Lincolnite

I reffed two soccer matches last night. I was an AR on the first match. The weather was cool, but dry. The rain came just in time for the second match. Twenty three people -- 22 players plus me -- ran around in shorts in the cold rain for over 90 minutes. What a bunch of doofuses. Gotta love the tail end of the college soccer season in Nebraska.

If I'm not mistaken, Lincoln's third Walmart opened today on North 84th Street. I wonder if Colleen Seng cut the ribbon? Thanks to Matt Olberding from the LJS for telling us that Walmart meant next Wednesday. Sheesh, you'd think such a huge company could buy themselves a calendar. By the way, did you notice it's Walmart now, and no longer Wal-Mart? Whatever they call themselves, their new logo gets a big thumbs down. It looks like a loading indicator.

With state Senators talking about shrinking the window for parents to take advantage of the state's Safe Haven law from 19 years to 72 hours, at least one family prefers things the way they are. I'm now at the point where I wish senators would just scrap the whole thing and start over. The entire system needs a thorough review. I got to thinking this morning about one thing that hasn't been discussed very much in this kerfuffle: adoption. Adoption is the typical result of safe haven use for young children, so you might wonder what the big deal is. Currently, adoption is really more of a side effect of the safe haven process. I encourage the State to find a way to make adoption a more explicit part not only of the safe haven protocol, but also of services available beyond the safe haven window. By putting more of the focus on adoption, birth parents can have more control over what happens to their child(ren). That empowerment can prove to be an important component in helping the parents deal with the short- and long-term emotional trauma that may accompany their decision. Wouldn't you rather leave your child in the loving arms of "the Smiths" than in the sterile bureaucracy of "the State"? In addition, any modified safe haven bill must include requirements for some sort of parental accountability. For example, it is not asking too much of a birth parent to require her to provide a brief health history. A simple, fifteen-minute health questionnaire can provide a child with a wealth of information that may prove useful in diagnosing or preventing a number of health problems throughout life. The current safe haven law is absurd for its naive simplicity, but at least it did one thing well: it started some much-needed discussions. Unfortunately, the proposed 72-hour limit is likewise far too simple to be of much practical use. We do not need a massive new bureaucracy -- I'm certainly not proposing that kind of inevitable disaster -- but we do need a more complete system than that which is before us; note, please, that a more complete system need not be complex. Our primary goal ought to be to give parents tools to keep their children out of a dangerous home situation, and to place those children in healthy environments where they have the opportunity to prosper. Surely that requires more thought and energy than a 3-day abandonment period negotiated by lame duck senators via the telephone.

The Missus and I each have a cell phone through Alltel. The phones are on the same account. They are billed together. We share minutes. Several weeks ago Alltel notified us that the debit card that was automatically billed each month was about to expire. Alltel told us about this via e-mail and snail mail. When I didn't update the information right away, they also started to call. They never did call me, but they called The Missus repeatedly. They left voice mail after voice mail. They liked to call at times when The Missus couldn't answer the phone. One month before the card was actually scheduled to expire, I got off my duff and updated the card information. All should have been well, right? Not quite. The Missus continued to receive calls and voice messages from Alltel. Finally after several days of this, she answered the phone. The conversation went a little like this: The Missus: Would you please stop calling me! My husband already updated our payment information. Alltel: We need you to confirm the new payment information. TM: Confirm it? My husband did it online. He double-checked it. The information is all correct. A: Right, but we need you to confirm the new information. TM: Uhh, why? A: Because you may not have authorized the change. TM: So even though my husband and I share an account; and even though both our names are on the card being used to pay for the account; and even though I can't imagine a reason why a customer wouldn't want to let somebody else continue to pay their cell phone bill; I still have to confirm that it's ok for this new card to pay for the account? A: Yes. TM: Uhh ... OK. A: Thank you. Have a nice day! Can anybody explain that to me? Why would every person on an account have to confirm that it's ok for a new debit card to pay for that account? If Robbie one day joins our account, will he have to say "OK", too? Color me confused.

The Lincoln Children's Zoo stirred up a real bruhaha when it told daVinci's, Champions, and First Evangelical Covenant Church they can't put a Bible story on the back of coupons they planned to hand out at the Zoo's annual Boo at the Zoo event. As a result, the three groups have pulled out of the event. The zoo is of course free to have whatever policy it likes regarding religious expression. As part of their "human diversity" policy they bar religious verses and references. I don't have a problem with that. The diversity the zoo seeks is relatively shallow, yes, but there's not necessarily anything wrong with that at a facility intended for children. They want to keep things simple. That's not to say I would have made the same decision. Whether truth or fable, the story of Noah and his ark is harmless. As if to prove the point, the zoo would still permit a Noah-themed display at the event; the only problem is the printed story on the coupons. The logic in that inconsistency escapes me. This will be held up as an example of persecution against Christians. Perhaps it is, though I don't think so. But let's not pretend for a moment there wouldn't have been a huge outcry if an organization of Wiccans, Muslims, or some other non-Christian religious group had printed a similar message on an item to be handed out to the kids. I point that out not as a justification, but as a simple reminder to keep things in perspective. Glass houses and all that. Consider daVinci's own Kelly Knudson on that very topic:

Asked how he would he feel if all religions — including non-Christian ones — were allowed to hand out materials quoting verses and stories, Knudson wasn’t sure. “It would depend on what they were doing,” he said.

In the end I don't disagree with the zoo, though I do think their execution was terrible. They waited far too long to make their policy known, and the policy itself is awfully flimsy. This "controversy", such as it is, is their own fault. Worse still, because of their mistakes they have set themselves up for troubles next year as well. As for daVinci's et al., well, more power to them. Dropping out of the event is exactly what they should do if that's what their principles guide them to do. If they're smart, they'll milk this PR opportunity for all it's worth. For example, "Bring in your ticket stub from Boo at the Zoo and receive a free Noah's ark-shaped mini pizza!". Oh, and one last thing: the Lincoln Children's Zoo is private. It is not a government entity. The First Amendment does not apply to the zoo any more than it applies to the Zoo Bar.

I admit I don't have a solid grasp on the costs associated with the proposed firefighter contract. Still, I can't help but feel that the City Council's decision to vote it down is ultimately going to cost us. The question is, will the costs be short term, long term, or both?

Yeah, I know it wasn't long ago I said I wasn't ready for winter. But between Robbie starting to talk about snow and reading this news this morning, I think I'm ready. I'm sure I'll change my mind after reffing two soccer matches tomorrow night in the cold and rain.

Last Friday I joined Mr. T and Beerorkid at El Salvador Cafe in their new location at 221 South 9th Street. They were formerly located on Northwest 48th Street. In business for over 10 years now, El Salvador Cafe offers a variety of authentic Salvadorian cuisine. Or so they say. I wouldn't know; I know zilch about El Salvador. I'll leave the determination of authenticity to the folks who would actually know. The interior is nicely decorated and the restaurant definitely has a cafe feel. In fact, it reminded me a lot of the sort of small town cafe you might find all across Nebraska. It's a nice atmosphere, but it feels more Uni Place, Havelock, or College View than Downtown. If I have a complaint about the atmosphere, it's the huge television in the corner. It felt out of place to me. At least the volume was kept very low. When it comes to the menu, repeat after me: Salvadoran food is not Mexican food. The menu does include a few Mexican-style classics like enchiladas and a burrito, but that's not what El Salvador Cafe is all about. The menu features two primary sections: antojitos Salvadorenos (roughly: Salvadoran appetizers) and Salvadoran specialties. The antojitos include papusas ($2.00), tamales ($1.75 / $2.75 / $4.00), empanadas ($4.25), tostadas ($4.50), and even yucca ($6.50). Many of the specialties feature chicken, beef, or shrimp, and each is served with rice, beans, and tortillas. I ordered the camaron al mojo de ajo (garlic shrimp) ($13.50). The dish featured seven tasty shrimp served over a bed of ... crinkle-cut french fries? Yeah, that caught me off guard. The flavor was great, but the fries were an odd partner. Overall, I prefer a similar dish I tried a couple months ago at Las Margaritas. I really enjoyed the rice, which was a fluffy, lightly seasoned white rice unlike most anything I've had at any other local south-of-the-border restaurants. The meal also featured a small bowl of black beans served in a very thin, almost soupy style. Mr. T went with the camarones rancheros (shrimp rancheros) ($13.50). The shrimp were cooked with green peppers and onions, and they were served in a mild red sauce. He noted that some people may find the shrimp flavor of the sauce too strong, but being a seafood fan, Mr. T enjoyed it. He also liked his rice, especially in contrast to the overly salty mounds you receive at a lot of similar restaurants. Mr. T was also a big fan of the tortillas served with the meal. They were warm and filling without being doughy. Beerorkid ordered a combination plate ($7.00) off the antojitos side of the menu. It featured a papusa, taco, tamal, and beans. He seemed to really dig his meal, though I'll let him speak for himself on the ups and downs of it all. It certainly looked tasty. You may have noticed that the prices of the Salvadoran specialties part of the menu seem kind of high. They are. Prices range from $9.50 (pollo guisado [stewed chicken]) to $14.50 (pescado frito [fried fish] or costa azul [combo of fried fish, ranchero shrimp, and crab legs]). Those prices aren't necessarily terrible for dinner, but they're way too high to be competitive in the Downtown lunch market. In my opinion El Salvador needs to come up with five to ten lunch specialties in the $6.00 to $8.00 range. Service was excellent. The employees were universally friendly and helpful. We did experience one hiccup when Beerorkid initially received an incomplete order, but the problem was quickly fixed and he ended up receiving a free papusa as a result. Food could come out of the kitchen more quickly, especially at lunch time. Perhaps having those 5-10 lunch specials nearly ready to go would help. Overall I would rate our experience at El Salvador Cafe as enjoyable. For now the best meal for your money comes from the antojitos menu. If you're new to Salvadoran food that isn't a bad place to start anyway, since you can try several different items at a reasonable price.

Shadowbrook Salad Company is no more, yet another victim of a restaurateur's eyes being bigger than his stomach, so to speak. It was a good idea that just never quite gained traction.

Classic Lincoln body art shop Guns 2 Roses (possibly NSFW) has moved Downtown to 14th and P. Normally I wouldn't pay that news much attention -- I've never even worn a temporary tattoo -- but in this case I'm worried. Where will the gorillas go? Those things are icons. Maybe if they were to sit on a bicycle it would be considered art... Hat tip: Matt Olberding

I didn't realize that in Nebraska there is no official record of each senator's vote at every step in the legislative process. The Platte Institute's latest policy report lays out the case for what they call "true" transparency in Unicameral voting procedures. I'm all in favor of transparency in government. Improving the official record of votes will improve citizens' ability to track a senator's support of a bill. That, in turn, can provide additional clues to the political processes that led to a bill's passage or failure. Are there any downsides to improving vote tracking at all stages of the legislative process?

Watch the presidential debate last night? So did Chuck Hagel's wife....at the invitation of Michelle Obama. Surely, this must bode well for those who believe Hagel has a place in a future administration, whether it be an Obama or McCain one.

It is great to see that Nebraska has logged its first exoneration under the state's law that allows convicted persons to request DNA tests that may prove their innocence. Unfortunately, in this case it is difficult to declare Joseph White and Thomas Winslow completely innocent since the results of DNA tests only rule them out as the rapists of Helen Wilson; the results don't tell us anything about their role, if any, in Ms. Wilson's murder. DNA-based exonerations are a double-edged sword. On the one hand they get innocent people out of prison. But on the other hand, exonerations of any kind expose flaws in the justice system for all to see. In some jurisdictions, prosecutors fight DNA testing because they would rather have somebody behind bars than nobody. Victims' families often fight the process because they don't want to have to deal with the pain of the crime again. When convicted persons are proven not guilty, evils like racism and corruption in the criminal justice system are often exposed at the same time. Ultimately, it proves that countless taxpayer resources have been spent punishing someone while the real criminal is still on the loose, leaving us no safer than we were before. Freeing the innocent is worth uncovering those uncomfortable truths, but we need to be ready for them. This all leads me to wonder how good Nebraska is about pursuing post-conviction claims of innocence and analyzing potentially exculpatory evidence. Separating the valid claims from the baloney is no easy task, to be sure. Do we have any local versions of Craig Watkins, or perhaps his opposite?

Lincoln City Libraries is holding its annual book sale today through Saturday. Hours are Noon until 8:00pm today, and 10:00am until 6:00pm tomorrow and Saturday. The sale takes place at State Fair Park in the Ag Building. Most items sell for $1.