We moved to Brenham from Houston over six years ago, and while we love it out here, one thing we have missed is a selection of fine dining establishments.  Houston is a cornucopia of restaurants, and after a while you get spoiled having multiple fantastic options for anything that you crave.  Not so in Brenham, where the fine dining pickin’s are slim (to say the least).

Enter Kay’s Cuisine for the Soul.  The location opened about six months ago, and tonight was our first visit there.  We had heard good things, but hadn’t been able to make the stars align on getting there until now, and we’re sorry we waited so long.  The restaurant is in an old Victorian house, with high ceilings, multiple rooms (presumably an artifact of the original home’s layout), and tasteful, subdued decor and ambiance.

The menu is short but sweet, with a fusion of Asian and Latin American themed selections.  We started with the pork dumplings and homemade egg rolls, along with soup for David.  We then moved on to our entrees – I got the tempura shrimp, which came with a cucumber-potato salad and a side of shredded onions and carrots, also tempura style.  Marie got a spicy rice bowl with fresh and pickled veggies, seared sirloin, covered with a fried egg.

It was all *fantastic*.  We gorged ourselves to the point that we passed on the tempting desserts, which Kay assured us were all made in their kitchen as well.

They’re less than half a mile south of the historic heart of Brenham, on Market Street, an easy jaunt if you’re downtown antiquing, and well worth the minute or two drive.  So, if you’re a Brenham-ite looking for an amazing and unique local dining experience, or a visitor from Houston or Austin looking for something with some panache and eclecticism, make sure to keep Kay’s in mind as an option.

You can find more information at their web site and Facebook page.

 

• Leave a comment... (0)

When I was a kid in the 1960’s in Southern California, we would buy loaves of Van De Kamp’s Salt Rising bread at the grocery store.  The whole family *loved* this bread, it smelled heavenly while it toasted, and tasted even better.  The ultimate was to pair it with Knott’s Berry Farm Boysenberry Preserves…yum!

We then moved to Texas, and found that the same bread was available here, too!  But, alas, after a couple of years all the Van De Kamp’s products disappeared from the shelves, including our beloved salt-rising bread.  This was the early 70’s, and over the next few years we would get our salt-rising fix by bringing home a bunch of loaves any time we traveled to California, which was usually once or twice a year.  We didn’t get to have it all the time, but it turned into a special thing since we only got it once in a while.

But then it disappeared in California as well, as Van De Kamps stopped producing salt-rising bread some time in the mid 70’s, then eventually went out of business completely.  And that was the last of the salt-rising bread for me, for the next 30 years, or so.  Then 5-6 years ago I got a wild hair to figure out how to make it myself, and turned to the internet.

What I found was that the King Arthur Flour Company actually sold a Salt-Rising Bread Yeast, and I ended up buying some and making salt-rising bread at home.  It was good, but it’s a two day process, so I only made it a few times.  Then King Arthur stopped selling the yeast, and as of today the page linked above contains this disclaimer:  “Sorry, this item is currently unavailable for purchase”.  It has said that for the last few years, so I’m not optimistic they are ever going to bring it back, so I figured I needed to figure out how to make it from scratch.

That led me to find some homemade recipes which turned out to be tricky to master, but after a couple of false starts and failed starters I eventually found a combination of ingredients and steps that work beautifully and predictably, and you can find that recipe below.

Here’s where the story gets a little more interesting.  My grandmother passed away earlier this year, and one of the things that came up as we sorted through memories of her were details I’d never heard before.  In the 1930’s, during the height of the Depression, she moved to Los Angeles seeking employment, and ended up working at the Van De Kamps Bakery store.  It was there that she met my grandfather, who was a regular customer, and they ended up getting married.

So not only does salt-rising bread thread through my earliest childhood memories, but in actuality the connection with Van De Kamp’s goes back even further, which makes it taste that much better.

If you are an intrepid baker looking for a challenge, the recipe is as follows:

Salt Rising Bread Recipe

Ingredients:
2 baking potatoes, peeled and cut into thin slices
4 cups water
10 cups all-purpose flour
1½ cup milk
¼ cup corn meal, non-degerminated (very important!!)
6 tablespoons shortening
3 teaspoons salt
2 tablespoons sugar
¼ teaspoon baking soda

Making the Starter
Boil the water and pour it over the potato slices in a large bowl (that can withstand boiling water).   Stir in all the cornmeal and sugar, plus 1 teaspoon of the salt.  Here comes the first tricky part – you now want to place the bowl somewhere that will remain as close to 105 degrees F as possible to allow it to ferment.  For me it involves taking a large, heavy-bottomed pot, putting it on a small electric stove burner on low, placing a cork trivet in the bottom, then setting the bowl of starter on top of the cork trivet, and putting a loose lid on the large pot so that the bowl is enclosed.  Note that although I have never had a problem with this setup, there could be danger in a cork trivet in a pot on an active burner, so please use your own judgment and caution when attempting to derive a proper warming solution.

I strongly recommend placing a meat thermometer inside the pot and checking it regularly to maintain the temp as close to 105 degrees F as possible.  Leave the starter procreating for 12-15 hours.  You’ll know it’s done because it will be frothy and stinky.  If you don’t have a frothy stank after 15 hours, the starter didn’t start, so you should stop and start again.

Note that I had a lot of trouble getting my starters to start until I found a tip about using non-degerminated corn meal.  It’s sometimes tricky to find, but usually if a corn meal says that it’s stone ground and/or whole grain, that’s usually the ticket.  Many grocery stores carry Bob’s Red Mill Corn Meal, which is usually whole grain.

Making the Sponge
Once the starter is done, remove and discard the potatoes.  Heat the milk until it is warm/hot to the touch (not scalded or boiled), then add the milk, baking soda, and 3½ cups of flour to the starter and beat by hand until smooth – you want to get all the lumps out at this point, fyi.  Then cover the bowl with plastic wrap and put it back in your warming place at 105 degrees F.  After 1.5 to 3 hours it will have doubled in size, and will look creamy.  Once it has doubled in size, immediately move on to the next step, meaning don’t leave it long after the doubling or it will go past ‘pungent’ and get into ‘sour’ territory.

Making the Dough
Once the sponge has doubled in size, put 4 cups of flour in a large (different, empty) bowl, add 2 teaspoons of salt, and mix them together lightly.  Add the shortening and work it in until you have a meal-like consistency.  Now add this mixture to the sponge and beat together thoroughly.  Once it’s fully mixed, add another cup of flour and combine by hand to make a nice dough.  Turn the dough out of the bowl and onto a floured flat surface.  Note that this dough is STICKY, so you’ll want to keep dusting your hands with flour during this next part, which consists of kneading the dough for 2-3 minutes, then let it rest for 10-15 minutes.  Resume kneading for another 10 minutes or so, remembering to dust your hands as you go so you don’t end up with loaf-hands.

Once finished with the kneading, divide the dough into three equal portions that are roughly loaf-shaped, and place each piece into a greased loaf pan.  Cover the loaf pans with plastic wrap and set in a warm place for the dough to rise.  A couple of tips here – first, I like to spray the bottom side of the plastic wrap with oil (like from an oil spritzer or cooking spray) before placing on the loaf pans, because as the dough rises it might get high enough to hit the plastic wrap, and you don’t want it to stick.  Also, you’ll need a different ‘warm place’ for the loaf pans, as they won’t fit in a the pot as described above.  What I like to do is have my oven preheated to baking temperature (350 degrees F), set a cooling rack (like for cakes) on top of the stove, set the loaf pans on the baking rack, and then lay light dish towel over the whole thing like a tent, to help keep the rising heat in by the loaf pans.  Again, you may have to experiment here – you don’t want it too hot, but it does need to be warm for the dough to rise.

Let the dough rise for 2-3 hours.  It won’t double in size like typical bread, but will rise and additional ⅓ to ½, roughly.  After rising, remove the towel and plastic wrap and bake at 350 degrees F for 50 minutes, or until golden brown. It’s better to bake this bread a little longer rather than under-cook it, fyi.  Once it’s done baking, turn the loaves out onto racks to cool.

The Eating!
Now comes the best part – eating it!  Long experience has shown that we like it best sliced pretty thin, toasted, then buttered and served with Knott’s Berry Farm Boysenberry Preserves.  You may prefer it differently, so feel free to experiment.  You’ll know the bread is good if it smells like pungent cheese while it toasts.  Mmmm, heavenly!

There you have it, Salt-Rising Bread!  You’ll notice that there isn’t really much salt in the recipe – the name comes from the fact that the starter and sponge used to be made by placing the bowl in a large pile of rock salt that had been heated on the top of a wood stove.  The salt retained heat, and kept the starter and sponge warm enough to take.

Enjoy, and if you try making it, please feel free to come back and post your results and comments below!

• Leave a comment... (0)

Note: I’m just a dumbass with a blog.  My purpose in writing this post is not to convince anyone to change their opinions, but to (one hopes) maybe have the slight effect of making sure that those who agree with, disagree with, or don’t care about my opinions will be more likely to vote next week.  Having every eligible voter vote is the key to keeping America free and strong, in my opinion, and discourse tends to motivate people.

I’m a 51 year old white male who is mid-to-upper middle class. I got my first job when I was 12 years old (paper route) and have never not worked since then. I’ve never been fired or laid off, some of which is luck and some of which is brains and hard work. I’ve lived on the West and East coasts, but have lived primarily in Texas and consider myself a Texan.

My mother’s family were Texas farmers, and she and her seven siblings picked cotton, tended the animals, and used slop buckets. I did not come from money, but I was raised with a strong work ethic, a strong moral compass, a strong family bond, and an open mind.

Through the decades I have voted for Republican, Democratic, and independent candidates. For most of my life I strove to vote for the person, not the party, with the (perhaps naive) thought that if we always select the best available candidate, that will lead to better government.

However, that only works if the elected parties are willing and able to compromise in the pursuit of (what should be) common goals. However, the American political landscape is at its most divisive in my memory.  Personally, I think the system is broken, and our voting is barely more than political theater, a show that is put on every four years to allow us to retain the illusion that We the People run this country.

Also, my take is that, by definition, any candidate for national political office is a combination of professional liar, megalomaniac, and borderline sociopath, something I talked about several years ago.  I see our choice as being between differing styles of lies and misdirection.

However, even if any of the above were true, we still do have a choice.  Politically I lean towards fiscal conservatism and also towards social liberalism.  Here are my key areas of concern for this country:

• Control of the federal deficit
• Revamp of health care
• Free and fair elections
• Maintain a strong defense and leadership of the Free World
• Strengthening of civil liberties and civil rights
• Return to technological leadership
• Improved national and global economy

I am not an expert on all of the above topics (just like 99.9% of all voters), but I do have my opinions (just like 99.999999% of citizens).  As noted in the disclaimer above, I’m just a dumbass with a blog, but my take on these key points is as follows:

Federal Deficit
I think that balancing the budget will be best achieved through both spending cuts and revenue (tax) increases.  Having a growing economy would help, but waiting for the economy to grow before attacking the deficit is a fool’s game.  If you gathered ten people in a room could you get them all to agree on the same spending cuts and tax increases?  Nope.  However, we elect our representatives to do that hard work for us, to work together for the greater good of the country as a whole.

Yes, I know that sounds naive, but bipartisan cooperation is the key to resolving our issues.  I personally look at bipartisanship as one of the key factors in assessing a candidate, because if you are dogmatic and a pure party animal, you’ll never get anything done other than perpetuating a broken system.  I also think that we need to focus on electing officials who will draft and pass a true balanced budget amendment.  Just like a household that is caught in a debt spiral, the first step is stopping the bleeding by living within your means.  We, as a country, need to do exactly that.

Health Care
Regarding health care, I might be considered an extremist, but my take is that having a for-profit health care industry is unconscionable.  I’m old enough to remember when most hospitals were not-for-profit. When the concept of for-profit hospitals came into vogue (the 1980’s in my recollection), the concept seemed nonsensical to me. The goal of a for-profit company is to maximize profits. The goal of a hospital is (or should be) to maximize the health and well-being of their patients. Those are mutually exclusive goals, and a for-profit health care system, by definition, does not put the patient first.

I’ll try to put it into simpler terms. Today, right now, the health care industry makes more money by treating illnesses over extended periods than by curing or preventing them. Also, it is their fiduciary responsibility to maximize their profits. So, this dis-incents the health care industry from pursuing cures or prevention, because it would directly impact their bottom line in a negative way. Our current health care system would be like setting up for-profit fire departments that made more money when there were more fires and those fires burned longer and did more damage. It doesn’t make any sense, and it needs to be fixed.

So, my take is that the way to improve health care for all Americans is to move away from for-profit healthcare and to couple that with a single-payer system.  Putting the profit motive into the equation, with for-profit health care companies and/or for-profit insurance companies, means that American citizens are the losers in the equation.  Also, if you think that only for-profit organizations can be cutting edge, look at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and the like for examples of how it can and should be done.

Free and Fair Elections
I wrote a bit about this in a previous post, located here.  Suffice it to say that I think that in order to restore the American people’s confidence in the government, we have to start by removing any traces of chicanery from the election process.  And I mean any.  Gerrymandering should be outlawed, no person or organization should profit from running election services (meaning you can make and sell a voting machine, but it should be run by the government), districts should be generated automatically using generic algorithms, etc.

The federal government should set up an Elections Department whose sole purpose is to institute and enforce free and fair elections across the country.  I believe that this step is unavoidable and necessary, even though it means creating another department, because the current system has been gamed and corrupted into being a farce.

Defense and World Leadership
There are two prongs here, one is that we remain strong such that nobody will f*ck with us.  Second, we maintain the moral high ground, such that those who choose to f*ck with us will be in a morally indefensible position.  You see, although I love my country, I do not subscribe to the belief that anything and everything we do or have done is 100% correct simply because we did it.

As an example, the picture to the right is from one of many spontaneous candlelight vigils by the people of Iran after the 9/11 attacks on the US.  The Iranian people (not the government) rose up with spontaneous outpourings of sadness, sympathy, solidarity, and support after the 9/11 attacks.  For their demonstration of solidarity, many were detained, arrested, or abused by their own government.

However, today, there is much saber-rattling around the US invading Iran.  I am no geopolitical or warfare expert, however judging from the recent past, the US invading another country does not necessarily result in us being greeted as liberators by their people.

Unfortunately, with a conventional invasion the despots in control wield enough power to use their own people as human shields and/or cannon fodder, such that the result of the US invasion is death, deprivation, and hardship for all citizens of the country, regardless of their original opinions of the US.

Instead, I think that actual invasion/warfare should be a last resort that is limited to only the most extreme cases, such as a conventional attack on our borders, or those of our closest allies.  So far, I’m a fan of the current US tactics of crippling sanctions coupled with crippling cyber-warfare.  I would begrudgingly understand the need for surgical drone strikes on key facilities, if it comes to that.  However, I would hate to see us repeat the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan by doing the same thing with Iran, particularly given that the Iranian people, for the most part, identify with Americans and our values.

So, from my perspective, we need to remain strong on defense, and we also need to remain strong with regards to doing the right thing.  In some cases defining ‘the right thing’ can be complicated by factoring in ‘American interests’, which in the Middle East typically refers to energy companies, and while I support the need to secure our energy requirements as part of the national defense, I do NOT support securing the profits of energy companies as part of that strategy, and too often our actions make it indistinguishable as to what ‘interests’ we’re actually serving.

Also, energy is key to our national security, and I’m going to talk about energy and the environment together, because from my perspective these two issues go hand in hand since they have so much direct tension between them.  I think that true energy independence will only come from new or alternative fuels.  My take is also that development of new and alternative energy sources cannot simply be left to the free market.  For-profit companies have to focus on the best sources of near-term profits, and in energy those profits come from increased exploitation of existing energy sources (e.g. fossil fuels).

However, exploitation of those resources comes at an increasing environmental cost.  At some point the damage we are doing to the environment (and, by extension, ourselves) in pursuit of fossil fuels will outweigh the short-term benefits of ever-more-harmful exploitation methods.  I think we have reached and passed that inflection point.

That means it is up to the government to foster the pursuit of new and alternative energy soures, while penalizing the use of fossil fuels.  There is no other way.  Waiting for the ‘free market’ to make such a dramatic change would mean no change during our lifetimes, in my opinion.  Any and all progress on alternative energy has come from the government investing in and/or fostering such research and development, and this needs to be accelerated dramatically.  Note that I’m not some tree-hugging purist, and I personally think that true energy independence for the US will include some form of nuclear power, as discussed in more detail here.

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
Although I have an unblemished record of staunch heterosexuality (to quote George Costanza), I think that the advances in equal rights for homosexuals is fabulous.  I can usually see both sides of most arguments, but on this my take is that those who oppose this progress are on the wrong side of history, period.

Similarly, I continue to be alarmed at the erosion of our rights as a free people, including draconian laws related to the war on drugs (e.g. asset seizure without trial), the war on terrorism (e.g. x-raying our ‘nads at the airport in the interests of national security), the war on copyright violators (e.g. that’ll be $25,000 for downloading a song), the war on non-whites (e.g. show me your papers before you can proceed), and all the other various ‘wars’.

As another example, the infuriatingly named Patriot Act should be repealed immediately.  Actual Patriots from the times of the Founding Fathers would have risen up against these types of infringements of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  There is always a balance between freedom and safety, but in my opinion we have swung way too far towards the side of safety, as an instinctive reaction to 9/11, and we need to start rolling those reactionary policies back, immediately.

Technological Leadership
America is losing our mojo when it comes to leading the world in science and technology.  There is plenty of blame to go around, however I think the key factor is inability of America, as a whole, to allow science to be science and allow religion to be religion, and never the twain shall meet.

I make no claims to any knowledge about the deeper meanings of life, but I also know that you don’t know, either.  Given that there is a spiritual/mystic realm within which there is no reasonable hope of universal agreement among peoples of good faith, my take is that we need to accept the fact that we need to live and let live in that area.  And that, to me, means taking any and all religious overtones out of public education, and very specifically out of science education.  Period.  End of story.

That is a necessary prerequisite for returning America to a leading role in the brains department.  We’re still good, but we’re slipping, and we need to stop the decline.  We can continue to build improvement by returning teaching to being a noble and desirable career path, instead of having it continue to morph into resembling minimum security prison guard.

If I had the magic bullets to make that happen, I’d let them fly, but I don’t.  I think part of it is going to be cooperation between teacher’s unions and school administrations, such that both sides reduce the bureaucracy that stifles real improvements in education.  Teaching to state-mandated tests is an experiment that has failed, in my estimation, and we need both sides to work together to allow teachers the flexibility to teach with passion and creativity, while also giving school administrators the ability to manage teachers based on something other than seniority, to use two simplistic examples.

And, frankly, none of the above helps without the engagement, interest, and support of parents.  Improving the school environment will go a long way to engaging parents more fully, but we as the shepherds of our own future need to be sure we focus in a positive and constructive way on the education of our children.

Improved Economy
What else is there to say other than we need a stronger, more vibrant, more resilient economy?  Again, if anybody has the secret to making this happen, they’re not sharing.  Any candidate who says they know how to make it happen is a bald-faced liar.  What they mean is, they know what they would try in an attempt to make things better.  When it comes to the national and global economy, it comes down to whose strategy do you personally have more faith in.

To me, our strategy has to focus on the root cause of our current economic climate, and to my unlearned eye, it appears that the recent troubles were set in motion back when the Glass–Steagall Act had key portions ‘repealed’ by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999.  This set us up for a meltdown of the financial industry.  If looked at from one perspective, it’s comical to see that back in 1929 we had the unregulated practices of financial institutions result in the Great Depression, and in response we passed Glass-Steagall in part to put some controls around those risky practices.

Then in 1999 we repealed those controls, even though they had served us well for almost 70 years, and then less than a decade after the repeal, we experienced an eerily similar financial meltdown.  You know, when you’re a child and you touch a hot stove, you remember it for forever, and you don’t purposely touch hot stoves again.  I guess our leaders are not as smart as kids around hot stoves, because we did the exact same thing with the exact same results.  Both sides contributed to it (Gramm, Leach, and Bliley were all Republicans, it passed the House in a bipartisan vote, and was signed by Bill Clinton, a Democrat), which magnifies the foolishness and/or unscrupulousness, in retrospect.

Were there other contributing factors?  Absolutely.  For example, from a business perspective, while I think a ‘free market’ is overall a good thing, it can’t be completely free.  Similar to ‘free speech’, there have to be limits.  For example, while I think that companies should be free to move jobs or money offshore, I also believe that they should lose advantages and/or be penalized to some extent when they do that.  Meaning, if you are going to take an economic engine out of the US, you should have to pay a price to do so.

I’m sure there are more areas for improvement, but you have to start somewhere.  Having worked in the business realm for all of my adult life, I understand the chilling effect that over-regulation can have.  But I also understand the catastrophic effects that unregulated commerce can produce, as well.  A corporation is a sociopath with one goal, profits.  By design, it has no ethics or morals other than what is imposed on it, and even then the natural order is to try to skirt or dodge those controls.  So, we as a people have to decide where the limits are, and my take is that putting fail-safe controls back in place over our financial institutions and discouraging the offshoring of jobs and capital is the right first step.

How I’m Voting
In my head, when I factor all of the above into the decision, I see Barack Obama and the Democrats as the clear choice when compared with Mitt Romney and the Republicans.  I freely admit that a lot of the above is opinion, but who of us out here among the hoi polloi truly has indisputable facts?  So, we all must assess reality through our own set of filters.

Do I see Obama as an infallible leader with all the right answers?  Absolutely not.  In fact, four years ago I lamented the selection of Barack Obama as the Democratic Presidential nominee (article here). My primary concern was that he was a blank slate, with no significant record to indicate how effective he would be as president. I also said that if he proved to be a great president, I would come back and post a retraction.  That’s not what this is.

From my perspective, we got just about what I was expecting, which is that Obama was first and foremost a politician, and only secondarily a public servant and statesman. This makes him no different from any serious presidential candidate during my adult lifetime, with the possible exception of Ross Perot, and I’m not sure exactly what he was, in retrospect.

I previously posted my opinions about recent presidents here, stating that all post-WWII presidents have essentially been crazy (in my opinion), because only a crazy person can undergo the metamorphosis from a normal human into a presidential candidate.  Fortunately (or unfortunately), Barack Obama has proven to be no different.

Given my choice of all potential qualified candidates, would I pick Obama? No. But I don’t get to do that, I only get to pick between him and Romney, and in that two-horse race, I pick Obama. Why?

First, he pushed for universal health care, which I think is a no-brainer for an economic powerhouse like the United States. Every single other first world country has some form of universal health care – every single one. Think about that for a moment. I believe that America is great, however I do not believe that it is great for us to have a for-profit medical industry that profits on the misery of others.

Second, Obama inherited an economy that was a plummeting lead ball, and he has managed to keep it from splatting into a second Great Depression, and he did it with the near-universal obstructionism of the opposition. Are things great? No, they aren’t. Are they horrible? For some, yes, for many, no. Could a different strategy have made things better faster? Possibly, but in matters that involve the entire US (and global) economy, anybody who says that they are certain that different actions would have led to better outcomes is a liar and/or an idiot.

Third, it was on his watch that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was decommissioned, and that was representative of his administration’s effectiveness in removing the specter of homophobia and the surrounding hate. Are things perfect? Of course not. Some people passionately believe that homosexuality is wrong. I think that they are wrong, and hope that their form of bigotry is on the wane, and I’m happy to see the government moving in the direction of making things better in this area.

Fourth, it was on his watch that we got Osama bin Laden. Did he go in and fire the fatal bullets? Of course not. However, his administration built on the groundwork that had been laid previously under President Bush, and when it came time to make the go/no-go decision, he said go. Complain all you want, but if you’re going to blame a President when things go wrong (like Carter and the Iranian hostage rescue attempt), you also have to give them credit when it goes right.

There are things about Obama’s administration that I’m ambivalent about, as well. For example, the use of drone strikes on high-value targets. In some cases, these targets are American citizens, not charged or convicted of any crime. Essentially, the administration says, “Go and kill this guy because we think he’s bad.” That’s a disturbing precedent. However, if the choice is between drone strike or invasion, I’ll take the drone strike every time.

Then there’s the ongoing renewal of the Patriot Act, and the fact that Gitmo is still up and running, the seeming increase in crackdown on personal marijuana use, to name a few. He has not been a perfect president, for me. However, it’s unlikely that any president ever perfectly meets the expectations of their supporters, except perhaps for the partisan hacks who think everything the president does is, by definition, correct because he belongs to their party.

Also, there is no way to prepare to be POTUS other than being POTUS.  Obama now has four years of experience.  Think about anything that you’ve done full-time for four years – weren’t you better at it than when you started?  So, my take is that Obama’s existing experience as president is also a compelling factor.

There are those who say that a Republican should be president, because the House will likely have a Republican majority, and it will be easier for the president to get things done.  Another way of saying this is that if the Republicans don’t get their guy elected, they will obstruct progress in the name of being petulant, and will be the the jerk who says, hey, if you guys won’t play by my rules I’m going to take my ball and go home, neener-neener.  Nobody likes that douchebag, and if your argument is we should elect Mitt Romney because otherwise the Republicans will purposely sabotage America, well, then you’re talking crazy.

Do both sides use obstruction as a political weapon?  Yes, but the current Republican hierarchy has turned it into a disturbing performance art – it’s hard to look away, but only because what you see is both revolting and attention-grabbing, like the aftermath of a highway accident.

Mitt Romney
And where to start with Mitt Romney? He’s from a less popular religion, but the truth of the matter is that his beliefs are no stranger than those of religions with more adherents, if looked at from a purely objective perspective. He’s rich, but I don’t hold that against anyone in and of itself. He has civil leadership experience as a Governor. He certainly looks like a President.

And yet, for me the pieces don’t fit together with Romney. For example, if the Mitt Romney that was Governor of Massachusetts was the same Mitt Romney that was running for President, I might consider him seriously. However, he’s basically having to repudiate a lot of what he did in that state that was good (in my opinion) in order to run against Obama.

That says to me that one of two things is true – either he governed Massachusetts according to his principals, but is abandoning those principals for the sake of winning the presidency, or he governed Massachusetts in direct opposition to his principals in order to use it as a stepping stone. In neither case do I see the disconnect between Governor Romney and Presidential Candidate Romney to be resolvable in any way that would lead me to vote for him.

And don’t get me started on Bain Capital. Don’t get me wrong, I think that it is an acceptable, if evil, necessity for companies to exist that make money by ruthlessly building on the concept of survival of the fittest. But I don’t want the leader of a pack of economic vultures/carnivores to then become the shepherd of my country. It doesn’t fit. A president governs for the greater good of every single citizen. A CEO manages with the very narrow goal of ensuring that his side wins (profits) and if the other side loses, well, that’s just business.  That’s not how to run a great country.

With regards to Romney’s tax returns, I think he should just release them and be done with it. If they show something illegal (which I doubt) then they’re going to come out eventually anyway. My personal SWAG (stupid, wild-ass guess) is that they will show nothing more or less than that Romney effectively exploited all legal avenues to minimize his taxation, and that his low effective tax rate would serve to derail the key Republican campaign theme that the ‘job creators’ are overtaxed.

So, I have been singularly unimpressed with Mitt Romney.  Also, even if he had somehow wow-ed me personally, I would still hesitate to vote for him because he represents the Republican Party, and I am not ready to have that party in its current form regain executive power.  So, Romney, by virtue of being a chameleon who has to run against his own record as Governor, and who holds up his business experience as preparing him to lead the US as President and yet won’t reveal the details of his taxes to confirm he did it on the up-and-up, is out, for me.

For the record, the only Republican candidate that I would have seriously considered is Hunstman, and he was out almost immediately. I hope he runs again in 2016 and gets the backing of his party, because he’s the only recent Republican contender I’ve seen who I wouldn’t classify as a clown or a nut.

Democrats versus Republicans
I have voted for Democrat, Republican, and third party candidates over the years. If you were to ask me my political beliefs, I would not say “Democrat”, because my politics is more nuanced that a party platform can address. I don’t think the Democrats are right about everything or that the Republicans are wrong about everything.

HOWEVER, in today’s American political climate, I think that there are clear and compelling differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, which lead me to lean towards the Democratic side in most cases.

The primary issue, for me, is that the Republican party has allowed itself to be taken over by nutbags and hypocrites – there’s just no other way to put it. The examples are too numerous to delineate here, but I will share the highlights, from my perspective.

First, the Republican party acts in ways that are direct opposition to their stated goals. They say they are the party of smaller government, but what they mean is they want less government interference in business and fewer government programs for the needy, while also wanting expanding military budgets and a whole lot more government interference into our personal lives.

They say they want to reduce fraud in our electoral processes, but they then go about it by purposely attempting to disenfranchise legitimate voters in key swing states. They say they want a stronger America that’s more competitive in the global economy, but then turn around and want to gut our fact-based educational system and replace it with anti-science, theocratic mumbo-jumbo.

They cry out about religious freedom, but only as long is it’s Christian and not Muslim, or, God-forbid, atheism or agnosticism.  Many churches enjoy tax exempt status, but then their leadership politicizes their sermons, and almost always in support of Republican candidates and viewpoints.

And, finally, at each inflection point, the Republican tendency is to side with the haves at the expense of the have-nots.  In fact, from my perspective, the mainstream Republican stance is to blame the have-nots for what they don’t have.  I heard a description of this that has stuck with me, which is that ‘liberals’ want to  prevent bad things from happening to people who don’t deserve it, and ‘conservatives’ want to prevent good things from happening to people who don’t deserve it.  Is that an over-simplification?  Sure, but in a black and white, soundbite world, it sums it up for me.

If any of you have read this far, I doubt that you will have agreed with all of the above, because they are simply my opinions.  They are complex and diverse, and it is doubtful that anybody would share my exact takes on all these issues.  That makes me unique in my views, just like everybody else.

My sincere hope is that most, if not all, of us have grown tired of the divisiveness and lack of bipartisanship on the part of our leaders.  Even though I currently lean Democratic, I don’t demonize all Republicans.  I have fundamental disagreements with the current leadership and platform of the Republican party, and would like to seem them return to fiscal conservatism and actual liberty and freedom, not just freedom for those whom they consider to be ‘right-thinking’.

I would like to see us have a system where the opposing viewpoints are represented in a constructive manner, and where compromise to achieve goals is the name of the game.  Will voting for Obama magically make that happen?  Nope, but given the choice between Obama and Romney, I think that President Obama will move us closer to that ideal, even if it will only be baby steps.

• Leave a comment... (1)

Dear Houston Astros,

Through thick and thin for the last 30+ years I have been a fan. Not always fully alert and engaged, but always a fan. Marie and I were at the inaugural game at Enron Field (now Minute Maid Park). My daughter Annalisa fractured her ankle standing on a seat cheering a game. At one point we owned a share of season tickets.

However, the move to the American League is the first time I’ve found myself facing the change from an intermittent fan to a non-fan. I loathe (LOATHE) the designated hitter – 9 men field, 9 men hit, that’s baseball. Going to the AL is almost (but not quite) as if you were switching to playing cricket. Yeah, there’s a bat and a ball, but it’s not the game I have loved (and, for a while, played) all my life.

It’ll certainly be interesting to see the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rangers come to town regularly, so there’s that. But I don’t see myself becoming a fan. I still miss the Oilers and although I like seeing the Texans do well, I have never become a ‘fan’. Hell, in the heat of the moment I still refer to the Colts as ‘Baltimore’, the Rams as ‘L.A’, the Cardinals as ‘St. Louis’, and the Jazz as ‘New Orleans’.

For all of you who love the AL, I respect that, but it’s not for me.  Kind of like New York versus Chicago in pizza, Texas versus North Carolina in barbecue, or East Coast versus West Coast in music, there are no empirically ‘correct’ tastes and I appreciate that different people have different preferences.  But I am not an AL guy, and I don’t see myself becoming one.

So, goodbye to the Astros as I knew and loved you.  Good luck with cricket or whatever you’ll be playing from now on.  There are at least two constants in life…one is baseball and the other is change, and I guess this encapsulates both of those.  Change may be inevitable, but I don’t have to like it, now pardon me while I go yell at a cloud.

Sincerely,

A Long-Time (Former) Fan

• Leave a comment... (0)

One of my Facebook friends posted a Pinterest link to a description of little tacos made in won ton wrappers. I took that as inspiration to try it at home, and they were *delicious*!  Here’s how we made them:

Ingredients:

1lb ground beef
1 medium onion
Won ton wrappers
1/2 tsp comino powder
1/2 tsp chipotle powder
2 bay leaves
2 tbsp cooking oil (we use grapeseed)
salt and pepper to taste
shredded cheese (we prefer four mexican blend)

Optional:
1/2 head iceberg lettuce
Miracle Whip or mayonnaise (to taste)

Heat the oil in a large skillet on medium.  Chop the onions and saute until they start to turn brown at the edges.  Add the ground beef, salt, and pepper and cook until the meat is browned, stirring occasionally.  Once the meat is browned, reduce heat to low, add the comino, chipotle, and bay leaves, stir, cover, and let simmer for 20-30 minutes.

A few minutes before the meat is done, preheat the oven to 350 degrees.  Get a muffin pan – if the pan is not non-stick, coat the inside of each cup with oil (Pam, oil spritzer, or wipe with lightly oiled paper towel).  Put a won ton wrapper into each cup, pressing it gently down to the bottom, keeping it roughly centered.

When the meat is done cooking, give it a taste and adjust seasonings if needed to taste one last time.  Scoop a heaping tablespoon full into each won ton wrapper, sprinkle with shredded cheese, and bake in the oven for 12 minutes.

Optional: while the won ton tacos bake, shred the lettuce into a bowl, add some Miracle Whip and gently stir.  We use just enough to put a very light coating on the lettuce.  Note that even the mayonnaise-lovers in the house prefer the use of Miracle Whip for this recipe, due to the nice counterpoint the sweeter taste imparts.

When the won ton tacos are done, serve them with an optional dish of lettuce, and enjoy.  We put a small dollop of lettuce on each taco, then eat it.  Keeping the lettuce in a separate bowl and adding it as you go means the lettuce won’t get soggy sitting on top of the hot tacos.

Note that we usually have a little meat left over, and sometimes put in a second batch of 3-4 more tacos, or sometimes we just use two muffin pans and make them all at once.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Mourn the dead, honor the heroes, fight injustice, embrace freedom, celebrate life, and, on today of all days, forget to hate.

.

.

.

.

.

Peace.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Dear TiVo,

Two years ago I posted an open letter to you and, sadly, I find myself once again compelled to send along some constructive criticism.  Just like last time, there was a specific trigger, and this time the trigger was your announcement of the TiVo Stream add-on.  The Stream is a $130 device that enables TiVo owners to download and/or stream some of their TiVo content to Apple iDevices.

That sounds okay on the face of it, but there are limitations.  First of all, it currently only supports Apple devices, so if you have an Android or Windows or other mobile device, you are currently SOL.  Support may come, but it may not, and given your history of not finishing what you start (see: TiVo HD menus still not finished after 2+ YEARS) I wouldn’t take that bet.  Note that I don’t own or use any iDevices.

Second, the streaming only works if I am using my iDevice on the same local network as my TiVo.  So, if I am traveling and want to watch something from my TiVo, sorry, I can’t do that with the Stream device.  I could theoretically have transferred a previously recorded program to my iDevice before I left the house (assuming I had enough room to hold the recordings) and take it with me, but if I didn’t have that foresight (or the show wasn’t recorded yet) I’ll just have to do without.  Meanwhile, the Slingbox allows me to stream all my TiVo content anywhere, anytime for roughly the same price, without the limitations.

Third, and this is the kicker, is that this is functionality that you should simply have enabled on our existing TiVo boxes, instead of charging us for another device, not to mention forcing us to manage another appliance with all of the power and wiring hassles it causes.

And there’s the rub, and my biggest complaint to you, which is that you continue to try to nickel and dime your already happy and loyal customers, to the point where we are no longer fans of yours.  For example, I currently have four active TiVo devices, and I have to pay a monthly fee for each one.  For that fee I get a) programming information and b) TiVo software updates.  That’s it.

Meanwhile, I pay a monthly fee to Netflix that is less than the monthly service fee on a single TiVo box, and for that fee Netflix provides me with unlimited streamed content.  AND I can watch that content on any of my devices, and I don’t have to pay a per-device fee.  I agree that you should be compensated for programming info and updates, but your current fee structure is simply off the reservation, and as the Netflix’s and Hulu Plus’s of the world come out with much more direct benefit for much less money, you are looking more and more overpriced in the marketplace.

So, TiVo charges a per-device monthly fee, not for content, but for data about programming and for software updates.  Not only that, but they double-dip their users by also loading their interface up with advertising.  Yes, that’s right, not only do I have to drop several hundred dollars on a TiVo device, then separately buy the wireless adapter, then either pay a monthly fee and/or a big lifetime programming fee, then pay my cable company (or Netflix or Hulu Plus) for programming, but after all of that paying and paying, I also get the wonderful experience of having stupid ads all over my TiVo interface.

That, my friends, is nickel and diming.

Also, you continue to have huge, gaping holes in your offering.  For example, I belong to Amazon Prime, and as such I get access to a whole library of streaming movies and television shows at no additional cost.  But can I watch them on my TiVo?  No.  I can watch Amazon digital movies and television that I have to pay for separately, but not the Prime streaming stuff.  Why?  Who knows, but given that the list of devices that supports Amazon Prime streaming is so large, there are no technical hurdles, so the only option left is that it’s not a priority for you.  Why would that be?  Simple, in my mind – because there are no direct dollars to be gained by doing it.

It seems to me that TiVo has dropped any and all development that is not related directly to specific new revenue.  What that means is that you are taking your existing customers for granted, which has been your historical method of operation, in my experience.  I bought my TiVo, and now I’m a captive audience, why should you spend money improving my experience in any material way?

That strategy may make sense to an accountant, but when you are dealing with the mass market, you have to have a happy customer base, or else you lose the whole shebang.  And that’s where I think you are headed, if you don’t change things.  What TiVo needs to do is to make changes that will WOW us existing customers, but without charging us more.  Turn us back into evangelists.  We want to be your marketing arm.  We want to nag our friends and families until they get the wonderful TiVo experience that we have.

How could you WOW! your existing customers?  Some modest suggestions:

• Finish the HD menus and remove the lag and sluggishness, I know that would cause me to say WOW!
• Upgrade the music player, so that I get a rich (non-buggy) experience playing my music through my TiVo and television
• Enable basic web surfing – you already have web connectivity, audio-video, and input, so let me get to more things on the web like you do with YouTube
• Instead of charging me $15/device/month, charge me one fee of $10/month and allow all my devices to update via that subscription
• Enable streaming of Amazon Prime videos
• Enable all my TiVos to act as one, meaning let me have complete control of all my TiVos from any of my TiVos, examples include:
  • Let me schedule recordings on any TiVo from any TiVo, so if I go to schedule a recording in the living room, but there are conflicts, let me schedule it in the bedroom or office.
  • Have my Season Passes and Wishlists arbitrate across all my TiVo devices to avoid conflicts and record my desired shows.
  • Let me move shows arbitrarily between any TiVos from the TiVo I’m looking at.  For example, if I’m sitting in front of TiVo #1, you should let me move a show from TiVo #2 to TiVo #3.
• Let me stream protected content between devices.  Yes, you have content providers to contend with, but given that you already have my TiVos share a Media Access Key (MAK) you should be able to get them to allow content to be shared across devices with the same MAK.  This would include not only protected HD recordings from cable, but things like downloaded Amazon movies
• Make a slide keyboard remote that actually works.  The current one is a fantastic idea but it works horribly.
• Give me a full featured app for my non-Apple devices.  I guarantee you that more TiVo users have Windows laptops than have iDevices, so how about a nice Windows app to control my TiVos?  I’m not talking your (slow, ponderous) web site, I mean an app running on Windows that controls the TiVo via TCP/IP networking
• GET RID OF ADS, PERIOD
• Etc.

Again, we want to be your marketing arm, but we can’t, because we ourselves are no longer true believers.  You neglect us while you pursue short-term revenue.  You give us features (at an added cost) that analysts say we want, without asking us.  Er, that’s not true – you do ask us, then ignore us, which is doubly insulting.

So, TiVo, please take this as constructive criticism.  If you tend to your existing flock, we will grow organically.  We will breed across our family and friends, and we’ll be able to give our complete endorsement of your products and services without caveats.

Please, help us help you.

Thanks for listening.

Sincerely,

Scott Turner
TiVo Customer since 2002
Direct purchaser of 8 TiVo DVRs
Direct influencer in the purchase of dozens of TiVos by friends and family
Purchaser of dozens of remotes and wireless add-ons
Currently considering alternative DVR/streaming solutions

• Leave a comment... (0)

It may come as a surprise to some of you who know me to hear that I am in favor of Voter ID.  I think that having a standardized method of identifying valid voters, and limiting those voters to a single vote, is a great idea.  I don’t think we have much of an in-person voter fraud problem in the United States, but I’m a big believer in being better safe than sorry.

However, my objection to the current spate of Voter ID laws is that, from my perspective, they have been designed for no purpose other than to disenfranchise Democratic voters in Republican-controlled states during the upcoming 2012 elections.  You can quibble with this if you like, but given that there is not an in-person, voter identity fraud problem in this country, these laws are not designed to fix something that’s broken.  As they stand today, they are designed solely to limit the ability to vote for those who do not currently have a proper photo ID and who would have difficulty in getting one in time to vote, which are primarily poor/Democratic voters.

I currently live a lifestyle such that having a valid, acceptable form of photo identification is not something I ever have to think about.  I have a drivers license and a passport, and although they aren’t always 100% current (because I’m lazy and/or forgetful), I can easily afford the time and costs involved to keep them up to date, and have easy access to all necessary supporting documentation.

However, that has not always been the case for me, and isn’t the case for many, many Americans.  These Americans still have a right to vote, however, even if they have not navigated the myriad processes necessary to obtain an acceptable photo ID and to keep it current.  Again, for those of us of a certain means, it may sound ludicrous to state that having a valid photo ID is a burden, but it is for a large number of people.

As an indicator, current estimates indicate that 6% of Americans don’t have broadband internet access today.  To those of us who are ‘connected’, it’s difficult to conceive of someone living a disconnected lifestyle.  Some of the disconnected simply choose not to connect even though they have the means, but many of them do not have the wherewithal or circumstance that allows for digital connectivity.

Now picture a disconnected person trying to get a photo ID.  How do they even learn the process?  Go down to the DMV? What if they don’t drive and there isn’t mass transportation where they live?  What if they work a job where getting away during municipal office hours is difficult or impossible?  What if they don’t have a copy of their birth certificate?  What if the cost of getting their birth certificate and/or photo ID comes down to a choice between feeding their children or getting an ID?

Consider not only the costs for documents, but the lost income from taking off of work, and the potential of being let go if they start spending hours away from work to duel with the faceless, uncaring paperwork bureaucracy.  Consider that if they choose to risk precious time away from work, they might have competing priorities, like taking themselves (or their children) to the doctor.  Consider that they might have to bum a ride from someone to get to the government offices – but may have to choose between burning the favor to help with getting an ID versus getting a ride to the grocery store or clinic.

This paperwork burden and time investment can prove difficult for someone of limited means to undertake.  I know that for those of us of a certain economic level it may be difficult to relate and/or easy for us to sit in our ivory towers and say that the right to vote is sacred and that these people should prioritize paperwork above everything other competing need.  But in the heat of living a life where you hang by your fingernails from day to day, that’s a difficult choice to make.

However, I think this problem should be addressed, once and for all.  I think that after the current election, there should be a national, bi-partisan movement to setup a single, national Voter ID standard, and that acquisition of that ID needs to be 100% absolutely free of cost, require absolutely minimal in-person presence, and have options available for any necessary commuting/travel.  There should also be a concerted effort to educate and inform all voters of all means as to what this free process entails.  This avoids the ‘poll tax’ problem, and starting it after the upcoming election gives everyone enough time to address their ID problems before the next election cycle.

I think this needs to be done at the federal level, because my take is that if it is left to the states then Voter ID will continue to be a partisan voter-disenfranchisement tool rather than a voter-enablement tool.  Also, I think having a single Voter ID authority will set the stage to allow for voting to move into the 21st (or at least late 20th) century, such as by creating an infrastructure that could be leveraged for online voting.

So, I am very much in favor of a reasonable and fair Voter ID system, setup in a non-partisan way, that does not impose a ‘poll tax’, and which is instituted with enough lead time such that all potential valid voters will have the time to navigate the process.  Let’s enfranchise *and* identify all valid voters, because there’s is nothing more American than a free and fair election for all.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I will start this post out with the disclaimer that I am just a dumbass with a blog, noodling on things that interest me.

After Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee, I became very curious about who he would select as his running mate, and am surprised that he picked Paul Ryan.  Picking Ryan doesn’t make any sense to me because, as far as I can tell, Ryan will primarily appeal to folks who would have voted for Romney anyway.  So, from that perspective, it seems to me that picking Ryan was ‘preaching to the choir’, in a sense.

Also, it seems to me that if the selection of Ryan is going to have any impact at all, it will be to alienate swing voters, who tend to be moderate.  Based on current polling numbers it seems that Romney needs as many of those voters as he can get.

So, why would Romney pick such a polarizing running mate?  I offer five theories below, in order of likelihood from least to most (with a bonus sixth theory that is probably the most likely of all):

Theory #1: Romney doesn’t want to win, and has picked a running mate that will insure that he loses.

It is not possible for me to know why Romney wouldn’t want to win, and there is no evidence of it that I’m aware of (other than his selection of Ryan).  But, because he has picked a running mate that I think he knows will hurt his chances, we have to at least consider this option.  I speculated along these same lines in 2008 when McCain picked Sarah Palin.

Theory #2: Romney knows that he is going to win, so he picked whoever he damn well pleased.

How could Romney *know* he’s going to win?  It could be that he has an ace up his sleeve that he knows will be devastating enough to win the election (dirt on Obama, etc).  It could also be that there is some currently-hidden aspect of Ryan that will emerge and swing the election for him.  It could also be that the power brokers have arranged things such that a win for Romney is the most likely thing.  In any case, if Romney felt supremely confident that he was going to win regardless of his selection of running mate, he may have gone ahead and selected the running mate who will most boldly represent the Republican strategy, and that’s Ryan.

Theory #3: Romney knows that he isn’t going to win, and so picked a running mate for politically expedient purposes.

In this scenario, Romney has realized that there’s no way he can win for whatever reason (polling numbers, tax return issue, etc), and so he picked his running mate in order to maximize whatever positives there are that can be gleaned from a losing presidential bid.  For example, it may be that the Republicans wanted Ryan to get some national press, and have the opportunity to present his budget proposal more directly and clearly to a more attentive audience than has previously been possible.  Running on the presidential ticket will give Ryan a lot of exposure, and perhaps groom him for future runs (Senate, Vice President, maybe President, even?).

Theory #4: None of the acceptable potential candidates said ‘yes’.

As with all recent elections, there was a list of potential running mates for Romney, which at times was rumored to include Colin Powell, Paul Ryan, Condoleezza Rice, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, and Michele Bachmann, among others.  Several said no very publicly (e.g. Powell, Rice), some were (I hope) too unacceptable (e.g. Bachmann), and that left Romney with a short list of candidates who were both acceptable and who also said ‘yes’.  It could be that the resulting list had only one name on it – Paul Ryan.

Theory #5: Romney is throwing a haymaker.

It could be that Romney knows that he’s being outboxed and losing the fight on points, and that only a knockout punch can win the fight for him at this point.  Picking a safe, moderate running mate would have been a jab that didn’t knock anybody out, so he’s going with the low-percentage knockout punch, knowing that if he misses, he would have lost anyway, but at least this gives him a fighting chance to go down swinging.

Bonus Theory #6: Dumbasses with blogs don’t understand the question.

This is the most likely scenario, which is that I don’t have enough understanding to realize why the selection of Ryan makes sense.  I have no credentials in this area, other than having been a lifelong resident of and intermittent voter in the United States.

So, there you go, five theories (and a bonus theory) about Romney’s selection of Ryan.  I’ll be watching the polls closely to see the effect of Romney naming Ryan as his running mate.  Or, to state it more accurately, I’ll be interested to see Nate Silver’s analysis of the polls over at his FiveThirtyEight blog.  His early analysis doesn’t show much impact from Ryan being named, but it’s still early in the game.

If I were a betting man, my money would be on Obama at this point.  We’re three months from the election, so we’re heading into Double Jeopardy, where the scores can really change, so things could still swing in either direction.  However, I think the selection of Paul Ryan was a risky one, and is likely to cost Mitt Romney any chance he had at winning in November.

 

• Leave a comment... (0)

2012-08-12 Final Sunday Update

This year we once again tracked Olympic Power Rankings for the 2012 Games in London.  For reference, the 2008 final rankings are located here. The purpose of this chart is to look beyond raw medal count – who cares if countries with hundreds of millions (or even billions) of people win a lot of medals?  They should win a lot of medals, right?  The big question is, which country is kicking ass, pound-for-pound?  The answer is in the table below.

This table creates a weighted medal score by giving every country three points for each gold medal, two points for each silver, and one point for each bronze.  The country’s Power Rating is calculated by determining how many weighted medal points each country wins per 10,000,000 in population.  And to factor in economics, the population only includes those living above the poverty level (according to CIA poverty estimates).  Also, to eliminate the impact of outliers, countries with excessively large populations are capped at 300,000,000 and countries with exceedingly small populations have a floor of 2,000,000 for the purposes of calculation.

Below is the Sunday update, reflecting the final standings.  Congratulations to Hungary for taking the title of the most powerful Olympic nation, pound for pound.  The rest of the top ten are rounded out by Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Cuba, Jamaica, Belarus, the United States, and the Czech Republic.

Well, that wraps up another Olympics, be sure to check back in four years because we will (probably) be tracking them again!

 

 

 

[Table=28]

• Leave a comment... (0)