My first week in Europe

After my first week in Europe I'm now back at Brett and Cyndy's place in Germany, glad to be rested, showered and wearing clean clothes.

I started out here last Thursday after flying into Frankfurt, spending my first night in the Hansens' clean, comfortable stone house in the little town of Bann. The next morning I hit the trains to Milan. It was about a seven hour trip altogether, but it flew by. I was going through the forests of southern Germany, the mountains of Switzerland and finally the sparkling lakes of northern Italy, so there was plenty to look at. Plus, the trains were comfortable and uncrowded.

In Milan I met up with Chris Markman at the enormous Milano Centrale, an old, high-ceilinged marble train station that I imagine is like Italy's version of Grand Central. For those of you who know Chris, he says he's doing well and sends his greetings. He looks tired though -- apparently the Church is working him pretty hard, probably to prepare him for when he gets done with seminary and has to hold down two or three parishes by himself.

Our first full day in Milan was devoted to the city center. We saw the main cathedral, which was amazing, Castle Sforesco, which was also pretty cool and La Scala, a famous opera house, which was just OK. There was a rehearsal going on, so they only let us peek in from a glassed-in box way above the stage, and it was dark in there, so we couldn't see much. We also strolled through the famous Vittorio Emmanuele covered shopping complex. It's shaped like a cross with four anchor shops in the center. There's a Prada, a Louis Vuitton, a swank jewelry store and, get this, a McDonald's. At the risk of sounding unpatriotic, the McDonald's just didn't seem to be in the same class as the other three.

Throughout the day we were also able to view the exquisite creatures commonly known as "donne Milanese" or the women of Milan. I could spend all day just watching them walk around. And then spend most of the following day trying to figure out how they squeeze into those jeans.

The next day Chris and I took a short trip out to Lake Como for another kind of natural beauty. Como is a blue jewel set in the foothills of the Alps, with quaint old towns and modern resorts clinging to the green banks all around it. The city of Como is a good place to spend a day, big enough to have a striking cathedral and plenty of gelato shops, but not nearly as crowded and chaotic as some Italian cities. We strolled along the lake, bought a couple of pizzas and then took a boat ride to Bellagio. It was pretty much an excellent, relaxing day, even if we did have to make sure we got Chris back in time to catch his train to Rome.

After seeing Chris off, I spent one night in Como and then jumped on a train for Interlaken, which is smack in the middle of Switzerland. It was a very pleasant trip, with almost constant views of the Alps (except when we were traveling through tunnels underneath them). I passed the time talking to a Swiss girl named Fabiolina, a student from Zurich. And that was also pleasant, even if her English was limited and my German basically non-existent. Tim Keymer, if you're reading, this is where I could have used your help.

Interlaken literally means "between lakes," which is an apt name, because the city lies in a valley between Lake Brienz and Lake Thun, with 2,500-meter snow-covered Alp peaks all around it. I took a cable car halfway up one of those peaks to the tiny town of Gimmelwald, which is where I spent the next two nights. I stayed in a hostel and met a lot of friendly people, most of whom were Canadian (apparently the Canadian universities finish up in late April or early May, so their kids are already on their post-college European tours, while the U.S. kids are mostly still taking finals back in the States).

I still like the social aspect of the hostel, but I think I'm getting too old for some of the other aspects (the rock-hard bed, sharing a room with five other people, going down two flights of stairs to get to the bathroom, paying 1 Swiss Franc to take a shower, etc.). Still, it's hard to beat the location of the Gimmelwald hostel, with snowy peaks all around it seemingly so close you could reach out and touch them.

My two days in and around Gimmelwald were mostly devoted to short hikes from one little mountain town to another, watching goats kick and tumble down hills and dunking my head in mountain streams (you get warm hiking around, and it was cheaper than a shower). I took one long hike from the town of Murren down to the valley floor, which was probably biting off more than I could chew. It was almost straight downhill, which is a lot more difficult than it sounds. By the time I got to the bottom my thighs were literally twitching. I've never been so happy to see a city bus.

After three days without showering (you hoard your Francs like gold in Switzerland -- it's an incredibly expensive country) and a full week without trimming my beard, I certainly looked the part of a mountain man (even more than I usually do). No doubt some of the folks on the train back to Germany were wondering just how much time I'd spent up there. But I finally arrived back at Brett and Cyndy's house -- smelly, disheveled and quite furry. Thank God for their hospitality. Another few days of hostel living and I might have looked (and smelled) like a full-on Neanderthal.

On the agenda for my second week:

-- A festival in Kaiserslautern with the Hansens

--The ancient Roman city of Trier

--Paris and a visit with Gustavo (college roommate)'s sister, Luciana.

--Munich and surrounding area

--Fly home (probably dirty, smelly and disheveled again) on May 28.

My next adventure

I'm leaving tomorrow to spend two weeks in Europe, which, needless to say, is pretty exciting. I had the time of my life when I spent a semester in Italy in 2003 and this will be my first time back.

I'll be visiting my old Cathedral High School friend Brett and his wife Cyndy, and meeting their two little kids, Madison and Hunter, for the first time. Brett's in the Air Force, stationed in western Germany. I'll also be visiting another CHS friend, Chris. Chris is in the seminary in Rome, but we're meeting up in Milan, because neither of us have been there yet. I'm hoping to see Lake Como while I'm there.

The rest of the trip is pretty wide open. I didn't make it to Switzerland last time I was in Europe, so I'm planning on spending a few days in Interlaken (or near Interlaken). My old college roommate, Gustavo, has a sister living in Paris who I may try and visit (I've been to Paris, but it's the sort of place I certainly wouldn't mind visiting again, especially since it's less than three hours by train from Brett's house). If I have a couple free days, I may try to hit up the Romantic Road, which runs through Bavaria (southern Germany).

I'm trying to leave some flexibility just to keep things laid-back. I'll try and blog a couple times while I'm there. In the meantime, here's a list of things I'm looking forward to:

1. Speaking Italian

2. The Swiss Alps

3. Traveling on trains

4. Meeting people in hostels

5. Castles

6. Italian women (two words: Monica Bellucci)

7. German beer halls

8. Brek

9. Haggling with hoteliers/merchants desperate for tourist dollars

10. Deli sandwiches made with the freshest meats/cheeses/breads

11. Gelato

12. 5-euro bottles of house wine

13. Neighborhoods where the newest houses were built in the 1800s

14. Getting another stamp on my passport

15. Two weeks without worrying if there's anything good on TV

What I'm doing with my life (at least next year)

It's official: I'm Americorps material.

I had my follow-up interview at Madison Elementary in my hometown of St. Cloud, Minn., for the position of Literacy Tutor in the Minnesota Reading Corps. I spent an hour talking to Madison's principal and one other staff member and toured the school. Then I left to run some errands. Within an hour and a half my cell phone was ringing. First it was the principal, offering me the position. Then it was the Central Minnesota Americorps director, asking me where to send the contracts.

As quickly as they offered the job, I accepted it even more quickly.

Why would someone with a bachelor's in journalism and five years' experience in the newspaper industry jump at the chance to make $800 dollars a month in a completely unrelated field? There's a lot of reasons. I like kids and I like reading, and this job involves helping kids in grades K-3 catch up on their reading skills, which sounds like it could be a lot of fun. I've been given a lot in my life and this is an opportunity to give something back. Sixty percent of kids at Madison are on free or reduced-price lunches. Many are immigrants or children of immigrants (the principal estimated that 7 different languages are spoken there). They need a helping hand and if I can give it to them, that would be pretty rewarding.

St. Cloud was basically Lilly-white when I lived there. It's obviously changing a lot, and it will be exciting to delve into the city and really experience those changes first-hand. It will also be nice to spend more time with my parents and Grandma (believe it or not, I'm not dreading moving back in with them at age 27) and my old high school friends, many of whom are only an hour away in the Twin Cities.

But the thing that enticed me most about this position was that they wanted me. The principal and the other staff member I met were both excited and enthusiastic about the prospect of working with me. When they called me back they told me I nailed the interview and they had talked it over and decided they didn't want to interview anyone else. After the past few months, hearing that just felt really good.

The responses I've gotten from the newspapers I've applied at has been much different. I sent out about 10 applications, to places as far-flung as Ames, Iowa; Emporia, Kansas; Bozeman, Montana; upstate New York and Shawano, Wisconsin. I haven't had a single interview. I haven't even gotten a "We received your application, thank you very much" courtesy e-mail. The Ames job was the one I wanted the most, so I sent them two follow-up e-mails. A month later I finally got a response, a mass e-mail saying they'd had 150 applicants in the first 10 days the job was posted and that of course they were not able to grant all of of us interviews. "The position has been filled. Thanks for your interest."

I've gotten tired of the geniuses who tell me I should have known better than to go into newspapers in the first place, that anyone could have seen this coming. I know I'm not supposed to take this personally, but it kind of implies that all the articles I've written over the past five years weren't worth the paper they were printed on. That sure, my writing is OK, but no one's going to pay for it, especially when they can get somebody else's for free on some silly blog (like this one, I suppose, which spurs me to say that if you're reading this in place of a newspaper -- don't. Go out and buy a newspaper as well, because there's much more pertinent information in there).

Most of the journalists I've met have the same motivations. We're not in it for the money, because very few of us get paid much anyway. We're not in it for the fame, because aside from a few well-known columnists, we're all just a bunch of anonymous by-lines. Most of us are in it because we love to write, we love to create something out of thin air, take information people need and craft it into a clear and entertaining package. And we like the idea that once in awhile something we write might touch somebody, change a life, or otherwise make the world a slightly better place. We don't demand much money for this service, but we would like enough to live on.

I'd still like to make a living writing someday, but right now trying to find someone who will let me do that just looks like too much of a miserable, ego-crushing, uphill slog. I think I'm just kind of burned out on the whole newspaper industry and readers who would rather flock to TMZ than pay a measly $2 for the New York Times. So I'll take a year off and see if the industry can sort itself out. In the meantime, if I can teach a few kids to read and maybe even love reading so much that they'll pay a little bit to do it in the future, then so much the better. Basically, it's just nice to feel wanted again.

To Favre or not to Favre

To a lifelong Vikings fan it seems almost impossible: Brett Favre, the icon of the hated Green Bay Packers, in purple. Yet it seems close to becoming reality, even if it's hard to tell precisely how close. The main figures in the situation - Favre and Vikings coach Brad Childress - have been basically mum, leaving the talking heads on ESPN to speculate without a whole lot of sourcing to back it up (something they have no qualms about). But there seems to be at least a realistic possibility of Favre suiting up for the Vikes next fall.

I've got mixed feelings about it. Early in Favre's career my reaction to him was similar to most Vikings fans: pure, unadulterated bitterness and contempt. As the years passed and Favre kept showing up to play every week with a genuine joy you don't always see in pro athletes, my contempt changed to grudging respect. Then, over the last few years, football fans were inundated by the annual "Will he retire? Will he come back" Favre Watch. Pretty soon it just got annoying and I didn't want to hear another word about him (call it "Favre fatigue").

After all the years, here's what I think about Favre: he's very good, but not as good as he's been made out to be. Yes, he's got a great arm and he's thrown a lot of touchdown passes (464, or about 27 per season). But he's also thrown a lot of interceptions (310, or about 18 per season). For some reason the turnovers have generally been glossed over or even romanticized by the NFL pundits. Where other interception-prone quarterbacks are called "reckless" or "foolish," Favre is usually called a "gun-slinger," "swashbuckler," or just a "good ol' boy tossing the pigskin around in the backyard." The broadcasters' love affair with Favre was almost creepy at times. If he really does un-retire, it's likely John Madden won't be far behind, coming back and telling Favre "I wish I could quit you."

Thos who aren't brainwashed by the "lovable gun-slinger" myth will admit that Favre is turnover prone. But so are the Vikings current quarterbacks, Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels. If Favre is healthy he's a major upgrade over either of them because of his ability to thread passes into tight spots or chuck it deep. His presence would also command respect in the locker room and and help keep volatile youngsters like Percy Harvin in line. But "if he's healthy" are the key words in that sentence. Favre was pretty awful over the last half of the 2008 season with the Jets after tearing a tendon in his biceps. He hasn't had surgery to correct the problem and, if the reports are true, and Childress asked for x-rays and MRIs to confirm that the injury actually has healed on its own, that was a smart move on his part.

If Favre is physically sound, the only reservation the Vikes should have about signing him is his motivation. Is he coming back because he's really committed to working hard in training camp, thoroughly preparing for each opponent and being a team leader? Or is he coming back just to play against the Packers twice and stick it to them for pushing him out? You have to wonder why he's specifically seeking out the Vikings and not another relatively strong team with lackluster QBs, like the Tennessee Titans.

You have to be careful about individual agendas in the NFL, especially at quarterback. No other position has as much decision-making autonomy, and if a quarterback is pressing in order to prove a point, it can be disastrous. Before the Vikes sign Favre they need to make sure of two things: his arm is healthy and he's not just looking to exact revenge on the Packers.

The new K is OK

I got my first look at the Kauffman Stadium renovations Wednesday when I went to watch the Royals play the Mariners. Here's the changes I noticed:

1. The new facade: There's a big, round, glass facade around a good portion of the stadium with a bunch of team offices inside. It looks kind of like a small section of the Sprint Center taken and tacked onto Kauffman. It's a cool architectural feature. Makes the stadium look more modern.

2. Food: There's all kinds of new concession stands, with all kinds of new food. Burnt end and brisket BBQ sandwiches, ribs, loaded nachos, etc. etc. Of course it's all still really expensive. The new menu isn't going to make much of a difference for me. I rarely eat at ballgames or movie theaters cause I just don't like feeling ripped off. I did try the brisket sandwich Wednesday for the sake of the blog (that's what I told myself, truth is I was just hungry) The meat was lean and tender, but the BBQ sauce was pretty bland. It cost $6.50, which I guess isn't that much more than you'd pay at Gates or Jack Stack.

3. More handicapped seating: There's new big patios in the upper deck with more spaces for people in wheelchairs. Having spent a year in a wheelchair myself, this improvement is near and dear to my heart. Kudos.

4. Outfield patios: Without losing the stadium's trademark fountains, the Royals managed to put in a bunch of new decks and porches in the outfield. Some are for private parties, some are general admission. It's added some depth and some uniqueness to the outfield, giving Kauffman more of a distinct look.

5. Jumbotron: I saw this last year, but it's still striking. Really big, really clear, really impressive. They sometimes clutter it up with too many statistics and you have to wonder what the carbon footprint is on something like that. But it's great for replays and there's no denying it's supercool.

6. Bathrooms: They've replaced the urine troughs with individual, partitioned urinals in the men's room, which gives at least a little privacy (Ladies, you've never known the joy of peeing in a trough next to 30 other people. I know you're jealous). The facilities are better, but the floor was still disgustingly wet. I like to tell myself that it's just condensation from the porcelain urinals dripping onto the floor, but that seems unlikely. When you've got a high-pressure stream of urine hitting a hard surface there's going to be a splash factor -- it's just physics. My friend Tim likes to tell a story about when he was at a Twins' playoff game at the Metrodome and the bathroom floor was so wet and slick that little kids were literally running from one end to the other and sliding on their shoes. Gross, I know. It woud be nice if some bathroom renovators would figure out a better drainage system. I didn't get a look at the new women's restrooms, for obvious reasons (the beard probably would have given me away).

All in all, I'd grade the new Kauffman renovations a "B." It's not a huge change, but they managed to spruce things up and still keep most of the place's original flavor. Not sure it was worth the $250 million price tag, but it seems like you have to pay that much just to get the shovels dirty these days.

Would you put your life on the line for a haircut?

When I was back in my hometown, St. Cloud, Minnesota, last week I went to Bo Diddley's for lunch, because they have the best subs (Lawrence folks may argue for Yellow Sub, but any St. Cloud native appreciates Bo Didd's). When I pulled up I noticed that the barber shop next door had a big sign that said "Concealed Carry Welcome Here."

Now, I understand that the shop owner was trying to make a political statement, sort of a passive-aggressive backlash against all the companies in town that now have signs banning concealed weapons. But, all politics aside, is that really a good business decision? Essentially what he's saying is, "I'd love for you to patronize my business, but if I were you I'd come packing heat, cause you never know what might happen around here."

If you own a grocery store that might be fine. People have to eat, after all. But if it's really that dangerous to get a haircut, aren't people just going to let their hair grow out, or maybe buy a clippers and cut it themselves? I mean, it's somewhat absurd to put your life on the line for a haircut, isn't it?

Husband: Honey, I'm going to get a haircut. In case I don't make it back, I just want you and the kids to know that I love you very much.

Wife: Wait a second, why would you not make it back?

Husband: I fully expect a violent biker gang to burst into the barber shop bent on mayhem and homicide.

Wife: A violent biker gang?

Husband: Yeah, I'm going to the barber shop next to Bo Diddley's and you know how biker gangs love Bo Diddley's. I think it's the buy-one-get-one-free lunch special. I mean, if you've got a gang of 30 hungry bikers, you're talking 15 free subs there.

Wife: I guess. Well honey, if it's that dangerous, why don't you just stay home? Your hair doesn't look that bad anyway. 

Husband: No, my dear, now's the time to be brave. I may be putting my life on the line, but let's face it, this haircut is sooo last month. 

Wife: Alright, but at least bring your gun.

Kind of absurd, right? And if it really is that rough out there, then where does that leave people like me, who are trigger-finger challenged? Perhaps I can apply for a concealed hand grenade permit.

Softball — It's like baseball, only more fun to watch

I spent most of the weekend covering the MIAA softball tournament for the Emporia Gazette, which was a lot of fun. Emporia State (the team I was covering) won the championship and I was getting paid to write about sports, which is always nice. 

But, all that aside, it was just good to watch some softball. Here's something about watching fastpitch softball that the average sports fan might not know: it's like watching baseball, only better. It's the same basic structure and rules as baseball, but there are a few key differences that make the game more fast-paced and eliminate a lot of those baseball moments where people are just standing around waiting for something to happen.

First of all, the underhand pitching style in softball is a more natural way for a human being to throw. It puts less stress on the shoulder, which allows pitchers to throw longer, which greatly reduces the number of pitching changes. Anyone who has seen a baseball manager go to the mound and bring in a reliever to pitch to just one batter knows how maddeningly boring pitching changes can be. In most softball games there's one for each team, at most.

Secondly, the bases are closer together in softball, which throws all kinds of delightful wrenches into the machine. The infielders have to move in so they'll be able to throw runners out on ground balls and their margin for error shrinks considerably. Bobble a grounder in a baseball game and you'll probably still have time to make the play. Bobble a grounder in a softball game and you've almost surely cost your team an out. That raises the stakes of each batted ball and raises the tension. It also puts a premium on being able to field your position and also back up several other positions. When there's a bunt in softball, the entire infield often has to shift.

Where baseball is more about slugging, softball is often a constant battle between speed and fielding prowess, especially if there are two good pitchers working. A lot more players in the field get involved with each play there's just more movement than at your average baseball game.

Thirdly, (and this has nothing really to do with the game of softball itself, but I'm going to mention it anyway because — whatever, whatever, it's my hot blog, and I'll do what I want!) I generally find women's softball players more attractive than men's baseball players. That's not always the case (I have to admit, Joe Mauer is dreamy), but it usually holds true. Especially with the Emporia State girls, who showed up at the park every day this weekend having obviously showered, done their hair and applied a bit of make-up. Some even wore sparkly earrings. Yet this did nothing to quell their competitive nature, I assure you. It was as if they were saying, "We're going to beat the heck out of you, and we're going to look prettier doing it."

The final advantage that softball has over baseball is that the girls who play just seem to have more fun than the boys do. A lot of baseball players put on this show of being all detached and casual at the ballpark, like, "Well, I guess I'll play baseball today, but only because I'm really good at it. I derive no joy from this, whatsoever. I'm too cool for that kind of emotion." 

The Emporia State players made no secret of how much they enjoy softball and each other's company. They got in a circle and danced around before every game, they had a special chant for every teammate when they came up to bat and they did all those little psych-up rituals after each out they made in the field — slapping their gloves, twirling around, pretending to shoot a basketball. If you've never been to a fastpitch softball game it might seem kind of silly, but these girls acted like it was the most natural thing in the world.

They were having fun, and that made it more fun for everyone who was watching. Especially me, I suppose, because I was getting paid to be there.

Bulls vs. Celtics observations

Just when I thought the first round of the NBA playoffs was worthless this year, I started watching the Bulls and Celtics. It's hard for the NBA to hold my attention, but I've sat through almost three full games (including the overtime Game 6 masterpiece). Since this series has set the record for most overtime games it's started to get all kinds of press from writers much more established than me (Bill Simmons' column on it:  http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090501&sportCat=nba  )

But, for what it's worth, here are my observations on the only first round series worth watching thus far:

1. Ben Gordon and Ray Allen should stage an off-balanced, hand-in-the-face, gotta-have-it, clutch 3-point shooting contest.

2. Glen Davis is actually a serviceable NBA big man now that he can hit a 15-foot jumper consistently. But he needs to stop crying. Seriously, it looks ridiculous when a guy that big cries because he fouled out or someone yelled at him in the huddle.

3. Kendrick Perkins is a waste of space.

4. Joakim Noah is still incredibly annoying. But he always plays hard, and you have to respect that.

5. If Derrick Rose had a better jump-shot, he might be a future Hall of Famer.

6. The Bulls need Kirk Hinrich on the floor more. Rose is a better penetrator and Gordon is a better shooter, but Hinrich is their most complete guard and he's done the best job defending Allen. Of course, the blown lay-up last night probably won't net him any extra P.T.

7. It's fun to play, "Which big man will make a silly face next?" with Kevin Garnett and Brad Miller. Garnett's facial expressions have gotten him more TV time than a lot of the guys who are actually playing.

8. If Rajon Rondo had a better jump-shot, he might be a future Hall of Famer.

9. How can Paul Pierce look so slow and still get seemingly any shot he wants?

10. John Salmons might be the best player no one has ever heard of. Which, after six years in the league, begs the question: when did he get so good?

11. Stephon Marbury might be the worst player everyone has heard of. Which begs the question: when did he get so bad?

12. Seriously, this Rondo vs. Rose match-up is athletically delicious. It's too bad neither of them can shoot.

13. Ray Allen is turning into Jesus Shuttlesworth like 15 years after the movie was made.

14. Thank God that Garnett isn't playing. With him, the Celts would have rolled and we wouldn't have nearly this much drama.

15. Is there any way Game 7 (Saturday) can live up to the first six?