21 and they won’t have to repay the money.  If the sun rises on December 22, we may see a spike in the number of bankruptcies.  (Sadly, I’m not kidding).

Olympics

I’m an Olympic junkie.  During the 2012 Summer games in London, I will once again learn the nuances of many sports that I pay no attention to at any other time (kayaking?).  Of particular note to me is that fact that 2004 Olympic gold medalist Cael Sanderson will attempt to win another gold in 2012.

Not only are the Olympics a great showcase for sports, but it’s also a great way to learn about other countries and cultures.  Certainly we’ll learn a lot about London during the Games, but also about countries like Trinidad and Tobago.  Have kids who hate geography but love sports?  Let them watch the Olympics and they’ll pick up some geography (and maybe even learn something about world politics).

While I’ll like watch just about anything, my main focus will be on track and field, especially since baseball has been dropped as an Olympic sport (sigh).

Your thoughts

What stories will you be following in 2012?