The Lie of "Transferrable Skills" for PhDs

So you’ve reached a crossroads. Most likely you’re either finishing a PhD or have already done so and the shine of working in academia has worn off. The reasons why you’re seeking this change don’t matter as much as your willingness to plunge headfirst into this new challenge. You shift gears to focus on an exit strategy and to chart a new career path for you.

There is a lot of discussion in the Alternate Academic (AltAc) and Non-Academic (NonAc) circles about how to make these transitions. I highly suggest joining the community over at the VersatilePhD. There are also many good discussions to be had on social media, notably Twitter.

Plenty of success stories exist from PhDs who have made the transition out of the academy. The key word in the previous sentence is “transition.” This is the most challenging aspect of pursuing an AltAc or NonAc career. Of course that process is different for every individual, but I’ve found that there are a few holes in these narratives, or unqualified caveats, that would be beneficial to bring to light.

• Experience Trumps All:
• What you did before embarking on the road to a PhD matters. Did you work between getting your undergraduate degree and starting grad school? If so, you definitely have a leg up on the process compared to those who went straight from undergrad to grad school.
• What you did outside of your PhD work while in grad school matters. Grad school is a lot of work. Whether you have funding or not, between classes, school projects, the dissertation, reading, and possibly teaching, there isn’t much time for outside projects. Again those with the foresight to get some type of additional work experience while in grad school are in better stead (in many cases) than those who don’t.
• You may have to start at the bottom. For some this isn’t a surprise. While it may be easy to turn one’s nose up at an entry-level job, if you’ve never done the job before then you’re not better than entry-level.
• But even the bottom can be a challenge to attain. Even if you’re willing to swallow your pride and take an entry-level job there may not be as many opportunities as you think. Your PhD may work against you more often than not in these situations.
• For those on an AltAc trajectory, the PhD is no longer the de facto “union card” of higher ed. Don’t be surprised if you lose out on a job for which you’re (over) qualified for to someone with less experience/education, but with a M.Ed in Higher Ed Administration. 
• Computers make finding jobs more difficult. Job hunting is a full-time job in itself, or it can be. Every company wants something slightly different. The use of computers has made it easier to find and apply for jobs (sometimes), but they’ve also made it easier for companies to weed people out. Blindly applying for jobs and hoping someone recognizes your potential from the stack of resumes is not likely to happen.
• Hiring managers don’t understand the value of a PhD. You have so many friends with PhDs that the value of the training concomitant with the degree is obvious. But there are scores more people who have no idea. I tend to think that younger people in hiring roles are much less likely to understand the value of a PhD than someone who’s been in industry for 20-30 years. It’s not their fault that their primary exposure to PhDs was in the academic environment when they were in school. Unless a hiring manager has worked with PhDs before the odds are not likely in your favor. 
  
• Hiring Managers don’t care about “transferable skills.” Ok. That’s a bit of a stretch. It’s not that transferable skills aren’t a real thing; they certainly are. It’s just that no matter how well you make your case there are likely even more candidates with the exact (or close to that) experience requested for the job. To use a sports analogy, if a team can draft a serviceable 6^th man (or woman) who would be an early round pick or take a late round pick with All-Star potential they’re going to take the serviceable 6^th man, because unlike sports there isn’t another draft round and businesses are more risk averse.
• Companies that claim to “think outside the box” rarely do. Perhaps this is true on occasion, but certainly not across the board. In fact most companies that claim to “think outside the box” when it comes to personnel rarely do so. The former president of Stanford even noted this in a recent interview. When companies talk about the ideal skills they’re looking for in employees they’re often closely aligned with those gained from a humanities/liberal arts education. Yet when the recruiters come to campus is the students from the business school who get all the attention. If that’s happening at Stanford, just imagine how difficult it is for everyone else.
• Expect the process to take a year or more. PhDs are used to working hard, but when that hard work is openly dismissed by hundreds of people repeatedly for a year or more the frustration and depression can reach a fever pitch.
• Your professional network is the best and perhaps only way to get a job. This isn’t a new idea by any means. The entire AltAc/NonAc discussion always revolves around networking and informational interviews. I’d just like to push that point further and stress it as the most important thing you can do for your career change.
• Luck plays a huge role. You can do everything right. Everything. For long periods of time. You work hard. You network. You get your application materials professionally edited and prepared for the job market. You have nothing to show for it.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s important to understand that your skills ARE transferable and how they apply to the types of careers you want to pursue. But the idea that your skills, experience, and education, as presented on paper are enough to set you apart is a lie. There are always exceptions to the rules, but they’re just that: exceptions. These are the people who got lucky. Who found the hiring manager that actually WAS open-minded, that DID think outside the box, or HAD an understanding of the value of the PhD. Reading through message boards and online discussions on the subject it’s clear that this is a struggle that the majority of people who make the transition experience.

Thoughts on the current state of the sport of lacrosse

Although I’ve played and followed lacrosse since the early 1990s this year I have had the opportunity to watch more elite lacrosse than ever before at various levels of play. It’s no secret that lacrosse is a fast growing sport, but here are some of my thoughts and observations on the various levels of lacrosse that I think would help the game grow and/or issues I personally find with each product.

Disclaimer: I have season tickets to both the University of Denver and the Denver Outlaws.

Rules:

I attended the Australia/Iroquois game at the World Championships this year. I went with a friend who had never watched the sport before. Having watched most of the games broadcast on ESPN up to that point I had a basic understanding about the variances of international rules. Since this was my friend’s first lacrosse game I spent a lot of time explaining the rules I understood to him and also describing how the FIL rules differ from MLL and NCAA, not to mention NLL. He remarked that it would be a lot easier if all bodies adopted a single set of rules like soccer or basketball have (to a large extent). While I don’t think the variances are too significant for those used to the game I certainly think a universal set of rules would be beneficial. Here are the things that I personally believe would make a good set of universal rules:

FIL

• Field lines. I like the simple 3 zones that are similar to hockey, i.e. no restraining box
• CBO: should remain a figurehead like in NCAA rather than an equal official, as it disrupts the flow
• Running clock: The 4 qtrs of 20 minute running time are awesome. This should be universal. Hands down.
• Roster size: 23 man at the very least. Are you listening MLL? I wouldn’t mind bumping it up to 25 or 26 active roster spots for games though. Seeing some players get hosed because there isn't roster room or having stars sit because of cap space is a big strike against the league as far as I'm concerned.

MLL

• Two point arc: This is the only change I would make to the FIL field lines, adding in the 2 point arch.

NCAA

• Timer on: I actually really like this option and believe that if it were implemented better it would be a perfect solution. Watching MLL I feel like the pace of play is TOO rushed. I like teams to be able to set up and work the ball around. I have no problem leaving the timer on call to the discretion of the officials, but there needs to be synchronization with the official timer and an on-field clock for players and coaches.
• Play on: FIL refs blow the play dead way too easily. NCAA/MLL type play on for infractions needs to be universal.

NLL

• Crease rule: admittedly I don’t watch as much box lax as field, but I really like the NLL rule whereby if a player steps in the crease play simply continues if the other team gains possession.

I'll also weigh in with my observations on the various leagues and engage some of the on-going discussions as well as raise a few of my own.

NCAA

I found NCAA to be a real joy to watch this year. I have very few complaints about this as currently constructed. I think the timer-on needs to be implemented better as mentioned above, but in many ways I think this should be the foundation for the rule changes discussed above. My only real complaint is the over-saturation of ACC teams on TV, but that’s a minor quibble at best.

The major change that needs to occur, however, is to push back the start of the season to the beginning of March. Snow games are all to frequent these days and they’re horrible for fans and players alike. I don’t think that having the final four over Memorial Day is some kind of sacred rite of passage that needs to be retained. Let the season go into June or play more mid-week games, or both. Regardless, this is the biggest change that needs to happen in my opinion. Naturally, this would create an issue with rookies entering the MLL as those players on the top teams would miss half the season or more, but that is an acceptable sacrifice in my eyes.

MLL

I’ve followed the MLL from day one. I remember going to the 2001 final four and journeying over to some random school to see an exhibition of the nascent MLL teams. Tom Ryan’s dreadlocks flowing from under his helmet are something I’ll never forget. I haven’t always followed the league extremely closely. When I lived in Chicago I went to a few Machine games, and I finally got season ticket to the Denver Outlaws this year. But it was always on my radar and I've enjoyed the fact that the league is there since day one.

I can confidently say that I think the fan experience in the MLL is great. The games are fun to watch and the players are accessible and wonderful ambassadors for the game. I find it troubling how so many franchises continue to struggle after almost 15 years. It seems to me that the cost of starting a team needs to be increased, as does payroll. These players should be able to make a living as a professional athlete not the de facto semi-pro status that retain at present. I know a lot of guys make a living through other lacrosse related activities but think of how much better the games would be if the players could dedicate themselves to lacrosse year round. I’ve seen elsewhere comments about whether a players union is necessary. Quite frankly it hadn’t even dawned on me that there wasn’t one. It seems like a logical step for protecting the interests of players and developing a mutually beneficial league for owners and players. Apparently the MLS is the model for the MLL, and granted soccer is more popular than lacrosse in this country, but still MLS only has a few more years in existence and the league is doing MUCH better. Just glancing at the MLS wikipedia page they have 19 franchises and the average salary is about $100k. That seems fair for a professional athlete in my eyes. The tens of millions that major sport athletes make is ridiculous in my opinion, but players need and frankly deserve that type of compensation in exchange for creating the best possible game they can. This is why I say that the league needs owners with deeper pockets. If you look at the MLS they lost hundreds of millions of dollars to get the league up and running. I don’t know if all of that has been recouped yet, but it will likely take that type of sacrifice to get MLL to where it needs to be. I get the impression that MLS’ growth will have made those losses worth the investment in the long run.

The catch 22 here is that there aren’t the butts in the stands to support these financial expenditures. It seems that new standards for establishing a new franchise need to be created to ensure that ownership has the facilities and backing to support a team in the short-term AND the long-term. When the lights go off at 11pm, regardless of weather delay or not, MLL looks bush league. I don’t have a solution to the lack of fan turnout. I would say focus on cities that aren’t overly saturated with professional sports teams, but then you see Rochester and Florida barely getting anyone to their games and Denver and Boston, two HIGHLY saturated markets, leading the league in attendance. The fact that Philly can’t sustain a team is sad. Both the Barrage and now the Wings look to be on the chopping block. I don’t know what went wrong there, but contraction is the wrong direction. I would think that a couple of California teams would fare better now as opposed to 10 years ago when the MLL first attempted it, but a lot depends on how the teams are run, obviously.

FIL

The biggest problem facing international lacrosse is the lack of parity. And this is a huge issue in my opinion. At the top of the hierarchy is the US. The next grouping consists of Canada and the Iroquois Nationals. One may include Australia in this group or slot them next, followed by the rest of the current Blue division - Japan and England. If one thing is clear from the 2014 World Championships its that lacrosse has a huge parity problem. The USA blew out everyone they played, save for Canada, which they still beat by 3 goals. The Americans could pretty much cruise through the next three games. When they finally faced another challenge from the Iroquois at the end of pool play the Americans were much more rested because they could sit back in their blowouts and rest players. Having fresher players only increases the gap between the Americans and others. Call me unpatriotic but it’s not fun to watch the US play in this tournament. There is no drama. Nothing enticing about knowing the game is going to be a blowout and to have that confirmed quickly and frequently. To think that other countries will be able to close the gap in the next 10 years is unrealistic. Yes, the sport is growing and gaining popularity across the globe, but these emerging lacrosse nations are not touching the top three any time soon.

To add another layer of complexity to this situation, if the IOC does add lacrosse, what would become of the Iroquois Nationals? Would they be forced to play for either the US or Canada? If so, that would tip the scales even more off balance. Not to mention the fact that I think that type of stipulation would go over like a lead ballon in the native community.

What international lacrosse needs, in my opinion, is to take a page from FIFA’s book. Lacrosse would really benefit from an off-year tournament too, like the UEFA Euro tournament viz the World Cup. Encourage more friendlies between countries, especially the US/Canada/Iroquois so that other countries can play against the best in a benign context. At this point it also seems that anyone who can afford to make the trip can play in the world championships. Some sort of qualifying schedule would not only help teams get more reps, but ensure that the best teams make the tournament and hopefully make it more competitive. I understand that at this point the move is toward inclusiveness, but competitive balance needs to be on the table as well.



I haven't followed NLL or LXM PRO as closely as the above leagues so I don't want to sputter off about them in an uninformed way. Enough of my thoughts above are based on conjecture to begin with so I'll stop while I'm ahead.

I could go on about all of this but I'd prefer to leave it at this for right now and see if anyone reads this and has any comments. Perhaps I'm way off base. In some respects I certainly hope so, but only time will tell.

I Am Walter White

I Am Walter White

Well, let me contextualize that statement a bit. I am not the Walter White of “Felina,” the final episode of Breaking Bad, instead I am the Walter White of season one, episode one. That Walter White was a sympathetic figure, a man who’s potential was almost boundless, but the world just would not give him any breaks. Yes, of course some aspects of Walt’s life were the result of his own actions. One cannot deny that, and this situation fits the parallel I will attempt to make below.

The millennial generation gets a lot of bad press for being entitled, lazy, and a plethora of other derogatory adjectives that follow closely in meaning to these. However, not everyone in my generation (I am technically at the very beginning of the millennial generation, depending on what metric you use, but 1981 generally falls into that category) wants things handed to them on a silver platter. In over a decade of post-secondary education I proved that I am willing to work hard and produce excellent results along the way. Not a single PhD that I know (and I know a lot) has a different work ethic either.

In general, it seems that people do not want to complain about job-hunting because it makes them seem whiny, entitled, and heaven forbid a potential employer sees one’s thoughts on the matter. Perhaps I’m myopic, but this seems like a recipe for disaster because if one cannot vent their frustrations the entire process continues to snowball and get worse rather than better. If a potential employer read this post and viewed it as a bitter that's probably not someone I would want to work for anyway. This is an attempt to problematize and explicate issues that many PhDs face.

I’ve earned a B.A., graduating cum laude, studied intensive French at a Francophone university, earned a PhD in history, and have a number of publications in various print and online media, including a monograph based on my doctoral dissertation. At present I am padding my resume with business courses at my present institution (more about this below). Along the way I have developed professional caliber analysis, project management, writing, and editing skills, just to name a few. One does not complete all the school I have without becoming a quick learner, so I can become a subject matter expert on most topics in short order, plus I am very tech savvy and can learn new software quickly if necessary. Based on my experience and what most employers say they want based on job ads it would seem someone like me would have an easy time finding gainful employment.

When I first went to graduate school the dream was to get a full time, tenure track teaching position. I knew the odds were slim at the outset, but I was convinced that I could beat the odds, like so many naïve graduate students. I started grad school in 2004 and by 2008, after returning to the States after 9 weeks of research in Europe, I knew that a full time teaching gig was out of the question. There are many reasons for this and anyone who follows the trends in higher education will know about these. A few highlights for anyone not familiar: public universities have had their state funding slashed in recent decades and are forced to do more with less. This means that fewer tenure track positions are created, and in fact the total number of tenure lines is generally decreasing. Higher education in America is slowly turning into a glorified professional school system where law and business programs lead the way and more intellectually stimulating and rigorous disciplines fall by the wayside. Not only are programs unevenly funded, but about 70% of post-secondary instructors are now continent faculty, meaning they have no job security and little compensation. A quick google search on adjunct working conditions should provide anyone interested with enough fodder to be sufficiently sick by the situation.

Despite all of this, I still wanted to work in higher education. After 10 years in college it was the industry I knew the most about, the one where I was most comfortable, plus I had a PhD, which was supposed to be the equivalent of the higher ed union card. The lure of access to an academic library was also very enticing. Therefore the plan was to get my foot in the door and work my way up to a position that was rewarding and challenging.

Since I have prattled on long enough I will not bore you with the details of my work history in higher ed, but the point is that I have reached the point where it is time for me to move on from the academy. It’s a difficult decision because I love the institution where I work, and on a philosophical level I am very committed to the idea of a university education. However, my relationship with my current institution seems to be unrequited love. Suffice it to say that hiring practices leave something to be desired and the tendency to prefer external candidates over internal candidates is disturbing. Personally I have reached the point where I’ve been snubbed enough times that the writing is on the wall.

I’ve had careers coaches tell me not to take the hiring process personal, and that’s great advice. It’s also very true that who you know is often just as, if not more important that what you know. So here I sit looking for my exit strategy. I am targeting a variety of positions along the lines of business analyst, copywriter, content creator, social media, and things of that nature. Basically something at the associate to mid-senior level, based on conversations with career advisors who understand how my skill set translates to the business world.

There has been a lot of talk in recent years that Denver, where I live, is the next Silicon Valley. That may be a bit premature, but there are a lot of IT based companies and start-ups in the area. The funny thing is that businesses claim they love to think outside of the box when hiring people. Tech firms especially seem to pride themselves on hiring the best and brightest and teaching them the specifics about what makes its given industry run.

I only have anecdotal evidence at this point, but I can say that in the current economic environment that this is decidedly not true. In fact, it seems that hiring managers in every industry are afraid to think outside the box in terms of hiring based on potential. There is nothing more frustrating than applying for a job at a great company for which one is more than qualified, only to be told that they are moving in a different direction, and then the position for which you were just denied is plastered all over LinkedIn and the like.

Most job postings emphasize written and oral communication skills. I've talked to countless people in the business world (and there has been plenty of proverbial ink given to the matter too, like here) who lament the inability of those entering the work force to communicate effectively. What does a PhD have in the way of communication skills? For a humanities PhD, writing probably comes pretty easily. If you can write a book, including formulating the requisite arguments, etc. it's obvious that this person is a pretty good writer. Is this not the type of person a company wants to write convincing copy for their marketing campaign? 

How about teaching and conference presentations? Well if there's a better indicator of oral communication skills I'm willing to listen. Not only does one have to be an effective communicator to be successful at conferences or in the classroom, but many times this is done in an environment that ranges from apathetic to hostile.

It is very difficult to change industries in this economy and not get frustrated, at least in my experience. The catch 22 here is that companies often want more experience, but then no one is willing to provide it. Even getting an entry-level position is a challenge because hiring managers see the PhD at the bottom of the resume and are threatened, turned off to the applicant, or both.

I realize that a lot of this may seem like WIMS (woe is me syndrome) and bitter whinging, and while this is certainly undergirded with frustration it is also an attempt to reveal the problems that many people of my ilk face. What other course of action does one have when the potential is there and s/he has done all the right things, including networking and adding relevant skills sets? (Back to the question of business school. In my limited experience with business school at this point business students, even at the graduate level, are far inferior in terms of critical thinking when compared to students in the arts and sciences. Unless one is at a top 10 business school I see no reason to even bother. To say b-school is soft is an understatement.) When one of the educated elite applies for over 45 jobs in the span of month and only gets one interview (for a job that would be a very good fit) and even that does not bear fruit, what’s next? Surely the situation is even worse for individuals who do not already have a full time job.

Those of us that are trying to move away from the academy and are doing all the right things can keep doing those things and hold out hope for a progressive hiring manager to give us a shot. What really needs to happen, in my opinion, is that more needs to be done by the higher education industry as a whole to promote the PhD and how it translates to work outside of the academy. The only place that seems to truly appreciate the value of the PhD is precisely where there are no jobs for PhDs, i.e. that academy.

There are no easy answers to these questions. In reality I’m not asking for anything other than an opportunity to prove to others and to myself what I am capable of doing. Until something breaks my way, assuming it ever does, I will continue to be Walter White.

Microsoft Word: The Worst Word Processor Ever?

I am currently in the final stages of revising a book manuscript for publication. During the process I've been quite surprised at how little technical assistance I have received from my publisher. I know that many places are cutting back (or already have) on copy editors (I opted to hire one myself using my own money for this project), but the amount of work shifted on to the shoulders of authors is pretty remarkable, especially when it comes to the minutiae of formatting. Furthermore, not everyone is on the same plane technologically speaking. Much of this, I found after poking around the internet and experimenting. Nothing seemed to answer the precise problems I encountered.

Most people will use MS Word for a writing project, not because it's the best, but because it's the industry standard. Here are a few issues I faced when compiling my final MS for publication. Keep in mind that when writing this I had each piece saved in a separate file. All told I had twenty files that I needed to combine and tweak into a single MS Word document. Now mind you, all of this could be done in PDF VERY easily, but I am required to submit everything as a single Word document, not the easier to work with PDF format. (Note: I'm working on a Mac, so the controls might be slightly different on a PC.)

Problem #1: Combining files into one big file.

Solution: This one is actually pretty simple. Create a new MS Word document and set the Layout according to your publisher's specifications. (Note: to make #2 below easier, when setting up the document go to Format > Document, and click the box to "Suppress Endnotes.") Go to the menu bar and select Insert > File... Select the first piece of your document when prompted and insert it. From here I recommend, inserting a page break. Once you are on a new page, insert a Continuous Section Break. Once you have added in both breaks, repeat the insert process. Continue to do this until you have inserted all of the pieces of your document.

Problem #2: Endnotes

There are actually a number of issues with Endnotes and MS Word. Here's what I faced and how I solved them. (These issues just reiterate why I prefer footnotes. Also, if Word simply had an option to Place Endnotes in section X, that would solve the entire problem. That way users could create a blank section and just have the endnotes there and none of this other trickery would be necessary.)

Before I ever combined all my files, I copied and pasted the endnotes from each document into a new, separate document. The biggest pain here is twofold: 1. You will have to manually renumber all of the individual references because once they are removed from their original document they do not maintain their reference number. If you have 100+ references in a chapter this can be a bit of a bear, but in all honesty that would take 2-5 minutes tops so it's not that bad. It sounds much worse that it is. 2. The endnotes in the new document don't auto-update. If you make a change to an endnote in the original document during subsequent editing you will have to make sure to update the corresponding endnote in the separate file you created. Again, not a huge deal, but something to stay on top of as you progress.

#2.1: Inserting items after Endnotes

If you set up your document to suppress endnotes this may not be as huge of an issue. But make sure that you have your end notes set to the end of the Section NOT the end of the document. If you have them at the end of the document, you will be unable to insert anything after the endnotes, i.e. Bibliography or Index, because Word interprets the end of document as just that and Word won't even give you the option to insert a page or section break at the end of the endnotes.

Once you have all your chapters/piece that contain endnotes inserted into the new document highlight all of them. Go to Format > Font (or simply Command-D), and click the box for "Hidden" under the Effects section. This will hide everything that you had highlighted. You should now be able to insert the separate notes section you prepared, as well as the bibliography and index with their proper formatting. You may think to yourself, if I hide everything that is of the Style "Endnote Text" I can accomplish the same thing. Well, I tried that and it hides the endnotes just fine, but it hides the in-text references in the rest of the document as well. If you just hide selected text, the in-text references should be preserved and will align with the endnotes prepared separately.

#2.2: Removing the black endnote separator

This one is actually very simple. Go to View > Draft. Then, go to View > Footnotes. A window will pop up at the bottom of the screen. Select "Endnote Separator" from the drop down menu. You will see a black line appear in the text box of the window. Simply highly and delete the bar. You can then close the window and return to whatever view you usually use (I opt for print layout).

That's all for now!

FACT: Nebraska is flat

My wife and I recently pulled up stakes and moved from Chicago to Denver. It was a move I have wanted to make for many years and now was an ideal time to take the leap and go. Since we're not rich by any means we decided to move ourselves across country. Trust me when I say that there is not a whole lot that compares to driving a 16' Budget truck 1000 miles through the American heartland. As someone who is an aggressive driver to begin with, the idea of driving about 70 mph the entire time was only made bearable by the rattling and shaking the truck made when surpassing 75mph.

We decided to pack up the truck and leave Chicago on Friday evening and drive to Davenport, IA. The original plan was to pack up on Saturday morning and drive to Kearney, NE. Suffice it to say that it was a good thing the original plan gave way to the final plan. We didn't get on the road in Chicago until 3pm... on a Friday... the same weekend as the Air and Water Show in Chicago. Needless to say traffic was terrible and I had been unable to adjust my passenger side mirror, making lane changes virtually impossible. What should have been a 3 hour drive to Davenport took 5 hours. Not only did it take us 2 hours to get out of Chicago, but we hit a nasty rain storm driving across Illinois. Couple that with the fact that I was not used to driving the truck yet, and the fact that we were traveling with a dog, it quickly dawned on us the trip would take longer than anticipated.

After a quiet evening in Davenport, we got up early, managed to adjust the mirrors on the truck (FINALLY!) and set off across the country. I had not driven across country since 1992 and I have to admit that Iowa is a nice state. Plenty of green, rolling hills makes for pleasant scenery. Our destination for the evening was North Platte, NE. Once we hit Nebraska the only elevation change seemed to be the actual curvature of the Earth. What should have taken about 8-8.5 hours took closer to 10-11. That's a long day in Nebraska.

Some random thoughts while driving through Nebraska:
1. If one were to pick an interstate and drive from end to end, stopping at every "Americana" site along the way, how long would it take to make the trip?
2. One such sign advertised a "Danish Museum" and "Danish Windmill." It's pretty obvious what the latter was, but I couldn't help but wonder if the former was a museum of all things Danish, or a collection of pastries.
3. I don't know what Taco John's is, but it looks disgusting.

Sunday we made the last leg of the journey in 4 hours on the dot. Not too bad, and once we got into Colorado at least there were a few hills to break up the monotony. The northeast corner of Colorado isn't much to write home about, but it's better than Nebraska. Seriously, it seems as though when people were drawing the state boundaries they said, "we can't include that hilly part of there. It would ruin the whole flat thing we're going for here..."

The moral of the story: Either hire movers and fly across country or drive a car that is capable of attaining speeds of 80-90mph for long stretches of time in order to get out of Nebraska as quickly as possible.

We don't need no stinkin' bandwagon...

As some who know me can testify, I have a real problem with bandwagon fans. This is particularly a problem with hockey because there is so much parity in the league and they have the best playoffs in professional sports. Being a die-hard Detroit Red Wings fan, it has always been obnoxious to hear fans of teams like the Pittsburgh Penguins and the Chicago Blackhawks jaw on-and-on about their teams, when the vast majority of these folks didn't even know the city had a team just a few season prior. No don't get me wrong, I'm all for the growth of the NHL, but bandwagon fans, in general, resemble Chicago Cubs fans. They are loud, usually drunk, obnoxious, and have no idea what they are talking about in terms of the actual team. Aside from yelling "Detroit Sucks" most Hawks fans couldn't name anyone on the team's 3rd or 4th line before May of this year. Hell, I've been to more Hawks games during my 6 years in Chicago than most people (and one of those years was the lockout). So while I may come off as an elitist, especially when talking hockey I am in some ways vindicated by a recent Forbes list of the best fans. Best in the NHL and 3rd best in the country as a whole is a pretty good endorsement of the Red Wing faithful.

Now if only something could be done about the other problem plaguing the NHL... the horrible commentators on their national broadcasts, but that is an entirely different issue all together.