Decision 2016: The Drinking Game

It's just about settled. The 2016 general election will be Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton. Talk about being stuck between a douce and a turd sandwich.

To wipe away that dirty feeling you'll have on election day, I've devised a Decision 2016 drinking game. The rules:

Divide all participants into two equal teams. One team is Team Trump. The other is Team Clinton. Each candidate has a list of foolish but likely actions, with a shot value assigned to each. On election day, after both teams have cast their votes, they will gather together and do the number of shots their candidate accrued.

Who wins?... It doesn't really matter. Just like the real election.

Team Trump:

- Promises to build a wall to protect America from Puerto Rico. (1 shot)

- Refers to German Chancellor Angela Merkel as a 'that old Kraut Broad.' (2 shots)

- Softens his stance on immigration by proposing a new, streamlined path to permanent residency for hot chicks. (3 shots)

- Announces his goal for the first 100 days: Breaking ground on Yosemite National Golf Club and Resort. (4 shots)

- Admits his hair is actually an ectoparastic fungus. (5 shots)



Team Clinton:

- Does several Rust Belt appearances in a Carhartt jacket with the price tag still hanging out. (1 shot)

- In order to associate herself with popular Democratic administration, she has an affair with Bill Clinton. (2 shots)

- The FBI investigation of her private servers clears her of wrongdoing as Secretary of State, but strongly implicates her in the Kennedy Assassination. (3 shots)

- Tries to sound like a tough, calculating executive by quoting The Art of the Deal by Donald J. Trump. (4 shots)

- For her running mate, she seeks a bold female voice who can balance the ticket in blue-collar swing states. Ends up with Sarah Palin. (5 shots)

Predicting the Next Music Legend to Die in 2016

David Bowie, Glenn Frey, Merle Haggard, and now Prince.

With 2016 still young, the odds are great that another music legend will die in this year. But who?

Lesser music figures die all the time. 2016 has seen the passings of minor luminaries such as Phife Dawg and Frank Sinatra, Jr. It's not unusual.

What makes this year different is the concentration of major artists who have passed on. With that in mind, here are the criteria I've used to guess the next earth-shaking demise:

1) Must be a household name

No obscure jazz men. No well-regarded, low-profile producers. No old-school rappers who no one outside the South Bronx ever heard.

I'm only looking at Legitimate Superstars. It's OK if they've been out of the limelight for a while. If they once ruled the world, I've considered them.

2) Must have a resolved legacy

The notably deceased of 2016 left no questions about their place in history. David Bowie and Prince are influences cited by almost everyone in pop music today. The Eagles' Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975) has gone 29x platinum. Glenn Frey has songwriting credits on seven of the ten tracks. It's de riguer for contemporary country singers to name-drop the Hag on almost every album. These guys had nothing left to prove.

I'm limiting the field to artists at least a decade past their commercial prime. Rest easy Katy Perry, you won't be resting in peace.

3) Must have nothing to gain from dying

This precludes fading pop stars who either never reached, or couldn't sustain their place at the top of their craft. For them, death could be their best career move.

I once suggested that Justin Bieber should go this route. To his credit, he made me look foolish by dropping a Number 1 album. At this point, I'm not sure Lady Gaga can do the same...

Considering all this, my prediction is: 

Chuck Berry.

Everyone knows Johnny B. Goode, Maybellene, No Particular Place to Go, etc. His position in Rock and Roll history is ironclad. He's also pushing 90. If he died now, it wouldn't be overly tragic.

Election 2016: Amaze/Piss Off Your Friends With These Fun New Third Reich Comparisons

I'm tired of the Internet rhetoric surrounding the 2016 Presidential election. In particular, it's become a reflex for people to label a candidate they oppose as 'the next Hitler.' There's even a book about it.

It's lazy, historically ignorant, and trivializes the real suffering the Nazi regime inflicted on the world.

But if you must go that route, you may as well keep it fresh. For each of the remaining candidates, I've chosen a figure of the Third Reich who better illustrates why you think he/she is evil. It's about time somebody elevated the 'dialogue.' Have fun!


Hillary Clinton

Best compares to...

Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments and War Production.

Speer's primary responsibility was the industrial logistics of the Nazi war machine. This role involved him in every major military and political initiative, including the Holocaust and war crimes against civilians in occupied territories.

After the war, he downplayed his culpability, and only served 20 years in prison before retiring on the proceeds of his best-selling memoirs. He even enjoyed a fraudulent reputation as 'the Good Nazi.'

Hillary Clinton's political life is defined by scandals (Whitewater), tragic embarrassments (Benghazi), or pragmatic decisions that became liabilities (supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003). Like Speer, she has spent her time out of office trying to forget or at least ignore her past.


Bernie Sanders

Best compares to...

Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer-SS

As leader of the SS, Himmler was second only to Hitler in the chain of command which directly organized the death camps. Criminal organizations under him included the Gestapo, the Einsatzgruppen, and the SD amongst others.

In other words, he was a big government guy, who pursued a sweeping ideological agenda regardless of its practicality. Particular areas of interest were racial issues, police reform, and wresting control of the nation from big business... Wait, am I still talking about Himmler?

Bernie's platform is a little different in the specifics, but he thinks about the role of government in a similar way.

Furthermore, they share a talent for populist mobilizing. The signature elements of the Sanders campaign are its small donors and aggressive grassroots work. Similarly, Himmler's recruiting was critical in filling the ranks of the SS, turning it from a small party organ, to a pervasive force in German society.


Donald Trump

Best compares to...

Hermann Göring, Reichsmarschall

Göring was blustering, ostentatious, and militant. Less ideological than many of his colleagues, he would do or say just about anything to further his position within the Reich. Aside from the trucker cap, his political persona was not that different from Donald Trump's.

Like Trump, Göring was not taken seriously in political or military circles. His crass personal style and limited experience proved off-putting to diplomats, soldiers, and many senior Nazis.

Göring's fortunes rose and fell with his primary command, the Luftwaffe. From 1939-1940, smashing victories solidified his position within the Reich. As the war progressed, he proved incapable of the complex strategic and operational functions of his command. This was a major factor is the Wehrmacht's defeat, as well as his fall from favor.

A similar arc befell Donald Trump's Atlantic City casinos. Once among the great American gambling outfits, years of poor management and declining revenue forced him to sell the business. Today, the Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino are both closed.


Ted Cruz 

Best compares to...

Alfred Rosenberg, Reichsminister (various functions)

Rosenberg was a severe, ideological purist whose 1930 book The Myth of the 20th Century provided the formal outline of Nazi racial theory. His uncharismatic, 'intellectual' demeanor kept him out of public view and confined to relatively minor offices.

Similarly, Ted Cruz may be the most forgettable personality in this race. He brands himself as a pure conservative; so much so as to alienate many fellow Republicans.

Rosenberg ideas were also controversial within his party. Hitler thought little of 20th Century, as did Goebbels and Göring. Like Ted Cruz, he was most valuable for his aggressive rhetoric.


John Kasich

Best compares to...

Paul von Hindenburg, President of Germany (1925-1934)

Hindenburg was a conservative monarchist, not a Nazi. In 1932, he ran for reelection as President despite his age and poor health. His only purpose was to oppose Adolf Hitler.

Despite his intentions, he was too sick and feeble to resist the Nazi's growing influence. His last year in office was spent rubber-stamping Hitler's consolidation of power. Nonetheless, he served to delay some of the party's most virulent anti-semitic reforms.

In this way, John Kasich is a well-meaning, respected moderate with little role besides speed bump in the rise of an electrifying rabble-rouser.

Pushing Forward for a New and Better Thanksgiving

Next week marks the 152nd federally-observed Thanksgiving, and I've had enough. 

The traditions of modern Thanksgiving are a celebration of Middle-American mediocrity. 

The day is anchored by a boring, bland menu featuring a protein that goes ignored the rest of the year. The tentpole television programming consists of Detroit Lions football, and dated, dreary treacle like Miracle on 34th Street. All of this occurs within the stifling confines of family togetherness. 

Thanksgiving is supposed to be about appreciation and gratitude, but I would be most grateful to do away with the day's classic trappings. 

Consider this episode of Doug.

Every year, the Town of Bluffington is held hostage by a lifeless pageant to the town's founding. Though the Establishment is resistant to Judy Funnie's contemporary reinterpretation, once presented with her version alongside the original, they realize that meaningless traditions are dead. 

Tradition (n.) from the Latin traditum: handed down. 

Every year Thanksgiving gets handed down again, yet for whatever reasons, an ever changing country goes back to the same crappy celebration. 

This year, my Thanksgiving will be focused on things I'm really thankful for. Chicken nuggets and beer. Happy Thanksgiving!

We Now Interrupt Real Football to Bring You Some Offseason Fluff

During last Thursday's game between the Ravens and Steelers, Pittsburgh wideout Darrius Heyward-Bey caught my attention. It wasn't for his nice touchdown catch, but rather that Phil Simms introduced him by his draft status. The seventh-overall selection of the 2009 Draft has never lived down the pick, but not in the way most draft busts do.

That's because DHB is not a real 'bust.' Coming out of college, he was a one-dimensional track star with exceptional straight line speed and little else. The only person who saw a top-10 talent was Al Davis, who selected him to be Jamarcus Russell's top target. The rest was a footnote to history.

Yet no one mentions this with derision or disappointment. DHB is a seventh-year pro on his third team with a steady role among Pittsburgh's deep collection of skill players. That's not much from the seventh-overall pick. But for a combine freak who no one believed in, he's done well.

So well that I'm naming an award after him. A DHB All-Star is an obviously overdrafted player who everyone knew wasn't that good, but carved out a nice career anyway. Some were raw athletes with limited football skills (EJ Manuel), while others mixed first-round hustle with third-round upside (Tyson Alualu). Whatever their story, these players deserve our respect and admiration, but not our awe and amazement.

The 2015 draft class has a few candidates for DHB All-Stardom. The most obvious are Todd Gurley and Melvin Gordon. Despite their exceptional talents, the new prevailing wisdom that halfbacks aren't worth first-round picks discounts what fans expect of them.

Breshad Perriman of the Baltimore Ravens is the most likely DHBAS. After a solid career at the University of Central Florida, he was drafted 26th overall after running a 4.25 at his pro day. He can play, but mostly he runs fast. Sound familiar?

New NFL Vintage Concepts and Other Thoughts

The 2015 NFL season is one week old. The summer was productive in that the league resolved its showcase scandal before kickoff. Deflategate was embarrassing, but unlike the Ray Rice case, it didn't bleed into the games.

For the NFL, it's really time for football. Which means it's time to monetize!

Though the league annually rolls out new officially licensed team apparel, I think it leaves money on the table by not expanding its vintage line. Not throwback logos. Real vintage gear. Before the league mandated all sideline personnel to wear stuff from the catalogue, it had a rich fashion history.

The NFL owns the sporting public's attention around Christmas, making it well-positioned to offer classic looks at prices only a commissioner could afford.

What Chicago Bears fan wouldn't pay more for the Halas collection?

It's sharp. Just like Tom Landry's hat, which will sell out before Halloween at a price of $799.99. $tampede!

The league already experiments with this concept. For just $74.95 you can get a hoodie just like Bill Belichick's!

Other thoughts:

-I don't understand Washington's humiliation of Robert Griffin III. Rather than trade or release him, they choose incremental demotions. By the end of training camp, he was the second-string quarterback. Before Sunday's loss to Miami, he was inactive and had taken scout team reps at safety. As a pure football move, his inexperience makes it hard for him to give the team a good look, and easy for him to get hurt again. The team's approach seems petty and personal.

The trade market will be thin now that his current team values him like an undrafted player. The right move is to release him and use that roster spot on a real backup safety.

RGIII has a future and Kansas City is a good fit. Griffin's combination of accuracy and mobility make him the high-upside version of Alex Smith that could take the Chiefs into serious contention. In light of his work resuscitating the careers of Smith and Michael Vick, Andy Reid may be the best coach for him.

-I'm excited for the Ryan Mallett era in Houston. Having watched him in New England, the arm talent is for real, but so are his struggles on touch throws. Starters' practice reps should help iron those out. As a 27 year-old in his fifth season, his moment is now.

I'm impressed by Houston's short leash with Brian Hoyer. Conservative coaches would have left 'the savvy veteran who knows what it takes in this league' in for several games, but Bill O'Brien and Co. are actually committed to winning now. Mallett may fail, but he has the tools to be a long-term starter, whereas Hoyer is a high-end backup.

-In a similar vein, Rex Ryan's decision to start Tyrod Taylor is even more impressive. Athletic projects like Taylor are rarely worth a draft pick, but Baltimore did a fine job turning a sixth-rounder into a serviceable quarterback. Now Buffalo is reaping the rewards. His real ceiling (or floor) is unclear, but foregoing known mediocrities Matt Cassel and EJ Manuel makes the Bills real challengers to New England for the AFC East.

-Speaking of Matt Cassel, he is now in his 11th professional season. After not starting a game at USC, he has 71 NFL starts. That is more than twice as many as Matt Leinart. Since 2005, he has never been out of work during the regular season. Well done!

Anticipating the World's Next Great Food City

In 2011 elBulli closed as a restaurant, and the world lost Catalonia as its capital of culinary cool, with Barcelona serving as its administrative center.

Since then Copenhagen has taken over. Combining the bold artifice of the Barcelona school with the Throw Some Nature On A Plate approach of the farm-to-table crowd, restaurants like Noma and Amass have made the Danish capital the world's capital for culinary cool.

But for how long?

Fine dining has always been trendy, but now more than ever. Through the internet, social media, and Netflix food porn shows, it is now possible for a restaurant to build a greater reputation through fewer actual diners than ever. With this in mind, anticipating new trends is more important than dwelling on current ones.

So what will be the next great fine dining city? My guess is Lisbon, Portugal. The primary reason:

What do you know about Lisbon?

Trendy food spots are always built on some level of general ignorance. How much does the average American know about Copenhagen or Barcelona? What about Denmark or Spain generally? Both countries have a relatively small immigrant population in North America. Neither country has a dish that is commonly made in American homes.

Unlike countries like France or Italy, which have highly formalized culinary traditions, chefs in obscure locales have more leeway to be inventive. Also, when the dining public knows nothing about your city, you can shape their entire opinion with just a TV spot.

Lisbon is the forgotten capital of an irrelevant country. Most American mentions of Portuguese culture are in oblique reference to Brazil. It's also a historic Atlantic port untouched by the World Wars. It still carries mystique as the center of a once great empire... It has a good soccer team?

The point is that Lisbon can be anything an enterprising chef wants it to be. And that's all you need for a great food city.