951 Places Left To See

On a recent layover in the Denver airport, Christina and I picked up a book called 1,000 Places to See Before You Die. Here are the places on the list I've seen:

• The Costwolds -- mentioned, for example, here.
  
• Canterbury Cathedral -- some colleagues and I visited it on September 8, 2001.
  
• London -- for example, here.
  
• Hadrian's Wall -- I visited it with my parents in the summer of 1994 or 1995.
  
• Bath -- Christina and I went there in 2003.
  
• Stratford-upon-Avon -- I saw a play here in September 2003.
  
• Stonehenge -- Christina and I visited here in April 2003.
  
• York Minster -- I'm pretty sure I visited there in the 1993-95 time frame.
  
• Scotch Whisky Trail -- We stopped here on a trip to Scotland I took with my parents in the summer of 1994.
  
• Highland Games -- This was the highlight of the aforementioned trip. The Queen was there, too!
  
• Edinburgh Castle -- for example, here.
  
• Bruges -- I went there in May 2000.
  
• The Blue Mountains -- Christina and I visited there in July 2002.
  
• Sydney Opera House -- We visited there on that trip, too.
  
• The Great Barrier Reef -- Ditto.
  
• The Inside Passage -- I visited there in September 1996.
  
• The Getty Center -- Christina and I visited there in June 2002.
  
• Hollywood -- We visited there on the same trip.
  
• Monterey Peninsula -- I visited there in December 1995.
  
• The Pacific Coast Highway -- I first drove it in 1992.
  
• Everglades National Park -- I visited there in January 2003.
  
• Walt Disney World Resort -- I went there with my parents in 1976 and 1980.
  
• Savannah -- I visited there around 1995.
  
• Art Institute of Chicago -- I went there in November 2003.
  
• The French Quarter -- Christina and I visited there in April 2001.
  
• The New Orleans Restaurant Scene -- same trip.
  
• New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival -- same trip.
  
• Chesapeake Bay -- Right in my backyard.
  
• Bellagio -- We went there in our August 2001 trip to Vegas for Martin and Jeanene's wedding.
  
• The Las Vegas Strip -- same trip.
  
• The Adirondacks -- I visited there in June 2004.
  
• Finger Lakes -- I visited there in May 1998.
  
• New York City -- I visited there on a 7th grade field trip.
  
• Gettysburg -- I visited there on a 6th grade trip.
  
• Pennsylvania Dutch Country -- I went to "math camp" there several summers in the mid-1980s.
  
• Philly Food -- Christina and I sampled it on our trip in August 2003.
  
• Independence National Park -- same trip.
  
• Beaufort and the Low Country -- circa 1997.
  
• The Heart of Charleston -- I first went there for a conference in 1994.
  
• Low Country Cuisine -- circa 1997.
  
• Monticello -- Christina and I went there right after our wedding in October 2002.
  
• Colonial Williamsburg -- I visited there on an 8th grade field trip. Boy, they knew how to pick those field trips, I guess!
  
• The National Mall -- in my backyard.
  
• The Smithsonian -- also in my backyard.
  
• Banff -- We visited there in May 2003.
  
• Niagara Falls -- I first visited there in conjunction with a debate tournament in Buffalo in 1987. It's also the first time I ever left the US (albeit briefly).
  
• Vieux Montreal -- I visited there on a trip in May 2002.
  
• Chichen Itza -- We went there on our honeymoon in October 2003.
  

Wow, there were a lot of neat moments captured on that list. What amazes me is that 23 of them -- almost half -- are place I've only visited in the 4 1/2 years since I started this blog. I think it's partially because I've opened my eyes and tried to look for new opportunities to see the world. It's also partially because Christina has encouraged me to look around and see more of the world.

I don't think this is as good to use as a "checklist" as the World Heritage list -- there are far too many expensive hotels on the list. But it's interesting to see what I've managed to visit. I'll probably look around for things on the list that are possibilities for future visits, and I'll note it here when I visit them.

Hot Streaks

Here are the longest active NCAA Division I Men's Basketball winning streaks:

• University of Connecticut: 9
  
• University of Michigan: 5
  
• McNeese State University: 4
  
• Birmingham-Southern College: 3
  
• Columbia University: 2
  
• University of Tennessee at Martin: 2
  
• Brown University: 1
  
• Gardner-Webb University: 1
  
• Qunnipiac University: 1
  

As Tony Kornheiser would say, "That's it. That's the list." All other teams lost their last game. Why? 63 teams lost in the NCAA tournament. 39 lost in the NIT. Most teams that didn't make those tournaments played in their conference tournaments. In general, if they didn't make the NCAA tournament, they must have lost in the conference tournament. That leaves the teams that didn't play in the conference tournament. Those teams are generally really bad, and thus unlikely to have won their last game. So how did the teams on the list make it?

• University of Connecticut: Won NCAA tournament.
  
• University of Michigan: Won NIT tournament.
  
• McNeese State University: Won last 4 games despite being really bad.
  
• Birmingham-Southern College: Won conference tournament, ineligible for automatic bid to NCAA tournament.
  
• Columbia University: No Conference Tournament in Ivy League.
  
• University of Tennessee at Martin: Won last 2 games despite being really bad.
  
• Brown University: No Conference Tournament in Ivy League.
  
• Gardner-Webb University: Won last game despite being really bad.
  
• Qunnipiac University: Won last game despite being really bad.
  

Why do I notice this? I just think it's funny that the University of Michigan (my alma mater) has the second longest winning streak despite being in the "others receiving votes" category of the AP Poll.

Last Minute Prediction

I'm going to make 3 last minute predictions for the record. Contrary to conventional wisdom,

1. We will know the winner by 3 AM EST.
   
2. The winner will win by a margin of more than 1.5% of the popular vote. (I almost went to 2, but I chickened out.)
   
3. The winner will win by 50 electoral votes.
   

I'm not greatly confident of these, but it's my gut feeling, and I wanted to get it out there "in print" before the election.

The Mysterious Question F

In a previous post, I gave my election endorsements. I relied on this article from the Gazette to guide me as to the meaning of Question F. The article said

Question F...would prevent any council members who have served two terms from running for an at-large seat in the 2006 election, assuming at-large seats are added.

Now comes the Washington Post with their endorsement. They say,

We...urge a "yes" vote on...Question F, which would allow a district council member who has maxed out under Prince George County's two-term limit to run again for an at-large seat.

What? That would be the opposite of what the other paper said. Let's look at the text.

To provide that members of the County Council may not be elected to more than two consecutive terms...

So the Post recommended a yes vote based on a complete misreading of the Question.

You know, I was going to change my vote on Questions A-E, since the Post recommends a yes vote, but now I just feel like they're not really paying attention.

The Great War: American Front

I recently finished listening to Harry Turtledove's the 21 CDs that comprise The Great War: American Front, the sequel to How Few Remain, which I mentioned here last month. As before, I may include spoilers, so if you're planning to read the book (let's face it; you're not), consider yourself forewarned.

First recall that we're talking about an alternate history where the South won the Civil War with the help of England and France. This book takes us to 1914, where World War I is starting. It's England, France, Russia and the Confederates (the "Quadruple Entente") versus the US, Germany, and presumably Austria and the Ottoman Empire. (If the latter two get a mention, it's very brief.) In North America, the war is primarily a struggle of the US versus the Confederates and Canada.

The book is, like How Few Remain, told from a variety of perspectives. Unlike HFR, however, TGWAF (are those acronyms annoying enough?) tells the story from the perspective of common people. There are some historical figures present -- I counted Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, George Custer, Eugene Debs and Marcel Duchamp, but I'm sure there were more. These characters, however, are secondary to the everyday folk -- the New England fisherman, the Confederate Army major with the unfortunate surname "Lincoln", the black butler in a South Carolina mansion...

There's less excitement in "I wonder what a New England fisherman would do in this timeline" than "I wonder what Abe Lincoln would do if he lost the war (and survived)." The book at times sounded like one of those histories where they try to convince you that the life of ordinary people is more worth studying than the life of kings and statesmen. Sounds fun, huh? Nevertheless, the book succeeded in making me think about World War I in different terms -- by hearing Virginia ripped apart by trench warfare, I could more readily imagine the psychological shock to Europeans. And I could more readily appreciate the benefit to America of not having a war on our home soil during the twentieth century.

One of the book's drawbacks is its large cast of characters that makes it hard to remember who's who. Sometimes I had to wait until a soldier cursed the other side to remember which side he was on. Another is that everything is very slow developing and telegraphed. In an early scene, Confederate President Woodrow Wilson is giving a speech in Richmond, and soldiers fire bullets into the air to scare away the crowd. Is it really necessary to have a character wonder to himself what will happen when the bullets come back down? It doesn't move the plot along, and it doesn't really provide any "flavor" to the story.

Nevertheless, the alternate history is fairly compelling. By the end of the book, the USA has advanced across most fronts, though the war is stalling. The USA has also pushed the CSA out of Pennsylvania and is trying to retake the parts of Maryland and DC that have fallen. The South is starting to be disrupted by a Marxist revolution led by blacks. That's one of Turtledove's cleverer ideas, and I'm waiting to see how this will play out.

"I'm waiting to see how this will play out" will probably keep me reading through the next three books in the series. Yes, reading, because the next book is only available on cassettes for some reason. At least by reading the book, I can skip over some of the slow parts.

Wine Update: 3 New Wines

It's been a while since my last update, but we've only tried 3 new wines at home in the interim. This is partially due to traveling, and partially due to enjoying another bottle of the Hardys Stamp Shiraz, previously reviewed here.

1998 Chateau Labarde (Bordeaux)

This is the first Bordeaux we've tried. Despite being the most expensive wine we've tried, it was not from a particularly prestigious Chateau. Some quick Googling turned up this article, which indicates that Labarde is the tertiary vineyard of a Chateau that had fallen on hard times, but is coming back. Still, it is a Bordeaux, and they do make good wine there. We enjoyed this wine, but I don't think it really whet our appetite to get deeper into French wines. We may stick with our apparent preference for Southern Hemisphere wines.

2002 Di Majo Norante Sangiovese

This wine was enjoyable -- fruity, with a medium body, but not too oaky or tannic. I think we'd try it again if we came across it, but we're willing to consider other Sangioveses.

2001 Hardys Nottage Hill Merlot

I picked up this wine at Franklin's after a recent trip. Franklin's is a restaurant and general store just over a mile from where we live, and it makes the best hamburger around. As a bonus, you don't have to fight the students for parking -- just the crowds of locals who show up for good food and the beer from their brewpub.

We both enjoyed this wine; it's the best Merlot we've had in a while. I wonder if the Hardys Stamp Merlot, which generally runs $2/bottle cheaper, would be of similar quality. Christina said she tends to prefer Cabernets to Merlots, so maybe we'll look for a good, reliable Cabernet, although we have several Merlots in the chiller to help us out in that direction.

The Android's Dungeon Endorses!

I have to fill out my absentee ballot, so I thought I'd share the research I did to come to my decisions. So long secret ballot -- take that, Australia!

President

I think Jon Stewart summed it up best: "If one guy drove me into a ditch and said, 'Don't worry, I know how to get us out of this,' I'd give the keys to a 7-year-old." The Android's Dungeon recommends a vote for John Kerry.

U.S. Senator

Let's take a look at an article about the Mikulski/Pipkin debate, since I, like 99% of Marylanders, didn't watch it. Let's see. Pipkin criticized Mikulski for voting to raise taxes "350 times", opposing the Medicare prescription drug bill, and opposing some of Bush's court nominees. On the first charge, if he's using the same math Bush uses to count how many times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, he's lying. Also, even if she has, we have a deficit spiraling out of control, so maybe we should send her back to keep trying. On the second charge, the prescription drug bill was a big waste. The Bush administration covered up the bill's true costs. Finally, the Constitution gives the Senate the task of approving judicial nominees. Inherent in that is the right to disapprove. If Mikulski says she voted for 95% of the Bush nominees, that seems a bit high. The Android's Dungeon recommends a vote for Barbara Mikulski.

Representative

We've got the second most powerful Democrat in the House representing us. Why mess up a good thing? The Android's Dungeon recommends a vote for Steny Hoyer.

Judge of the Circuit Court

"Vote for No More Than Three"? Conveniently, there are only three people on the ballot. I tend to think judges should stay in office unless they embarrass themselves significantly. In fact, I'm not sure we should be voting on them. So I Googled the candidates to see if I came up with anything embarrassing. I didn't find anything embarrassing -- well, not for them, but I think the State of Maryland should be embarrassed for misspelling "Judge". The Android's Dungeon doesn't really care how you vote on this one.

Judge, Court of Special Appeals

This one is a "for continuance in office" that passes the Google test.

Ballot Questions

Questions A-E are for approving bonds allowing the county to borrow money for roads, libraries, public safety, county buildings and community colleges. The League of Women Voters directs me to a web site where I can look up the text of these bills. Unfortunately, the text just gives a list of projects and refers me to the county "capital program" for details. I can't find the county capital program on-line. They're making this too difficult. In general, I'm going to vote no. But the roads need help, and I find it hard to believe that libraries can't use the money, so yes on A & B, no on C, D & E.

Questions F, G, H and I are a big mess, but it's basically explained here. The key here is Question H, which will add 2 at-large seats to the County Council. Seems reasonable enough. But it will also make the top vote-getter from the two at-large seats the Council Chair. That seems a little pointless. Question G will overturn that second provision. Question F will amend the term limits rules to prevent my council member from running for one of the at-large seats. I hate term limits, so no on that. Question I will make the at-large members non-voting members. This is just a big waste of time. So yes on G & H, no on F & I.

Question J reduces the number of hours the county can hire temporary employees for. If they want me to vote for this, they need to explain it better. No on J.