A Skewed Perspective

Vote NO on Prop A

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:19:00 +0000

This November 2nd, voters in Missouri will be asked to vote on Proposition A, which is an outright attack on the primary revenue sources of Kansas City and Saint Louis. Both KC and StL have a 1% income tax on the books which affects both residents and workers of those respective cities. This issue affects Saint Louis as much as it does Kansas City, but as I am a citizen and booster for KC, I will be concentrating my efforts here.

Kansas City, Missouri has an annual budget of around $1.3 billion dollars. The money comes from a variety of sources, but the largest is the city's 1% e-tax. The general fund for the annual budget is a little less than half of the total, or a little above $500 million. 40% of that general fund comes from the e-tax, or around $200 million.

Throwing around a lot of numbers here, but the important one is this; over $200 million dollars stands to be lost from the city budget with the elimination of the e-tax. Think city infrastructure is bad now? Think parks and community centers are currently under-maintained? Watch what happens with 40 percent of the general fund, and more than 15% of the total budget wiped out. Kansas City, Missouri has a lot of problems as it is. It is a large, sprawling city with a low population density, and is ill-equipped at this point to handle a huge drop in the annual budget.

What happens when that money disappears? Well, either a large number of services gets cut, or other taxes and fees appear. More likely that both will happen. Sales taxes and property taxes could both skyrocket. People think that cutting one form of tax means taxes go down. This is a common myth. Unfortunately, in the real world, this type of money needs to be made up. I hear people frequently claim the city should tighten its belt and the city government should shrink in size. I argue that a smaller government is not always a better government, no matter what conservatives and libertarians claim. For a city of half a million people to thrive, it must be run in an intelligent manner. And getting rid of the largest source of civic income is hardly intelligent.

Opponents of the tax claim a few different things. One, they sometimes claim they're not trying to repeal the tax, just put it up for referendum. On the surface, this appears true. The actual proposition would force a referendum for both KC and StL every five years, starting with next April, until the tax is repealed. It also, however, prevents any city in the state from instituting its own income tax. This means that if KC ever repeals the tax, there is no coming back. The idea clearly is meant to eventually repeal the city e-tax, just at a slower pace.

Another claim is that the very nature of the city income tax is undemocratic. This cannot be farther from the truth. In 1963, a 1/2% earnings tax was approved by Kansas City voters, and it was then raised to a full 1% in 1970, also by democratic vote. The concept of a referendum is not a wholly terrible one, however, with the restriction of no additional taxes ever allowed, even by vote, it becomes a dangerous concept.

The individuals and groups responsible for Prop A often claim that businesses are hurt by the tax. The "studies" then used to prove this are often vague and amateurish and are just speculation based on right-wing economics. They generally don't, or can't, counter the argument that before city income is cut, alternative measures should be put in place.

That is something that bears repeating. Before any source of revenue is removed, the consequences should be analyzed, and alternatives should be developed. This proposition is merely an ideological attack on the very nature of income taxes. It has nothing to do with smart governance. Prop A seeks to weaken cities already plagued with debt and infrastructural weaknesses. It seeks to promote business without analyzing if businesses are really helped by eliminating a small personal earnings tax in the two largest cities in the state.

The architects of this proposal, Marc Ellinger and Rex Sinquefield, stand to gain nothing by seeing Kansas City hurt by outside forces, yet seem driven to do so anyway. Sinquefield is a wealthy businessman from St. Louis who has financed multiple efforts at eliminating sources of revenue for local governments. Ellinger is a Jefferson City attorney and the official spokesman of the Let Voters Decide campaign, which is the driving force behind Prop A. Neither man has a vested interest in Kansas City, and neither should have any right to control how KC is run.

Part of what this issue comes down to is the concept of local control versus central (state) control. I find it amusing that conservatives and libertarians, who have always been the loudest advocates for reverting the influence of governments down to the local (civic) levels are the ones leading this fight. They seek to control the destinies of two independent cities from the capital of the state. Kansas City and Saint Louis proper contain about 15% of the state's population, but carry a much more sizable percentage of the state's economy. Cripple the cities, and the rest of the state will surely go down with it.

25 of the 150 largest cities in the U.S. levy a local income tax. Most go with 1%, while a few, such as Cleveland, run a 2% rate, and Philadelphia is at almost 4%. Most of the cities that require an income tax are like Kansas City, large, older cities with an aging infrastructure and not a lot of alternatives for revenue. No major natural resources or extra sources of income, such as gambling, to help lighten the financial load.

In a perfect world, Kansas City should be able to find more money from sources other than residents' and worker's incomes. However, at this point, no worthy alternatives have been suggested, and none have been proven to work. A 1% tax is hardly an intrusive one. An individual making $50,000 per year would pay $500 in total taxes to the city via direct income. Not an amount to be ignored, but realistically, over the course of a year's worth of paychecks, not a truly big deal. I have never been rich, and in the past decade have never made enough money to have to pay even $500 in a single year, yet I can honestly say it has never hurt me to contribute my 1% to the city I live in. A small price to pay to keep Kansas City running.

If Prop A is passed, then the potential repeal of the city income tax will come up on the ballot in April. Do you wish to retain this tax, and continue funding the city through these uncertain economic times? Or, do you wish to punish Kansas City for the temerity of wanting to remain competitive with the the region, and the rest of the country? The choice is yours. My choice, however, is clear. I'm voting NO on Proposition A. I want to keep Kansas City running.

A discussion about healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:15:00 +0000

It's been quite a while since I posted anything here. I'd like to start doing it again. I posted this originally on facebook a couple weeks ago, but would like to make it sort of "official" by posting it here. Inspired by the recent passage of President Obama's healthcare bill, I decided to throw my opinion out there. Enjoy!

--

This little rant is about the recent healthcare bill passed by Congress. People are free to disagree with me, but disrespectful or disruptive comments will be deleted. I do not intend to start a fight with my more conservative friends. This is my opinion, and I'm not planning on changing it without just cause.

I have a message to those who are screaming about "government run healthcare" and "socialized medicine" and all sorts of other right-wing boogeymen. Shut it. Simply put, we tried it your way for decades… and your way is fundamentally broken. It is simply a travesty that so many people in this nation are unable to pay for what should be considered a basic human right. What is that you say? It's not a right because it's not in the Constitution? Really?

Let's be realistic. The whole concept of human rights is a man-made and arbitrary one. We come up with the concept of rights in order to ensure a basic level of happiness and freedom and to create a more just society. However, as we evolve and grow as a people, the concept of rights also evolves. What is enumerated in the U.S. Constitution more than two centuries ago should not be considered the final word in human rights. Fact is, while the Founders certainly were advanced for their era, they lived in a vastly different world.

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson himself had something to say about rigid adherence to ancient documents: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Couldn't have said it better myself. However, there's more to it than that, so here goes. We live in a world of increasingly advanced technology. Medical science and better living conditions have combined for a much higher standard of living and much longer lifespans. Someone dies at age 70 and these days we think they went too soon. 200 years ago, they would have been considered ancient. However, access to this technology has not always been equal. Those who can afford to pay have been able to access quality care. Sometimes those who can't pay do so as well. That access comes at great cost. Someone who has suffered a sudden illness or severe injury is often in debt to the point of complete destitution. So many people have their financial lives ruined because they cannot pay. Someone is shot for no reason and severely injured? Sure, we'll heal them. And they will pay for the rest of their lives. There are literally millions of examples of individuals forced to choose between their health and their budgets. Examples of insurance companies rejecting legitimate medical procedures due to cost, but using lame technicalities as excuses. Human beings treated as expenses rather than as, well, human beings. The list of offenses is endless.

Yet, a large number of people who are fighting against providing health care for the uninsured are doing for so-called "principled" reasons. In their opinion, the government has no business doing anything. Hate to break it them, but life isn't that simple. There are more than 300 million people living in this country. Every single one is granted certain rights by the Constitution, just by virtue of being citizens. These rights all pertain to providing a general level of freedom and safety for the people. The government is there to help support these rights.

Having said that, things are indeed more complicated now. The fact is, there are certain areas where collective action simply works better. We have (at least in theory) a democratic government in order to complete those tasks that individuals and businesses simply can't. We agree, as a people, to spend money in order to accomplish goals. The list of successful programs and projects that have been completed using governments is vast, and quite frankly, too long to list right here. The current mishmash of public and private healthcare that this country currently possesses is, in truth, a mess. Very few commentators argue with the fact that changes need to be made. Yet, as soon as government is brought up as an option, the ideologues come out. The Constitution is of course, dusted off and analyzed, as well as usual bumper sticker arguments about socialism and "government takeovers". This all ignores the fact that millions of people are suffering because they cannot afford to be treated. People suffer accidents, or are victims of crimes, and they cannot be helped without being hurt financially.

There are questions that should be asked. Is this just? Is this right? How is it that the most powerful and influential nation in the history of the planet doesn't take care of it's own people? Nations with a tiny fraction of the budget of this great and powerful society have vastly better access to healthcare for their citizens. Comparisons to other nations (Canada, France, Japan, etc…) have been made for years. Yes, weaknesses can be found in other systems as well. Obviously no system is perfect. Yet, these countries acknowledge that a healthy society is a happy and successful one. They are willing to reach beyond reflexive ideology and take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. And, they manage to spend less money doing it. They manage to have a general consensus that their systems work, at least, for the most part.

The bill that passed this past Sunday was by no means a complete overhaul of the American healthcare system. There is an incremental increase in the overall healthcare budget in the first couple years of the program (around 1%) And yet, all reasonable projections show that the cost will actually decrease to less than the current system as soon as 2019, and continue dropping. People who protest the initial cost are remarkably shortsighted. What is it about conservatives that makes them unwilling to take a short term loss in favor of a long term gain? The entire Bush administration was about spending and acting right now instead of thinking about long-term consequences. That way didn't work. Now we have to try something new.

Those who already have health insurance will not be affected by this bill. They will not be forced to make changes or leave their plans. All that is happening, is that the private health insurance companies have additional competition, which I always thought conservatives liked. Oh, wait, that bad old bully government is in the competition, so it must not be fair anymore. Because government never does anything right. Part of the whole point of recent conservative governance was to denigrate the abilities of government, and then purposely cripple it to ensure being right. Those days should now be gone. 34 million people are going to have access to healthcare now, that they didn't before. If they want to try something different, they still can switch. That is, if they can afford to.

So, we have decreasing costs, improved quality of life for a huge segment of the population, competition (for the free-marketers), and social justice. This is called progress. This is called cultural evolution. Thomas Jefferson would recognize that a nation 20 times larger and more complicated than the one he knew might need added layers of complexity in its governance.

There is no justice in allowing innocent people to suffer out of ideological rigidity or out of economic shortsightedness. And justice is what we as a people should seek.

Trip to the Pacific Northwest, part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:03:00 +0000

There will be a few more photos posted in a few days from the trip, especially centering on the 23rd through the 26th, but this will be it for the moment.

Tunnel to Cannon Beach... the light at the end turned out not to be another train.

Sunset at Cannon Beach. This was right outside our hotel room.

The next morning at Cannon Beach.

View from our hotel in Seattle.

Another view of Seattle from the hotel room.

The hotel from ground level.

On the ferry coming back from Bainbridge Island.

Coffee at Vivace in Seattle.

River near Leavenworth, Washington.

Mt. Hood, from the plane on the way back home.

Trip to the Pacific Northwest, part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:39:00 +0000

Part 2 of my trip to the Northwest:

Near the sea lion caves north of Florence.

Also near sea lion caves.

Note the bullet holes in the sign. Methinks someone had trouble telling the difference...

I wanted to write the word "this" on the top of the sign.

Looking south along the coast.

Near Devil's Punchbowl.

Hiking near the Devil's Punchbowl.

The ice cream was even better than the cheese.

I love the name of this store in Bay City.

Halfway up a 1600 ft cliff between Bay City and Cannon Beach

Trip to the Pacific Northwest

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:18:00 +0000

Aaaaahhh!!! Vacation slideshows! Is there anything scarier? Well, the thought of a John McCain presidency should fill people with dread, but this is pretty damn scary, too.

Stephanie and I took a trip in September 2006 to the Pacific Northwest. We flew from KC to Portland, then took a long trip in a rental car around much of the region. It was a fun trip. I was grateful to explore an area of the country that I have always been interested in. The weather was pretty good. It was usually in the 60's, temperature-wise, and it rarely rained. The entire trip cost me nearly a month's pay, but it was definitely worth it for me.

Starting in Portland on Tuesday, September 19th, 2006, we drove down the Columbia River to Multnomah Falls on Wednesday, then back through Portland. South, we went! Through Oregon's wine country (stopping for a wine tasting at Benton Lane Winery - good stuff!). Through Corvallis and Junction City, and down to the coast at Florence, where we stayed Wednesday night. Then, we drove back up the coast, stopping in Tillamook, Bay City, and finally Cannon Beach, on Thursday evening. Crossing the bridge over the mouth of the Columbia River in Astoria, we continued north into Washington. By Friday afternoon, we made it to Seattle. Leaving Seattle Saturday afternoon, we drove east through Washington to the town of Cashmere, with a stop in Leavenworth the next morning. We stopped in Seatac on Sunday night, and drove south on Monday. We stopped in Olympia, and eventually found our way back to Portland for the final evening.

Despite the busy schedule and constant driving, we managed to find time to do a lot of fun stuff. We stayed in some very nice hotels, and a couple of less-than-opulent places. I stood in the ocean for the first time, and ate some seafood that I actually liked! I could actually write for hours about the trip, but, suffice to say, I will be going back.

I actually promised to load some photos just a week after I got back, but I never got around to it. I'll admit that it is pretty late to do it now, but I figured it couldn't hurt to post this stuff. Better late than never, and all that.

All of the photos were taken with a crappy camera phone, like the Kansas City Renaissance photos down below. My girlfriend, Stephanie, took much better photos with a decent camera, however, these photos came from my eye, so I felt that they should be what I post on my blog.

Anyhoo, I present, in (approximate) chronological order, my Pacific Northwest trip!

The trip to Portland, overlooking Colorado

Oregon Convention Center, in Portland

Pioneer Square, downtown Portland

Sculpture across the street from Powell's Books, Portland

Building in downtown Portland

More downtown Portland

Multnomah Falls, from across the highway

In front of the lower pool of Multnomah Falls

On the trail ascending the Falls

Horses near Corvallis, Oregon

My 300 Favorite Songs

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 17:50:00 +0000

There are plenty of important things in the world to talk about, but I'm feeling like heading somewhere a little lighter right now. So, I'll address my strange and compulsive urge for list-making and offer what is merely the first in what will probably be a painfully long series of favorites lists. My favorite (and sometimes least favorite) of whatever category I feel like writing and/or thinking about.

A few weeks ago, I came across Rolling Stone's 2004 list of the 500 greatest songs of all time. One could quibble over their rankings pretty much forever, but I personally found it fun to see where different songs were ranked. The list also reminded me of a memory I have from 7 or 8 years ago - maybe around 2001. My sister and father stayed up late one night in his office compiling a list of their all-time favorite songs. I seem to recall that they got to over 100 songs before calling it a night, so it must have been a fairly comprehensive list.

With those thoughts in mind, I decided to do my own favorite song list. I actually started with the Rolling Stone list, and cherry-picked some of my favorites from there. Then, I just began adding to it. 200 songs came and went pretty quickly, then I slowed down from there, so I ended up settling on a top 300 list. These songs are my personal favorites - ones that I can listen to over and over again. I'm not claiming these songs are the greatest songs of all-time, they're just what I happen to enjoy. I include the artist that performed my favorite version of the song - not necessarily the original performer of said song. I think I've got a pretty decent mix of genres and eras here, however, it's pretty easy to tell what and whom I listen to the most. I've got some relatively recent Top-40 stuff in the list as well, so I might lose some cool points, but hey, it's what I like. Pop-culture preferences can be fun to compare, but I always disliked people who judged others exclusively by their pop-culture preferences.

It took me six weeks to come up with the list and the order of the songs, and I'm sure I could still move some of the songs around, but this list represents a fairly close ranking of what I deem to be my favorites. In the interest of space, and keeping things readable, I'll post the list 100 songs at a time.

1. What's Going On, Marvin Gaye

2. Layla, Derek and the Dominos

3. (Sittin' on the) Dock of the Bay, Otis Redding

4. London Calling, The Clash

5. The Thrill Is Gone, B.B. King

6. The Weight, The Band

7. Hellhound on My Trail, Robert Johnson

8. I Walk the Line, Johnny Cash

9. Bohemian Rhapsody, Queen

10. Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen

11. Hey Jude, The Beatles

12. Respect, Aretha Franklin

13. Satisfaction, The Rolling Stones

14. Lean On Me, Bill Withers

15. Imagine, John Lennon

16. Let's Get It On, Marvin Gaye

17. Lola, The Kinks

18. Sweet Home Chicago, Robert Johnson

19. City of New Orleans, Steve Goodman

20. All Along the Watchtower, Jimi Hendrix

21. Let it Be, The Beatles

22. Hotel California, The Eagles

23. Boom Boom, John Lee Hooker

24. Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner, Warren Zevon

25. Come Together, The Beatles

26. Bulls On Parade, Rage Against the Machine

27. Saturday Night Fish Fry, Louis Jordan

28. I Shot the Sheriff, Bob Marley and the Wailers

29. Soul Man, Sam and Dave

30. So What, Miles Davis

31. (Your Love Keeps Lifting Me) Higher and Higher, Jackie Wilson

32. Johnny B. Goode, Chuck Berry

33. Werewolves of London, Warren Zevon

34. Born in the U.S.A., Bruce Springsteen

35. Ain’t Misbehavin’, Fats Waller

36. Get Up, Stand Up, Bob Marley and the Wailers

37. Wish You Were Here, Pink Floyd

38. Kindhearted Woman Blues, Robert Johnson

39. Hit the Road Jack, Ray Charles

40. Should I Stay or Should I Go, The Clash

41. No Woman, No Cry, Bob Marley and the Wailers

42. Stand By Me, Ben E. King

43. Come On In My Kitchen, Robert Johnson

44. Sleep Now in the Fire, Rage Against the Machine

45. King of The Road, Roger Miller

46. Don’t Fear The Reaper, Blue Oyster Cult

47. Georgia on My Mind, Ray Charles

48. Buffalo Soldier, Bob Marley

49. Friend of the Devil, Grateful Dead

50. Round Midnight, Thelonious Monk

51. Help!, The Beatles

52. Excitable Boy, Warren Zevon

53. Chicken Cordon Bleus, Steve Goodman

54. God of Wine, Third Eye Blind

55. Ring of Fire, Johnny Cash

56. My Girl, The Temptations

57. I Heard It Through the Grapevine, Marvin Gaye

58. Fortunate Son, Creedence Clearwater Revival

59. I Wanna Be Sedated, The Ramones

60. Louie Louie, The Kingsmen

61. Howlin’ Wolf, Muddy Waters

62. Take Five, Dave Brubeck Quartet

63. Wake Up, Rage Against the Machine

64. Stairway To Heaven, Led Zeppelin

65. Me and the Devil Blues, Robert Johnson

66. You Really Got Me, The Kinks

67. Just My Imagination, The Temptations

68. They’re Red Hot, Robert Johnson

69. I Want to Hold Your Hand, The Beatles

70. Free Fallin', Tom Petty

71. Bad Moon Rising, Creedence Clearwater Revival

72. Purple Haze, Jimi Hendrix

73. Everyday People, Sly and the Family Stone

74. Fast Car, Tracy Chapman

75. Foxy Lady, Jimi Hendrix

76. Impressions, John Coltrane

77. Knocking on Heaven's Door, Bob Dylan

78. The Best Is Yet To Come, Avery Brooks and James Darren version

79. Proud Mary, Creedence Clearwater Revival

80. With a Little Help From My Friends, The Beatles

81. Come Fly With Me, Frank Sinatra

82. Smells Like Teen Spirit, Nirvana

83. In the Midnight Hour, Wilson Pickett

84. Know Your Enemy, Rage Against the Machine

85. Comfortably Numb, Pink Floyd

86. Call It Stormy Monday (But Tuesday Is Just As Bad), T-Bone Walker

87. That'll Be the Day, Buddy Holly and the Crickets

88. Beyond The Sea, Bobby Darin

89. Sloop John B, The Beach Boys

90. You Can't Always Get What You Want, The Rolling Stones

91. Sexual Healing, Marvin Gaye

92. Smokestack Lightning, Howlin’ Wolf

93. The Wind Cries Mary, Jimi Hendrix

94. Walk This Way, Aerosmith

95. Papa Was a Rollin' Stone, The Temptations

96. Let's Stay Together, Al Green

97. The Rising, Bruce Springsteen

98. Maybe I'm Amazed, Paul McCartney

99. Gimme What You Got, Keb’ Mo’

100. Angry Johnny, Poe

My 300 Favorite Songs, 101 - 200

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:27:00 +0000

Here's the next hundred in my favorite song list.

101. Dream On, Aerosmith

102. Papa's Got a Brand New Bag, James Brown

103. A Hard Day's Night, The Beatles

104. Guerrilla Radio, Rage Against the Machine

105. God Save the Queen, The Sex Pistols

106. Uncle John’s Band, Grateful Dead

107. Mack the Knife, Bobby Darin

108. Light My Fire, The Doors

109. Fight the Power, Public Enemy

110. Who'll Stop the Rain, Creedence Clearwater Revival

111. Street Fighting Man, The Rolling Stones

112. Losing My Religion, R.E.M.

113. Closer, Nine Inch Nails

114. Jumper, Third Eye Blind

115. Decadence, Disturbed

116. Enter Sandman, Metallica

117. Ticket to Ride, The Beatles

118. Personal Jesus, Depeche Mode

119. One Nation Under a Groove, Funkadelic

120. Wonderful World, Sam Cooke

121. Casey Jones, Grateful Dead

122. The Motor City Is Burning, John Lee Hooker

123. Another Brick in the Wall part 2, Pink Floyd

124. School's Out, Alice Cooper

125. Born of A Broken Man, Rage Against the Machine

126. Iron Man, Black Sabbath

127. Anarchy in the U.K., The Sex Pistols

128. Radio Free Europe, R.E.M.

129. The Door, Keb’ Mo’

130. Johnny Strikes Up The Band, Warren Zevon

131. Stupify, Disturbed

132. Get Up (I Feel Like Being a) Sex Machine, James Brown

133. The End, The Doors

134. Moanin’ at Midnight, Howlin’ Wolf

135. All You Need Is Love, The Beatles

136. Runaway Train, Soul Asylum

137. Lawyers, Guns, and Money, Warren Zevon

138. Truckin’, Grateful Dead

139. France, Keb’ Mo’

140. Take The Power Back, Rage Against the Machine

141. Cochise, Audioslave

142. Rudie Can’t Fail, The Clash

143. Seven Nation Army, The White Stripes

144. We Will Rock You, Queen

145. Graceland, Paul Simon

146. Lucille, B.B. King

147. Take It Easy, The Eagles

148. House of the Rising Sun, The Animals

149. It's a Man's Man's Man's World, James Brown

150. Jesus the Missing Years, John Prine

151. Kashmir, Led Zeppelin

152. New Millennium Homes, Rage Against the Machine

153. Penny Lane, The Beatles

154. Hoochie Coochie Man, Muddy Waters

155. Killing in the Name, Rage Against the Machine

156. Big Yellow Taxi, Joni Mitchell

157. A Dying Cub Fan’s Last Request, Steve Goodman

158. Flash Light, Parliament

159. Calm Like A Bomb, Rage Against the Machine

160. Every Morning, Keb’ Mo’

161. Billie Jean, Michael Jackson

162. It’s Only a Paper Moon, Ella Fitzgerald version

163. Under the Boardwalk, The Drifters

164. Ten Thousand Fists, Disturbed

165. Money For Nothing, Dire Straits

166. Down With the Sickness, Disturbed

167. Ten Long Years, B.B. King

168. Mothership Connection (Star Child), Parliament

169. Cadillac Ranch, Bruce Springsteen

170. The Boxer, Simon and Garfunkel

171. Drive, Incubus

172. One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer, John Lee Hooker

173. Family Affair, Sly and the Family Stone

174. Got My Mojo Working, Muddy Waters

175. Maria, Rage Against the Machine

176. Keep it Simple, Keb’ Mo’

177. A Boy Named Sue, Johnny Cash

178. Deal, Grateful Dead

179. It Hurts So Bad, Susan Tedeschi

180. Lose Yourself, Eminem

181. She's Not There, The Zombies

182. Bullet With Butterfly Wings, Smashing Pumpkins

183. How I Could Just Kill A Man, Cypress Hill

184. Pardon Me, Incubus

185. Unforgettable, Nat King Cole

186. On the Road Again, Willie Nelson

187. Mohammed's Radio, Warren Zevon

188. Shop Around, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles

189. Subterranean Homesick Blues, Bob Dylan

190. People of the Sun, Rage Against the Machine

191. Cult of Personality, Living Colour

192. Touch of Grey, Grateful Dead

193. Standing at the Station, Keb’ Mo’

194. Never Let You Go, Third Eye Blind

195. War Within A Breath, Rage Against the Machine

196. I’m Alive, Disturbed

197. Trigger Happy Jack, Poe

198. Graduate, Third Eye Blind

199. Down Rodeo, Rage Against the Machine

200. Super Freak, Rick James

My 300 Favorite Songs, 201 - 300

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:10:00 +0000

201. I Am the Highway, Audioslave

202. The Sins of Memphisto, John Prine

203. Come As You Are, Nirvana

204. Make Yourself, Incubus

205. Kodachrome, Paul Simon

206. They Can’t Take That Away From Me, Billie Holiday version

207. Mr. Jones, Counting Crows

208. Mr. Bad Example, Warren Zevon

209. Cross Road Blues, Robert Johnson

210. Brown Eyed Girl, Van Morrison

211. I Get A Kick Out of You, Frank Sinatra

212. Desperados Under The Eaves, Warren Zevon

213. Stand Up (And Be Strong), Keb’ Mo’

214. No Surrender, Bruce Springsteen

215. American Idiot, Green Day

216. Sweet Emotion, Aerosmith

217. Twisted Transistor, Korn

218. Perpetual Blues Machine, Keb’ Mo’

219. Zero, Smashing Pumpkins

220. White Wedding, Billy Idol

221. You Rascal You, Louis Armstrong

222. Blue Orchid, The White Stripes

223. Ripple, Grateful Dead

224. White Room, Cream

225. Set it Off, Audioslave

226. Give It Away, Red Hot Chili Peppers

227. Brick, Ben Folds Five

228. Short Skirt Long Jacket, Cake

229. Sultans of Swing, Dire Straits

230. Mannish Boy, Muddy Waters

231. Fly Me to The Moon, Frank Sinatra

232. 1979, Smashing Pumpkins

233. The Way You Look Tonight, Billie Holiday version

234. Dangerous Mood, Keb’ Mo’

235. She Will Have Her Way, Neil Finn

236. Vegematic, Steve Goodman

237. Spirit in the Sky, Norman Greenbaum

238. Loser, Beck

239. Today Was A Good Day, Ice Cube

240. It’s The End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine), R.E.M.

241. Apeman, The Kinks

242. Mama Told Me (Not To Come), Three Dog Night

243. Yoda, Weird Al Yankovic

244. Payin’ For It Now, Robert Cray

245. Freak On a Leash, Korn

246. Boom Boom Mancini, Warren Zevon

247. Man on the Moon, R.E.M.

248. Crazy Little Thing Called Love, Queen

249. The Boys Are Back in Town, Thin Lizzy

250. Prosperity Blues, Keb’ Mo’

251. Glory Days, Bruce Springsteen

252. Every Breath You Take, The Police

253. Buddy Holly, Weezer

254. Wonder Boy, Tenacious D

255. The One I Love, R.E.M.

256. Under Pressure, Queen

257. Narcolepsy, Third Eye Blind

258. Sikamikanico, Red Hot Chili Peppers

259. Black Hole Sun, Soundgarden

260. Lookin’ Out My Back Door, Creedence Clearwater Revival

261. Livin’ On The Edge, Aerosmith

262. Sunrise, Norah Jones

263. Jack You Dead, Louis Jordan

264. Talkin’ Bout a Revolution, Tracy Chapman

265. The I Don't Know Where I'm Goin', But I'm Goin' Nowhere In A Hurry Blues, Steve Goodman

266. Crazy, Gnarls Barkley

267. Deify, Disturbed

268. All Day and All of the Night, The Kinks

269. Piano Fighter, Warren Zevon

270. Tell Everybody I Know, Keb’ Mo’

271. Eli’s Coming, Three Dog Night

272. Semi-Charmed Life, Third Eye Blind

273. Brand New Cadillac, The Clash

274. Opticon, Orgy

275. Clocks, Coldplay

276. Ringmaster, The Dinosaurs

277. No Phone, Cake

278. Shine On, You Crazy Diamond, Pink Floyd

279. Let The Good Times Roll, Louis Jordan

280. President, Wyclef Jean

281. Change, Keb’ Mo’

282. Special, Garbage

283. Bitter Sweet Symphony, The Verve

284. Desperado, The Eagles

285. One More Minute, Weird Al Yankovic

286. Fire and Rain, James Taylor

287. Closing Time, Semisonic

288. Smooth Criminal, Alien Ant Farm version

289. We Are The Champions, Queen

290. Send The Pain Below, Chevelle

291. When All Is Said and Done, Trapt

292. Icky Thump, The White Stripes

293. Cheeseburger in Paradise, Jimmy Buffett

294. Another Postcard, Barenaked Ladies

295. War, Edwin Starr

296. Vietnow, Rage Against the Machine

297. Boogie Chillen, John Lee Hooker

298. Breaking The Girl, Red Hot Chili Peppers

299. Minnie the Moocher, Cab Calloway

300. Brass Monkey, Beastie Boys

Updates

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:12:00 +0000

I have been slow to update my blog recently. I have several posts I'm working on (And have been for longer than probably necessary. Ah, the power of laziness.) Posts should be arriving soon about the current presidential race, issues including immigration, church-state separation, and gun control, a couple of movie reviews, a book review, and my top 100 movies and top 300 songs lists. I swear, all of these should be arriving soon.

Both of my readers should be happy to hear this.

Just gimme a couple days... Wait, isn't that the Procrastinator's Motto?

Crime and Excessive Punishment

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:07:00 +0000

Earlier this week I attended a screening of a film by Melissa Mummert, a Unitarian minister currently based in North Carolina. While serving as a chaplain intern in a federal prison in California, she decided to make a documentary about mandatory federal sentencing guidelines and their unintended consequences.

Rev. Mummert tells the story of Hamedah Hasan, who was charged with conspiracy and drug trafficking after moving in with a cousin. All evidence pointed to Ms. Hasan playing a minimal role in her cousin's drug operation, but because she refused to provide information about her cousin, she was charged and convicted of multiple drug offenses. Due to mandatory sentencing requirements, Ms. Hasan was sentenced to two life sentences, two forty year sentences, two twenty year sentences, a five and a four year sentence for essentially not cooperating with federal prosecutors. Rev. Mummert found out about Ms. Hasan's case and began to help shed light on the fight to reduce the sentence and free Hamedah Hasan. Rev. Mummert created a film entitled Perversion of Justice, which discusses Ms. Hasan's situation, and highlights the flaws in federal mandatory sentencing guidelines.

This film highlights what I consider to be a major problem in America today; the inflexibility of mandatory minimum criminal sentences. Most of the those laws were put into place during the national crime spike of the late '80's and early '90's. Many people were frightened by rising crime rates, and one of the surest ways for a politician to get elected was to rail against crime. "Git Tuff" replaced "Get Smart", and mandatory sentences, three strikes laws, and ramping up of the drug war became the new clarion calls. Arguments relating to economics, social and political inequalities, and racial tensions were derided. Sound bites replaced reasoned and thoughtful debate. Politicians didn't become elected because they wanted to get to the root of crime and figure out the origin of crimes and criminals. Rehabilitation was no longer popular. Lock 'em away, fry 'em, and other simplistic slogans became the focus of the debate.

So many people were locked away for simple possession of drugs, while prisons became too overcrowded for housing violent criminals. Oversight diminished as more criminals were sent to privatized prisons. During the '90's, the economy greatly improved, and, as normally happens, the crime rate dropped. Still, few seemed to understand the corrolation. Blaming the criminals for all of society's ills is still more likely to get someone elected than blaming society's ills for criminals. One argument requires nothing more than sound bites and angry speeches. The other requires analysis and a reasoned, nuanced approach. Pretty clear what people with short attention spans will respond better to.

So, judges are forced to give women like Hamedah Hasan centuries in prison for associating with criminals (her first offense, by the way). The utter inflexibility of the sentencing requirements force the hand of an increasingly disrespected and weakened judiciary system.
And, it's not just excessive drug policy. I first noticed the issue of excessive sentences when hearing about the cases of several juveniles in Colorado. In the mid nineties, several cases involving teenagers came to prominence.

Nathan Ybanez and Erik Jensen are both spending the rest of their lives in prison for something that happened when they were 16. Nathan killed his mother in a psychotic episode after years of abuse. Erik was charged with assisting his friend in the crime. Neither are likely to get out should their appeals fail.

Trevor Jones accidently shot a friend when a gun discharged unintentionally. The friend died and Trevor is now spending the rest of his life in prison thanks to an accident that occured while he was 17.

Andrew Medina was involved with a carjacking at the age of 15. The vicitim was shot during the process, and even though half of the jury didn't even consider Andrew to be the shooter, much less an actual participant, he is now serving a life sentence in a Colorado prison.

These stories and others once again serve to highlight the flaws in our current criminal justice system.

Serious changes need to be made involving sentencing guidelines. Too many judges are forced to sentence people to prison times that don't appear to fit the crime. Too much emphasis is made on punishment, and not nearly enough on rehabilitation.

The whole point of the trial system is for the judge to look at an individual case and decide on appropriate action based on the individual circumstances. However, when all that is available is a sheet of numbers designed to shoehorn widely ranging individuals and events in a neat box, justice becomes difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.

It makes no sense not to look at every case and factor in motivation, circumstance, history, background, and environment before deciding to fill America's already overcrowded prisons with a person who may not even need to be there.

It actually costs the taxpayers less money to send a person to college then to prison for life. A person is much more likely to become a functional member of society if they are educated than incarcerated.

As I said before, lawmakers who can make the needed changes to the law don't become elected because they want to think carefully about issues. Appealing to people's fears and base emotions are the surest ways to get votes. It is an outrage that more Congressmen and women aren't discussing this issue. I encourage everyone reading this to contact their Congressional representatives and write letters to their local newspapers.

http://www.perversionofjustice.com/index.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/whenkidsgetlife/five/
http://www.denverpost.com/teencrime/ci_3530251
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/letters/

Independent Coffee

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:45:00 +0000

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/business/30sbux.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

This article was in the New York Times in January. It was about the decline of $tarbucks (finally), and specifically highlighted an independent coffeehouse that $tarbucks couldn't kill. Namely, the Broadway Cafe, which is one of my favorite haunts. With the possible exception of Vivace in Seattle, Broadway has the best coffee of any coffeehouse I've been to (and I've got quite a list). Several years ago, a $tarbucks moved in next door, but Broadway never lost any business. And just recently, that particular $tarbucks announced that it is closing.

It was nice to see the New York Times do a piece on something here in KC, especially involving one of my favorite places. I've been a regular at Broadway Cafe since 1996, and I'm glad to see it getting recognition.

Kansas City Renaissance, part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:21:00 +0000

I promised I would post more pics from my ongoing Kansas City Renaissance. There will probably be more later on. Once again, most of these are fairly recent (taken within the past month), with a couple taken earlier in the year. All of the photos were taken with my cell phone, so that's my lame excuse regarding the quality. Most of my recent travels have been within the downtown/midtown/plaza/waldo corridor. However, there will probably be more photos turning up later on that encompass the entire metro area.

Enjoy!

One Kansas City Place.

Plaza Library.

Geese (and a few ducks) in the pond at Loose Park. This was taken back in March '07.

Down the street from the Downtown Library.

Driving by the fountains at Crown Center.

Same building as above, down the street from the library.

Downtown Library parking garage (obvious where I spend my time).

Near 18th & Grand.

First Fridays, November 2007.

Ward Pkwy & J.C. Nichols Pkwy (I swear I wasn't driving that fast).

9th & Wyandotte, looking south.

Those were the days... actually, it's an abandoned station at 51st & Main. Frozen in time...

Once again at the downtown library. This time, looking out the window across the street from the main entrance.

Board of Trade parking garage.

On Broadway, downtown.

My Kansas City Renaissance

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:04:00 +0000

One of my all-time favorite television shows is Sports Night. The show Aaron Sorkin did before The West Wing only lasted two seasons, but packed in more memorable moments than almost any other show I've ever seen. Every few months, I go back and rewatch the whole series on DVD. I never get sick of it. However, in my most recent viewing of the series, one plotline in particular stood out for me. In one of the first episodes, the character Dan goes through what he calls his "New York Renaissance." He becomes mildly obsessed with the city of New York, its culture, history, and people. Dan (like every other character on the show) makes a long-winded speech detailing his newfound appreciation of his home. It's pretty entertaining stuff.

But, for me, it also has a ring of truth.

I may be having to move out of town in a few months, sufficiently far away that visits back to Kansas City will be seldom. The move isn't a done deal just yet, and it will probably only be temporary, but it is still freaking me out. I am beginning to appreciate things about this town that I had sometimes taken for granted.

My next couple blog entries are going to be both a written and pictoral celebration of Kansas City. I've been out and about the last few weeks, travelling through the city on foot and by car. And, I've taken quite a few photos with my cell phone. These photos capture things that I like about my hometown. Most have been taken in the past two weeks, although a few are a little older. I'll be sharing a few of these over the next few entries, or at least until I get this wave of nostalgia and regret out of my system.

12th & Broadway

Westport Rd & Pennsylvania

Skyline from around 16th & Baltimore

Woods near Lawrence, KS, 2006

Skyline from Truman Rd

Sunset in Brookside

The Writer's Place, Valentine & Pennsylvania

KC Star Printing Plant

Loose Park Rose Garden

Downtown

Royals game, 2007

Standing downtown at 13th & Central

More to come soon...

Movie Review - The Golden Compass

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:23:00 +0000

Stephanie and I bought tickets to see a sneak preview of The Golden Compass earlier this evening. Until a few days ago, I'll admit I hadn't heard of it or the book that it was based on.

The Golden Compass is an epic fantasy based on a three novels written by a British author. Much of the film (and original book) contains strong religious commentary. Hmmm... where have we seen this before?

While comparisons to Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia are warranted, however, this is definitely an original story. Based on the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, it tells the story of a 12-year-old girl named Lyra Belacqua, who embarks on a journey to uncover an insidious conspiracy and rescue her best friend. Anthropomorphic bears, an army of witches, an interesting mix of advanced technology and Victorian atmosphere, and animal spirit guides that act as human souls are just part of Lyra's adventures. But, what has created controversy is the handling of religious belief. The "Magisterium", a thinly veiled euphemism for the Catholic Church, pretty much appears to be the primary authoritative body in this universe. They are conniving and ruthless, and seem to get a kick out of performing vile experiments on children and supressing scientific progress. Obviously a critical allegory. The author is an atheist, and is a vocal critic of religion, and the religious allegory in The Chronicles of Narnia. Many within the Catholic Church are up in arms about this movie and have also criticized the novels. Sort of like what happened with the Kevin Smith film Dogma. And, like Dogma, the criticism (to these agnostic eyes) appears to be unjustified.

According to what I have read, much of the religious allegory has been toned down for the movie. And, what remains is more generic, primarily a criticism of intolerance and ignorance in general. Not quite as powerful as before, but hardly worthy of controversy. I guess some people just aren't happy unless they have something to get worked up about.

Anyway, on to the movie. Because this film was based on the first part of a three-part story, it is clear that a sequel (actually two) is intended. Indeed, the rather abrupt ending is clearly leading into another chapter. I have read that the producers are waiting to see how successful the film is before committing to any sequels - probably a smart move. However, the ending is SO blatantly setting up the next part, that not continuing the series would nearly ruin this movie. And that would be a shame, because this really is a well-made film. The production values are superb, although that's not really surprising considering the $200 million budget. The plot moves along quickly. In fact, when it ended, I felt like the movie was too short (not having read the books yet, I can't say what has been omitted). The Golden Compass was well-paced, and at less then two hours, much shorter than other recent fantasy epics. The acting was uniformly excellent, especially Dakota Blue Richards, the young actress who plays the heroine of the tale. The CGI work is pretty obviously computer-generated, however, it is integrated quite well with the flesh and blood actors and scenery, so that willing suspension of disbelief is easy. I found it to be fairly straightforward, plot-wise, and while I was unfamiliar with the source material, I had no trouble keeping up. The overall feel of the movie definitely lived up to the concept of an epic. Having said that, it felt strange to be unhappy that a movie wasn't longer, considering the glut of overlong, bloated, big-budget monstrosities that have hit theatres in recent years.

I have to say I sincerely hope that the sequels are made, because while it is a very competent stand-alone fantasy epic, the ending leaves us hanging. Despite the good vs. evil story line, the religious controversy, and the impressive visuals, it's potential lies in what happens next.

At the very least, I should read the books.

A tongue-in-cheek thought about the writers strike

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:41:00 +0000

With no malice intended toward the screenwriters (or the tv and film industry in general), I'm kind of rooting for an extended writer's strike. It was predicted that a three month strike would prevent new tv and film projects from running until Jan 2009. I hate to say it, but I'm somewhat happy to hear that.

Now, let me backtrack for a moment here. I understand the economic implications of an extended strike. I understand there are a lot of employees besides writers and actors that stand to lose money here. I understand that the writers themselves are going to suffer from this unless they can get the outcome they're looking for.

However, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who thinks its a good idea that there would be no more new episodes of television shows for a while. Maybe it would be good for people to spend less time in front of the television, melting their brains away... Nah, who am I kidding? People will just shift over to their computers, instead.

Seriously though, this reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons (Yes, I get the irony of complaining about television by referencing a tv show.). I'm thinking of an episode in one of the early seasons where Marge successfully changed the format of the ultra-violent children's cartoon Itchy and Scratchy. Now repulsed by the newly pacifistic nature of the show, the children of Springfield began to leave their houses and discover the outdoors. The scene where an entire neighborhood of children open their front doors at once, rubbing their eyes in unison at the sunlight is a classic. The lack of interest in tv enriched their lives. Ah... how nice that would be.

Having said all that, I'm not anti-television. There are some programs and channels that have genuine artistic or educational value. And, I truly love watching movies. So, no, I'm not really for a greatly extended writer's strike. But, if people only had reruns to watch, maybe some of them would start to tear themselves away from a more sedentary lifestyle, and go out and live! People could began discovering the outdoors before we melt it all or fill it with smog. Heh. Clearly, a little less tv would be a good thing for people. So, despite the fact that my sympathies lie with the writer's grievances, I wouldn't mind this lasting a little longer. Hey, maybe they can write about the strike when it's over.

Yes, they are bigots...

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:18:00 +0000

Barely coherent rant alert...

I was driving to my girlfriend's place from work at about 3 pm today. I'm scanning through the radio stations, when I come across someone talking about gay marriage. I always enjoy controversial topics, so I stay on the station for a minute. Fairly quickly, I realize the people talking are definitely against gay marriage. Mostly for religious regions, it appears. Obviously people I disagree with, but for some reason I ended up listening to the discussion for the entire 35 min drive.

The hosts of the radio show (89.7 FM, which is either out of Baker University in Baldwin City, KS or it's a station in Great Bend, KS) spent the half hour that I was listening talking about the issue with each other and several call-in guests. Now, I understand that there are people who don't like gay people. But, it never fails to baffle me how people like that can justify their bigotry.

As I listened, several things stood out to me. First and foremost was the underdog mentality. To the people on this show (I never did catch the name of the show), the "gay agenda" is being foisted on them by a vast left wing conspiracy of "activists." Repeatedly the word "juggernaut" was used. To these individuals, it is almost inevitable that gay marriage will soon be forced upon an unwary and apathetic populace. A common mentality among all sides of pretty much any political debate is that everyone is an underdog (of course, with the silent support of the the majority of the populace) and they are fighting the good fight against an implacable and unstoppable foe. The anti-gay hosts and callers of this show had this particular mentality in abundance. Despite the fact that a depressingly large majority of Americans seem to be against legal marriage for gays (according to recent polls).

Another common theme was the resentment. Resentment that people who are anti-gay are often labeled as bigots. The hosts mentioned several times that they don't appreciate being compared to racists. They cite their support of interracial relationships as a sign of their lack of bigotry. Implicit in this observation is the unspoken statement that gay people are okay to discriminate against. They are apparently somehow less important or more dangerous than other marginalized groups of people. The hosts of this radio show seem to think gay people are less worthy of being treated like every other human being. That they are not worthy of the same rights as "straight" people. And why is that? Because the Bible says that gay people are inherently immoral. Because most conservative religious movements are afraid of or genuinely hate homosexuals. The hosts of the radio show that I listened to believe that people's personal consensual relationships are reason enough to deny the same rights everyone else has to one group. What gay people do is apparently their business. And they feel that the "gay agenda" is a movement intended to corrupt their idea of civilization.

Wow.

Scary stuff, as far as I'm concerned. As I've said before, I'm not naive enough to be surprised by this. But the way people justify fear and ignorance still astounds and disgusts me. And yes, wanting to deny millions of people the same rights that the rest of the country gets because of their personal sexual preferences is bigotry. Some people just seem to have the urge to tell other people what to do. To tell other people not to be who they are. It sickens me. And when someone criticizes this bigotry, the bigots claim that THEY are the ones being discriminated against.

The hosts of the radio show seem to want the country run as a conservative Christian theocracy. One where millions of people would be treated like second-class citizens because they are different. Because they don't conform to a narrow world-view. That's not bigotry? What the hell? And when they mention the Constitution, the hypocrisy makes me nauseous. That little part about not basing any laws on religious reasons appears to elude these people.

I know, I know. There are many religious people who aren't that ignorant. There are, in fact, many religious gays. That's fine, but it scares me when people espouse the notion that millions of people are unworthy of marrying each other because of what's written in a book. And the number of people who feel this way is vast. Possibly a majority of the United States.

The hosts of the radio show somehow feel that their "way of life" is being threatened. Because the "sacred institution of marriage" is being opened up in a handful of states to all citizens, these bigots think that gay people are fundamentally bad people, or at least morally inferior to heterosexuals. And then they cry when they are compared to racists. My goodness, how can they miss the hypocrisy?!

Before I let this rant get too out of hand, I better stop. I just want to conclude with an observation.

When people from other countries worry that America is full of crazy bigots and hate-mongers, this kind of thing is part of the reason. It isn't helping our standing in the international community. Ignorant fear doesn't solve problems or make friends. but, I guess to some people, that doesn't matter.

Sprint Center

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:47:00 +0000

Now that the new Sprint Center is opening up in downtown Kansas City, the city is going to have to find things to do with it. Obviously, there are a large number of concerts lined up for the arena. And the Big 12 basketball tournament should return to KC (at least part-time). However, for the moment, there is no anchor tenant. No major sports team to keep the Sprint Center hopping. I imagine it will be at least a year before anything like the NBA or NHL or even WNBA comes calling. Probably longer. Having said that, there is something close to my heart that I would love to see take place at the Sprint Center.

Boxing.

Specifically, championship fights. Major fights have occured in Kansas City plenty of times in the past. In the '90's, adopted Kansas Citian Tommy Morrison fought here. Several regional favorites have fought here, mostly at the casinos.

Both Memphis and St. Louis have hosted major fights in the past few years. Kansas City now has an arena which can be used to put on a first-class boxing show. A major title fight could fill the arena, and bring in plenty of money. As sordid as boxing's image is, it does bring a big time atmosphere that can boost this city.

I'll admit that I'm biased here. Boxing is my favorite sport, and I would love to see more of it here in town. But, I honestly do believe hosting some big time fights could be good for the city. It would help boost the city's image as a major-league player in the sports (and economic) world. It would take some effort, but a midwestern fighter like middleweight champ Kelly Pavlik could easily sell out a fight here.

Just a suggestion for filling the new arena and bringing in some much-needed attention to KC.

More on Clay...

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:45:00 +0000

Why can't Clay Chastain just leave us alone? What did we do to him? I was listening to Chastain rant and rave on Steve Kraske's show on KCUR Friday morning. Clay was argumentative, repetitive, and completely irrational. So one would ask, how is this any different from normal? Truthfully it's not, but that's part of the problem.

Chastain spent the interview arguing with the other guests, and hammering the same tired, discredited points over and over again. His light rail plan will cost MUCH more than what he claims. Including inflation (remember, even if his plan did get approved, actual work wouldn't start for 5 or 6 years), his projected cost for the light rail proposal falls nearly a billion short. Even without inflation, he's still 500 million short.

So Clay's not an economist. So? Well, he's also not much of a civil planner. His idea is to cross the Heart of America bridge and head north to the airport. It has been established by city engineers that the bridge cannot handle the weight of the trains and the infrastructure required to support them. His solution? A stoplight. That's right, a friggin' stoplight, to keep cars and trucks off the bridge while the train passes. Yeah, that makes sense. Even though he's been told that the bridge can't handle a train with or without cars, he still stubbornly clings to his stoplight idea. Why? Because reinforcing or replacing the bridge would cost at least 60 million.

Let's see, what else is wrong with his plan? Oh yeah, Broadway. That's right, Broadway is the main drag he wants the track to take. Businesses on Broadway have all objected to having light rail run down their street. Broadway was not built to handle light rail. Main Street, on the other hand, is. Businesses on Main want light rail. Light rail actually makes more sense on Main than on Broadway. So, of course, Clay wants light rail on Broadway instead. Jeez...

After all of this, Clay still is threatening to sue the city if they decide to propose a new plan. He's been told that his idea as it stands now is unfeasible. He knows that the current city council and Mayor Funkhouser all want some form of light rail. Why does he have to be so irrational about this? For someone who doesn't live here, he's awfully obsessed with messing with the town.

I understand that his proposal did pass. I understand that the voters agreed to it. But I also understand a little common sense is in order. The description on the ballot was long, complicated, and I imagine very few people actually read all of it. The voters also didn't realize the many errors in planning and funding that the proposal's architect made. So, I don't see the problem in throwing out something that simply won't work, and replacing it with a new, more moderate and sensible proposal. I don't think it's undemocratic. The people of Kansas City will still get a chance at light rail. Hopefully though, with a plan that won't screw up the city. Hopefully crafted by someone with some sense, and without an axe to grind.

Forgive me for constantly ranting about Clay Chastain, but I feel a certain amount of outrage. Here is a man who is hell-bent on spending taxpayer money on unfeasible projects. He's correct in that Kansas City needs better public transportation. But, spending money that isn't there for a huge train system that nobody will use is just plain lunacy. I personally think he should be banned from proposing ANYTHING for Kansas City again. Especially considering HE'S NOT A RESIDENT OF KANSAS CITY. I don't care that he used to live here. He moved away, so he shouldn't continue to haunt us.

Phew, that feels better...

I just don't get it...

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:10:00 +0000

I was listening to a segment on NPR a few hours ago, that was discussing a ruling in New Hampshire that legalized civil unions for same-sex couples. Naturally, it was a contentious issue, one that riled up people on both sides. But, the more I listened to those who are opposed to same-sex unions, the more confused I became. The reason one guy gave for being against the civil unions had nothing to do with religion, or morality, or anything like that. He basically just finds gay people gross. He didn't understand why gay people even exist. Listening to the program, I was shocked. I'm not trying to sound naive. I understand that there are ignorant people in the world. I understand that people are scared of things they don't understand. But, it still bothers me. Gay people are human, just like straight people. They harm nobody by pursuing relationships with each other. And yet, people still seem to want to tell them not to do what comes naturally.

I guess this just comes down to my general attitude of civil libertarianism (small-l). If a person isn't harming someone else, and their personal relations are between consenting adults, then they should be able to do pretty much what they want. Seems simple enough to me, and yet so many people don't get it. One person complained that "this lifestyle is being forced on us," or something of that nature. Really? I wanted to ask the guy who was forcing him to marry another man. I want to know why people feel so threatened by gay people being able to have legal civil unions.

I honestly do understand most of these attitudes come from ignorance and fear, but it doesn't make it right. I just wish I knew what we could do to help people get over their fears. Because right now, fear often dictates legislation, and that is where our civil liberties become infringed. That to me is much scarier than whether or not consenting adults wish to engage in legal and completely harmless relationships.

Geek Alert!

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:54:00 +0000

Let me start by delivering a warning to those who may be unfortunate enough to view this blog.

I...am a geek (cue gasps of shock and dismay). Yeah, I know, big deal, right? Well, part of what makes me completely hopeless is my compulsive need to make lists and rankings. Part of this stems from being a boxing fan. Those who follow boxing closely are often huge fans of rankings. The whole sport is organized (sort of) by ranking fighters. And the fans and writers love lists that rank various people in various categories. I am guilty of this myself.

However, it isn't just boxing (my all time top 100 heavyweights list is coming soon on http://hunterboxing.blogspot.com) . I often find myself ranking things in other aspects of life. I've done my top ten favorite cars of all time. I've ranked all of the U.S. Presidents, even breaking things down into categories (17 total). But, one of my lists has to do with something I will probably write about a lot. Movies. I love 'em. I love going to a movie theatre and immersing myself in the whole experience. Even if the movie isn't any good, I still often manage to enjoy myself. And with the advent of DVD's, I am amassing a growing library of my favorite movies.

So, where is all of this going? Well, pretty soon I'm going to start a 10 part series on my top 100 movies of all time. Not the best movies, mind you, or the most popular, but my favorites. I know this topic isn't all that relevant to everyday life, but it's my blog dammit, and I find this sort of thing fun. I'll still write about different, more serious topics, but every once in a while I like to break up the monotony with something fun. And, I actually enjoy reading other people's lists of favorite things, movies included.

I've seen enough movies that I was tempted to do a top 200, or even 300 list, but I thought that might be pushing it. I will say that the list isn't necessarily going to reflect what is considered "good" cinema. Not entirely, anyway. This will be a list of movies that I enjoy. I can acknowledge that Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Schindler's List, and Gone With the Wind are all amazing movies, and that from a "quality" standpoint, they are probably all "better" movies than most of my list. But, they aren't all movies that I want to watch over and over again.

Probably in a couple weeks I will start with 100-91 on my top 100 list, then do the next ten every few days. Admittedly, this list is more for me than anything else, as most people (not that anyone actually reads this blog) probably don't care about my opinions. However, there is a certain catharsis in writing for a public audience, even if that audience is limited. So be prepared, for I will soon be subjecting all those within earshot to my top 100 movies of all time!

What The Hell Is Wrong With Clay Chastain?

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 03:45:00 +0000

Back in November 2006, voters in Kansas City unexpectedly approved a ballot issue which authorizes a 3/8-cent sales tax to pay for a light rail system. I was surprised that the light rail proposal passed, as several have been offered in the past decade or so, and every single one has not made it past the voters. This one did. Like the previous initiatives, this one was championed by Clay Chastain, a former KC resident and general annoyance.

Apparently, most people didn't actually read any of the details of the proposal. The tax that was approved to pay for the construction of the system isn't likely to come close to covering the enormous cost of the project. The proposed route essentially means shutting down Broadway, which may very well cripple traffic in Midtown. The gondolas Chastain wants in Penn Valley Park don't meet federal guidelines. Due to the fact that the line would cross a bridge owned by the state, and pass through another city (Gladstone), there are many jurisdictional issues. Federal funding will be vital to the success of the light rail system, but there are no guarantees that the money will come.

I am not against the concept of light rail in Kansas City. One of this city's weakest points is our lackluster public transportation system. A large land area, low population density, and a long local history of auto manufacturing means that we are much more dependent on cars than we should be. The problem is, the plans that Chastain constantly forces down our throats have all been unrealistic and unfeasible. The plan that actually passed is one of the worst yet.

City Manager Wayne Cauthen has stated that there is a need to rework the light rail proposal into something more workable. A tweaked ballot initiative with a shorter route (preferably down Main St. instead of Broadway) and a greater understanding of city infrastructure is required. Almost everybody who has actually studied the plans seems to agree. And yet, Chastain, who isn't even a resident of the city anymore, is threatening to sue unless the proposal is carried out in exactly the way that he wants it. Is this guy trying to destroy KC? Does he really dislike this town as much as his actions indicate?

This whole situation reminds me of a Simpsons episode, "Marge vs. the Monorail." In the episode (which was actually a nice homage to "The Music Man"), a huckster from out-of-town named Lyle Lanley shows up at a town meeting with an idea for how to spend a large surplus of money that was recently acquired. He proposes that the town build a monrail for public transportation. He sings, dances, makes the idea sound good, and cons the town into going for it. The monorail itself turns out to be a relic from the 1964 World's Fair, and is a deathtrap. The entire monorail is a disaster. Does this episode sound familiar? Sly out-of-towner bamboozles town into building a costly public transportation system that has disaster written all over it from day one? Hell, they even both have alliterative names! In all seriousness, the City Council, the Mayor (both outgoing and incoming), and the City Manager should all put their foot down and tell Lyle Lanley, I mean, Clay Chastain to back off and let us fix the mess he started. One man should not be allowed to wreck Kansas City.

Stereotypes in race and sports...

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:50:00 +0000

I was listening to Dan Patrick's radio show a couple weeks ago, and he came to an interesting topic. Dan and Keith Olbermann were discussing Joe Biden and George W. Bush's recent comments describing Barack Obama as "clean" and "articulate". Naturally, comments like that would cause an uproar, or at the very least, plenty of heated discussion. Dan and Keith were discussing those comments as seen through the filters of a sports fan. In sports, there are often coded words used to describe certain athletes of every race. "Clean" and "articulate" are often used to describe a black athlete who is generally media friendly. "Well-spoken" is another code phrase. Obviously, the general idea is that people are surprised to find out that a black person can actually be articulate and clean, and this is somehow a cause for astonishment and celebration. I do realize that words like that may not be intended by the speaker to be condescending, but in this age of political correctness, it would be naive of most people not to recognize how those words can sound.

I'm sure that Biden and Bush were not consciously using those words to express surprise at Obama's intelligence or cleanliness, but they should have realized how it sounded. What, did they expect a United States Senator to be inarticulate? To have poor hygenie? To act like a punk or thug? To walk around acting like every negative sterotype of African-Americans? Bush isn't that bright, but his handlers should have known better than to let him say that. Biden should have known better, period.

A lot of white Americans don't seem to realize that blacks are not some monolithic, static group. There is huge variation between them. Some are smart and successful, some aren't. Just like every ethnic group. Calling a black person, athlete or not, "articulate" and "well spoken" makes it sound like they aren't normally that way. It is condscending, unconscious or not. In the sports world, you hear those cliches a lot. Black athletes are also often described as "athletic" and "physically gifted", while their white counterparts are "gritty", "hard working", and "blue collar". The idea there is that white guys can't be good athletes, and have to compensate for their lack of athleticism with guts and determination. Conversely, black guys are naturally athletic, and don't have to work hard to succeed.

These stereotypes are obviously absurd on the surface. And they aren't usually meant to be used to stereotype people. I personally don't try to find conspiracies and hidden meanings in everything. Sometimes though, these are code words used to describe someone's actual feelings. And sometimes, the meanings behind these phrases are unconcious, playing at the stereotypes that many people often think of without realizing it.

Language can be a powerful thing. And when misused, it can hurt, even unintentionally. I don't believe in censorship. Free speech is incredibly important. However, one consequence of free speech is the potential backlash from poorly thought-out commentary. Sure, Tim Hardaway can say he hates gay people, but he needs to be prepared for the understandable reactions to his ignorance. And senators and presidents can use thinly-veiled racial codes out of either malice or ignorance. But they shouldn't be too surprised at the responses their words generate.

Who I am...

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:18:00 +0000

If anybody is interested in knowing more about me, the best way would be to head over to my profile page on MySpace.

http://www.myspace.com/musashi_1

That page contains all the information anyone could possibly want to know about me.

Of course, I may just be providing this link because I'm lazy.

Probably.

The first entry is a sad one...

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter Breckenridge) — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:48:00 +0000

My name is Hunter Breckenridge, and I am starting a new blog. I had wanted my first entry on my new blog to be fun and at least moderately entertaining. Unfortunately we have lost someone very important, and as such, the fun can wait. I wrote this mini-obit on myspace earlier tonight, and I'm posting it here. I recommend that everyone go and learn about Molly Ivins, because she truly was a brilliant columnist and a great person.

----------------------------------------------------

Molly Ivins died yesterday at her home in Austin, Texas. She was 62. Molly had been suffering from cancer since 1999, but had not let it keep her from her work.

There is a nice tribute to Molly here: http://www.creators.com/opinion/molly-ivins/molly-ivins-tribute.html

It is more eloquent than what I could write, but I would still like to say a few words about her and her work.

Molly was one of the best political columnists I have ever read. She was intelligent, witty, and had a superb bullshit detector. Reading Molly's columns on the opinion page of the Kansas City Star helped me get interested in politics and the world around me. She was brutally honest, and took no prisoners in her writing, which earned her accolades and occasionally subjected her to attacks.

One of my favorite Molly quotes involved her response to such an attack. The attack came from Rush Limbaugh. "Being attacked by Rush is like being gummed by a newt. It doesn't hurt, but leaves slime on your ankle."

Molly was from Texas, and got her start writing about the peculiarities of Texas politics. She was never short of material, and always had more than enough bizzare happenings to discuss. She was there for George W. Bush's run for governor in '94, and she warned us about him well before he ran for President. Nobody else seemed to understand how Bush managed to get as far as he did, but if we listened to Molly, things might be different.
I always looked forward to reading Molly's columns, and it's not gonna be the same without her. She let us know about all sorts of rats, snakes, Bushes, and other vermin, but she did it with humor and class. Most columnists and so-called "pundits" could have learned from her.

You've earned your rest, Molly.