198

What in God’s name is God’s name?

Jesus. No other word in our culture packs quite the same punch. Use it (or invoke it, if you will), and the dynamics of a conversation change, one way or another. Sides are drawn, in some cases. Rhetoric and passion bubble up to the surface.

But nobody so much as bats an eyelash if someone starts using the name Joshua. They don’t realize, perhaps, that the man from Nazareth who the Christians revere was called something much closer to the latter than the former.

The name Jesus is an English transcription of a Latin transcription of a Greek transcription of an Aramaic transcription of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. The man himself would have been called Yeshua, which is the Aramaic — the common tongue of the Middle East during the Age of Rome. Doesn’t sound much like Jesus, does it? So how did we get there?

Folk who would have called him Yeshua were using a transcription of a Hebrew word meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” Who’s Yahweh? The Christian god, of course. You thought his name was just “God”? Yeah, so do most Christians.

Anywho, people in the post-Babylonian sunshine belt spoke Aramaic, but they wrote Greek — common Greek, called κοινη (“coin,” eh?), a leftover of the Alexandrian empire that persisted well into the seventh centry, or thereabout. The New Testament of the Bible (“library”) was all written in common Greek, and the spoken “Yeshua” was transcribed into the written Ιησοΰ (“ee yay Sue”).

Around A.D. 400, the upswing of Roman Christendom, Pope Damasus I had the Latin Vulgate (“common,” as in “vulgar”) commissioned. The Vulgate was the Latin translation of all accumulated scriptures, editions of which are still in use today. It was the first Latin version that translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, rather than from the Greek Septuagint (“seventy”).

Funny story about that: Egyptian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus was said to have put 72 Hebrew scholars in 72 separate rooms and told them each to write the Septuagint, sure that God would make all the translations exactly the same. Of course, whether the translations actually came out the same or were just reported the same so the translators wouldn’t get flayed or whatnot, who can say?

Anyway, the Church used the original Hebrew for the Old Testament and gathered as much material as they could for the New Testament, filtering out all the stuff they didn’t like. Voila, Ιησοΰ was now Iesus (though not Yeezus).

Well, from there, it just takes John Wycliffe in the 15th century translating the first English Bible directly from the Vulgate to go to Jesus. Easy Peasy. Of course, at the time, this version included footnotes in the borders proclaiming anti-Catholic sentiments. The Church, always eager to turn the other cheek, proclaimed him a heretic, burned several of Wycliffe’s followers, and exhumed and burned his corpse as a response.

Back to Yahweh. You’ve probably heard the word Jehovah, from the third Indiana Jones movie if nothing else, where Indy has to walk across the stones marked with letters and he steps on the “J” by mistake and almost falls in. (“Jehovah starts with an ‘I,’ boy!”) Jehovah is the (once again) anglicized version of the Hebrew tetragrammaton (יהוה), or YHWH, approximately. The word’s roots are Canaanite: roughly, “creator of hosts” (meaning armies).

The word Elohim is also used (usually translated as “God”), which sort of means king of the gods, or leader of the gods. That’s right! He used to have his own pantheon, including Asherah (his very own wife) and Baal. I imagine the wife of God must have been pretty overworked most of the time. Anyway, she later filed for divorce and moved to Sumeria.

Yahweh had a brief time as more of a fuzzy, all-thing, animistic deity due to Eastern influences. Then, around the sixth century BC, he was canonized by the Deuteronomist (“lawyer”) priesthood of the Hebrews into being the only god in existence, and all previous scriptural material was either excised or revised accordingly. Bada-boom: Monotheism.

(You may also choose to believe that God was always the same, and Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, with or without plenary, the direct God’s-mouth-to-scripture-writer’s-hand method … or you can believe both origins at once! It’s a free country.)

So why doesn’t anybody call him Yahweh anymore? After all, the Hindus still call Shiva “Shiva,” and Vishnu “Vishnu.” You see, you may have heard the admonition against taking God’s name in vain. Turns out, that doesn’t mean saying, “God damn it!” or “Jesus Christ!” anytime you smack your thumb with a hammer. No, it means pronouncing the word “Yahweh” aloud, under virtually any circumstances. The Hebrews still scribed the name, but speaking it was forbidden. Leviticus 24:16 states, “He that names the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death.” Oh. Well, that explains why nobody went around saying it. But why shouldn’t he be named?

Again, harkening to animistic spiritualism, the true name of something, as it were, was believed to give someone power over it. I think that’s true today as well from a cognitive-language perspective, but we’ll save that for another article. Suffice to say, the priests didn’t want people to think they were in control, so they guarded the use of God’s name, well, religiously. Only the high priest ever said the name Yahweh aloud, once per year, at the temple in Jerusalem, in the “holy of holies,” the super-secret shrine in the center of the temple. In the English Bible, the name is replaced with “THE LORD,” in all caps.

Some churches have recently started using the name Yahweh out of respect and the desire to, you know, correctly address their deity. But the Catholic Church and many other sects have decided that they won’t advertise it widely. Whether that’s because they like the idea that “God” almost universally means the Christian god, or because they don’t want to cheese off the Jews by blabbing God’s name around everywhere, or because they maybe don’t want to incur his wrath by being careless, I couldn’t say. Perhaps you could, though, if you’re feeling a little cheeky.

So next time somebody asks if you know Jesus, you can say, “I know his real name, at least.”

Rumble-2014

‘Road to WrestleMania’ begins at Royal Rumble

After five months of terrible booking, we’ve finally reached that special time of year when WWE is bearable to watch. And perhaps no WWE show is more bearable than the Royal Rumble.

This year’s show is headlined by a WWE Super-Duper Extra Special Heavyweight Championship match between Randy “Bland White Guy” Orton and John “Bland White Guy” Cena in a “We Ran Out of Stipulations” match that’s sure to be as compelling as a Maven promo.

But we all know the real main event is the eponymous Royal Rumble match. Thirty wrestlers enter, only one can win. Unless it’s 1994.

This year’s Rumble match is expected to be an exciting one. Unlike previous years, there is no obvious winner, though there are some heavy favorites. So let’s take a look at the top contenders to win big this year, forecast where the win could take them, and argue what would be best for our entertainment.


Batista

Chances of Winning: Very High

Returning just in time for the Royal Rumble seems incredibly lucky, and definitely tilts the betting odds in The Animal’s favor. However, being announced ahead of time removes the virtual guarantee of victory that a surprise number 30 return holds.

Batista’s homecoming allows a plethora of interesting story lines going forward. Does The Animal take on the Beast, Brock Lesnar, at WrestleMania XXX? Or does Big Dave aim to be the new “face of the company,” either challenging Randy Orton, or turning heel and joining The Authority to replace The Viper? Any of these options allows for Batista to win the battle royal and move on to WrestleMania.

The most likely outcome from my perspective is a one-on-one dream match with Lesnar. Despite Lesnar’s claims to the number one contendership, I don’t think this match needs the WWE Championship on the line, and it would be stupid to take the belt away from a full-time star who has worked the entire year. Then again, The Rock was WWE Champion last year, so fairness is clearly not a factor in booking WrestleMania.

Equally as likely, in keeping with the unfair nature of WWE booking, would be Batista winning the Rumble and putting Orton away in the main event of WrestleMania, proving that WWE’s long-term booking plans were never about getting anyone new over.

My hope would be for The Animal to join The Authority, replacing Orton after his failure to defeat Cena, opening the door for a WrestleMania main event of D.B. vs D.B.: WWE Champion Batista vs Royal Rumble winner Daniel Bryan.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: Brock Lesnar (most likely), Randy Orton, Daniel Bryan


Bray Wyatt

Chances of Winning: Lowest

Bray Wyatt is perhaps the largest outside shot in this list, but he could be the Franklin Pierce of the 2014 Rumble. (Franklin Pierce was never expected to be a presidential candidate, but he earned the Democratic nomination when the party could not agree on anyone else. He then proceeded to become the 14th President of the United States.) Wyatt, who models himself as this dimension’s Galactus, has certainly devoured the world of our expectations. It’s said that Wyatt is a personal favorite of Vince McMahon, which means good things for our friendly neighborhood cult leader.

Unfortunately for older fans, the most likely opponent for Wyatt in such a scenario is The Champ himself, John Cena. Cena vs. Wyatt could undoubtedly make for an entertaining story line heading into the Show of Shows, so this is another matchup that should not be about the WWE Championship. Bray’s creepy antics and violent tendencies would make for a great foil to pro wrestling’s Superman, and there’s no doubt the match could be an interesting watch.

This seems to be a pretty strong idea for a match at WrestleMania, but again, it doesn’t need a WWE Championship attached to it to make the match compelling.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: John Cena, Daniel Bryan, the Shield


CM Punk

Chances of Winning: High

Even entering the Rumble match at number one, CM Punk has a higher chance than most to win, but it still seems unlikely. The Straight Edge Savior’s WrestleMania spot seems set in stone: a clash with Triple H for which the foundation is already being laid. However, if the last year is any indication, feuding with The Game does not mean you will ever actually wrestle him. Alternately, Punk could be building toward a one-on-one with Randy Orton in the main event.

Punk is long overdue for the final slot on the WrestleMania card. Shafted in that respect by WWE booking for two years in a row, the Second City Saint spent 434 days as WWE Champion without getting to defend his title in the final match of the Show of Shows. To put that in perspective, The Miz, King Kong Bundy, and Bam Bam Bigelow all closed out WrestleMania at some point in their careers.

Despite this obvious injustice, WWE appears intent on booking Triple H vs. CM Punk in what should be a very colorful feud — as long as Punk is allowed to let loose. This means Punk is likely to get knocked out of the Rumble match through less-than-clean circumstances. That will allow him to move forward with the anti-authority story line that promises to birth some very good promos, at least from Punk (with Triple H only pretending he’s on the Best in the World’s level).

In the best possible scenario, CM Punk wins the WWE title in the Elimination Chamber and faces Daniel Bryan in the single greatest WrestleMania main event ever. That, however, is the craziest of dreams.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: Triple H, Randy Orton


Roman Reigns

Chances of Winning: Low

Another outside shot whose chances in the Rumble are dependent on Vince McMahon’s whims. Remember in the early days of the ECW “brand” when Paul Heyman wanted to build his show around CM Punk, and Vince said: No, the future is in Bobby Lashley? Clearly, Vince knows his stuff. Anyway, Lashley was nowhere near ready, while Punk was already blazing trails and getting over based on in-ring performance alone. So, as expected, Vince went with the bland meathead.

Roman Reigns is no Lashley. Reigns is great. Reigns has potential. Roman Reigns, however, is perhaps the third most talented guy in The Shield. Being the third best in The Shield still makes you better than 90 percent of professional wrestlers, but it shouldn’t warrant a rushed push. Still, that’s obviously the direction WWE is deciding to go, leaving Rollins and Ambrose to either find a new partner or end the hottest gimmick WWE has introduced in a decade.

Rumor is that Roman Reigns’s push is expected to see him plow through the roster in the Royal Rumble. While the Diesel push could be fun to watch, he certainly shouldn’t win the match. The money match for The Shield is either in a six-man tag against the Wyatt’s (remember that pop when they got into a scrape?) or a triple threat among his fellow soon-to-be-former members of The Shield.

If Reigns does shock the world and win the match, his opponent at the big show should definitely be Randy Orton. A win at the Rumble would propel Reigns into stardom and certainly give him some solid babyface support. That kind of popularity, however, would be no match for John Cena’s, who only gets booed out of the building when he is facing much cooler wrestlers than Reigns — guys like Edge, Rob Van Dam, CM Punk, and Daniel Bryan.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose, Randy Orton, John Cena, the Wyatt’s


Brock Lesnar

Chances of Winning: Low

As of now, the Beast isn’t even an entrant in the Royal Rumble, but that could simply be a swerve. Brock Lesnar as a surprise number 30 would blow the roof off the building, and the likely confrontation with Batista would immediately ignite a WrestleMania feud. Lesnar could eliminate The Animal and win the Rumble, with Batista taking the belt in the Chamber, setting up the epic clash of big men on the Grandest Stage of Them All.

Lesnar has long been rumored to be The Undertaker’s opponent for this installment of The Streak, but that seems to be losing favor with the fear that his rough style could hurt the aging Phenom. Another option for Lesnar at WrestleMania would be for him to win the title at Elimination Chamber, becoming The Authority’s new champion and a seemingly unbeatable force, to be conquered at WrestleMania by either his 2013 SummerSlam opponent, CM Punk, or the people’s choice, Daniel Bryan, either of which promises to be an awesome match.

The best decision may simply be to leave the Beast out of the Rumble match and book him against Batista (see above). Their clash should be about who is better and stronger, not about a championship that neither has held in years. And if Lesnar isn’t going to win, he shouldn’t be anywhere near the Rumble match.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: Batista, The Undertaker, Daniel Bryan


Daniel Bryan

Chances of Winning: High

It’s very rare that the sentimental favorite for the Royal Rumble is considered an unlikely victor for the match. I list Bryan as highly likely to win because of the grassroots support for the man, and because it would be the best next step in Bryan Danielson’s long journey to being a legitimate WWE Champion. Despite this, WWE’s booking of Bryan has clearly been terrible, and it seems unlikely Vince is going to trust the man with the WrestleMania main event, despite his overwhelming popularity.

We all want Daniel Bryan to win this match. Even though I am a CM Punk fan first, I want Bryan to win the WWE Championship at WrestleMania. There is no better possible conclusion to the terrible Authority story line than Punk defeating Triple H, and Bryan finally obtaining the WWE Championship (again).

Unfortunately, the question of who his WrestleMania opponent would be is very tricky. WWE can’t possibly sell Orton vs. Bryan as the main event of another pay-per-view (is that word anachronistic now?), and while John Cena vs. Daniel Bryan II would be huge, it’s doubtful that anyone in WWE would allow Bryan to beat Cena twice. No one gets that kind of honor. Cena vs. Bryan also lacks the payoff for the god-awful Authority story line, unless — and this is highly unlikely and ill-advised — Cena turns heel and joins the McMahons.

Recent rumors have indicated Bryan is a possible challenger to The Streak this year. The chances of that pairing almost make all of the terrible booking of the past year acceptable. Is there any other man in or out of WWE who would give The Deadman such a good match? And with his never-say-die character, Bryan could get an amazing rub and look unbelievable in his inevitable defeat.

Daniel Bryan manages to be simultaneously the best choice and the least likely to win the Rumble match, which makes judging his odds difficult. I stand by my ranking of Bryan as highly likely to win, despite my better judgment saying it won’t happen.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: The Undertaker, Randy Orton, John Cena, Batista, Brock Lesnar, Bray Wyatt


The Odds

Superstar
Odds
Batista
2:1
Daniel Bryan
3:1
CM Punk
5:1
Roman Reigns
10:1
Brock Lesnar
15:1
Bray Wyatt
25:1

 

Ultimately, Batista is the odds-on favorite to win the Rumble match. However, Daniel Bryan has forged an amazing connection with fans around the world who want to see him succeed more than anything. The question is whether or not Vince McMahon is willing to accept this fact and give the people what they want. Knowing the McMahon track record, this seems highly unlikely, but we can always hope.

After all, WWE thrives on hope. We hope for our heroes to vanquish the dragons and defeat their own demons. We hope the hard worker will get his time in the sun. We hope Triple H won’t cut a 30-minute promo, running down the entire roster. And we hope to see John Cena win against the monsters like Khali and lose to the workers like Bryan and Punk. We hope. And, every once in a while, WWE lets us believe.

Let’s hope Sunday, January 26, is one of those times.

12-years-a-slave

12 Years a Slave stresses Gettysburg’s significance

November 19, 2013, was the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. That date was celebrated across the nation as an interesting piece of trivia, but it is critical to understand that the Address and the liberties won in the Civil War are only 150 years old.

To put that span of time into perspective, railroads are older than the Thirteenth Amendment’s guarantees of freedom, and the last child of a slave only died in 2011. American slavery is, unfortunately, a piece of our very recent history. The film 12 Years a Slave, nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, skillfully displays the horror of a world that was transformed by the events of the 1860s.

Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg was a defining moment in the American story that is difficult to truly comprehend without context. When the war broke out, North and South believed themselves divided over a simple political dispute: who was sovereign under the U.S. Constitution, the states or the federal government? There was a certain inauthenticity in this understanding, as the South was only fighting for states’ rights to protect their “peculiar institution,” also known as human slavery.

It was not until Lincoln gave his address at Gettysburg that both sides, especially the North, acknowledged the war was not simply a political dispute, but a moral one. To the president, this was a war about ending a great evil. While history has immortalized his words, many at the time questioned the president’s actions. Some, indeed, were wondering what took him so long.

The slavery question had been creating more and more heated disputes among the American people in the decades since the ratification of the Constitution. Many in the North saw the war from the beginning as a crusade against the great slave power. Some came from the Quaker traditions of Pennsylvania, which had filed the first anti-slavery petition to the U.S. Congress in its very first session. Many, however, were recent converts.

The printing of two seminal works of literature in the 1850s sparked a rise in abolitionist sentiment. The more commonly known work is Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, but the other work, seemingly forgotten by history, was Solomon Northup’s Twelve Years a Slave.

Twelve Years tells the story of Northup, a free-born African-American from New York who was tricked into a trip to Washington, D.C., where he was drugged and kidnapped. After 160 years of relative obscurity, Solomon’s tale has made it to the big screen, and in a big way.

Chiwetel Ejiofor, a British actor, takes us through the difficult journey from free man with a wonderful family to human livestock, letting the true tragedy of his life sink in deeply with each scene. Solomon is given the slave name “Platt” and is sold to Ford, played by the always fantastic Benedict Cumberbatch.

Cumberbatch plays a straightforward yet challenging character. A product of his time, Ford is a slave owner, but not necessarily a tyrant. Ford finds himself impressed by Solomon and often treats him like a friend, while still keeping the line between master and slave clear. It becomes difficult at times to tell if Cumberbatch’s character is truly a good man or is simply manipulating his slaves to get the best work out of them.

After a dispute, Solomon is sold to a notorious slave-breaker by the name of Epps, played by Michael Fassbender. Those familiar with Fassbender’s work probably know what to expect. His portrayal of Magneto in X-Men: First Class allowed for a lot of moral ambiguity in his actions, but Epps is no such complex character. I believe some men are simply evil, and Fassbender convinces the viewer Epps is nothing short of a monster.

This section of the movie is the toughest to watch, and it certainly lives up to the brutal reputation of slavery in the American South. You may find yourself hoping for the movie to end so you can move on to think happier thoughts, but I believe these scenes are what elevate the movie beyond entertainment or even art; sitting through these uncomfortable scenes will strengthen the character of any viewer.

Steve McQueen’s adaptation of Twelve Years a Slave is a difficult work of modern cinema that displays in stark and real terms the tragedy of chattel slavery. It reminds us that seven score and 10 years later, we still owe a debt to our shackled ancestors, whether we descend from slaves or not. These men and women were viewed as subhuman even as they toiled to build the country of freedom we enjoy today. We owe it to the human beings who worked by the force of the whip: to remember their tragedies and to tell their stories.

McQueen (the director, not the late “King of Cool”) proves himself unafraid to turn a mirror on the United States and remind us all why the dead at Gettysburg did not die in vain. His deft work emphasizes to us that the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation are not simply words on a paper to memorize for a school assignment. They are philosophical tracts that changed the history of America and the world.

The Gettysburg Address changed the reasons for fighting the Civil War. Instead of dying for ideological differences about nationalism and states’ rights, the thousands of men who gave their lives at Gettysburg died for a greater ideal. Those brave soldiers sacrificed themselves so that America could have a new birth of freedom — so that millions of men and women still unborn could live free.

Lincoln believed the American people would not long remember what he said in Gettysburg. But true art — art with a purpose — always survives the centuries. We may not be watching McQueen’s masterpiece in 150 years, but the work done by Ejiofor, Fassbender, and Cumberbatch will keep the story of Solomon Northup alive in the American conscience for at least another generation.

finger1

Why aren’t you drinking New York wine?

The East Coast has, historically, not exactly been known for fine wine. Over the past half century, most of the eastern United States has been identified with grapes grown for Welch’s grape juice or for syrupy, sickeningly sweet wines. Today, the wineries of the Finger Lakes region of New York are demolishing those old expectations with delicious, sophisticated offerings.

Most of the grapes grown on the East Coast in the past have been either native to North America, like Concord and Niagara, or are a hybrid of native and European wine grapes. Wines made from native vines are, for lack of a better word, “grapey”: they taste like grape juice — or, rather, sweetened alcoholic grape juice. The lesser of the hybrids taste that way, too. Both often exhibit what winos call a “foxy” character: a musty, wild smell, like a closet full of fur coats. Not exactly appetizing when thinking about something to drink with dinner.

So why plant these grapes? A big part of the reason is climate. Native and French-American hybrid grapes have a higher tolerance for cold winters and hot, humid summers. Grapevines are particularly susceptible to various fungal infections (or “rots”), and the humid climate of much of the East Coast encourages their growth. Areas south of northern Virginia are mostly out of the question for European wine grapes.

The opposite problem occurs in the Northeast, where winters get too cold for grapevines to survive. (And it is still too muggy in the summer.) Another hurdle has been phylloxera: the tiny, sap-sucking insects native to the soils of eastern North America that feast on certain grapevine roots including — you guessed it — the European varieties. Native grapes are immune, as are some of the French-American hybrids. But in Europe, where phylloxera did not exist before the late 1800s — when the pest arrived via boat and destroyed most of the vineyards, especially in France — many of the vines were susceptible. As European varieties proved to be unsuccessful in America, vintners in the East planted what they knew they could grow.

While native and hybrid grapes have dominated vineyards along the East Coast for years, there has been a very slow-but-steady march toward trying to grow European wine grapes, like the great fruits of Bordeaux and Burgundy, and, later, varieties like Napa and Sonoma that are renowned on the West Coast. Even grapes like Cabernet Franc, Pinot Noir, Riesling, and Chardonnay are being grown now on the East Coast.

The rise of fine Eastern wines has been in step with advances in technology and agricultural techniques. Better planting, vigilant maintenance, improved fungicides, and successful grafting — the process of attaching the European varieties to the roots of a phylloxera-resistant vine — have all contributed to growing wine grapes in less-than-ideal regions.

This effort started in the Finger Lakes region of central New York state, near the picturesque towns of Ithaca and Geneva. (Over time, more wine regions along the East Coast have popped up, like Loudoun County, Virginia, Long Island, the Hudson Valley, and the Niagara Escarpment.) The Finger Lakes — resembling the fingers of a stretched out hand when viewed from above — were created millennia ago by deep glaciers, carving the land as they grew and receded. Keuka, Seneca, and Cayuga Lakes are the largest and best known for winemaking. The stony soils of land sloping down to the lake provide the good drainage that grapevines need. (They don’t like “wet feet.”)

The deep lakes provide a buffer to the changing seasons. In the fall, before the lakes freeze over, the heat trapped in the lake water keeps the nearby vineyards slightly warmer to prevent frost damage before harvest. In the spring, the ice on the lakes keeps the vineyards cold longer, minimizing early growth and the risk of frost damage.

The history of Finger Lakes wine was recently chronicled in Summer in a Glass, a book by Evan Dawson — an insightful and easy read. Russian immigrant Dr. Konstantin Frank was an early pioneer in planting European varieties on Keuka Lake, as far back as 1958. He released his first vintage, a Riesling, in 1962. Hermann J. Wiemer, an immigrant from Germany, was also an important early grower of fine Finger Lakes wine on Seneca Lake. Both wineries are still in operation today, and are among the most successful in the region.

White wines are the real stars in the Finger Lakes. That’s not to say the reds are bad (although some certainly are). Chardonnay is produced by many wineries in abundance, and with quality techniques, but the Rieslings in particular shine bright. Most are dry, clean, racy wines that zing with acidity and evoke a strong flavor profile of citrus and minerality. Rieslings are to the Finger Lakes what Cabernet is to California — the signature wine of the region, the grape best suited to the climate and soil. Those at Hermann J. Wiemer are some of the best — not just in the Finger Lakes, but in the entire United States. Ravines Wine Cellars, down the road from Dr. Konstantin Frank, on Keuka Lake, also produces shockingly good Riesling. Their Dry Riesling was recently named to Wine Spectator’s prestigious Most Exciting Wines list.

Domaine LeSeurre, a brand new winery on Keuka Lake, has created world-class Riesling in their first Finger Lakes vintage. Céline & Sébastien LeSeurre chose the Finger Lakes as their home after working 15 different vintages around the world. Sébastien, from a six-generation winemaking family in Champagne, makes wine that will not disappoint.

If you have dough to spare, try some of the single-vineyard Rieslings. Most of the Riesling in the Finger Lakes come from various vineyards, all brought together to be crushed, juiced, fermented, and bottled. But a few wineries produce Rieslings sourced from a single vineyard, which, tasted next to each other, can produce remarkably different flavors. This is a prized feature among winos, what the French call “terroir“: a sense of place evoked in the wine. For example, a Riesling from one vineyard, where the soil is more gravelly, contains more limestone, and drains more quickly, will have different aromas and flavors than a vineyard whose soil contains more clay. Red Newt Cellars produces four outstanding single-vineyard Rieslings, two dry and two sweet.

Pinot Noir and Cabernet Franc are the best reds. While the big Cabernet Sauvignon wines of California and Shirazes from Australia burst with flavor and tannins, the reds of the Finger Lakes are decidedly more Old World in style: lighter in body and color, with more delicate and nuanced flavors. Heart and Hands Wine Company, on the eastern side of Cayuga Lake, has created world-class Pinot Noir.

Sparkling wine has also taken root in the Finger Lakes, with many wineries now producing dry, Champagne-style bubblers. Red Tail Ridge, on Seneca Lake, has created a Blanc de Noirs and a Sparkling Rosé, both fantastic. Red Tail Ridge has a thirst for experimentation, growing some unfamiliar grape varieties, like Blaufränkisch and Dornfelder from Germany, and Teroldego from Eastern Europe, all while operating in environmentally responsible ways. Oh, and their Pinot Noir, Riesling, and Chardonnays are really good, too.

A four-hour drive from Philadelphia, New York City, and Toronto makes the Finger Lakes a perfect weekend getaway for millions. If you decide to visit, there are plenty of hotels in Ithaca, Watkins Glen, and Geneva, though the region is also full of quaint bed-and-breakfasts. If possible, try to avoid a big race weekend at Watkins Glen speedway. (The traffic is not fun.)

Restaurants are also plentiful, and a few have become nationally recognized, like Suzanne Fine Regional Cuisine, nominated for a James Beard award and recognized annually by Wine Spectator, or the Bistro at Red Newt. For those without the wine craving, there are plenty of outdoor activities, like boating on the lakes or hiking along the waterfalls and canyons of Watkins Glen State Park.

Depending on how serious you are about tasting and how close together the wineries you choose, you’ll probably visit between six and 10 wineries each day. Six is more than enough for some, while others will wish the wineries were open past 5 p.m. so they could visit 11 or 12. Each winery offers wine tastings; a few are free, but most cost from $2 to $5.

Be prepared with water and snacks in the car: you’ll likely drink the equivalent of at least one regular-sized glass of wine at each winery, depending on the size of the pour and how many wines you can taste. Those sips add up quickly. The offseason is a great time to avoid crowds, but the picturesque views in summer and fall are amazing.

So, why aren’t you drinking New York wine? Well, if you’re from outside the Mid-Atlantic, it’s probably because the wines are not readily available. While it’s not hard to find Finger Lakes wine in Manhattan restaurants and in liquor stores throughout New York New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, selection is extremely sparse or, more likely, non-existent elsewhere. One thing holding many Finger Lakes wineries back is volume: limited suitable land around the lakes restricts how much wine can be produced.

Another problem is reputation. Customers gravitate toward highly regarded wines from Europe or California. Most people have never heard of the Finger Lakes, and if they have, they assume the wine is cheap and sweet. Only recently have the region’s serious wines even been noticed by wine aficionados, finally getting reviews in Wine Spectator and Wine Enthusiast.

The wines are truly great, are finally receiving the recognition they deserve, are usually reasonably priced compared to their European and Californian counterparts. So the next time you’re enjoying a meal at a restaurant, why not ask, “Do you have a Finger Lakes Riesling?”

Roll a D6

The scale of nerd: Gamers and shamers

Forty years ago, nerd-shaming was easy. You could readily recognize the unkempt losers by their pocket protectors, horn-rimmed glasses held together by tape, skinny statures, and buck teeth. Right?

“Of course…” knowing adults would say, with a twinkle in their eyes, “one day, that nerd will be your boss!”

There and then, though, bullying them out of their lunch money in order to impress the cute cheerleader was all in good fun! They could surely take a joke, after all.

Nowadays, on the other hand, it’s much harder to discern between nerds, normal people who like nerdy things, and out-and-out weirdos. So I’ve compiled a handy-dandy “nerd scale” to set you on the right path. So, from least nerdy to extreme nerddom, consider the following list of activities that your friends and acquaintances may be delving into, so you can better judge their overall level of “nerdiness” — and the amount of prejudice you should afford them.

The Nerd Scale

  1. Genre media consumer: Does your nerd watch movies like Lord of the Rings, The Avengers, or Star Wars? The good news is that he or she can still be mostly normal and live fulfilling, productive lives, even so! You can hang out with these nerds and not worry too much about your social standing.
  2. Casual gamer: You probably know someone who constantly bugs you to play some Facebook game with them, or who spends a lot of time on “Candy Crush Saga” or “Farmville” (if anybody still plays that). These nerds, while relatively harmless, can fall down the slippery slope to further nerdiness, if not careful.
  3. “Hardcore” gamer: Now we’re in trouble. Experts agree that it’s somewhat difficult to tease out the differences between casual and “hardcore” video games. Generally speaking, though, “hardcore” games are more expensive, have higher graphical fidelity, and tend to release on consoles or PCs rather than mobile platforms. Games like Assassin’s Creed and Halo fall into this category. Specific distinctions that people from either “side” suggest are mostly rhetoric, but don’t tell that to these nerds! They may be unstable, and besides, everyone knows that violent video games cause machine gun deaths!
  4. MMO gamer: These folks are yet another grade down the scale. If you thought the violent, unkempt hoards of “hardcore” gamers were bad, take a look at these! As a rule, massively multiplayer online gamers spend eight to 16 hours a day running around in a virtual Skinner box, performing the same move combos over and over again, hoping to “grind” the best possible “loot.” Whatever you do, do not rely on these nerds to care for your animals while you’re away, especially if it coincides with one of their “raids!”
  5. Tabletop role-player: Long inflicted with terrible and just stigmas, these nerds lurk in basements and roll strangely shaped dice while pretending to be mythical beings and laser-wielding dinosaurs. Truly the very icon of nerd-dom, these gamers have the cheek to defy the bounds of carefully constructed software programming and limit themselves only to their imaginations! And we all know how dangerous imaginations are. Best to leave well enough alone. If you smell one of these nerds, run! Find a frat party or men’s clothier as soon as possible!
  6. Cosplayers: What’s worse than pretending to be an elf in your basement? Dressing up as one and parading about a convention hall! While some of these nerds may seem merely to be attractive people dressed in skimpy clothing, beware! They are fully engaged in playing their persona and do not enjoy your awkward attempts at flirting!
  7. LARPers: Short for Live Action Role-Players, LARPers are the nerds who dress up in costume and then go around playing games in the woods, beating on each other with foam-covered sticks and shouting “10 Magic! 10 Magic! 10 Magic!” like inebriated cultists. Rather than simply rolling dice or hitting buttons to play out their fantasies of slaying evil creatures and performing heroic deeds, these nerds band together, take the field, and engage in physical combat in their pursuit of glory and excitement. Fortunately, LARPers tend to keep their insanity to themselves and rarely wander through supermarkets in costume.
  8. Furries: The very, very bottom of the barrel, these nerds dress up as and pretend to be animals, rather than just other people or elves or minotaurs. Even if we ignore the significant portion of this demographic who are in it for the sex fetishes, these nerds are trying to connect with their inner natures and instincts by trying to see from the perspective of other species of animals! As we all know, no other cultures or societies have ever done anything similar to that! And the sensible, Victorian-era folks knew that it’s always best to completely repress any desires we may have to break free of rigid societal rules and follow our animalistic emotional impulses. That’s always worked out for the best, for everyone!

So, there you have it. I hope this guide helps you to come to grips with harsh reality. Now you can better arm yourself with knowledge that will allow you to more accurately and efficiently deride the nerds in your life, and heaven forfend if you yourself happen to fall somewhere on this scale, you can eagerly point at those below you and know, in your heart of hearts, that you are a better person than they are.

wonder-woman

Wonder Woman deserves her own movie

What’s the difference between Wonder Woman and Katniss Everdeen?

Katniss has her own movie. Wonder Woman, despite her status as a leading comic book character for seven decades, does not. In fact, Warner Brothers announced that the illustrious heroine’s first appearance on the big screen will be as a minor character in a movie starring two male superheroes.

Iconic female characters are hard to find in American culture. While most people would have no trouble recognizing Superman, Batman, or Darth Vader, they would have a much harder time naming a female character of equal notoriety.

Wonder Woman, whose roots date back to World War II, is perhaps the only significant female character who appeals to a mass audience. Diana Prince, the warrior princess of the mythological Greek island of Themyscira, is both a feminist icon, representing empowerment and womanly strength, and a sex symbol, wearing skimpy clothes as she vanquishes evil. Very few characters – and even fewer female ones – enjoy the stature of Wonder Woman. So why has Princess Diana been unable to find her way to the silver screen?

Historically, it has been difficult to get comic book heroes onto the big screen. However, following the success of the X-Men and SpiderMan movies in the 00?s, studios came to rely on superhero properties to prop up the industry in the face of a decreasing home video market. The rise of the superhero in Hollywood led many to assume that all of DC Comics’s hottest properties would make their way to the silver screen. Yet, after several attempts including one by future Avengers helmsman Joss Whedon, Wonder Woman has never been able to make the jump.

Hollywood is known to abide by old theories about who pays for movie tickets. Despite women making up a full 50 percent of the movie-going audience, females comprise only 28 percent of speaking roles in major motion pictures, according to a study by the Annenberg School at the University of Southern California.

Studio executives cite previous failures such as Elektra and Catwoman as proof that a female lead can’t sell tickets, ignoring the fact that those movies were unpopular for their content and not the lack of a male lead. Even accepting that the failure of those movies can be attributed to a lack of interest in the characters, neither Catwoman nor Elektra shares the status of the princess of Themyscira.

Falling in line with that outdated mindset, Warner Brothers recently announced the casting of Gal Gadot of Fast and Furious fame in the role of Diana Prince for the upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie. While the title is only tentative, it is telling that the use of Batman in the Man of Steel sequel was met with great fanfare and widespread Internet reaction, while Wonder Woman was mentioned months later as a simple casting choice. Is Wonder Woman any less iconic than DC’s other “big two” heroes? Even if that is true, there is no stronger female character to portray on the big screen than Wonder Woman.

Superhero movies, just like the comic books they are based on, are consistently targeted to men. Nonetheless, Wonder Woman comics have sold well enough to survive for over 60 years. The market clearly exists, and casting a beautiful woman to portray Princess Diana would hardly hurt studios’ efforts to syphon away the cash of any fan of the female form. It is naive to believe that a Wonder Woman movie wouldn’t be seen by millions.

Despite Warner Brothers’ fears, the overwhelming success of The Hunger Games, both in print and on screen, has shown that a strong female hero can not only sell tickets in today’s world, but also create a cultural phenomenon. Katniss Everdeen is a new character, only existing in the public consciousness for a few years, making the original Hunger Games movie a bigger box office gamble than Wonder Woman could ever be.

The second installment in the series, Catching Fire, was the highest grossing film domestically in 2013, surpassing even the male-led Iron Man 3. Katniss Everdeen and The Hunger Games franchise have shown that a character who is both strong and compassionate has great crossover appeal, not only drawing teenage girls to the theaters, but men and women of all ages, including the male audience of comic book adaptations.

Admittedly, Wonder Woman is a difficult character to adapt. Her background in Greek mythology makes a reality-based movie á la the Dark Knight trilogy essentially impossible. Still, as Marvel’s Thor has proven, the world of myth can be fused with the gritty realism of the modern action flick to create an even more compelling spectacle. Remember during The Avengers when the multiple worlds of the superheroes collided to create something greater than its cinematic parts? With the mythological stature of Themyscira meeting the gritty, crime-infested world of Gotham City, Warner Brothers has a great opportunity to create something equally special.

Wonder Woman has certainly had her ups and downs over the decades, including an ill-advised run in the comics as a depowered Kung Fu master. Still, Wonder Woman was one of the very few comic book characters to break out of her original medium when Lynda Carter played the character on a successful television show in the late 1970s. Unfortunately, this success has never been matched, and a recent attempt at bringing the character back to the small screen has been scuttled in favor of a new show for The Flash. CW president Mark Pedowitz recently confirmed this travesty, reasoning, “These are iconic characters … You only get one shot.”

This leaves Gadot’s interpretation as the only Wonder Woman we can expect on any screen for some time. The tentatively titled Batman vs. Superman movie hits theaters in May 2016.

With Catching Fire continuing to prove old theories wrong, Warner Brothers is missing a golden opportunity to break with tradition and make millions with a strong woman. The long-term track record of female-led films has been lackluster, but the tide appears to be turning. In addition to The Hunger Games, the female-led Twilight Saga is among the top 10 most successful movie franchises of all time, making as much money as male-centric properties Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean.

An iconic character of American culture, Wonder Woman’s first foray onto the silver screen should not be in a throwaway scene in a movie about two other, very strong, characters. Women make up a much larger portion of the movie viewing audience than Warner Brothers is willing to accept, and Wonder Woman, like Katniss Everdeen, is a character with strong crossover appeal who should be respected.

Wonder Woman deserves her own movie.

This poster offends the sensibilities of a Kansas father.

Sex ed debate requires cool heads

The debate about sexual education in public schools is flaring once again, this time in Kansas, where a father is upset by an “X-rated sex ed poster” at his daughter’s middle school. Much to my chagrin, the poster contains no titillating images of sex acts in progress, and is instead an 8.5-x-11-inch sheet of paper posing the question, “How do people express their sexual feelings?” and giving examples ranging from hugging and hand-holding to vaginal intercourse and anal sex.

The outraged father contacted his local Fox News affiliate, and the story has now received national attention, including a CNN interview with him. It is understandable that, like most fathers, he is upset by thoughts of his 13-year-old daughter being exposed to sex. However, this information is pertinent to her reproductive health, and I would be willing to bet it is not the first time she has come across these words.

The reality is that we live in a country where 1 in 200 mothers insist they had a virgin birth. Researchers found the parents of these women had difficulty discussing sex or birth control with their children. It is not a coincidence that schools with comprehensive sex ed curricula have seen teen pregnancy rates decrease. Even if teens cannot get facts about sex at home, they are now being armed with information early on about how best to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

If the age of 13 is “too young” to be talking about such things as vaginal intercourse, when is the right time? Technically speaking, any female who is ovulating could become pregnant. It is not unusual for menstruation to begin in girls as young as eight. Ignoring the hormones and primal instincts in their bodies doesn’t make those feelings go away.

This Kansas school has what is called an “abstinence plus” education plan, which basically tells students: the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and STIs is to abstain from sexual activity, but if you are planning to engage (or are already engaging) in sexual activity, here’s what you need to know to protect yourself.

This is the system I was exposed to in my public school. I vividly remember being in third grade when all of the boys were sent to a different classroom. (I thought it was extremely unfair at the time that the boys got to watch a rerun of Bill Nye the Science Guy, while I was forced to sit through a video explaining my alien-like reproductive organs and how they work.)

I am now in my mid-to-late 20s and do not have children. Some may say that not being a parent invalidates my opinion on the subject, but I will remind the critics that I, too, have parents. My mother and father worked hard to ensure I always felt comfortable asking them questions about sex. In fact, I came home at the tender age of 9 and blatantly asked my parents: “What’s an orgasm?” after hearing some older kids talking about it on the bus. Instead of deciding I was “too young” for such a concept, my parents and I had a frank discussion about sex.

While I personally didn’t engage in sexual activity in middle or high school, a lot of the girls around me did. Often, these girls would look to their peers for advice; unfortunately, peer advice in this situation is a little like the blind leading the blind. In fact, I only know of one girl who asked her mother for guidance. That mother promptly sought to put her daughter on the birth control pill and instructed her in proper condom use (you go girl!).

When it comes to sex and teen girls, a lot of individuals (myself included), have a very knee-jerk reaction. After we take some time and a step back for some perspective, we realize that by the age of 13, these kids have already seen, heard, and had in-depth discussions with their peers about the words displayed on this piece of paper. In reality, by 13, the school is probably a little too late to start discussing these concepts.

The father in Kansas is well within his rights to pull his child out of public school and send her to a private school that would align more with his religious and moral beliefs. However, all of my friends who attended private, religious schools ensure me there were still instances of teen pregnancies in those schools — perhaps they were part of the virgin births sweeping the nation?

The bottom line: teens have had sex in the past and they will continue to do so in the future. All we can do as a society is ensure they have the tools at their disposal to be as safe as possible if and when they decide to become sexually active.

knitting-yarns

Knitting Yarns, knitting roots

The book Knitting Yarns: Writers on Knitting by Ann Hood was added to my wishlist as soon as it popped up on one of my Amazon searches. Thankfully, my Godmother checks my wishlist every year before Christmas and this little gem found it’s way into my home.

Knitting Yarns has about 25 short stories that detail the author’s memories or connections with knitting. As with most short story formats, the book is extremely digestible. Most of the writers focused on how or why they learned to knit, or a time when knitting helped them through a personal crisis. I finished the book in about three days of leisurely reading and I would highly recommend this book for anyone who enjoys knitting and reading.

Knitting Yarns also had me thinking back on the very first time I learned to knit. I remember it quite vividly. I was in college, sitting on the floor of my dorm room with the yarn in my lap and the printout “Learn to Knit 101” instructions on the ground in front of me. I sat cross-legged, bent over my needles, and squinted to decipher the drawings representing how a knit stitch should be properly executed. My hands were starting to sweat, not out of nerves or frustration, but rather the fact that my university kept the dorm room at a temperature mirroring the weather of the Hawaiian tropics instead of the northern Pennsylvania climate where we were located.

About 30 minutes in, my roommate had given up and moved to her desk to do homework or peruse Facebook. I still remained on the hard, concrete floor, determined to make progress on my first row. I gave it another 20 minutes, and I was suddenly overcome with an extreme amount of rage and I hurled my purple aluminum knitting needles across the room. What happened next is proof enough for me that the universe certainly does have a sense of humor.

A male friend of mine, Carl, was walking by my dorm room when I broke into my fit of rage. Since the door was hanging open, he stopped to ask me if everything was all right and if there was anything he could do to help. I explained that I was trying to learn how to knit, but after 50 minutes of determination, I had gotten very skilled at casting on, but I couldn’t seem to make the jump to knitting. Carl smiled and said, “Oh. Didn’t anyone ever tell you that the first row is always the hardest?” He picked up my needles and handed them to me and said, “Cast on however many stitches you want, and I’ll do your first row. You can watch me.”

I took the needles out of his hand and cast on 20 stitches of red and black yarn. I then watched Carl knit my first row with extreme ease and grace. He handed the needles to me and said, “Here you go. It’s your turn.” I took the needles from him and clumsily knit the next row. Despite my fumbling, awkward handiwork, I was enchanted and encouraged by my skill. After I completed the second row by myself, Carl headed out to go to a party. The training wheels were off and I was on my own. Over the course of the next week, I knit every chance I got. I added stitches, I decreased stitches, I dropped stitches, but I kept going. After one week, I had my very first scarf which I proceeded to wear everywhere I went.

I just found my first scarf the other week when I was cleaning out my knitting stash. I pulled it out and looked at the wonky size and the holes that the dropped stitches created. Then I looked down at the handmade sweater I was wearing. It was remarkable how far I had come in 8 years. I refolded the scarf and tucked it into a basket. Now, when I’m working on a project that is complicated and I’m ready to throw my needles across the room, I will pull out that first scarf and remember the improvement I know I am capable of.

thor

Thor wants his day back

It startles me sometimes to look back on my public education and realize that no one ever bothers to explain why some words, even ones we use every day of our lives, look so bizarre and unfamiliar if separated from their context.

Days of the week are a great example. Okay, “Sun-day,” I could get on my own. No problem. But what about “Tues” or “Thurs?” If you’ve ever spelled the word “Wednesday” wrong because you have no idea what a Wednes is or why it gets its own day, read on, my friend (or, if you do know, you’ll probably read on anyway, because this kind of thing fascinates you already).

So it all started with the Babylonians (those cheeky bastards), and maybe the Hebrews, but mostly the Babylonians. They marked their holy days (holidays) based on the lunar cycle. The first day after the new moon, predictably, was referred to as the Moon’s Day. They had one holy day every seventh day, which was roughly a quarter of the lunar cycle, with the big’un occurring on the 28th day. Seven-day weeks were thus born (borne?). They spread like wildfire from there. You know, the kind of wildfire that takes thousands of years to spread.

It was the Greeks and later the Romans who were largely responsible for setting our current format. They named the days after planets — specifically, the five planets visible to the naked eye: Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn (as well as the moon and the sun).

They took on the seven-day week with the onset of Christianization in Constantine’s rule, since the Christians were using the Hebrew system already, and from there it caught on (or was forced on) throughout Europe, including the United Kingdom (not yet united, but known as Breton, Wales, Celtland, etc.) and parts of Asia.

In some regions of China, these five planets were associated with the five Chinese elements: fire for Mars, water for Mercury, wood for Jupiter, metal for Venus, and earth (small “e”) for Saturn. So you’d have a “Fire Day” or “Metal Day.” Iron Maiden fans would approve of that, I should think.

The northern Europe folk — Germanic tribes, Saxons, and Scandinavians — did their conversion a little differently, though. Instead of naming the days after the planets, like China, they named the days after corresponding pagan deities from the Norse pantheon.

  • Latin solis became Germanic Sunna, their sun goddess.
  • Latin luna became Germanic Máni, an equivalent moon god.
  • Warlike Mars most closely related to Norse Týr, a one-handed god associated with one-on-one combat and the fulfillment of oaths. (All of the Norse gods are pretty warlike, though, so they might have stuck anyone in there.)
  • Fleet-footed, mischievous Mercury somehow turned into Wodan (or Odin), the wise, one-eyed father of the Norse gods who, while a bit on the mischievous side, seems somewhat an ill fit to the wing-footed Roman. A much better analog would’ve been Loki, the trickster — at least in my opinion. I’ll elaborate more once we get through the rest. In Iceland, they just called the day “mid-week day,” which seems to be coming back into fashion with “hump day.” I’m not sure that Odin approves, but you never know. It’s hard to tell with Odin.
  • Mighty Jupiter, leader of the Roman pantheon, became Thor, whom you might recognize from his recent appearance in one or two comic book films. While Thor is something of a leader among his peers, he defers to his father Odin. The main connection between Thor and Jupiter is their mutual control of thunder. Indeed, the words Thor and thunder are very closely related.
  • Goddess of love and passion, Venus, translated into Fríge, an Anglo-Saxon goddess of sex and fertility based on Norse Freyja and/or Frigg. (The distinction between the two is not particularly strong; in mythology, like in contemporary popular culture, women were often lumped together and grossly underrepresented.) Fríge is part of the root for the word “freedom,” so if you’re feeling very patriotic, you could get away with calling Friday “Freedom Day,” were you so inclined. It is for us nine-to-fivers, anyway, amirite?
  • Saturn, the Roman god who fathered most of the major players on Olympus and subsequently tried to eat them, didn’t get a pagan equivalent. He just got fast-tracked through into keeping his day name in Old English. What probably happened was that the Germans called the day “Day before Sunday,” and the Scandinavians called it “laundry day,” so nobody bothered to update the Celts and the Bretons, who were still using the Roman names during the various Viking conquests. There’s no Norse god of laundry, after all. Still, seems like Odin would be a natural fit here instead of subbing in for Mercury, don’t you think?

So my theory is that Odin, using the future sight he gained from carving out his eye and throwing it into Mímir’s Well, saw this whole seven-day-naming thing coming. He saw that his natural analog, Saturn, fell on laundry day, of all days, and groaned. “But I don’t want to be the laundry god!”

Sneaky bastard that he is, Odin strolled on up to the ambitious Loki and said, “Hey, boy, I’ve been thinking. You seem headed for great things, and I wanted help you out. There’s a new kind of week heading our way, and low on the totem as you are, you’d be lucky to get, say, the third day out of seven, if even that.”

“Oh no, not hump day!”

“Precisely, m’boy. Precisely. So, I’m willing to trade with you. I’m slated to take on the big spot. The one currently held by the biggest, most ferocious, hungriest god of the Roman pantheon. But, I can let you switch with me for a very modest price. What’s the name of that horse you, uh, birthed? Sleipnir, was it?”

After the deal was made, Loki read the fine print, and decided that no day was worth being the laundry god.