From Emmett Till and Medgar Evers to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, the defining young black men of their generations are known for dying too young and for no good reason. Every community has their story of a young black man, who, if not dead under suspicious circumstances received railroaded justice. A young man known as Cheetah White comes to mind. I couldn't begin to tell you the facts of that case, only that justice was swift and Cheetah went to prison. It was my first time ever seeing a protest march (as a spectator.)
The thread that run through all of these is that we don't value young the same as we value other members of society. Each case plays out the same way with whites convinced of guilt and blacks convinced of innocence and devolves into blacks protesting and whites saying, "See, destroy your own community...." And then some old white guy like Rudy Giuliani makes some horribly insensitive remarks. This has to stop.
For this to work justice must be blind. A prosecutor must seek an indictment. The bar is low -- probable cause. If you can't get that, you're not trying very hard. Michael is denied his day in court. The black community has no reason to trust the justice system, so they have to protest -- it's their only chance at justice.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Thursday, November 13, 2014
A Review of Breaking Bad
I have never felt more American than I do right now. I have finished watching all 62 episodes of a television show that I didn't really like that much. And for most of these episodes I posted an update to Facebook announcing, "Watching episode xx of Breaking Bad." This got likes and encouragement heaped on me as I was finally part of the team. I had given myself to the mindless, pre-diabetic couch-potatoery that American life has come to symbolize.
People genuinely like this show and I am clearly in the minority because I didn't love it. I didn't hate it either. I mostly found it not that interesting and completely lacking in likable characters. The plot appears to be well thought out, but slow. Walt is like an evil MacGyver, using his superior knowledge of science to make the best meth and to kill people in diabolical ways. His motives appear to be fueled by not having lived up to his potential and bailing on his start-up before it made him rich. He has something to prove and his narcissism to satisfy.
Skyler, his wife, has her own craven desires and is almost likable. She does try to protect her family, but ultimately helps Walt launder money to satisfy her own craven desires. Marie, Skyler's sister is an idiot and completely lacking in depth or development. Hank, Marie's husband and a DEA agent is also an idiot and someone I would go to great lengths to avoid having to talk to. Gus, the drug kingpin is a wooden cutout of a man -- but the only person nearly as diabolical as Walt. Mike was about as likable as a thug can be. He tried to aid Walt and Jesse along the way, so he is OK, but really has too small a role to make a difference. Lydia -- the most likable thing about her was that her last name was Quayle. Saul was good for comic relief, but he was also an attorney to scumbags who was about as dirty as they come.
This brings us to Jesse Pinkman. Pinkman is the closest thing to a good person in the entire show. He's a meth cook, drug addict, all-around screw-up who may be the only person in the show with a moral compass that points in the right direction. He is remorseful for hurting people. He loves and treats people well. He is also a killer. He is the only character in the show that has depth and complexity, but even he is a cliche.
I have a few theories about why the show is so popular. First, it plays to the delusion that a lot of people have that goes something like this: I am good, I could never swayed from my goodness and am therefore utterly fascinated by anyone that appears to walk the razor's edge between good and evil. If there is a genius to the show, it is that none of the characters are inherently good or evil -- they all walk that razor's edge and most viewers don't consciously know that they do it too. Like I said earlier, Pinkman is the closest thing to a likable character and his last two girlfriends have died of a drug overdose and being shot in the back of the head by a drug dealer. Not exactly what you would call totally likable.
My second theory is that it is an allegory for our times. If the Wall Street culture of greed is replaced by the meth culture of greed, then all of the characters become investment bankers and people cheer for their greed. Of course you can't cheer for meth cooks so this sets up the dynamic tension of wanting to cheer for the bad guys which heightens its allure.
As for the plot (I should probably give a spoiler alert here, but as I am the last person to watch this show there is no point), it's basically a little Robin Hood, a little Gatsby, a little Godfather and little slapstick -- it is the story of post-Modern, consumerist America. In the end, Walt keeps coming back -- not for the money, not for the power but for the fame. He is a narcissist. He enjoys telling Skyler his famous "I'm the guy who knocks" speech even though he is not at that point (and truly never becomes that because his narcissism gets in the way of his building an organization). He gets a gigantic woody when Hank figures out who he is. He comes back. He coerces the Schwatzes into helping him give money to his family. If there series played for another season, it would have Walt writing his memoir from a jail cell.
Walt is America with a coalition of the willing that dwindles to none but still has the power to take out some bad guys before ending up lying in a pool of his own blood on the floor of someone else's meth lab that he helped build.
People genuinely like this show and I am clearly in the minority because I didn't love it. I didn't hate it either. I mostly found it not that interesting and completely lacking in likable characters. The plot appears to be well thought out, but slow. Walt is like an evil MacGyver, using his superior knowledge of science to make the best meth and to kill people in diabolical ways. His motives appear to be fueled by not having lived up to his potential and bailing on his start-up before it made him rich. He has something to prove and his narcissism to satisfy.
Skyler, his wife, has her own craven desires and is almost likable. She does try to protect her family, but ultimately helps Walt launder money to satisfy her own craven desires. Marie, Skyler's sister is an idiot and completely lacking in depth or development. Hank, Marie's husband and a DEA agent is also an idiot and someone I would go to great lengths to avoid having to talk to. Gus, the drug kingpin is a wooden cutout of a man -- but the only person nearly as diabolical as Walt. Mike was about as likable as a thug can be. He tried to aid Walt and Jesse along the way, so he is OK, but really has too small a role to make a difference. Lydia -- the most likable thing about her was that her last name was Quayle. Saul was good for comic relief, but he was also an attorney to scumbags who was about as dirty as they come.
This brings us to Jesse Pinkman. Pinkman is the closest thing to a good person in the entire show. He's a meth cook, drug addict, all-around screw-up who may be the only person in the show with a moral compass that points in the right direction. He is remorseful for hurting people. He loves and treats people well. He is also a killer. He is the only character in the show that has depth and complexity, but even he is a cliche.
I have a few theories about why the show is so popular. First, it plays to the delusion that a lot of people have that goes something like this: I am good, I could never swayed from my goodness and am therefore utterly fascinated by anyone that appears to walk the razor's edge between good and evil. If there is a genius to the show, it is that none of the characters are inherently good or evil -- they all walk that razor's edge and most viewers don't consciously know that they do it too. Like I said earlier, Pinkman is the closest thing to a likable character and his last two girlfriends have died of a drug overdose and being shot in the back of the head by a drug dealer. Not exactly what you would call totally likable.
My second theory is that it is an allegory for our times. If the Wall Street culture of greed is replaced by the meth culture of greed, then all of the characters become investment bankers and people cheer for their greed. Of course you can't cheer for meth cooks so this sets up the dynamic tension of wanting to cheer for the bad guys which heightens its allure.
As for the plot (I should probably give a spoiler alert here, but as I am the last person to watch this show there is no point), it's basically a little Robin Hood, a little Gatsby, a little Godfather and little slapstick -- it is the story of post-Modern, consumerist America. In the end, Walt keeps coming back -- not for the money, not for the power but for the fame. He is a narcissist. He enjoys telling Skyler his famous "I'm the guy who knocks" speech even though he is not at that point (and truly never becomes that because his narcissism gets in the way of his building an organization). He gets a gigantic woody when Hank figures out who he is. He comes back. He coerces the Schwatzes into helping him give money to his family. If there series played for another season, it would have Walt writing his memoir from a jail cell.
Walt is America with a coalition of the willing that dwindles to none but still has the power to take out some bad guys before ending up lying in a pool of his own blood on the floor of someone else's meth lab that he helped build.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Ayn Rand and the Smoking Ban
I have never read Atlas Shrugged but am familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy and the philosophy of the Austrian school economists who preceded her. I have owned 'Atlas Shrugged' for a number of years, but have never read it as I am always put off by its following as a political text. Rand's followers seem to miss the point that her philosophy is only illustrated through a work of fiction.
A central tenet of the Austrian schoolers is to protect their theory by fiercely claiming that the theory can not be tested because introducing a test into the system, changes the result thus making economic study using real-world data impossible. By adopting this position on studies, Austrian schoolers have made it impossible to disprove their theories. In the same way, Rand has constructed her own world to postulate her theory, and her theory works perfectly in it. Any attempt to recreate this world would surely fail, but should be tried anyway.
Austrian school theories are akin to economic creationism as Objectivism (Rand's theory) is sociological creationism. Creationism eschews the scientific method for a world that requires no proof or even a logical thought progression. This gets to the heart of the matter, the system can not be tested, can not be relied upon and can not be expected to perform in practice as it is described only in a work of fiction.
So what does all this have to do with the smoking ban?
Smoking bans have been going into effect around the world for a decade or so. At first, opposition was fierce -- businesses would lose money, tax dollars would go to surrounding towns with more lenient policies, etc. The first bans were full of loopholes and gradually they were tightened. Over time, the bans met less and less opposition. When the City of Lawrence, KS put their ban in, it was debated for years and barely passed. A year after the ban, I read a report of a study that found that bars in Lawrence had lost the equivalent business of three KU home basketball games. The article also noted that KU had played three fewer home games that year.
A few years later, the State of Kansas passed a statewide ban on indoor smoking with less opposition than the Lawrence ban received. I took this as a sign of the times -- fading opposition, a realization that people did not stop eating out or going to bars because they could no longer smoke. They still did these things, only in a slightly more healthy environment (the alcohol and excessively fattening food are probably as bad for you as the secondhand smoke). Overall, the experience of going out to a bar or restaurant was improved by State intervention.
When the 2010 elections ended, Republicans held both houses of the Kansas legislature and every statewide office (note: Kansas is typically perceived as a very red state but for 28 of the last 44 years the Governor has been a Democrat). In the days after the election, newly-elected Republicans began talking about repealing the statewide ban that was just passed in the last legislative session. Many of these newly-elected officials are more conservative than their predecessors and were backed by and/or members of a tea party group. (Although the Tea Party is loosely-organized and can not be categorized as having only one ideology, it is generally libertarian in nature. Rand is a major ideological influence for many of their leaders.)
Additionally, as the tea party has gained strength in many parts of the country, I have heard politicians and thinkers from other areas express a desire to repeal the smoking ban. There opposition to a smoking ban is clearly ideological and has nothing to do with public sentiment on the issue nor was it an issue that was very often brought up during the campaign. The individuals in favor of repealing the ban have typically framed their arguments in terms of civil liberties and property rights. The argument follows the trajectory of people have the right to do what they want in a public space and that business owners have the right to allow or disallow an activity. Without getting into various arguments of the slipperiness of the slope, these arguments typically do not regard public health, the pursuit of happiness of nonsmokers or the pursuit of happiness of smokers who wish to eat in a smoke free environment.
Why are the rights of smokers given supremacy of the rights of others? This is an example of Objectivism run amok, the out and out application of an ideology without regard to it effect. In a world where the process matters and the results are ignored (the opposite of the scientific world) bizarre outcomes become more normal. When reality is based on a fiction, the results can be disastrous. Although I favor a smoking ban, its impact on public health is fairly small -- it just makes for a more pleasant environment. I suspect that many places of business would not allow smoking now, if given the option because public opinion has dramatically changed. And I suspect that some Randite libertarians will claim this as a victory of the free market (wrongly so).
So why are the rights of smokers so important? The same reason the rights of gun owners are given supremacy over the rights of innocent bystanders to not be caught in a crossfire. It's all process. It's all fiction. Ayn Rand was never interested in reality and neither are her followers.
A central tenet of the Austrian schoolers is to protect their theory by fiercely claiming that the theory can not be tested because introducing a test into the system, changes the result thus making economic study using real-world data impossible. By adopting this position on studies, Austrian schoolers have made it impossible to disprove their theories. In the same way, Rand has constructed her own world to postulate her theory, and her theory works perfectly in it. Any attempt to recreate this world would surely fail, but should be tried anyway.
Austrian school theories are akin to economic creationism as Objectivism (Rand's theory) is sociological creationism. Creationism eschews the scientific method for a world that requires no proof or even a logical thought progression. This gets to the heart of the matter, the system can not be tested, can not be relied upon and can not be expected to perform in practice as it is described only in a work of fiction.
So what does all this have to do with the smoking ban?
Smoking bans have been going into effect around the world for a decade or so. At first, opposition was fierce -- businesses would lose money, tax dollars would go to surrounding towns with more lenient policies, etc. The first bans were full of loopholes and gradually they were tightened. Over time, the bans met less and less opposition. When the City of Lawrence, KS put their ban in, it was debated for years and barely passed. A year after the ban, I read a report of a study that found that bars in Lawrence had lost the equivalent business of three KU home basketball games. The article also noted that KU had played three fewer home games that year.
A few years later, the State of Kansas passed a statewide ban on indoor smoking with less opposition than the Lawrence ban received. I took this as a sign of the times -- fading opposition, a realization that people did not stop eating out or going to bars because they could no longer smoke. They still did these things, only in a slightly more healthy environment (the alcohol and excessively fattening food are probably as bad for you as the secondhand smoke). Overall, the experience of going out to a bar or restaurant was improved by State intervention.
When the 2010 elections ended, Republicans held both houses of the Kansas legislature and every statewide office (note: Kansas is typically perceived as a very red state but for 28 of the last 44 years the Governor has been a Democrat). In the days after the election, newly-elected Republicans began talking about repealing the statewide ban that was just passed in the last legislative session. Many of these newly-elected officials are more conservative than their predecessors and were backed by and/or members of a tea party group. (Although the Tea Party is loosely-organized and can not be categorized as having only one ideology, it is generally libertarian in nature. Rand is a major ideological influence for many of their leaders.)
Additionally, as the tea party has gained strength in many parts of the country, I have heard politicians and thinkers from other areas express a desire to repeal the smoking ban. There opposition to a smoking ban is clearly ideological and has nothing to do with public sentiment on the issue nor was it an issue that was very often brought up during the campaign. The individuals in favor of repealing the ban have typically framed their arguments in terms of civil liberties and property rights. The argument follows the trajectory of people have the right to do what they want in a public space and that business owners have the right to allow or disallow an activity. Without getting into various arguments of the slipperiness of the slope, these arguments typically do not regard public health, the pursuit of happiness of nonsmokers or the pursuit of happiness of smokers who wish to eat in a smoke free environment.
Why are the rights of smokers given supremacy of the rights of others? This is an example of Objectivism run amok, the out and out application of an ideology without regard to it effect. In a world where the process matters and the results are ignored (the opposite of the scientific world) bizarre outcomes become more normal. When reality is based on a fiction, the results can be disastrous. Although I favor a smoking ban, its impact on public health is fairly small -- it just makes for a more pleasant environment. I suspect that many places of business would not allow smoking now, if given the option because public opinion has dramatically changed. And I suspect that some Randite libertarians will claim this as a victory of the free market (wrongly so).
So why are the rights of smokers so important? The same reason the rights of gun owners are given supremacy over the rights of innocent bystanders to not be caught in a crossfire. It's all process. It's all fiction. Ayn Rand was never interested in reality and neither are her followers.
The Discovery of New Recipes
My Grandmother Hyatt was snowed in one winter at our house. Alone in someone else's house for several days, my grandmother turned to baking to occupy her time. After exploring several of my mother's cookbook, she settled on a recipe for Ginger Snaps (I believe the cookbook was 'The Joy of Cooking'). My father, who has a love of traditional, slightly arcane foods had recently purchased molasses from Forest Sykes. Mr. Sykes lived nearby and was the only person that I knew of who grew sorghum and made molasses.
I remember accompanying Dad on the trip to buy the molasses. It was a Sunday afternoon and it took most of the afternoon to make the deal. Dad and Mr. Sykes were not particularly close, but both liked to visit and this was not a trip to store. No one waited in line behind us.
The circumstances that found my grandmother alone at our house are something like this: My parents were on a trip (either Las Vegas or Hawaii) and my grandparents were staying with us. They lived on a farm nearby, but stayed at our house so that we could ride the school bus. In the morning, my brother and I went to school and Granddad went to his farm to feed the cattle. Grandmother stayed at our house to clean. Grandmother was a neat freak, my mother was raising two sons and working. Her standards for cleanliness were somewhat below my grandmother's. My grandparents had stayed with us several times previous to this and Grandmother always cleaned the house while they were away. This infuriated my mother, but each time the pattern repeated.
As Grandmother cleaned, it began to snow and school was closed. My other grandfather picked us up at school and took us to his house. We were soon snowed in there. Granddad Hyatt was snowed in at his house and Grandmother was snowed in at our house. This situation persisted for several days. When the cleaning was done and the Ginger Snap recipe was found, Grandmother began to bake. Dad's prized molasses was depleted and replaced with delicious cookies that became a staple in Grandmother's cookie jar for the rest of her life.
I thought of this story as I was sitting here snowed in at my own home. I have no desire to clean, but do enjoy baking. Some time ago, I discovered a recipe for a cookie similar to something that Grandmother used to bake (Grandmother's actual recipe was later uncovered by my cousin Heather). I continue to use the recipe that I found on-line. The recipe that Heather had, though from Grandmother, was never the way Grandmother made it. Grandmother was famous for substituting and improvising and this particular recipe was one that she substituted liberally on. I think that is why I don't use it -- it is close but never quite right because Grandmother's was never the same way twice. The other recipe, the one I found on-line, is close enough to evoke the memory, but not close enough to make me miss her as much.
Anyway, in typical snow storm fashion, I lacked all the ingredients. I only had one egg, not two and had no chocolate for the topping. I improvised by cutting the recipe in half to make the proportions work. I added raisins and left off the chocolate. Though Grandmother never made these, they do remind me of her. Here's a picture of the cookies. Unfortunately, I don't have a photograph of Grandmother.
I remember accompanying Dad on the trip to buy the molasses. It was a Sunday afternoon and it took most of the afternoon to make the deal. Dad and Mr. Sykes were not particularly close, but both liked to visit and this was not a trip to store. No one waited in line behind us.
The circumstances that found my grandmother alone at our house are something like this: My parents were on a trip (either Las Vegas or Hawaii) and my grandparents were staying with us. They lived on a farm nearby, but stayed at our house so that we could ride the school bus. In the morning, my brother and I went to school and Granddad went to his farm to feed the cattle. Grandmother stayed at our house to clean. Grandmother was a neat freak, my mother was raising two sons and working. Her standards for cleanliness were somewhat below my grandmother's. My grandparents had stayed with us several times previous to this and Grandmother always cleaned the house while they were away. This infuriated my mother, but each time the pattern repeated.
As Grandmother cleaned, it began to snow and school was closed. My other grandfather picked us up at school and took us to his house. We were soon snowed in there. Granddad Hyatt was snowed in at his house and Grandmother was snowed in at our house. This situation persisted for several days. When the cleaning was done and the Ginger Snap recipe was found, Grandmother began to bake. Dad's prized molasses was depleted and replaced with delicious cookies that became a staple in Grandmother's cookie jar for the rest of her life.
I thought of this story as I was sitting here snowed in at my own home. I have no desire to clean, but do enjoy baking. Some time ago, I discovered a recipe for a cookie similar to something that Grandmother used to bake (Grandmother's actual recipe was later uncovered by my cousin Heather). I continue to use the recipe that I found on-line. The recipe that Heather had, though from Grandmother, was never the way Grandmother made it. Grandmother was famous for substituting and improvising and this particular recipe was one that she substituted liberally on. I think that is why I don't use it -- it is close but never quite right because Grandmother's was never the same way twice. The other recipe, the one I found on-line, is close enough to evoke the memory, but not close enough to make me miss her as much.
Anyway, in typical snow storm fashion, I lacked all the ingredients. I only had one egg, not two and had no chocolate for the topping. I improvised by cutting the recipe in half to make the proportions work. I added raisins and left off the chocolate. Though Grandmother never made these, they do remind me of her. Here's a picture of the cookies. Unfortunately, I don't have a photograph of Grandmother.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Tucson: It's the Mental Health You Paranoid Schizophrenic Loon and another thing
There are two things that I hope that we take away from the events of this past weekend in Tucson where 6 people were dead among the 14 injured at the hands of a lone gunman. The first, is that mental health services in this country are woefully inadequate. From press accounts, the shooter was expelled from his community college because his behavior had grown increasingly bizarre and erratic. Pima Community College required that he get a mental health evaluation if he wished to return to college. He bought a gun instead.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan said that the college acted appropriately. I suppose he is right, although that statement says a great deal about society's low standards for right behavior. In a world that relies more heavily on self-policing where drug companies are trusted to test their own products and financial markets are supposed to regulate themselves through derivatives, it only makes sense that the mentally ill are supposed to seek out an evaluation on their own.
Assuming the shooter had enough mental clarity to understand that he had a problem, he would then have to find a mental health facility and check himself in for treatment. In Pima county, this would be next to impossible as the county moved 45% of its mental health recipients of government roles in 2010 (Huffington Post). Without private insurance, mental health coverage would have been nearly impossible for the shooter. At 22 years of age, unemployed and expelled from college, it is unlikely that the shooter had insurance. Until a recently enacted part of the healthcare bill took effect (aka Obamacare, aka Job-Killing Healthcare bill, etc.), the shooter would have been dropped from his parents coverage.
So here we stand, looking back at innocent lives lost and wondering what it all means. Many have called for toning down political rhetoric or tightening gun laws to solve the problem. These are both things that I hope will happen someday. Would it have changed anything here? Not likely. The shooter was said by friends to not be overly political. There are already enough guns in the system that the shooter would have little trouble acquiring one if he wanted it bad enough. (It should also be noted that a man interviewed at the scene was legally carrying a handgun and failed to stop the crime -- crossfire anyone?) It seems like the one thing that might have changed things would have been the intervention of mental health professionals. The problem was identified and the solution was left up to the person least capable of solving it -- the mentally ill person. Until we want to face this reality, we should get used to this kind of event playing out every few years. (And with population growth, probably more frequently than that -- although as most of the growth will be nonwhite, we can write-off a significant number as crime or terrorism depending on the race of the shooter.)
The second lesson that I hope that we learn from this is a little more esoteric. Determine the problem before drawing conclusions. From the shootings on Saturday, it was Wednesday before I heard anyone mention mental health services as a potential solution. I have heard much drum beating about political rhetoric and gun control, but nothing on mental health which seemed so obvious. I will stipulate to the fact that Sarah Palin, Glen Beck et al need to shut the hell up, but that was not a huge factor here.
My statistics teacher hammered this point every day. (1) State the hypothesis. (2) State an alternate hypothesis. (3) Test the hypothesis. (4) Draw conclusions. As we normally do, we skipped steps 1 through 3. A tragic mistake.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Pizza across the USA
Pizza is the quintessential American food. Forget about Italy, America has made the food its own. Regionally there are different styles from the thin crusts of New York to the deep dishes of Chicago. New York actually has two distinct styles, one so ubiquitous that it is doesn't even have a name but is often referred to as 'New York Style'. The other, lesser-known style is called 'Sicilian'.
Chicago, also has two styles, but is best-known for its deep dish or stuffed pizza. The other style is for people who are watching their weight or just don't like deep dish. The third distinctive style is St. Louis style which is characterized by a very thin crust, toppings piled high and provel cheese that sticks to the roof of your mouth like peanut butter.
Other styles or variations of styles exist across the country. The midwest typically prefers a chewier crust, the west coast mostly copies the east coast but added new toppings and who knows what happens south of the Mason-Dixon line.
On our recent trip to the east, we sampled each of the three main types. For St. Louis, we stopped at Imo's; made a side trip to Frank Pepe's in New Haven for the New York style; and, stopped at Lou Malnatti's in Chicago for deep dish. We were unanimous in choosing Frank Pepe's as our favorite.
Pepe's is an experience similar to Arthur Bryant's for Barbecue. There will be a line. The restaurant itself is an experience, with an oven the size of my living room. We had two pies, one with sausage and the other a white clam pizza that Pepe's made famous. Normally a red sauce kind of guy, Pepe's white clam pizza is something to write home about -- garlicky and rich with fresh clams, it is about as good as pizza gets.
We split on our second choice. Daniel and Tanya both preferred the Chicago deep dish while I preferred the St. Louis style. At Imo's, we had a sausage and onion pie. In St. Louis style, the pie is cut into squares and the crust is very thin. If the pieces were larger, the crust could not support the weight of the toppings and toppings are the main attraction. St. Louis style is famous for toppings thicker than the crust and provel cheese that sticks to the roof of your mouth like peanut butter.
The deep dish offering from Lou Malnatti's was also a sausage pie. It, like the other two, was very good and had a solid layer of sausage, buried under a very good crushed tomato sauce and over a thick layer of cheese. It had been my working assumption that St. Louis style would provide the most toppings per square inch, but after seeing the Malnatti pie, that is up for debate. One thing is certain, Chicago and St. Louis stand head and shoulders above all other cities in developing artery clogging treats.
We also tried a Sicilian-style at Adriatico's in Columbus, OH. It was good, but didn't measure up to the holy trinity of pizzadom mentioned above. So what do you do when you want good pizza in Kansas City? For New York style, Grinders is the best that we have found. For St. Louis style, Waldo is pretty good although their cheese is not as gooey as Imo's. The Chicago style is most difficult to find. The best that we have found is Pizzeria Uno and it's just not that good.
Pepe's is an experience similar to Arthur Bryant's for Barbecue. There will be a line. The restaurant itself is an experience, with an oven the size of my living room. We had two pies, one with sausage and the other a white clam pizza that Pepe's made famous. Normally a red sauce kind of guy, Pepe's white clam pizza is something to write home about -- garlicky and rich with fresh clams, it is about as good as pizza gets.
We split on our second choice. Daniel and Tanya both preferred the Chicago deep dish while I preferred the St. Louis style. At Imo's, we had a sausage and onion pie. In St. Louis style, the pie is cut into squares and the crust is very thin. If the pieces were larger, the crust could not support the weight of the toppings and toppings are the main attraction. St. Louis style is famous for toppings thicker than the crust and provel cheese that sticks to the roof of your mouth like peanut butter.
The deep dish offering from Lou Malnatti's was also a sausage pie. It, like the other two, was very good and had a solid layer of sausage, buried under a very good crushed tomato sauce and over a thick layer of cheese. It had been my working assumption that St. Louis style would provide the most toppings per square inch, but after seeing the Malnatti pie, that is up for debate. One thing is certain, Chicago and St. Louis stand head and shoulders above all other cities in developing artery clogging treats.
We also tried a Sicilian-style at Adriatico's in Columbus, OH. It was good, but didn't measure up to the holy trinity of pizzadom mentioned above. So what do you do when you want good pizza in Kansas City? For New York style, Grinders is the best that we have found. For St. Louis style, Waldo is pretty good although their cheese is not as gooey as Imo's. The Chicago style is most difficult to find. The best that we have found is Pizzeria Uno and it's just not that good.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The Consummate Professional
When my wife read Marley and Me, she came away saying that the dog (Marley) was not that bad. Her attitude is what it is because we live with Caleb. Caleb is a big, red Doberman who is known to some as Dealo, to others as Stoopie as well as a host of names.
For most of his life, Caleb has been thought of as stupid -- not capable of learning. His bad behavior is usually attributed to this lack of mental capacity. Occasionally, we will encounter someone who claims that we are just misunderstanding him, that behind the blank stares, this dog is really quite intelligent. I don't really buy this as there is just too much evidence to the contrary.
I still have to give credit where credit is due. Caleb is a game changer -- like Lawrence Taylor on the football field of Michael Jordan on the basketball court, he must be accounted for on every play. Leave a bag of flour on the counter while we go to work Caleb will eat it. Need to leave the kitchen while fixing dinner, call someone to keep an eye on Caleb until you get back.
We keep a heavy pan on the lid of the trash can to keep him from going through it. He regularly checks to make sure it is there and if it is not, he goes through the trash. He has a regular routine he goes through whenever someone leaves the house. First, the trash can, then the counters and finally the cat box. Leaving the house requires a checklist of Caleb-proofing activities.
Recently, we hired a dogsitter when we were going to be out of town. The dogsitter was warned about Caleb, but still probably thought it was strange that we kept the oatmeal on the window sill over the sink. After having some oatmeal, she left it on the counter and before she knew it Caleb was dining on oatmeal. I doubt that dry oatmeal can taste that good, but Caleb has eaten it before and regularly does whenever it is available. Like Taylor or Jordan, he makes you pay for your mistakes.
For most of his life, Caleb has been thought of as stupid -- not capable of learning. His bad behavior is usually attributed to this lack of mental capacity. Occasionally, we will encounter someone who claims that we are just misunderstanding him, that behind the blank stares, this dog is really quite intelligent. I don't really buy this as there is just too much evidence to the contrary.
I still have to give credit where credit is due. Caleb is a game changer -- like Lawrence Taylor on the football field of Michael Jordan on the basketball court, he must be accounted for on every play. Leave a bag of flour on the counter while we go to work Caleb will eat it. Need to leave the kitchen while fixing dinner, call someone to keep an eye on Caleb until you get back.
We keep a heavy pan on the lid of the trash can to keep him from going through it. He regularly checks to make sure it is there and if it is not, he goes through the trash. He has a regular routine he goes through whenever someone leaves the house. First, the trash can, then the counters and finally the cat box. Leaving the house requires a checklist of Caleb-proofing activities.
Recently, we hired a dogsitter when we were going to be out of town. The dogsitter was warned about Caleb, but still probably thought it was strange that we kept the oatmeal on the window sill over the sink. After having some oatmeal, she left it on the counter and before she knew it Caleb was dining on oatmeal. I doubt that dry oatmeal can taste that good, but Caleb has eaten it before and regularly does whenever it is available. Like Taylor or Jordan, he makes you pay for your mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)