The Usual Suspects

Hurtin' for Certain

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:47:08 PST

I've neglected my blog for over a year. For shame. As a blogger, I FAIL miserably. In my defense, I've been spending my spare time in the studio working on music -- no time to blog.

I still read blogs regularly. In fact, one of my favorite bloggers, Cameron -- over at Get the Stink Off -- inspired my most recent song. His post, "(Blog) Gang Wars," was so entertaining that I was forced to make like a Bollywood movie and bust out in song.

The song is called Hurtin' for Certain and was intended as a soundtrack, of sorts, to his hilarious Blog Wars post.

And of course, for my first post in over a year, I figured it would be a good idea to piss off all the members of our two local forums . . . and Billy. :)

Without further ado . . .

<----play

Hurtin’ for Certain

I am just yer average boy

Raised in Central Illinois

Searchin’ for enlightenment somewhere

I am just yer typical guy

The night-life barely gets me by

I can feel Peoria’s despair

Cause they be hurtin’ for certain over there

So, I went down to PDC

Them Neocons, all gun crazy

To get myself some Kool-Aid that they drink

But I can’t seem to get along

Them right-wing nuts just can’t be wrong

You’d think that Rush Limbaugh lived over there

Man, they were hurtin’ for certain

They be hurtin’ for certain

They were hurtin’ for certain over there

Man, we all gotta put our faith in somethin’ sometimes, but Rush Limbaugh sure ain’t it.

Now, go reward yerself with a cold, delicious beer.

Now we’re talkin’!

I clicked on PeoriaSpeaks

To hit that bong with them hippie freaks

All them girls got flowers in their hair

And all them dudes, they got no jobs

They whine all day on liberal blogs

Spreadin’ Commie bullshit everywhere

And they were hurtin’ for certain over there

So, I went down to Billy’s site

Man, all them typos can’t be right

Where the fuck did that dude learn to write?

He steals his crap from PJ Star

From your friends’ blogs you will be barred

If you leave a comment he can’t bear

‘Cause they were hurtin’ for certain

They were hurtin’ for certain

They were hurtin’ for certain over there

Everybody now

They were hurtin’ for certain

They were hurtin’ for certain over there

Credits:
Words and Music by Kevin Lowe
Kevin Lowe - acoustic and electric guitars, mandolins, harmonica, bass guitar, drums, vocals, tambourine
Howie - beer

Copyright © 2009 Kevin Lowe

Download here (right click, "Save target as")

One Life Down

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:52:33 PST

But, 8 lifes left . . . U not rid me yet.

Let's Review . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:47:52 PST

My diet over the past twenty-four hours:

1. Friday Morning Breakfast

Large cafe latte. Brewed at home with my trusty Tassimo machine. One-third milk; one-third half-and-half; one-third espresso. Breakfast of champions, I tell you.

2. Friday Lunch

Five pieces of chocolate that I appropriated from Judge Borden's clerk, Lynn.

3. Friday Dinner

Beer and cigarettes. Too many beers; too many cigarettes (I'm trying to quit smoking, but the beer makes it difficult)(I'm trying to quit drinking, but the cigarettes make it difficult).

(Actually, that was at the Peoria Oktoberfest, not last night - but the thought remains the same.)

(Yeah, nor was that last night - but the thought remains the same. The Usual Suspects, from left: The Great Howenski, My Girl, The Usual Suspect)

4. Friday Late-Night Snack

Nacho Cheese Doritos (Dude!), Lay's Potato chips, one bite of an uncooked Pop-Tart (frosted strawberry, naturally). More beer.

5. Breakfast This Morning

More Doritos (Nacho Cheese, of course, Dude), a McDonald's Sausage and Egg Biscuit with Hash Brown. Two large cafe lattes. No more beer, mercifully.

Of course, I should have gone to Hardee's for something like this:

Or perhaps, turn on the deep-fryer for something a bit more respectable:

Richard Simmons would be so proud.

(Oh, and I want to generate some hits on this post, so here's a cool picture of Johnny Depp:)

(And Julianne Nicholson:)

6. Now, What's for Lunch . . . ?

The Jessica Alba Experiment

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:36:11 PST

Introduction: The Value of a Blog, or Why My Blog Sucks Ass

I have no idea what makes a blog valuable. Over at the Peoria Speaks! forum, Katie posted an interesting link. It's a site that purports to determine the value of a blog. In other words, it attempts to answer the question, "How much is your blog worth?" To find out, you simply enter your web address. The site will then perform its voodoo calculation of your blog's dollar value. For example, Peoria Pundits, a popular Peoria blog, returns a value exceeding $50,000. Wow.

Not surprisingly, I was anxious to discover the cash value of my blog, The Usual Suspects. All my hard work and effort. The countless hours spent toiling over my keyboard. The long nights laboring to ferret the intriguing nuggets of wisdom and wit from the dark recesses of my stagnant mind. In all honesty, I fully anticipated that the Internet Gods would reward my labors with a significant sum. I'm talking a substantial dollar figure.

So, last night, I ventured to the site and plugged in my url.

The anticipation was killing me.

And the result was immediate: "My blog is worth $0.00."

Huh? Say again?

"My blog is worth $0.00."

Shit, that's what I thought you said, MoFo.

It's Official: I Suck

Armed with the declaration that I officially suck, I did what any self-respecting blogger would do: I got drunk. And not just a normal drunk. This was the kind of drunk that causes you to wallow pathetically in a world of sorrow and self-pity on the living-room floor, trying to eat a double cheeseburger David Hasselhoff style. The proclamation of worthlessness thus reduced a once proud blogger from pillar of confidence and strength to pile of quivering jello.

For shame.

Thankfully, the drunkenness wore off by mid-afternoon. I declared myself sufficiently sober to play hookie from work while attempting to regain my self-composure. So, regrouping on the couch, I resolved to share my suckiness with the rest of the world. After all, I wouldn't want to propagate the illusion that my blog has value. As a result, I embarked on a journey that has become this post: a confession of sorts. A manifesto of uselessness and futility. The ineffectual words of an ineffectual, inconsequential little dude.

So, Why Do I Suck So Bad?

The question haunted me: Why? Why do I suck so bad?

Determined to answer myself, I curiously delved into the logs of my StatCounter. You know, the free web service that tells you how many hits your blog gets and where those hits come from. The numbers would surely reveal the reason for my ineptitude. After all, numbers never lie. Right?

To my immediate dismay, the answer was obvious: Not many people read my blog. But beyond this trivial concern, another not-so-apparent issue revealed itself. Namely, of the few hits I receive, almost one-third of them comes from Hasselhoffing MoFos trolling for pictures of Jessica Alba and Julianne Nicholson. You heard that right: About one-third of my hits comes from TWO pictures on my blog. The guilty post? Here: "Top 10 Reasons Why I Wanna Be a TV Lawyer."

Well then. I guess it's pretty obvious. I suck because I don't post more pictures of Jessica Alba.

A Declaration (of Sorts)

I hold this truth to be self-evident: Pictures of Jessica Alba generate serious hits, dude. In order to create a More Perfect Blog, I've concluded that additional pictures of Jessica Alba will be required. Furthermore, having resolved to create a "perfect storm" of blog hits, I've decided to launch an experiment to answer a fundamental and persistent question: How many hits can a simple blog generate, within a twelve-month period, posting little else than pictures of Jessica Alba? My hypothesis: the more pictures I post, the more hits I will get.

To answer this question, I deem it necessary to start a new experimental blog. I therefore solemnly publish and declare: This new blog shall be dubbed, "The Jessica Alba Experiment."

Methodology: This is How We Do It

At The Jessica Alba Experiment, I will regularly post pictures of Jessica Alba. I will accompany the pictures with a short caption, which is necessary to ensure that search engines properly index the posts. For example, a post might include a pic along with, "Here's a picture of Jessica Alba not naked." Or, "Jessica Alba, shown in this picture, not video, is not nude."

For good measure, I might occasionally throw in additional pics of other hotties. Of course, I recognize this might skew, or otherwise contaminate, the scientific potential of my research. However, I deem this step necessary to ensure the greatest possible hit potential (also, because I Do Not Know Me will applaud my valiant efforts).

Therefore, without further delay, here's the first pic, which I've borrowed from my TV lawyer post. (My attorney tells me that my use of these images constitutes "fair use," because I am conducting legitimate academic research.)

This picture, not video, shows Jessica Alba not naked (i.e., Jessica Alba not nude):

Conclusion

I encourage all bloggers to approach their own blogs with similar academic zeal. I implore you to implement the scientific method. Identify and diagnose the cause of your worthlessness and/or lack of blogging prowess. Generate a sound hypothesis. Conduct the appropriate research and experimentation. Then, apply creative and pragmatic solutions that squarely address the problem.

Someday, all of us will be worth more that $50K.

P.S. To verify my low self-worth, I again submitted my blog to the value checker. Overnight, despite making no changes, its value skyrocketed from $0 to $1,129.08. It's as if the mere thought of adding more pictures of Jessica Alba had caused my blog to appreciate. Or, perhaps the Internet Gods felt sorry for my pathetic ass and have decided to placate me with a token gesture of worth -- a mere pittance. (I wonder which few words warranted the extra eight cents on that price tag.)

$27 Snap On Face

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:25:11 PDT

It's not what you think. It's not a Halloween mask. I don't think it's the face you wear in public to hide your real persona. Nor the alter ego that hides you from yourself in those internet forums. In fact, I've never figured out what the hell a $27 Snap on Face actually is.

Well, that's not technically correct. While I may not understand what a "snap on face" is, I do know that the "$27 Snap On Face" was a '70s band from Northern California. More specifically, it was my uncle's band.

The Snap On Face released one album in 1977 called "Heterodyne State Hospital" on the independent label, Heterodyne Records. The cover features the band (my uncle is second from left, on the walker) posing as patients of the fictitious Heterodyne State (Mental) Hospital. The back cover reveals additional photos of the band in their asylum poses, faces and limbs contorted and wacky. Politically correct it ain't. Funny? Well, reasonable minds could differ. Personally, I find it hilarious.

These guys were seriously crazy. Well, as one reviewer suggests, "they weren't really asylum inmates (perhaps quite a damaged crew, but not certifiable)." A recent article about the band, verified by my mom, describes their seemingly insane antics in concert: "Onstage, the band lived up to their self-created persona as mentally disturbed individuals by dousing themselves in ketchup, lighting stage props on fire and, at one show christened 'Jacques Cousteau's 25th Annual Toga Party,' performing in a homemade bathysphere on a stage littered with helium-balloon fish." Sounds pretty fuckin' nuts to me. Not surprisingly, mom insists they were very good entertainers and a lot of fun to watch.

I was too young to ever see the band work their magic. I have fond memories, however, of listening to the album as a young child. In fact, I was -- and remain -- in awe of my Uncle Bob and his insane asylum posse. The album itself was cool. Not your standard dark vinyl. This album was blue. A fuckin' blue album. How cool is that?

Some additional links to articles about their album: here and here.

Musically, I love the $27 Snap On Face. Their sound was actually fairly straightforward pop/rock with a few alternative gems thrown in for good measure. My only complaint? On a few tracks, the lyrics could have used some enhancement. If I recall correctly, one of the catchier songs, "Let's Have an Affair," was fairly uninspired lyrically:

Hey, Baby, Let's have an affair

It makes no difference if it's here or there

Hey, Baby, it looks like you could

It may not last long, but its gonna be good

And the very wacky "Tie Your Boots Tight:"

Tie your boots tight

Tie your boots tight, buddy

Tie them up good (as tight as you can)

WTF? Well, what more can you expect from five dudes who made the Looney Tunes seem pretty fuckin' sane?

Another cool thing? My uncle's guitar. It was beautiful natural wood and carved in the shape of a dollar sign. I wish I had a picture of his unique axe. In fact, I'll email him, and if he sends a pic, I'll amend this post to share his pride and joy with everyone.

Oh, and one more cool thing: this record is apparently considered a rare collectable. One site lists it for sale at $125. Another one wants $100. Not bad for an album which, when originally pressed, didn't sell all 1,000 copies.

Now, if only I could sell my CDs at anywhere near $100 a pop . . . Of course, instead of relying on MySpace, I might need to start dousing myself in ketchup, lighting stage props on fire and, at a show christened 'Jacques Cousteau's 25th Annual Toga Party,' perform in a homemade bathysphere on a stage littered with helium-balloon fish.

I'm sure folks would pay some good coin to see that.

I Can Has More Kofee?

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:50:59 PDT

It's Sunday morning. I can has more Kofee?

How to Change Guitar Strings

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:07:21 PDT

Nary a week passes without some want-wit accosting me for advice about changing guitar strings. To better accommodate the guitar-string-changing public, I will therefore outline the basic steps comprising this simple procedure.

Step 1. Name Your Guitar. This initial step is essential and separates the the neophyte from the pro. The meek amateur hasn't the gusto to name his axe. Whereas the confident player struts upon the stage, trusty companion strapped upon him, boldly espousing the virtues of his named compadre.

Only the feeble-minded would ignore this step. After all, your guitar is your friend. And changing your entire set of guitar strings is akin to undressing your guitar. So, ask yourself, "When was the last time I undressed a friend whose name I didn't even know?" (Okay, perhaps some of you should not answer that question).

B.B. King's favorite guitar was named "Lucille." I call mine "Super Fly."

Behold "Super Fly":

Step 2. Grab a Tasty Friend.

Perhaps this should be Step 1.

Anyway, changing the strings will take a while. You don't want to get thirsty. So, grab a friendly beer, or two.

Step 3. Assemble Your Tools.

From the top (approximately 11 o'clock), counter-clockwise: (i) Guitar tuner, (ii) Wire cutter, (iii) New set of strings (choose your gauge wisely), (iv) String winder, and (v) Kazoo.

Step 4(a). Do It. Undress Your Friend. In the guitar context, this is done by loosening the strings with your tuning keys, turning them until the strings are sufficiently slack to slip out of the erect tuning peg and off of the nut.

(Huh, huh . . . he said, "Erect.")

When the strings eventually come off, they will attract special visitors, who want to play with you and your strings.

My visitor was not helpful.

I digress.

So, at this point, your trusty friend should be naked:

(Note the whiskers of my unhelpful visitor, right.)(I know, I know: The wood floor needs refinishing. I'd have the money to get it done, if I didn't spend all my extra cash on guitars.)

Note: some guitar aficionados would cringe upon my removal of all the strings, which reduces the pull upon the neck. They fear this could lead to unhealthy warping of the neck. Fear not. The axe will be re-clothed quickly. Tension will be restored without undo delay. No need to incite a widespread panic.

Step 4(b). Clean Your Nude Friend. It's a great opportunity to do it. So, just do it. With the strings removed, you can easily penetrate those otherwise hard-to-reach places.

Just be sure to use a mild detergent solution on the lacquer. Be especially cautious with the wood fretboard: Here's some fretboard tips from another site.

Step 5. Grab Another Tasty Friend.

I warned you this would take some time. Fear not the flavor, my main man. Quench the thirst.

Step 6. Put Your Clothes Back On. Thread the strings through the retaining tailpiece, over the bridge, and through the tuning peg. (Note the detachable tailpiece, which is another hazard of removing all the strings. Fear not, Guitar Gods. I will obey your commandment: Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Tailpiece).

Use the proper method to minimize slippage at the peg. It's too involved to explain. So, just do it.

The YouTube video, below, illustrates the proper technique at the peg. (Please note: this method assumes a Gibson-style peg, which is the most common. Fender-style pegs will require a similar, but different, method. Don't fret: I know this post will be wildly popular. So, for my encore, I'll add similar instructions using my Fender Stratocaster.)

To make life easier, remember to use the string winder.

It's the little things that make life so enjoyable.

Step 7. Recoup. Wow, that was exhausting. See Step 2 (which should actually be Step 1) and Step 5.

Step 8. Time for a Haircut. At this point, the hair is looking a bit unkempt:

Use your wire-cutters to do the deed:

Ahh, that's much more presentable:

Step 9. Tune Your Trusty Companion. Now that you've cleaned and dressed your amigo, it's time to add the finishing touches: The smell-good. Cologne or perfume, depending on the gender of your strap-on member. You accomplish this with a tuner.

Some Guitar Freaks out there can tune by ear. Good for them. I can do that too, but I prefer the reliable and easy method of plugging my axe into a magical box that tells me when I'm good to go.

Don't be a pretentious chump -- use a tuner.

Also, don't throw away the cover that came with your package of strings. Put it in your guitar case. Why? Well, admit that you are a guitarist: you will eventually forget the gauge of string you put on your guitar. When you break a string, you'll simply retrieve the cover, enabling you to find a suitable replacement of similar thickness. And remember: it's the thickness, not the length, that really matters. (Note the info in the upper right-hand corner of the package.)

Step 10(a). Pump Up the Volume. Once you've achieved proper tunage -- implementing the correct methods and devices -- no barrier on the face of our grand planet should prevent you from plugging your axe into the nearest amplification system. No force of nature can withstand your natural inclination to RAWK hard. Therefore, find the Good Amp and plug in.

Of course, mine goes to eleven.

Step 10(b). RAWK Hard.

(Ten extra points for anyone who can tell me which two chords I'm playing in the above pics.)

And don't forget to invite your other friends:

Also, don't discriminate. Drums are friends, too:

A word of caution: All hell will break loose when The Party finally arrives.

So, never forget to invite your kazoo.

Step 11. See Step 2, Step 5, and Step 7.

This post just had to go to eleven.

Dogs Need Beer, Too!

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:22:00 PDT

Why waste so much time debating politics when DOGS NEED BEER, TOO?

Canines across our great country have been deprived of malt beverages for too long. Studies show that the major breweries have conspired to deprive our beloved pooches of their mass-produced, sweet elixir. There can be no justice until our friendly fellow fidos escape the breweries' insidious discrimination. As patriots, we must unite and, if necessary, bear arms against these tyrannical capitalists. We cannot rest until all dogs can freely, without the fear of persecution or retaliation, imbibe a tall, cool brew, whether it be in the privacy of his own home or in the plain view of his public domain.

I am Sir Constantine Archibald, the founder and President of "Canines Need Beer," an Illinois-based, not-for-profit organization*. We are the nation's foremost advocate of dogs' inherent rights of equal access to beer. Please join our noteworthy crusade now! For a mere pittance (a small $20.00 contribution), you can exercise your inalienable right as an American to support our admirable cause. Join now and fight for fido's right to slurp a smooth sudzy!

Samuel Adams, one of our Nation's revered founding fathers, was a brewer and a Patriot. His dog, Juan Domiquez of Madrid, drank beer daily. Although you may not be a brewer, I am certain you are a Patriot. Follow Sam's commendable example: Give your dog beer today and every day! By contributing toward our campaign, you will cast a financial vote in favor of equality, justice, and the American Way of Life.

Dogs are Americans, too. They deserve beer.

- Sir Constantine Archibald

(Had too much to drink, DAWG?)

*This is not real. But if you are convinced that this organization does exist, I've got some great swamp land down in Florida I could sell you.

Yo, Cubs Fans . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:40:18 PDT

Congratulations on clenching the Central Division!

Good luck in the playoffs.

I Have Altered the Pool . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:41:58 PST

I have altered the pool.

Pray I do not alter it any further.

Any questions?

(P.S. Ever feel like you're just having one of those days?)

(P.P.S. I found this pic on the web a while back. I don't know why, but I find this absolutely hilarious. That's just one pissed-off looking baby!)

New Bloggers in the Peoria, Illinois Area

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:50:00 PDT

New Bloggers in the Peoria, Illinois Area (or, should I say, sites I've only recently discovered):

Sermons from a Barstool. I'd like to welcome my good friend, Howie, to the blogoshpere. He's finally succumbed to the collective pressure of superior intellect and decided to compose his "sermons" online. Appropriately, his first sermon addresses the Chicago Cubs ("the loveable losers," as he calls them).

Peoria in Pictures. As the title suggests, this new blog focuses on the Peoria area via photography. The photographer/author is a "chick who grew up in the southwest eating beans, rice and chile rellenos at least once a week." Anyone who eats chile rellenos at least once per week is good enough in my book. And she has some wonderful pictures, too.

I Do Not Know Me. This author has been blogging for a while, but I only recently found the site. An interesting read, particularly if you share the author's concern for checking out the hotties.

Macombie Adventures. Has also been blogging a while. Her name is Fraochán. She lives in "Near a Cornfield, Illinois," and seems very insightful on various topics, "ranging from issues in Central Illinois, to personal travels and adventures. Sure to be as neurotic as my personality..."

WLW's Ramblings. Comes to us from the area of Bloomington-Normal, Illinois (I think), and currently has a post featuring a recipe for a tasty bowl of goulash. And that should be reason enough to visit his site today and every day. (He's also got some cool pics taken in the course of his travels.)

One and all: Welcome. I'll see ya around the blogoshpere.

In Reponse to "Dear St. Louis Cardinals"

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:35:50 PDT

In response to PeoriaIllinoisan's recent post.

Dear PeoriaIllinoisan, Baseball/Chicago Cubs Fan:

I recognize that you are nervous and somewhat uncertain about the final eight games of the season. The questions must fill your mind, making sleep come slowly, if at all: Will your squad fold under the intense pressure? Will the Cubs bow to their pre-determined destiny to fail on a monumental scale? Will the ghost of the Billy Goat conjure up a veritable army of Bartmans, singularly determined to rip the collective heart from the fans of the very team these Undead Bartmans profess to love? Will Carlos Zambrano simply suck?

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And, based on historic trends, I predict the Cubs' only chance of making the playoffs depends solely on the outcome of the upcoming Cardinals versus Milwaukee series. Therefore, instead of requesting mutual support, I suspect you should get down on your knees (after the appropriate sacrifice to the Baseball Gods) and pray for Divine Intervention. At very least, I advise you to buy a round for your favorite Cardinals Fans and hope that the gesture of goodwill translates into Cardinals victories.

Sincerely,
Kevin Lowe
Baseball/St. Louis Cardinals Fan

Wolfgang's Vault

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:25:16 PDT

"Nothing separates the generations more than music. By the time a child is eight or nine, he has developed a passion for his own music that is even stronger than his passions for procrastination and weird clothes."

- Bill Cosby

In my never-ending quest to build a better internet, I've stumbled upon quite a few interesting sites. With my desire to contribute to the General Good, I feel compelled to pass along cool web locations when I find them.

If you have a passion for music - particularly classic rock concerts - you will love Wolfgang's Vault. In particular, you will dig the concert vault, which the site boldly calls, "The World's Greatest Collection of Vintage Concert Recordings."

In the vault, you will find free streaming audio of concerts from some of the greatest bands in rock history. A quick look at the site's top-rated concerts reveals a number of impressive names:

1. Pink Floyd, 05/09/1977, Oakland Coliseum Arena

2. The Allman Brothers Band, 06/27/1971, Fillmore East

3. Stevie Ray Vaughan, 10/20/1983, Ripley's Music Hall

4. The Band, 08/16/1976, Carter Barron Amphitheater

5. Genesis, 01/24/1975, Shrine Auditorium

6. Muddy Waters Blues Band, 02/15/1978, Bottom Line

7. Lynyrd Skynyrd, 11/06/1975, Cardiff Castle

8. Bruce Springsteen, 03/02/1973, Berkeley Community Theatre

9. Led Zeppelin, 04/27/1969, Set 1 - Fillmore West

10. Bruce Springsteen, 12/15/1978, Winterland

Others include: The Who, Elton John, U2, Steve Miller, AC/DC, Aerosmith, Chuck Berry, David Bowie, Eric Clapton, Cream, Fleetwood Mac, Billy Joel, The Rolling Stones, Santana, Tom Petty, Yes, Stevie Wonder and many more.

"If you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'."

- John Lennon

Much of the Vault's music arrived via concert promoter Wolfgang Grajonca (perhaps better known as the legendary Bill Graham). Apparently, Graham recorded thousands of concerts at his famous venues: The Fillmore (West), The Fillmore (East), and The Winterland. These tapes ended up in the basement of his headquarters and sat dormant for years after his 1991 death. Thankfully, the folks at Wolfgang's Vault eventually purchased the rights to them and have been transferring them to the web for the world to enjoy.

Beyond Graham's recordings, various other concerts were recorded for The King Biscuit Flower Hour, Silver Eagle Cross Country, and Live at the Record Plant.

The original tapes have been digitally re-mastered, but are otherwise unaltered. Thus, the listener hears the music pretty much as it was performed -- without touch-ups or other audio enhancements. And, for the most part, they sound great.

With its huge stash, Wolfgang's Vault is a superb method of whittling away the hours. It's highly entertaining and somewhat addictive -- but, it is much more than a mere entertainment site. The Vault is an historic document: A living, growing testament to some of the greatest musicians ever to grace the world with their unique craftsmanship. (I'll admit, however, the Vault also contains some stinkers: The Thompson Twins, A Flock of Seagulls, Culture Club -- Ahhh! I see Eighties People.)

Observations from the Vault:

Jimi Hendricks really did have a hard time tuning his guitar. He starts his show at the Winterland with two to three minutes worth of guitar tuning. Now, that's entertainment.
Led Zeppelin was not always famous. During their concert, when Jimmy Page breaks a guitar string, the audience remains silent, while Robert Plant meekly apologizes for the delay and politely attempts to engage the non-responsive crowd in conversation about the venue being very warm.
The Police, perhaps thinking they would not be called back for an encore, had already played their entire set-list. When the audience demands another song, they again play "I Can't Stand Losing You," the song that had opened the show. At some point during this concert in Berkeley, California, their drummer, Stuart Copeland, announces, "I went to school here about five years ago."
Bruce Springsteen really did play for hours and hours, although his Winterland concert in 1978 lasted only 2 hours and 45 minutes. Of course, when he was younger (and with fewer songs) he played a concert in Berkeley that lasted a mere forty-two minutes.
Paul Carrack (formerly of Squeeze and Mike and the Mechanics) had a great voice -- even during a 1988 concert at the Ritz in New York where he apologizes repeatedly for his bad case of laryngitis.

If you like classic concerts, Wolfgang's Vault is a must-add site. You can even download some of the shows for a very reasonable price. Also for sale: concert art, apparel, photos, and other concert paraphernalia.

Long Live Wolfgang's Vault!

"It was like being in the eye of a hurricane. You'd wake up in a concert and think: Wow, how did I get here?"

- John Lennon

Building a Better Corn . . . Popcorn, That is!

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:37:50 PDT

The Vic and Awesome Popcorn

For a while, after law school, I worked at the Vic Theatre in Chicago. While chasing The Dream with my band, I worked as a bouncer and bartender to support myself before the inevitable ascent to rock stardom and riches.

Working at the Vic was cool: free concerts, fun people, the occasional celebrity, and Brew & View (watch movies while drinking beer? you gotta be shittin' me). Another great thing about the Vic? Popcorn. Great popcorn. People would often stop in, telling us they'd driven miles out of their way just to buy a bag. The stuff was awesome. Truly Old School. As in, Old School Movie Theater.

Let me briefly elaborate. Back in the day, movie theaters sold the best popcorn. It was truly knock-down good. Some folks would go to the movies as an excuse to buy the stuff. I did. It was that good.

The Health Freaks

Then came the health freaks. In case you've forgotten (or are too young to remember), these health crusaders began protesting the theaters and their popcorn because, they claimed, it was bad for you. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the undisputed leader of America's "food police," began a scare campaign, claiming back in 1992 that a typical medium-sized "butter" popcorn contained "more artery-clogging fat than a bacon-and-eggs breakfast, a Big Mac and fries for lunch, and a steak dinner with all the trimmings — combined!”

Since then, CSPI has campaigned against many other "bad" foods: fettuccine alfredo, mozzerella sticks, buffalo wings, beef and cheese nachos, gyros, milk shakes, cheesecake, and, of course, pizza (after all, pizza has cheese on it). As a rule of thumb, if it tastes good, this militant group has attempted to remove it from your diet, whether you like it or not.

Incidentally, they've also railed against vegetables: “Naturally, you should eat lots of them, because they’re good for you,” a critic of CSPI once wrote. “Just keep in mind that they may be killing you.” After all, CSPI insists that the pesticides on fruits and vegetables can lead to cancer.

I Digress . . . Back to the Venerable Vic

In any event, before the early 90's, theater popcorn was the bomb, and the Vic continued making the Goodness, despite health trends of the day. And we loved them for it.

The Vic, however, was in the minority. Most theaters in the United States stopped making really good popcorn back in the early 90's. Sadly, this sorry state of popcorn-affairs remains . . . to this very day.

Alas, there is something we can do about it. We have the knowledge and, therefore, the power, to affect change. We can make our own homemade, theater-style popcorn. To assist in this admirable aim, and for the Good of the General Public, I will now share the simple secrets to preparing awesome theater-style popcorn from scratch.

Simple Steps to Building Better Popcorn

Fresh Corn. Popcorn can get stale. You need a source of fresh kernels. I suggest getting a stash from a store that sells enough to maintain a fresh supply. Restaurant supply stores usually fit the bill. In Peoria, GFS (Gordon Food Service), 4608 N University St, is a good place to find it. Store it in an airtight container.

Coconut Oil. Yes, coconut oil. Like butter and cheese, it's high in saturated fat. In excess, it's probably not good for you. But, as far as I can tell, debate still lingers regarding this ostracized oil. Some researchers claim it actually has health benefits (I dunno if this is quack science). But, here's a concept: Perhaps moderation is the key.

Regardless of the health implications, coconut oil is a pillar of theater popcorn taste -- so I deem it necessary to a better popcorn experience. To purchase coconut oil, you may have to visit an international grocer. It seems difficult to find in typical American grocery stores. In Peoria, you can purchase a jar in the Indian food section at the Lin Hing Oriental Market, across from Campus Town on Main St.

Flavacol. Flavacol is the other secret ingredient. It's a flavored salt "substance." When added to the oil, it imparts theater taste and appearance to the popped corn. I don't know what's in this concoction, but it's good. Purchase some Flavacol at GFS when you buy the corn.

Butter and Salt. You should add melted butter onto the popped corn. Some folks advocate clarified butter. And, of course, salt to taste (if needed after the Flavacol).

That's it. Pretty simple, really. Once you have the basic ingredients, you can eat to your heart's discontent. Of course, your tastes will dictate the appropriate amounts of oil and Flavacol to add to the corn. Let trial and error be your method. Let The Force be your guide. (Use the Force, Luke.)

For a good starting point, Linda recommends the following guidelines:

3/4 cup popcorn kernels

3 tablespoons coconut oil

1 teaspoon Flavacol

All placed over high heat in one of these:

Turn the Whirley-Pop's crank until the corn is done popping. Quickly transfer to a bowl. Add butter and salt to taste.

Enjoy. The Vic would be proud of you. I know I sure am.

Top 10 Reasons Why I Wanna Be a TV Lawyer

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:26:54 PDT

10. I could be more like a private investigator, and less like an actual lawyer. Yes, the lawyers on TV are always out and about investigating the case. Driving down to seedy neighborhoods, talking to shady characters who, for some reason, have something relevant to say. It's good for the story and makes for entertaining television. But it's not real. Real lawyers spend most of their time in their offices. Boring.

9. Big, Gaudy Offices. Can you say, "Jay Janssen"? (for readers unfamiliar with the Peoria area, insert your local, big-name ambulance chaser here) Enough already.

8. Big, Gaudy Sports Cars. (insert the name here)

7. Lots of Women with Big, Gaudy . . . Okay, you get the point. (Alright, I know, Jessica Alba doesn't play a lawyer on TV . . . but, I wish she did.) (sorry, Linda)

6. Perry Mason Moments. Once, before I die, I want to experience a Perry Mason Moment: The smoking gun that, to the utter shock and awe of the prosecution, proves my client's innocence. It'll never happen. But still, I Want to Believe. Captain Ahab may have died a frustrated man, but at very least, he could dream about his Great White Whale.

5. I Could Have Only One Case. Yes, TV lawyers seem to have only one case at a time. TV police too. That sure would be nice. I usually have around 75 or 80 happening at once. Real police detectives probably have similarly large caseloads.

4. Money, Money, Money. Why are all the TV lawyers always so damn rich? I wanna be like that. Until then, I'll keep playing the lottery.

3. I could win most, if not all, of my cases. TV lawyers invariably win the case. There are rare exceptions, but more often than not, they win.

2. See number 7, above.

(Okay, I know . . . Julianne Nicholson no longer plays a TV lawyer, but she use to. And that's good enough for me.)(sorry again, Linda)

And the #1 Reason Why I Wanna Be a TV Lawyer . . .

1. I could tell people, "I'm not really a lawyer -- I just play one on TV."

Stumble Upon New Websites

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:25:36 PDT

StumbleUpon is a free browser add-on that helps you discover interesting websites. To begin, you simply create an account, submit your interests, and click the button. You will then be directed to user-submitted sites that you can rate with a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down," according to your preferences. Over time, their software figures out your tastes and directs you to sites accordingly.

It's actually very fun. However, please beware that the StumbleUpon button can become very addictive. Particularly if you dig those funny cat websites.

After StumbleUpon directs you to a new, cool site, you can post comments and share with friends or fellow stumblers. Like many other online communities, you can post friend requests and personal messages. And, of course, if you independently find a new website, you are encouraged to submit it to the StumbleUpon database for others to discover.

For a better idea about StumbleUpon, feel free to visit my page here. My last five stumbles returned the following sites:

http://nublog.ru/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/08841.jpg

http://www.ilkeryoldas.com/digg/mirror-image-perceptions.jpg

http://dennisplucinik.com/blog/2007/08/28/60-advanced-adobe-photoshop-tutorials/

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7864/picturesdontgrandmaku3.jpg

http://www.anis-online.de/2/musik/beatles.htm

Of the 3,298,039 stumblers worldwide, about 55 list Peoria as their home town. Feel free to join the movement. It's a very easy way to waste hours of your life. So, enter at your own risk.

You've been warned.

Anybody else know of any cool web add-ons, or other fun services?

Phil Luciano Doesn't Know as Much About the Legal System as He Thinks

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:05:07 PDT

The Peoria Pundit recently admonished, "Kevin Lowe doesn’t know as much about how to make a good taco as he thinks." Based on his considerable experience in the field of taco consumption, Bill thus voiced his disagreement with my post, "Building a Better Taco" -- the first in a long line of Kevin Lowe's self-help articles. I actually appreciated his comment, because (i) he knows tacos, and (ii) anytime Bill points his blog in your direction, you get a lot of extra traffic. So, thanks, Bill.

Reading Phil Luciano's article today, I felt similarly compelled to share my considerable experience, training, and knowledge about a topic of interest: the criminal courts. In particular, Luciano's take on the criminal system as applied to the case of former attorney, Robert Becker.

Before I embark on this rant, a word or two in the interests of full disclosure. First, I enjoy most everything Luciano writes. He is talented and generally very entertaining. Having attempted to write witty posts on this very blog, I understand how difficult the task can be. Thus, I have a great deal of respect for his writing skills. Second, I am a criminal defense attorney who has concentrated in criminal defense for the past twelve years. Third, I am acquainted with attorneys on both sides of the Becker case. In fact, I consider a couple of them good friends. Fourth, I take no position on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Becker. I didn't hear the evidence and, therefore, am not in a position to substitute my judgment for that of the jury, Judge Kouri, or Judge Brandt (who presided over Mr. Becker's initial bench trial).

I am, however, sufficiently experienced in the criminal justice system to make this observation: Phil Luciano doesn't know as much about the legal system as he thinks. He should probably stick to writing witty, humorous articles about topics he understands. Although I usually enjoy his column, I cannot tolerate uninformed pieces of writing fraught with inaccuracies. Sorry Phil. That article was junk journalism at its finest, which can serve no apparent purpose other than to exacerbate the public's confusion about the criminal courts.

For the Good of the General Public, I will now comment on a few of Mr. Luciano's statements:

"I wondered about the decision by Judge Steve Kouri to give Becker extra help."

Judge Kouri did not decide to give Becker extra help. He has simply delayed his decision on a motion filed by the defense asking for (i) a verdict of "not guilty," despite the jury's finding of guilt, or alternatively (ii) a new trial. Attorneys routinely file these motions after a jury returns a guilty verdict. Judges routinely deny these motions, but sometimes a legal consideration warrants additional thought prior to a judge's ruling. Nothing here smacks of the abnormal.

And yes, a judge can set aside a jury's verdict. It's rare, but it does happen. It's a safeguard, because sometimes juries base their decisions on bad considerations or improper influences. To suggest that Judge Kouri is giving Becker some kind of unusual "help" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal procedure.

"Though Kouri was supposed to sentence Becker last week, he instead wondered why medical experts on each side differed . . ."

Not exactly. This statement suggests that Judge Kouri was doing something other than what he was supposed to be doing (i.e., considering the evidence instead of sentencing Becker). However, as I noted above, post-trial motions were filed. Judges always rule on post-trial motions before sentencing a defendant. It wouldn't make much sense to do it the other way around. It's part of something called Due Process of Law. Ever heard of it? The Judge has been doing his job. Nothing more, nothing less.

". . . he instead wondered why medical experts on each side differed - even though that happens all the time in court and even though he'd failed to address the matter during the jury trial. He's asked both sides to research whether the victim should undergo another exam."

The first part of the above quotation troubles me: Luciano's suggestion that medical experts disagree all the time, therefore this is much ado about nothing. Well, this "analysis" completely misses the point. Yes, experts often render different opinions. But they rarely disagree on basic concepts. It's actually more common for opposing experts to agree on the the fundamentals (the building blocks) of their analysis and differ only in their conclusions drawn from these fundamentals. Judge Kouri appears to be concerned that these experts disagreed about very basic concepts. Contrary to Mr. Luciano's claims, this type of disagreement among qualified experts is not common. (Caveat: again I remind you that I have not observed the proceedings in this particular case and am, therefore, providing general observations based on my experience.)

And suggesting that Judge Kouri "failed to address the matter during the jury trial"? Again, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal procedure. A judge's role during a trial must be understood and properly compared to that same judge's role when ruling on a post-trial motion. It's a little too in-depth to provide a nutshell version, but I have an extra criminal procedure book at my office. Perhaps Mr. Luciano should ask to borrow it sometime.

As for the second part of the above quotation, I'll admit that it's uncommon for a judge to ask attorneys to research an issue like this. But, it's not unheard of. And it's not improper. I'll be interested in the resolution of this issue. However, if the issue is resolved at the next hearing, the Journal Star should insist that Andy Kravitz report it. He appears to have a much better understanding of the process. He also asks questions when he doesn't understand something.

"A third party will seem impartial only to the side that feels the same way about a point of law. That's why each side gets to bring in experts during trial, and the jury decides which to believe."

Interesting, but wrong. A jury's role is not to listen to experts on both sides then decide which to believe. A jury's duty in a criminal trial is to consider all evidence presented at trial and then answer a basic question: has the State proved each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt? All testimony should be considered in light of the other evidence presented at trial.

If I'm reading him correctly, Luciano instead suggests that jurors should simply rule in the favor of the expert they believe more, disregarding the opposing expert's testimony. To me, this illustrates a basic misunderstanding of "reasonable doubt." It sets up a false-dichotomy, of sorts: you must believe one expert or the other. Any experienced attorney will tell you that, in the law, such clear-cut, black-and-white situations are rare. More often, shades of gray determine the outcome. Therefore, the appropriate approach is for the jury to listen to both sides' experts and then, in light of all the evidence, decide whether a reasonable doubt exists as to the guilt of their fellow man.

"As far as thoroughness goes, prosecutors are cautious about taking child-molestation cases to trial. They're tough to prove.
Jurors look leerily at kids as witnesses. Adults are more believable than children.
Plus, kids are easily rattled on the stand. Even truthful adult witnesses have a hard time keeping their stories straight; memories aren't perfect. Thus, it's not hard for a defense attorney to make a child witness seem confused; after all, they're just kids.
. . .
That's why prosecutors routinely go the extra mile to investigate an allegation before filing charges."

This is nuts. When making claims like this, people should cite sources. First, in my experience, prosecutors are no more cautious about child victims than adult victims. The State will seek an indictment if they believe they can prove a case -- all they need for an indictment is probable cause to believe an offense was committed. It's insulting to prosecutors, and the victims they represent, to suggest the State would require stronger evidence simply because a case is perceived as "hard to prove." Believe it or not, in cases involving child sexual abuse, probable cause often comes from the lone statement of a child. Period.

Second, "adults are more believable than children." Really? When was the last time you represented a client whose child was accusing him of sexual abuse? Many defense attorneys will tell you they fear, more than most others, the child witness. Why? Well, contrary to Luciano's wisdom, jurors want to believe children. They often think that children don't have the capacity to make up such horrid tales of abuse. Therefore, they figure, the child must be telling the truth. Where else would such a terrible story come from?

Third, "it's not hard for a defense attorney to make a child witness seem confused; after all they're just kids." Really? Well, guess what: the State has an answer for that problem. And it usually works. Prosecutors often effectively argue that, because the alleged victim is a child, the jurors can't expect the kid's story to be perfect. They'll say, "You must expect some confusion from the victim." After all, they're just kids. Thus, jurors feel justified in believing a child's testimony, despite imperfect, confused, or contradictory testimony.

Hmm.

Okay, I could rant on, but this post is becoming too long. Please . . . if anyone out there is thinking about publishing an article involving the legal system, do yourself a favor: consult an experienced attorney. In fact, consult two. If you're writing about the criminal justice system, ask a defense attorney and a prosecutor. Most attorneys like seeing their names in print, so don't be shy. I'm sure you'll find several who would be happy to impress you with their knowledge of the law.

End rant.

P.S. Other than my notes, above, Luciano's article wasn't half-bad. I just wish he'd cite some credible sources when making these types of claims. There's already too much that's misunderstood about our legal system -- particularly the criminal justice system. He shouldn't use his popular column as a vehicle to disseminate misinformation about the courts.

P.P.S. Finally, I'd just point out that I'm not the first to voice concern about Luciano's article. Bill Dennis has already written briefly about it.

Okay. Now, end rant.

Of Pimps and Prostitutes

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:40:59 PDT

Sitting on the couch, I became concerned about prostitutes and their future employment opportunities. After all, one arrest too many for this offense will lead to a felony indictment and, if convicted, a permanent felony record, which doesn't look good to prospective employers.

After much thought, I resolved to take action. I'd voice my concerns to the Illinois General Assembly. I'd impress them with my proposed remedy to this hot-topic issue: Give the prostitutes another chance. That is, let them have "First Offender Probation" for their initial felony charge. By successfully completing twenty-four months on this special probation (which acts as a kind of deferred prosecution) the hapless whore can avoid a felony conviction. Why not? After all, we allow this kind of probation for some first-offender drug cases. So, why not for felony prostitution?

Content with my decision, I put on my lobbyist hat. I'd drive to Springfield and take my case to the People. After all, if not me (a seasoned criminal defense attorney), who would stand up for the rights of this downtrodden segment of our population?

Then it arrived. The email was a surprise. And it abruptly changed my plans. It was from a fellow attorney and it summarized a recently passed Illinois law. Apparently, some other concerned citizens had already beat me to the punch. Effective August 17th, the law had changed to allow the exact protection I would have proposed: first offender probation.

But, the question lingered: if not me (a seasoned criminal defense attorney), then who? Who stood up for the rights of these happy hookers? Do prostitutes have an established national lobby? Did a throng of Guido, the Killer Pimps, descend upon Springfield espousing the virtues of their "biatches." Did freakin' Aaron Schock deviate from the Republican Way and succumb to the interests of these women of the night?

Well, not exactly. Aaron Schock voted nay (pdf). But Dave Koehler, in many respects the polar opposite of young Mr. Schock, voted yes, hell yes (pdf). I'm curious to learn what powerful forces aligned to persuade him -- or was his simply of vote of conscience?

But the work of the People does not stop there. Interested in this new law, I searched the Illinois General Assembly's site for other new gems:

Guido's Sentence. Guido the Pimp must serve at least 75% of his sentence if convicted of certain serious felonies, which are presumably less serious than the felonies requiring 85% or 100% of the sentence be served. But more serious than all the others, which require only 50%.

Guido's Girls. If you solicit Guido's girls, and they turn out to be underage, you could be charged with "Soliciting For a Juvenile Prostitute," a serious class 1 felony (i.e., up to fifteen years in prison - 50%, of course, so perhaps not as serious as some of the others). But effective January 1st, you will no longer be able to claim, as a defense, that you thought she was sixteen years of age, or older. As of next year, your defense must be, "But, honestly . . . Judge, I thought she was seventeen!! Really, I did." No joke. The current law says you can defend yourself against a charge of trolling for kiddie prostitutes by claiming you thought she was sixteen. WTF?

Guido's Girls' Cats and Dogs. If Guido beats, or otherwise harms, his biatches, the girls can now include their pets on the Order of Protection. Well, effective January 1st they can, assuming the Judge believes there exists a domestic relationship between the biatches and Guido.

Guido's Pot Plants. If he's caught with more than 200 cannabis plants, Guido can be charged with a class 1 felony. And he could be fined up to $100,000. Effective January 1st, this offense will no longer be a lowly class 2 felony (i.e., 7 years max -- 50%, or course). So, a word of caution, pimps: you may want to cut back your harvest a bit. My legal advice: Remain at a respectable class 2 level. Make a New Year's Resolution to grow only 200 plants at a time.

Building a Better Taco

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:58:48 PST

I'm convinced that tacos should be everyone's favorite dish. With years of taco-eating/making experience, I've learned the secrets behind preparing a superior taco. With my prowess in taco construction, I feel uniquely qualified to counsel the ill-informed masses regarding the intricacies of this divine dish. So, without further ado, I present five simple steps to Building a Better Taco:

Better Shells Make Better Tacos. Don't buy those boxes of pre-made shells. They may be convenient, but they are not good. Go to your local international grocer and purchase some fresh corn tortillas. Fry them yourself in fresh oil. Bathe in the glory of true corn taste. This step alone will mark an improvement of at least 50% in overall taco satisfaction. In Peoria, you can go to the International Grocer at 703 NE Perry St. I prefer the Sabinas brand tortillas made in Chicago.
Fresh Cheese, Please. Those bags of pre-grated cheese are also convenient. But the anti-caking agent (added to keep the cheese from clotting) dries out the product. For shame! Take the time . . . a whole 30 seconds, or so . . . to grate your own cheese. Use any kind of block cheese you like. I prefer Chihuahua cheese, which is similar to Monterey Jack. Again, you'll probably have to visit your local international grocer to find it. But you'll thank yourself for this simple improvement, which adds another 10% in overall taco satisfaction.

Sour Cream Isn't Just for Breakfast Anymore. Before placing any other ingredient into your shell, take a knife, dip it into the nearest container of sour cream, and liberally apply the goodness to the interior of your shell. If dairy frightens you (or the added fat calories will kick your ass), just coat one side, or the bottom, of the shell. The interaction of sour cream, ground beef, and salsa combines in perfect synergy to create the perfect sauce. In turn, this improves your taco experience by 10%.

Salsa, Salsa, Salsa. Do yourself a favor and buy some good salsa. Avoid most major brands. In Peoria, you can purchase Mrs. Z's salsa, a local brand that seems fresher than most other jarred stuff. Or, if you're feeling adventurous, make your own salsa with fresh ingredients. It's easy and delicious. Perhaps I'll be able to convince Linda to post her excellent salsa recipe over at Grandma's Attic. Don't forget to add the salsa to your taco, preferably directly on top of the ground beef (see above pointer re: synergism and the perfect sauce). Taco satisfaction increases 10% with fresh or better-than-average jarred salsa.

Where's the Beef? Use lean ground beef. Season liberally. Strain off excess fat. When using one of those seasoning packets, I prefer Old El Paso brand. Use whatever turns you on. Just remember to add it liberally. This step seems obvious, but you'd be surprised how often cooks avoid this advice. I've tasted many a bland taco, devoid of any discernible herbs and spices. By remembering this step, you'll add another 10% in pure Taco satisfaction.

Simple, no? Follow these basic steps and your life will improve. Your taco satisfaction will increase 90% overall. Just remember: with a taco, the whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts. But the individual parts must be good. If you skimp on ingredients for the sake of convenience, you will decrease the overall quality of the item, thereby lessening your taco satisfaction. And less taco satisfaction leads to a decrease in overall world happiness. Therefore, consider it a moral prerogative to build a better taco.

Disclaimer: I am not educated, nor experienced, in the culinary arts. I'm just some guy who eats tacos more frequently than your Average Joe. For some real advice on food, visit Chef Kevin here or here.

The Picture of Me Posting a Blog About Posting a Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:58:48 PST

If only I could blog

About me posting a blog

How many hours I would log

Posting about me posting a blog

The readers, they would slog

Through hours on my blog

If only I could blog

About me posting a blog

Alas, lost in the fog

I fear I’ve lost my blog

Stuck in mud so sog

If only I could blog

Without creating new words

Of things I’ve never heard

If only I could blog

About me posting a blog

The Picture of Dorian Gray it ain't. But, I was feeling creative, without being all that creative. As you can probably tell. (Note the new Compaq Presario with Widescreen.)(Also note my trusty dog's lack of interest in me posting a blog about posting a blog.)

A House Divided Against Itself . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:58:48 PST

"A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand. "
- Abraham Lincoln

Peoria is strange. No . . . do-over: Peoria is unique. We are a city divided against itself. Yes, I see the love, but I also see the hate. And I see those who love to hate. It's in our homes, our schools, our taverns, and our churches. In fact, I doubt you can find a segment of our society not saturated and torn by this divide.

It's the Cubs-Cards rivalry. And it tears at the very fabric of our city.

Where else will you find a city with divided allegiance to different teams in the same division? I can understand divided loyalties in a city such as Chicago. There, you have the Cubs vs. White Sox in the National and American Leagues, respectively. But, a city divided between two National League teams in the same division? That's pretty unique. Or, strange.

Is the Peoria-area blogosphere similarly split? I'd guess, "Yes." I mean, "Hell, yes." Bloggers, after all, are just a microcosm of the real world. Like our real-world counterparts, bloggers haven't been afraid to vociferously support their teams. For instance, Peoria Pundit Bill Dennis regularly reminds the world about his ongoing love affair with the Cubs. Several others are similarly situated behind the Cubs: Peoria Illinoisan, Floyd at Central Illinois Gourmand-o-rama, Eyebrows McGee, Scott Janz, JenJW4 at Keep Passing the Open Windows, and Morton Malaise. I'm sure there are a few more.

And supporting the Cardinals? Well, there's Yours Truly (That'll be "Mr. Lowe" to you), Linda at Grandma's Attic, Reno at BlargenBlog, Vonster, and . . . and . . . Well, that's all we really need. I'm sure we represent the venerable Silent Majority.

And of course, a few White Sox fans live in Peoria . . . but that's a different post.

Good Ol' Honest Abe spent a lot of time in Springfield. I doubt they are similarly divided. After all, unlike Peoria, which is equidistant between Chicago and St. Louis, Springfield is closer to St. Louis. So, I would think they'd lean more towards the Cardinals. And as for Abe himself? I'd bet he'd be a Cardinals fan. After all, as a politician, he always liked to throw his support behind a winner.

Have you ever read the world’s shortest book?

The Chicago Cubs: A Century of Success

Did you see that the Cubs are selling replica uniforms from the last time they won the World Series?

It’s a toga!

P.S. Before you Cubs fans start bitching at me, I believe a "thank you" is in order. After all, the Cardinals are doing their best to force Chicago into first place, beating Milwaukee tonight, 12-4.

All Things Mashed Potato

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:58:49 PST

Some foods were meant to go together. When I think of mashed potatoes, I naturally think, "Gravy. Corn." Add cheese and crispy fried chicken strips, and you've got a KFC "Famous Bowl." Yes: mashed potatoes, gravy, corn, cheese and chicken strips. All in one bowl. I don't know what these people were smoking when they thought this up, but it's pretty darned good.

I can see it now:

"Dude, I'm so fuckin' hungry. You got any Nacho Cheese Doritos?"

The reply came dispersed among volleys of laughter, "Haa. Dude, you're messed up like a mashed potato sandwich. You've got the killer munchies."

"Awe man, mashed potatoes! Dude, dude, dude, I could so go for some major mashed spuds!"

"Well, Dude. You're in luck. I got some leftovers in the fridge."

The two young men staggered to the refrigerator with bowl and spoon in hand. The first opened the door, immediately spying the mashed potatoes. "See, dude," he triumphanly announced. "I told you I wouldn't let you down."

In his moment of victory, the second young man began scooping mounds of potatoes into his trusty bowl. But, regardless of the amount added, the bowl just didn't look satisfied. It was not a happy bowl. Concerned, the hungrier friend of the first young man said, "Yo, dude. What other leftover stuff do you have?"

"Well, guy," he said, "Let me see." Rummaging past the partial six-pack of Old Milwaukee's Best Light, he happened upon the mother lode: "Man. I knew I had some gravy in here. And some corn. Oh, and some shredded cheese. Oh, yeah . . . and some chicken strips."

The two quickly added the additional foodstuffs indiscriminately atop their potatoes. Upon completing the deed, they stepped back and gazed upon their newfound creation in all its glory. In quiet contemplation, one of the two considered briefly the moral implication of such culinary Frankensteining, but quickly dismissed any sense of shame as the pangs of hunger overcame ethical considerations.

And the bowl looked content. And their hunger was discontenting.

"Dude, that's a fuckin' masterpiece."

"Yeah, dude. I'll have to remember that. After all, I'm the head design chef for KFC Enterprises."

"Fuck yeah, dude. Let's eat."

Only 119 Days Until Repeal Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:58:49 PST

"Once, during Prohibition, I was forced to live for days on nothing but food and water."
- W.C. Fields

The "Good Ol' Days" weren't always that good. Once upon a time, the United States outlawed the manufacture, transport, and sale of alcohol. It was called Prohibition and it lasted from 1920 until 1933. They were the Dark Ages. Dark and dry. Well, at least dry in principle. And the result of that grand experiment? A huge black market with an unprecedented surge in organized crime (can we say Al Capone, children?).

Thirteen years after it started, Prohibition met its match: the Twenty-First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Section one of that Amendment was simple and powerful: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." And it was the will of the People -- State Conventions were specifically convened for the sole purpose of passing the Amendment. Think about that. The only other time we convened State Conventions was to pass the original Constitution. Heck, even Utah voted to ratify the 21st Amendment; in fact, they are often credited as the final state needed to garner the requisite two-thirds approval.

The Eighteenth Amendment is hereby repealed. Repealed. December 5, 1933. That was Repeal Day.

Jeffrey Morganthaler, Bartender/Blogger Extraordinaire, suggests that we should celebrate Repeal Day every December 5th. I agree. His advocacy is compelling:

First, he argues, although we have various "drinking" holidays in the United States (St Patrick's Day, New Year's, Cinco de Mayo, Halloween), none of them celebrates our right to be drinking. Indeed. Even if we don't have a Constitutional Right to drink alcohol, we at very least have an Amendment that strongly argues the People's will to remain free of prohibition. And that's worth celebrating.

Second, Morganthaler correctly argues that it falls at the right time on our calendar:

Conveniently located about halfway between Thanksgiving and Christmas, at a time when we’re probably not with our families, the Fifth of December represents a great time to get together with friends and celebrate our constitutional rights.

Third, unlike many other holidays, which cater to specific groups or beliefs, Repeal Day is all-inclusive and open to everyone. Do you appreciate the freedoms available in the United States? Well, if so, join the party. You're invited.

Finally, he suggests, it's easy. Just stop by your local bar and buy a round. Propose a toast to our freedoms. Be with friends. Share a bottle of wine with a loved one. Again, he's right. There's no need to dress up as a green leprechaun. No need to feel guilty about making New Year's resolutions you'll never follow. No need to put out that cigarette when the Illinois smoking ban hits at midnight.

This December 5th, I will celebrate Repeal Day. I hope many others will join me. As Morganthaler suggests, "Just do it because you can."

Prohibition Fact: The Illinois legislature did not vote for Prohibition. But, the Illinois State Convention was the tenth to vote for repeal!

"Prohibition? HA! They tried that in the movies and it didn't work."
- Homer Simpson

Kevin Lowe's Miracle Weight-Loss System

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:58:49 PST

Eat LESS; Exercise MORE.

Any questions?

John Travolta Was Right

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin Lowe) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:58:49 PST

Well, let me clarify: Vincent Vega, his character in the movie Pulp Fiction, was right. You see, in Pulp Fiction, Travolta plays a hitman who, in between jobs, likes to wax philosophic with his partner-in-crime, Jules (superbly played by Samuel L. Jackson). They fancy themselves as modern-day, enlightened hitmen; not your typically thuggish hatchet men of yesteryear. They are misunderstood, wannabe intellects who somewhat begrudgingly live by the way of the gun.

On the way to a hit, Travolta, having recently returned from a trip to Europe, begins imparting his wealth of worldly knowledge. During this memorable scene, he describes some of the little differences between the United States and Europe. For example, over there, he explains, you can buy a beer at the movies: "And, I don't mean just like a paper cup, I'm talking about a glass of beer."

He further explains to his attentive partner that, in Paris, a McDonald's Quarter Pounder with Cheese is called a "Royale with Cheese."

Jackson seems skeptical. "They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?" he asks.

"No man," Travolta replies, "They got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is."

He then moves on to an all-important topic: condiments. "You know what they put on french fries in Holland instead of ketchup?"

"What?" Jackson asks.

"Mayonnaise."

Jackson recoils in obvious disgust, "Goddamn."

Delighted by his partner's response, Travolta continues, "I've seen 'em do it, man. They fucking drown 'em in that shit!"

Jackson can only shake his head in disbelief.

You shouldn't believe everything you see in the movies. But, in this case, John Travolta was right. I lived in Europe for six years. My father lives in Holland. I've had the distinct pleasure of drinking a beer in a theater, ordering a "Royale with Cheese," and, yes, drenching my fries in mayonnaise. In fact, when it comes to fries, mayonnaise remains my condiment of choice.

The next time you go out to eat, do yourself a favor: order some french fries and a side of mayo. As you dip your fries in that great stuff, you will be amazed by the reaction of your dining companions. The looks of utter horror. The Evil Eye of contempt. The gasps of disbelief. Like Jackson in Pulp Fiction, your friends might recoil in utter disgust. But you will experience a culinary delight--and perhaps the thrill of breaking a societal taboo. And, you just might like it.

Then, head on over to the gym and hit the Stair Master for . . . oh, I'd say . . . about two hours.

You can check out Travolta, and his impeccable words of wisdom, here.