To choose or not to choose...

Refusing to chose is a choice.

A group in Austria has published seven recommended changes to how the Catholic Church should function. I like the list. Their website has a guest book. Seeking some tool of procrastination, I wrote something there rather than here. Efficiency being holy, I'm writing here, too. It took a while, since I wrote it in German. One point I made, however, is that over the past 2,000 years the Church has changed; yet we still hold ourselves to be "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church". Of course these words come from the Nicean Creed, which any long-term Catholic knows. However, at this point, since I certainly don't know the Creed -or any other part of the Mass in German other than the offering of Peace - and wished to use that wording in writing to a bunch of German-speaking priests, I sought the text auf deutsch on that wonder of wonders, Wikipedia.

My education for the day: The American Catholic Church uses the Nicean Creed accepted in 381; the German Catholic Church uses the original version from 325. I didn't realize there was more than one. I like ours better. I'm actually quite surprised at how very close the current version is to the one from more than 1700 years ago.
The German ends with We believe in the Holy Spirit [boooooring], with nothing about Her role in our faith.
Ours ends with We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and Son She is worshipped and glorified, She has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. [perhaps long-winded, but at least comprehensive in highlighting many of the differences with the evangelical/pentacostal sects]

As much as I approve of the social justice policies of the US Council of Catholic Bishops, they fall prey to the same limited vision as their fellows in the Vatican. The USCCB is changing the official text for the Celebration of the Eucharist (ie., Mass). I'm torn between thinking change is ok, after all, that's what I want the church to do and thinking "this sounds stupid and has no apparent purpose other than being closer to the old-fashioned version pre-Vatican 2 text". Here we go, back to mea maxima culpa. The new Gloria sucks. Just sucks. The only exception to my disregard of the new text is that the end of the Nicean Creed uses the first person, "I believe / I confess / I look". I confess I like the fact it makes the profession my personal. I really want to know who voted against the changes (173-29).

So, how badly do I think it sucks? How much is the change going to influence my decision to attend Mass? Will I go to the physical building, leave Mr. Gopher with the Jr. Gophers in our regular pew and go read a book in the social hall? Or sit there in silence? Yes, I'm emotionally attached to the current version. I've used it for the past 45 years. I have sympathy for the people who were confronted with the changes from the 2nd Vatican Council. But those changes were made to keep people in the church and to involve The People in the Mass.

What do these new changes provide?
a) A power trip for the Bishops to remind us of who has the power?
b) A sincere belief that the changes from Vatican 2 were detrimental to the pious and devout expression of our fidelity to the dictates of Jesus to achieve the Salvation promised by the Messiah?
c) Stupidity?
d) All of the Above?

Would I stop going to church because of these impending changes? I suppose it says something about my devotion to the holy Church of Rome that my answer is: hmmmm... I'm not sure.

Does the form of the Mass have such a big impact on enjoying it? Should enjoyment be a criteria for going to Mass? The annoyingly conservative parishes use the same words we do. It is, in part, what makes the church universal.

I go to Mass and belong to a Catholic parish when my adherence to the Church's teachings is at times tenuous. Why? The same reason I belong to the Green Party: no one has it all right. I'll pick the one that has the greatest proportion of what I think is right. The willingness of local parishes to pursue good works tips the scales. Does that make the Church a social organization? At times I think people look more at what their parish is doing, and consider a generic "Christianity requires us to do Good Works, I'm doing good, therefore I'm fulfilling my requirement as a Christian" to be the only justification for belonging to a specific denomination.

Yes, I realize being a member of a religious group is voluntary and if a person doesn't like it, one can leave.

I was confirmed my last year at university, when I was 21. I was questioning my choice to continue to return to the Roman Catholic church. There was, after all, no pressure from anyone to belong to any church. One evening at Mass, I paid more attention to the check list presented by the Nicean Creed: one god, check - creator of all, check - Jesus son of god, check - messiah, check... and so on. At the end I decided that I could agree with all of them as the core items of faith. Everything else is optional. Question answered.

I know so many Catholics who don't want to stop being catholic, but are frustrated by (i.e., fed up beyond human comprehension with) the Church's apparent blatant refusal to accept that any of the social changes of the last, say, 500 years are beneficial. The moral choices before us today may be the same (abortion, extramarital sex, divorce), but the social context in which those choices are encountered is different than it was 1500 years ago. Or 500 years ago. Hell, it's different than it was 50 years ago. e.g., Did the church want to know that Mr.Gopher and I were living in consensually blissful sin for a few months before getting married? No. 50 years ago we would not have moved in together before the wedding, even if we were ignoring the prohibition against pre-marital sex. Did we want children before we said "I do"? No. Did it happen? No. Why not? The genetic lottery wasn't selling tickets back then.

Birth control is almost universally ignored by young (or middle-aged) (or older) (hell, maybe all) Catholics. I don't accept the theological conclusions about why it's wrong. If virginity and the absence of sperm does not present an insurmountable barrier to the Almighty, a little bit of fragile latex shouldn't either. Theological flippance aside, it boils down to a question of who gets to choose when I have children: me or God. Why shouldn't I? Because God knows best seems equally flippant. The Jr.Gophers both spent a few months lobbying for a little sister. I had to explain to them that we thought 2 was a nice number for us. Tubal ligation isn't really in their vocabulary yet.

The boys in Rome present a bureaucratic and human (not divine) obstruction to our method of worship. The church runs on theology; theology is simply the human conclusions about what they think god is/wants/means.

I know many who have changed their relationship with the church; we just accept that the bunch of old men over in Rome are ignorant of the beliefs that we, the Faithful, have while concurrently refusing to accept that we should participate in any meaningful way in developing the Church's theology. I simply cannot imagine anyone, not one single person in the Vatican actually giving a damn about my opinion about theology. I could tell them Jesus Christ, Son of God was the Messiah and they wouldn't care.

A 2nd Reformation is not out of the possibilities for the Church. I'm sure they didn't think the first one would happen. I'm sure they don't think another could. I'm not familiar with the popular sentiment in Luther's era (the 95 Theses were written in 1517), but where would you go, if you refuted the Church of Rome in the 16th Century? You'd likely be socially ostracized, rejected by your family and friends. Today? Few would care. No one would even know outside of your immediate circle of friends.

The Church has a choice: they can change their relationship with me (us), or they can stay the same without me.

I have a choice before me: change my relationship with God or change my relationship with the Church. I can no longer be faithful to both.

where am I?

Wow - I just realized the last post was 6 weeks ago.
It's not as if nothing has lit a fire under me in 2 months.
I've just been hiding out from my regular life.
I haven't been to Stammtisch often.
Many friends @ St. Albert's haven't been after Mass recently.
I don't know where I am myself.
sigh...

Thou Art My All

O never say that I was false of heart,
Though absence seemed my flame to qualify.
As easy might I from myself depart,
As from my soul, which in thy breast doth lie.
That is my home of love; if I have ranged
Like him that travels I return again,
Just to the time, not with the time exchanged,
So that myself bring water for my stain.
Never believe, though in my nature reigned
All frailties that besiege all kinds of blood,
That it could so preposterously be stained
To leave for nothing all thy sum of good —
For nothing this wide universe I call,
Save thou, my rose; in it thou art my all.

Sonnet 109, William Shakespeare

more family photos

more photos from the Minnesota gophers:

A bit more recent - since the big blizzard in January through a couple weeks ago. Misplaced the camera for a while. I'm not sure, but I might bring it to the Tae Kwon Do next weekend for JrGopher#1's yellow belt test.

Minnehaha

















The hike en route to the falls:











Further on the hike - please note the fact that Jr.Gopher#2 could just sit on the snow without sitting down.













Playing ice hockey over @ the But-Palskis













Yes, we will show this to Jr.Gopher#2's girlfriends. He said he wanted to be a princess, and the neighbor girl assuredly had the accessories to do this. (Lord, don't get me going on the revolting Disney Princess obsession.)















MPR's modern station, 89.3, had their annual Rock the Cradle a couple weekends ago. It's a music splendor at the Minneapolis Institute of Art. All focused for children, I would assume about 10 and under. A kiddie disco, where the DJs were the radio station's DJs. One program was an Instrument Petting Zoo, where the kids could pick up and actually play different instruments. Violins, cellos, an electric piano, a drum set, a couple hand drums, electric guitar, and lots of different little percussion item. The boys both found the string instruments interesting and fun.

OMG -HOW much did you say?

Christmas shopping > Jr.Gopher#1 > obsessions >
Legos
Soccer
Legos
Soccer
Legos
... ...

Possible gifts:
soccer jersey > german national team > OMG!
are you serious? That's more than a ticket to see the Red Wings play here in town.
And I can't even find them in kids' sizes.

Hmmmm ... link to sales in US ... OMG!
The Euro IS NOT that high against the dollar! And they don't even have Özil's number in the white home colors (and Real Madrid's jerseys are just ugly). I don't want to explain to Jr.Gopher#1 that #8 hasn't always been the same person.

Sort by price ... OMG
Do you seriously think I would buy a vuvuzela for my child? Yours, maybe, but not mine.

Found in kids' sizes ... guess it doesn't matter how expensive it is, since the sizes offered don't even appear on the chart...

sort by personal aesthetics ... why can't I find the 2006 jerseys? They were nicer looking. And, while I'm at it, why can't I find the women's team - not sizes, but die Frauenmannschaft? Power of popularity? The US Women's team has its own page, right? I live in a country where women's sports isn't hidden in the back closet ... we've got representa... uh, yeah, that page has one item: black training pants. And, seriously, who designed the US men's jerseys they had at the World Cup this year? Lord, how ugly...

I guess over-priced Legos might be higher on the shopping possibilities.

Scales & arpeggios

My 6-year old currently struggles to read, letter-by-letter. Consequently, he doesn't get the emotional impact of the text. Whereas, I can just let the letters pass and I get it. I found an analogy to music.

When I first learned to play an instrument (piano), it made sense to me as an 8-year old that one would somehow need to provide directions, i.e., the written music - probably not intuitively, afterall I'd spent my whole life seeing my mom play the piano. I could read words by that time, but learning to read music proved very difficult, to get both the bass & treble clef going at the same time. It was (and to a great extent still is) like reading two different books at the exact same time.

Later in life, when I finally pursued wind instruments, and fell in love with music as a hobbyist musician, I finally learned to read music, not just notes.

The same child has recently fallen in love with playing on my electric keyboard (a residual tool from singing in a choir and struggling to overcome hearing my own voice on/off pitch). The other day, while he was playing around with it, I reached over and started playing a scale while concurrently singing it. He was astonished, but promptly remembered the scene in The Aristocats, where one of the kittens is practicing singing her "scales and arpeggios" while the mom-cat plays the piano.

So far, Jr.Gopher#1 seems much more fluent reading in German than English. I think I'll need to check the availability of more German-language kids books to entice him to enjoy reading. Unfortunately, all of the sources for them domestically are really expensive - - and the trans-Atlantic shipping prices from amazon.de are horrifically high since they don't do surface shipping. I guess I'll need to ship it free deutsche-domestically to OmaGopher and have her ship it to us cheaply. sigh ...
.

Ad spending for election here in MN

Some of the TV stations are not releasing independent expenditure buys related to state races, including the governor's race, saying they are not required to do so under state and federal laws.
... therefore it's
1) a wonder the law has actually lasted
2) obvious the law will be repealed ASAP


Based upon the information contained therein about candidate spending,

1) the GOP will do anything legally possible to win the governor's race because they'll be horribly embarrassed if they out-spent Dayton more than 2:1, but still lost
Emmer(R): $1,713,780
Dayton(D): $ 889,330

2) the GOP voters apparently charge more, but the DFL votes are worth more
Emmer(R): 1,713,780 / 910,382 = 1.89 $/vote = 0.53 vote/dollar
Dayton(D): $ 889,330 / 919,238 = 0.97 $/vote = 1.03 vote/dollar

3) you can't win a state-wide seat on a shoe-string budget.
Governor: Hakeem = 6,187 votes (0.3%)
Auditor: Young = 54,152 votes (2.7%)
Admittedly, this might be interpreted as personally knowing me guarantees you can't win state office.
.

Flow chart - diagrams

click on image to get it into a larger format to see the whole thing ... sorry I can't get it differently...

Problem solving flow chart - now this is my humor of the month:

































Circuit diagram:
































the holy water is my favorite part

Publication: Professional or not?

The Author questioned on her blog whether blogging is a publication credit for an author.
My answer: It depends.

If you head off to a different realm of publication, one finds scientific, peer-reviewed journals. There is a distinct quality issue here. One can't get 'published' unless one convinces the journal of the quality and value of one's work. This is no different superficially than publishing at Bantam or Vintage. One difference, as I understand it, is who does the 'approving'. These journals get reviewed by others who do the same type of research, who are therefore better able though not perfect to identify the scientific quality and value.

I am never going to "get published", to use the phrase as scientists do. My thesis research isn't really all that great, especially in the absence of about 1/2 of the data I wanted. Hypothetically my adviser could include me as a "secondary author" when he publishes the bigger research project which mine leads into, though I can't imagine him doing so.

This is an option I only notice on scientific journals: primary authors and secondary authors. The primary author's name is first, and if it's the first name, it's the primary author. Everyone else gets listed after that. I don't know if journals have a rule about the order. I did get included as a secondary author once, many years ago, and it wasn't alphabetical. Actually, the list was:
Boss,
VP of R&D,
Worker with More Hours, and
Worker with Fewer Hours (me)

I see novels and non-fiction published with more than one author, but I have the impression that there are simply more names listed, and the first name is likely chosen for marketing value.

The key factor in my decision to include a blog under 'publications' on my resume would be the same as any other item: how relevant is it to the job requirements?
If I was applying for a job which required extensive writing of any kind ...? Yes I would include my blog.
If I was applying for a scientific job, and I thought my blog was scientifically fantastic, I would include it only if I thought it was make me look good.

The catch -for me as a professional looking at the healthygopher blog- would be how much profanity or socially unacceptable things I had made. I write my blog for purely personal enjoyment that might not always be appealing to all readers. While I don't go whole hog with obscenity, I do occasionally use it. This -again for me as a scientist- is really unacceptable. I really can't imagine mentioning it on a scientific job application because of this reason alone. Similarly, if it was a scientific blog, I would completely refrain from profanity and make an effort to be more objective in my writing. More professional, basically.

I guess at the end of the day - if you consider it a professional method to distribute your professional writing... it's a publication. Perhaps the question isn't the method (internet), per se, but how the method is used. Are you making and maintaining your blog as a professional tool? For you, the answer is yes. For me, the answer is no. Therefore you're publishing and I'm not.
.

Requiem of Doom

Riddle of Steel / Riders of Doom: if you remember Conan the Barbarian, you'll remember the tune (track 2). Lord only knows, but parts of it, esp. 3:50 make me think of the Requiem mass: Dona eis requiem aeternam to a pounding, driving over-the-top Williams-esque heroic tune. Rather appropriate, in this case: eternal rest grant unto them as Conan is killing everyone.

The tune is not exactly the version in the modern Gregorian tradition or even Mozart. Yes, yes, the picky adherents to the Church of Rome will point out that the 'official' order of the text is 'requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine'. However, given the glory of Latin declination of nouns, it shouldn't really matter in which order they are used.

Failing my current profession, perhaps I can turn to a life setting the Latin Mass to new settings.
et lux perpetua luceat eis.

huh?

I had to answer yes/no to the following question on a job application form. I split it up to parse, since I couldn't figure out what the answer was.

Are you or an immediate family member (spouse, child, parent, brother or sister) currently or ever have been employed by a U.S. Federal, State, Local or Foreign Government (either as a civilian or in the military), or in a Reserve or Guard component of the Armed Services, or in any other position that may either: (1) prevent you from being employed by [us] or (2) place restrictions on what work assignments [we] may give you, if hired, due to U.S. Federal, State, Local or Foreign Government "revolving door" or conflict of interest laws?

... huh?

Are you - ok, that's me, good so far

or an immediate family member (spouse, child, parent, brother or sister) - that's a lot of people

currently or ever - if they care if I've ever done it, why mention 'current'?

have been employed by a U.S. Federal, State, Local or Foreign Government, - that's a lot of work

(either as a civilian or in the military) - is there any other possible category?

or in a Reserve or Guard component of the Armed Services, - didn't they just already include the military?

or in any other position - so basically, in any job anywhere with anyone by anyone genetically related to me or with whom I've genetically created some of these others

that may either:

(1) prevent you from being employed by [us] - god, I hope not

or (2) place restrictions on what work assignments [we] may give you,
If I haven't seen the job description (which we all know is NOT the one posted to get me to apply), how can I possibly answer this?

if hired, due to U.S. Federal, State, Local or Foreign Government "revolving door" - is this the "don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out" door?

or conflict of interest laws?
-- right now I'm thinking that the entire government system within the USA is in conflict with my interests.

... huh?

You know a lawyer spent an entire month trying to come up with this. I'm more accustomed to simply being asked "have you ever been convicted of a felony?"

how accurate is good?

Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made precise.
—John Tukey,
quoted on flowingdata

succinctly put philosophy

Besides for a small group of the rich and powerful achiever/business tycoons, Rand, I believe, appeals to those who philosophically can’t move beyond their own feelings inadequacy. They see heros[sic] that society puts down and trashes their selfish desires. I think most Objectivists sit in their middle class suburban houses and think “Yeah, if society was like that, then I’d be a CEO making the big bucks too!” And there are also those who see these people, and use this selfishness and lack of self esteem and use it to manipulate them. Probably why it appeals to segment of the tea party folks. -- Richard Banet, #39.

This is it, people: the rich & powerful realize you, too, wish you could be rich & powerful just like them, so they convince you that you can be rich & powerful if you just act like them and let them run the country. After all, they're rich & powerful, so they know how to get into The Club, so if you put them in charge, they'll get you into The Club, too. So you buy their homes, and their vacations, and their life style. They suck in that money you're spending (because they're the ones who own the businesses selling this stuff), and you elect them to office. And, brother, are you fucked. Because chances are they got the money the good, old fashioned, guaranteed way: they inherited it. And you're sliding further into the hole because you're buying all that stuff from big companies owned by the already-rich, and not from your neighbor across town. And by now, the rich & powerful are elected and have enacted laws to only benefit the rich & powerful. But you still believe you can get into The Club, so you keep electing them. Because one of these days, you will be just like them and then you'll get what's coming to you, by God.

Only problem is, they're already in office, and you have already gotten what was coming to you. And now we're all fucked.

The above paragraph does not mention political party affiliation. Because it applies to all of them.

I've never met anyone from any party that thinks fiscal irresponsibility is a good idea. Every non-Republican (not to be confused with sane Conservatives like Mr.Gopher) I have ever met knows that everyone in the government is corrupted by the current fiscal system, regardless of their party membership.

World Cup, pt. 9

yup - this is long - I don't know who reads this anyway, so if you give up in 3 paragraphs, I'll never know.

The next World Cup starts on June 26, 2011 in Germany. Yes, 2011. This will be the 6th cup for women. Germany is the 2-time-in-a-row defender. We have won 2 of the 5; Norway has the other. In comparison to the men, no one is going to be surprised if the US or Germany makes it to the semifinals.

Now this won't be a rant about women's sports getting the short end of the deal with support from their various national sporting associations or governments. I might, but it will be later. And will involve tea sets.

Oh, what the hell, I'll do it now.

I realize that women's sports doesn't have the draw that men's do. It's stupid, but it's reality. I could argue, rather than about women's sports, about gender discrimination in sports in general. Or the down-side to Title IX in sports. The stupidity of society in general about sports.

Oh, what the hell, I don't know where to start.

Tea sets:
In 1989, after winning their 1st UEFA championship, the German National Women's team received a tea set. Not even a really nice one, either. Not even one in black and white with red & gold highlights, or with the Deutsche Fußball Bund logo, or even the ordinary German eagle, not a really modern design, not even a completely goofy one with the pot designed to look like their jerseys. Nope - a quaint, old-fashioned pastel floral design. Yes, in '07 for winning the World Cup, they got a 50,000 € bonus. You can buy a lot of tea sets for 50k €.

Why doesn't American society want to spend the time or money on sports other than the Holy Trinity (basketball, baseball & football)? Ice hockey I understand being a geographically limited sport. The expansion of the NHL has made it more appealing in warmer climates, where they now have easy access to it. E.g. Hurricanes, Coyotes, Stars. I understand, given the already limited audience, the limited opportunity for women to have a pro hockey league. But soccer? Not even men's soccer gets the coverage that the lower-Nielsen-rated NHL does. But why not?

If sports are subsidized by commercial advertising dollars, and these companies want to make more money, I would think the opportunity for yet more commercialization would appeal to them. You would have different companies "sponsoring" the women's teams. Victoria's Secret isn't going to advertise for the NFL; although I don't understand why not. If the point of advertising is to a) get name recognition and b) increase sales, why not try to get the guys to buy sexy stuff for their girlfriends? Or themselves? More women are watching pro sports. Why not appeal to them through this venue? Are these feminine-appeal companies worried about being associated with men's sweat? If advertising at women's sports, are they worried about their name being associated with Brandi Chastain's bra?

Look at the sheer volume of ad dollars spent by Nike & Adidas impacting couch potatoes who aren't going to buy actual sporting gear. These guys are the ones buying ordinary clothes with the little swoop/3-stripes adding 175% to the otherwise expensive item. An activity equally participated in by women.

FIFA's general website is pretty thin for the women's branch. The page for the women's world cup is pathetic. Why can't they at least put more stories there? I'm not expecting the same level of coverage as the men. Afterall, the women don't have as much opportunity for professional play and therefore there is simply less to report. Nevertheless, the "recent news" for tournaments has no stories about the women. Sure, you say, the men's world cup is going on as you type, what do you expect? I expect to have one link - just one! - to the story that the first group of teams has been qualified for the women's tournament next year. If you go to a national teams' page, the "honors" doesn't distinguish between men's and women's. For some reason, I'm sure the Dutch women's team wasn't in the 1924 Olympic finals.

Sexism is pervasive in society. Men's discrimination is generally ignored (who cares?) or refuted (it can't possibly exist) or justified (what goes around comes around & they deserve to see what it's like). Title IX has been a godsend to women's sports opportunities. This is good for general public health**, encouraging participation from a location other than the couch. Of course, long-term spending on public health is all too often considered a waste of time. This is good for men. However,

Colleges/universities eliminating men's teams in order to offer women's sports is equally sexist. Of course, it's equally total bullshit offered to deflect their obscene expenditure on Football and Men's Basketball and blame it on the federal government's 'interference'. It's bullshit offered to blame women. Double-dipping at the discrimination trough - make the men blame the women teams and the women defend their desires to have teams. All the while claiming "but football brings in money that we claim to spend on the educational parts of the university". Without exception I don't believe this. Okay, maybe 10 cents on the dollar goes to education. Because we can't in the same sentence acknowledge that the average football coach makes 5-25x what the average professor makes. (ibid, In 2001 the Gopher's coach made $1,300,000 per year.) Plus maintenance for the stadium, a cost no one mentions in arguing the bond issues for building these stadiums on tax-payer dollars, which must also be kept-up on the taxpayer purse.

Some men's teams get screwed under Title IX; some sit back and reap the benefits of the men's gymnastics team blaming the women's soccer team for lower funding.

The Girls of Summer (review possibly coming out later) is interesting, if not so well written. The title, however, pisses me off. Why can't a publishing house, who wants to publish a book about how women's soccer in the US has struggled against sexism and who presumably wants to market it to a primarily female audience, use the word woman rather than girl? grrrr... How about cover art similar to The Women's Room? Despite the content of the book, does the publisher fear female sports are really seen as ok only for little girls who haven't become real women? Or are they worried about turning off the idiots who still think professional women athletes are all lesbians whose uterus is now incapable of functioning properly? Seriously, I remember hearing b.s. like this when I was in jr. high (i.e., ~1976). Stupidity which fails to match the epic don't go swimming when having your period because it will suck the water up into you. It's not idiocy safely relegated to the 1950s or Terms of Endearment.

Googling Germany+national+women+soccer yields a wikipedia page on the national team, which is actually the men's team. Of course, that page was written likely by a political-idiot American who also states that "Germany" has never technically won the world cup. Implying only West Germany has. Ignoring this is the fact that only the English-speaking world called it "West Germany", and it has since May 23, 1949 always technically been the Federal Republic of Germany, which won the Men's World Cup in 1954 . So, depending on how you choose to look at it, either
a) "Germany" really did win the world cup in 1954 because the team fielded was from the Bundes Republik Deutschlands (i.e., the Federal Republic of Germany) and every single year since the team team fielded has been from the Bundes Republik Deutschlands
or
b) In 1990 when the "west" won, reunification had "technically" been agreed upon.
And, the suggestion from Google asking if I really meant Germany+national+women's+soccer still doesn't even result in the German team, only the general page about women's soccer. I realize Google is a responsive tool, but really, to fail to provide the page on Germany when googling the exact title of the wikipedia page?

Of course, some women are self-defeatingly stupid, too. What fucktard thought playing in mini-skirts over hot-pants was a step forward for women's sports? Probably the same person retard lunatic man(you really expect me to believe a woman came up with this idea? ... okay, I guess that is my point) woman who thinks playing beach volley ball in a thong as an Olympic sport was a Bright Idea. Elegant? If the Dutch think this is elegant, I'd really hate to see what they think is unattractive. Look at the team photo - if you're posing and the first thing I think is "wow, you can see up their skirts" ... it ain't elegant, sister, it's selling sexy. Do you really need to look elegant to play soccer? What athlete driven to compete and win is going to care if she looks pretty when she's sweating like a stuck pig and gasping in exhaustion after running non-stop for 45 minutes? Do they seriously think this will encourage 12-year old girls to be aggressive and self-assertive? I gotta tell you, if wearing skirts had been required to play soccer, there is no way in hell you could have gotten me onto the pitch when I was 13. I was all for sports; and all for contact sports on top of that. Karate, judo, SCA-fighting, yes. Mini-skirts? Fuck no! Maybe skirts aren't the reason they're #16. This is Holland, the same team duking it out Sunday for the Men's World Cup Championship. It's not as though they come from a nation devoid of world-class examples, say, Botswana. Afterall, skirts are ranked higher than two shorts-wearing teams from countries with power-house men's teams (Spain & Argentina). Two.

Speaking of which, if one looks at the 16 teams who were in the quarter-finals of the men's world cup this year, you have:
country ---- men's rank --- women's rank
Germany --- 6 --- 2
Paraguay --- 31 --- 116
Uruguay --- 16 --- 116
Argentina --- 7 --- 29
Brazil --- 1 --- 3
Holland --- 4 --- 16
Spain --- 2 --- 20
Ghana --- 32 --- 44
USA --- 14 --- 1 ... yes, yes, I know we weren't in the quarter finals, but our women are #1
mind, this is national ranking and not tournament placing.
The difference between the Dutch men's and women's teams isn't sooooo big. It's not the absolute difference in ranking. Just because one team is ranked higher doesn't mean there's something wrong with the other. But the ranking does compare women, not both. though I am curious about the points - Brazil, men's #1 has 1611 points; USA, women's #1 has 2233. They both use the 3/1/0 point system. Why do the women's teams have so many more points than the men's? This is a serious question and I would like an answer, if you have one.

Ah, I need to stop

**website might not be there, article is:
Physical Activity and Public Health -- A Recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine, JAMA, (1995) 273, 402-407.

.

what not to watch

I'm stuck: too many movies, not enough time? No - more like not enough time and still not enough movies. No, unlike STFU&GBTW I do not need to keep up to date with the newest Hollywood CGI banquet. Minimal time w/ Mr.Gopher & what to see? Well, it's not our different tastes limiting my options. It's June. Summer movie season is supposed to be here. Even if I look at the AMC options (and not our theater, as the Riverview does 2nd runs), I'm still stuck.

Robin Hood: These look like the worst critiques of Crowe's work I've seen in a long time. At least in this version, Richard is dead. Although for once I really wish the Robin Hood character was "fighting" against Richard, the king who decimated the royal treasury by futile crusades, rather than John, who at least gave us the Magna Carta.

Prince of Persia: you must be kidding. Who in the hell thought Gyllenhaal would be a good choice as a Persian? Okay, he's a serious improvement over Brad Pitt in Troy (another surely-you-jest casting epic), in that at least he's not blonde. Isn't there any A-list actor who could look like he's from the Middle East, rather than Wales? Like, say, Alfred Molina? At least they didn't cast Russel Crowe. And, while we're at it ... why give it a sub-title, unless they're planning to make more than one? Why not just call it Sands of Time OR just prince of Persia?

Date Night: Romantic Comedy is generally portrayed as "The Man Will Attend To Placate His Woman, Not Because He Likes It". I suspect that if we went, I'd like it and Mr.Gopher would suffer through 90 min, eliminating it from post-movie dinner discussion. We would be forced to discuss ... hmmm.....

Iron Man 2: well, it probably isn't bad. But, if I only have one movie to pick, this isn't going to be it. And, of course, there's the "Mr.Gopher doesn't do superheroes" factor.


What else is playing in town ...

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo: we did see. It was good; I'll try to put a review together. Mr.Gopher managed to watch the whole thing ignoring the subtitles.

The Secret in Their Eyes: hmmmm.... this looks interesting.

Metropolis. Definitely worthwhile; haven't seen it; and, afterall, it's in German.


ah, well ... perhaps I should go back to my thesis.
.

Final(ly)

I took my final for my last class today!

Where does your child play?

Go to University Ave. in St. Paul, just east of Fairview. I honestly don't recall the name of the specific street, it's the first one east of Fairview. On the north side of that intersection is a YMCA and a small school building. The school has 2 signs: Avalon School (sign says its a public 7-12 school) and Twin Cities German Immersion School (is a K-5 public charter school).

Stand on the sidewalk in front of the school. There's a fence.

Look at vast expanse of wood chips. This is my son's play ground. Is there any grass? No. The grass off to your right is the front yard of the business there.

Walk into the play ground and look around. There's no gate in the fence to keep my kindergarten son in. There's no gate to keep you or any other member of society out. Why?

Look at the sign in front of the fence where you're standing. It reads: St. Paul Park & Recreation Board.

This was brought up at the German School's Board Meeting earlier this year. "The planning is complicated by the fact that the area in front of the school is owned by the City of St. Paul and forms part of a public park. Fencing and landscaping are both seen as high priorities, but both require permission from the city."

The school isn't allowed to do anything - not even landscaping - because the City of St Paul is ... well, I have no clue what they're doing.

The following was mentioned by Mr.Gopher: The park was donated to the city in 1906 (or so), with the caveat that it be a park. Nothing has been done with it in the intervening, um ... 103 years. Yeah, not '96, but '06. And so long ago, that one needs to ask which '06.

Now, go to St Paul's website. Click on the page to find one of their lovely Parks. You can't find this one. aaaaaahhh ... I guess the park is so important that someone lost it & they don't even know they have it ...

Go back to the fence & look east. There's grass in front of the first building, and then it turns into businesses' buildings and parking lots.

Look west. The YMCA has a fenced in yard (and apparently installed the playset without city permission - a great example of forgiveness being easier to get than permission). After that, the Griggs Building has its parking lot on the "City Park Land". The corner of Fairview & University has a bus stop. The "Park Information Sign" is there, but there's no park near it, just the Griggs' parking lot.

Someone in St. Paul went through the bother of paying for the nice, colorful sign with multicultural images. For a park that doesn't exist. But they can't allow the schools to put in grass? Even if the schools pay?

Insert lots of frustrated profanity.

Insert more.

Why won't the city just let the schools make the place nice for the children? It's not as if they could actually honestly claim "we're about to do something intelligent with the property".

Can you honestly imagine any public school letting total strangers into the school's playground? I could go sit on this school's playground and they'll have to let me because it's a "public park".

Now, mind you, I'm not paranoid about sex offenders or such. But I am really annoyed that the general public is allowed to wander around where these kids play and can interrupt them. I'm really, really annoyed that my kid is stuck trying to play soccer on wood chips. And, by far, I'm *most* annoyed that there's no complete fence to keep the balls and kids from running into University Avenue. That's not an annoyance factor - this is basic bodily safety.

Lego safety

Of course, you go looking for one thing on YouTube, you find zillions. This is totally awesome:

80 gallons of Legos

Really, this didn't start out being procrastination. I'm working on a class project that lead me to check popular media for some information. Of course, one thing led to another to another ... and this was the end of the procrastination trail of tears.

Mistranslations from German:

Schwanz ... or Schwanz ... ?

Visitors to a tourist attraction in Berlin have been making off with an unusual memento—the 30 cm long penis of a Lego giraffe.

The Lego phallus belongs to a six metre tall model that has stood outside the entrance to the Legoland Discovery Centre on Potsdamer Platz since 2007.

“It’s a popular souvenir,” a spokeswoman for the centre said Tuesday. “It’s been stolen four times now …”

The article (in its entirety) in Columbia Journalism Review covers several other mis-translations.
BTW: Schwanz is a tail. It's also a popular slang for penis.

Although, apparently in both translations, it was still €3,000.

$4,500 for 30-cm of Legos? That's only about 1-ft. Even if one assumes it was relatively round (the tail, not the reproductive appendage), how could it possibly be that much? The Lego store @ Mall of America sells Legos by the bucket; it's only $14 for a quart of Lego. Somehow, I don't see Legoland using a 80 gallons (305 L) of Legos to build a 1 foot (30 cm) tail.

The post concluded with: Relying on someone a few desks down in the newsroom, or on your memory from that year you went to Oktoberfest, is a sure-fire way to end up lost in translation.

Raisins to the Rescue

Wisconsin prisoner tries to escape with bag of raisins, slashes hand

Wisconsin prison officials say an inmate is in solitary after he tried to escape from Columbia Correctional Institution.

Department of Corrections spokesman John Dipko says 49-year-old James Frederick was supposed to pick up food carts when he bolted for the perimeter fences.

He had stuffed his clothes with newspapers to protect him from razor wire that lined the top of the first fence. He also had a large bag of raisins with him.

Frederick still cut his hand on the razor wire and fell back to the ground. His bag of raisins got stuck in the razor wire.

Dipko says Frederick escaped from Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution in 1981 but was recaptured.

The Columbia escape attempt occurred about 5:45 a.m. on Tuesday.