Best & Worst State Flags

In some previous blog posts, I've given my take on the best and worst of various sports logos - the NHL, MLB and NFL.  I'd like to keep the "best and worst" theme going but switch to something not related to sports - state flags.

First of all, this was a LOT harder than doing the sports logos.  Why? Mainly because most state flags are lame.  Seriously, roughly 1/2 of the 50 state flags are basically the exact same thing: the state seal on a blue background.  I never knew that until I did this little project.  You don't believe me?  Here's proof: 

I knew what state flags I liked, but I didn't realize how many state flags were unimaginative, boring and, well, sucky.  It's almost as if one person designed half of them and just did the same thing with a different seal on it.  Think of the old days of General Motors or Chrysler, where they made the same car for multiple brands and did little more than slap a different logo on the front grill.

Having said that, we'll start out with the best flags first, before moving on to the bad, bland and boring.

BEST STATE FLAGS

5.  Maryland (adopted 1904)

This one may surprise you a bit.  It's kind of "out there" - all kinds of patterns and clashing colors.  But at least it's different.  Also, the two sections have meaning - both the black & gold sections and

the red & white sections are taken from the coat of arms for some of the original founders of Maryland and Baltimore.  It is the only state flag that is based on English heraldry, which also makes it unique.  Finally, this flag replaced a lame flag that featured, you guessed it, the state seal on a blue background.  Congrats on being unique, Maryland, and bucking the lame flag trend!  While this is a cool flag, it looks stupid when the Maryland football team wears it as a part of their uniform, as shown below. Boo to you, Under Armour!

 

 

4. Arizona (adopted 1917)

 

I like this one because it has bright colors - lots of them - while still keeping a relatively simple concept.  It contains symbolism representing the state - the red and yellow also symbolize Arizona's

picturesque sunsets (while also paying homage to the colors of the flag of Spain); the copper star represents the copper mining industry in Arizona; the rest of the flag is colored blue, representing the Colorado River - while not going overboard or getting too busy.  That can be a difficult line to walk, but Arizona's flag does it well.  It's nice to see that the searing desert heat didn't dampen the creative spirits of the folks who designed this flag.


3. Texas (adopted 1839; readopted 1933)

This is arguably the most recognizable - and most historic - state flag.  After all, this flag was first introduced by and flown over the Republic of Texas, when Texas was an independent country from 1836-1845.  How many states can brag that they used to be country?  (And we all know how Texans

like to brag! Hey, I spent 4 years there, so I can say that.) It's a simple, sharp design, which is what you want from a state flag.  Most people don't recognize state flags when they see them, but Texas is one of the few they probably do.  Texas's flag is so good, another state basically tried to replicate it, though they botched it big time.  We'll talk about that one in a few minutes, when we get to the worst flags section.


2. South Carolina (adopted 1861, though it has existed in various forms dating back to 1775)

I love this flag.  It's unique and, for me at least, it evokes warm summer nights on vacation, what with the palmetto tree under a crescent moon.  I've traveled to South Carolina numerous times on family

vacations (5 times to Hilton Head and twice to Myrtle Beach), so I have a soft spot for the state and the flag.  The palmetto tree - which is the state tree of South Carolina - has also been a symbol of the state dating back to the American Revolution, so there's a lot of history there.  The only gripe I have about this flag - and the only thing keeping it from the top spot on my list - is that it is blue like so many other state flags.  If it had the same design with virtually any different color background (palm leaf green would be perfect), this would be #1.  However, since they went with the too common blue, it comes in at #2.

1. New Mexico (adopted 1925)

I'm giving the top spot to New Mexico.  The best flags are simple yet unique and New Mexico hits the mark on both accounts.  First - the colors.  Bright yellow with the symbol in red.  It's drastically
different than any other state flags, so it definitely stands out in a crowd.  Also, similar to Arizona, those are the colors of the Spanish flag, so it reflects the history of that part of the country.  Finally, the Zia sun symbol is unique.  It reflects that Pueblo and Native American roots of the state.  So, it's symbolic yet simple, unique without trying too hard.  Muy bien, Nuevo Mexico!


Okay, now that we've gone through the good flags, it's time to talk about the bad and the ugly.


WORST STATE FLAGS

5. North Carolina (adopted 1885)

Whether North Carolinians will admit it or not, this flag is a blatant rip-off of the aforementioned Texas state flag.  Blue section on the left with a star with half red and half white on the right.  The fact that they flipped the red and white from the Texas flag isn't fooling me.  But whereas the Texas

flag is great because of its simplicity, North Carolina muddies the water by surrounding the star with an "N" and a "C" and two dates.  The worst part?  Neither of those dates is the date that North Carolina became a state!  They represent two other dates that probably only history teachers in North Carolina can identify.  Dates on flags suck in the first place, but multiple dates that no one understands are even worse.  North Carolina has some beautiful scenery and wonderful people, but their flag stinks.

4. Oregon (adopted 1925)

As you'll soon see, the rest of the list is made up of the aforementioned "state seal on blue background" group.  Honestly, I could have made a list of about 20 of these lousy flags, but I had to draw the line somewhere.  Oregon's flag is unique among U.S. state flags in that it has different

images on the two sides.  The front side is the obligatory state seal on a blue background.  While that would be bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that they added not just the state name (Oregon) but the words "State of" in front of it.  I realize that it was the "Oregon Territory" before it was a state but so were LOTS of states and you don't see them adding the superfluous "state of" on their flags.  So, that's negative points there.  On top of the whole "State of Oregon" garbage, they also added the year to it.  Dumb, but at least they put the year they became a state, rather than other less important dates like the goofballs in North Carolina did.  Finally, we have the seal itself.  Like most state seals, it's got a lot going on.  You have a covered wagon, some elk, a sunset, some boats and a whole mess of farming tools at the bottom.  But because it's all yellow, it

kind of just looks like a big yellow blob from a distance.  The flip side of the flag is better - it's just a beaver.  And, because Oregon is known as "The Beaver State," that makes sense.  However, both the beaver and the wood he's standing on are yellow, so it is hard to make out what it is.  What they should have done is just gone with the beaver and used colors besides the too frequently used blue and yellow.  Or if you're going to do the two different sides thing, how about the beaver on one side and a Nike swoosh on the other side?

3. Wisconsin (adopted 1981)

You can probably tell what my complaints are just by looking at this one for a few seconds.  Blue background - bad.  Indiscernible, too busy state seal - bad.  State name - bad.  Year - bad.  What makes it worse is that they adopted this in the 1980s!  And do you know what the previous state flag

was?  It was just the state seal on a blue background.  So, when they decided to redo the flag in 1981, they missed the opportunity to distinguish their flag from the boatload of other "state seal on a blue background flags."  Clearly, they felt like it looked too much those other flags and they needed to fix that.  But instead of doing something awesome (like a badger, beer and a piece of cheese), they just slapped the state name and year on it?  C'mon, Wisconsin! Your state capital city is cool and the campus is great and this is what you came up with for your flag?  Methinks the people in charge spent a little too much time drinking free samples at the brewery in Milwaukee before making this decision. 

2. Nebraska (adopted 1925, made official 1963)

Another yellow state seal on blue background flag.  The logo is predictably too busy and detailed, so it just looks blah, which is kind of fitting considering that we're talking about Nebraska.  How bad is this flag?  Earlier this year, a Nebraska state senator proposed a task force to consider redesigning the state flag  after it had hung upside down outside the state capitol building for 10 days without any noticing!  You know you have a crappy flag when it can be hung upside down and no one can even tell.  If they redesign it, I just hope they are a little more creative than the Cheeseheads.  How about an ear of corn, a football and Tom Osborne's disembodied head?  What else do they have going on in Nebraska?
 
1. South Dakota (adopted 1992)

There are so many reasons that I list this flag as the worst of all.  Blue background? Check. State seal? Check. State name? Check. But guess what?  They list the state name not once but TWICE - once on the background of the flag and again on the state seal.  Worse yet? It says that they are "The Mount Rushmore State" but Mount Rushmore IS NOWHERE ON THE SEAL OR THE FLAG!  Of

the people that visit South Dakota, roughly 111% of them go primarily to visit Mount Rushmore.  The most unforgivable part is that they redesigned the flag just 25 years ago!  And all they changed was making the blue background a slightly lighter shade of blue and changing the verbiage below the seal to "The Mount Rushmore State" from "The Sunshine State."  That's right.  They used to call themselves "The Sunshine State," in spite of the fact that precisely zero people outside of South Dakota ever called it that.  If you polled 1,000 people on the street and asked them "What state is known as 'The Sunshine State,' 999 of them would say 'Florida.'"  The other guy is the drunk guy from Wisconsin who came up with their flag's redesign after imbibing a few too much of Milwaukee's best, so he clearly doesn't give a $h!t.  South Dakota needs to redesign this terrible flag pronto.  Drop the state name, slogan and seal and replace it with renderings of Mount Rushmore, the Corn Palace and Wall Drug.  And for crying out loud, make the background any color besides blue!

There you have it - my list of the best and worst state flags.  I hope you found it educational as well as entertaining.

Thanks for reading!


Current Events Rant #2

There has been a lot going on in the world lately, so I thought I'd take a chance to give my take on these events, in what I refer to as a "Current Events Rant."

• During one of President Trump's many feuds with countless people (more on that in a minute), Senator Bob Corker referred to the White House as an "adult day care."  It was a funny comment that was pretty much on target.  However, I think that the better analogy is that the White House has basically turned into a bad reality show.  It's like "Big Brother, Pennsylvania Avenue Edition."  We all know that Trump's previous job was as the star of a reality TV program, "The Apprentice." At times, his campaign for president smacked of a reality TV program (or perhaps one of those hidden camera shows) where it almost seemed like it was too crazily scripted to be real.  Like many people, I hoped that - once he was inaugurated and grasped the gravity of his new job - Trump would start acting more presidential and less like a reality star who would do or say anything for ratings.  Unfortunately, it appears that those hopes were for naught.  He continues to be as petty and childish and inappropriate as ever.  Even worse, he treats the highest office in the land like it's a reality show.  It's like he feels that he has to manufacture drama and have backstabbing and cliffhangers in order for things to be successful.  He routinely creates feuds and disagreements over silly things, often undercutting the very people who report to him.  For example, while his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is attempting to negotiate with and resolve things diplomatically with North Korea (which is what a Secretary of State is supposed to do), Trump is calling Kim Jong-un names and saying that Tillerson shouldn't waste his time.  Likewise, he picks fights with the NFL and stages a blatant (not to mention costly) publicity stunt with his Vice President at a recent Indianapolis Colts game.
• Is Trump the most insecure person in the country?  I think you can definitely make the case that he is.  He is constantly firing back at people who criticize him, rather than just taking the high road and, you know, acting presidential.  He is constantly patting himself on the back via tweets and in press conferences.  He constantly whines about what he perceives to be unfair treatment by others, rather than realizing that is part of the gig and that every president before him has been criticized on a routine basis.  To me, one of the most egregious things that Trump inexplicably continues to do is to hold campaign pep rally style meetings, during which his followers fawn over him while he typically says incendiary things.  Apparently, he needs that validation; he needs to have people telling him how wonderful he is, while forgetting that he is the president of ALL Americans rather than just those folks who support him.  Recently, he's even challenged his aforementioned Secretary of State to an IQ test challenge after the latter called him a moron.  Way to be a mature adult, Mr. President.
• Think about it: Trump is wealthy. He's married to a model. He's the proverbial "leader of the free world," but apparently that's not enough to make him feel good about himself.  Instead, he behaves like a spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum whenever he doesn't get his way or when someone tries to give him constructive feedback.  Although, I suppose it shouldn't surprise us, considering this is a man who has spent his whole life slapping his name on everything in sight, similar to a dog trying to mark his territory by peeing on all of the trees in a neighborhood. He has this incessant need for validation that is a telltale sign of rampant insecurity.
• In a somewhat related topic, one of the big news items in the past month has revolved around the National Anthem protests made by athletes, especially in the NFL.  What was a relatively infrequent issue became a full blown trend following (you guessed it) some tweets from President Trump condemning the kneeling players.  Trump called on NFL owners to fire or suspend players who refused to stand for the National Anthem, something that I found highly disturbing.  The government should NEVER be in the position of telling private business owners how they should handle their, shall we say, personnel issues.  How do you think Trump would have handled it if, say, George W. Bush had told him that he had to fire or suspend some of his employees?  I'm pretty sure he would have talked about government overreach, but yet it's apparently okay if he is the one saying it.
• As for the anthem protests themselves, I really don't have a problem with them.  The Constitution guarantees us the right to exercise our freedom of speech.  If a player decides that he does not want to stand for the anthem, that's his right to do so.  I can understand why people would find it disrespectful, but those who died in defense of the flag did so to maintain the freedoms that we enjoy - including the right to NOT stand for the National Anthem.  I will personally always stand for it, with my hand over my heart, but I will also defend the rights of those who choose not to do so.  It is all part of living in a free society - you have to take the good with the bad.
• Speaking of football and the NFL, the league has a big problem....a California-sized problem.....and it's one caused by the league's incessant greed.  All 4 of the California-based teams are dealing with fan unrest and upheaval.  A few years ago, in search of more money, the 49ers moved their home games out of Candlestick Park in San Francisco to Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, about 40 miles south.  Since doing that, their attendance has cratered, to the point where they often play the 2nd half of games in front of a stadium that is 2/3 empty.  In the name of greed, they moved further away from their fan base and the result hasn't been pretty.  Across the Bay, the Raiders are playing out the string in Oakland before moving to Las Vegas in 2019 or 2020.  The reason for the move?  Yep, more money.  Who cares about the fans? That brings us to Los Angeles.  For 20 years, the nation's 2nd largest city was without an NFL team and it was the leverage that owners would hold over their city's heads to try to get new stadiums built.  Then, last year, the league decided to move the Rams (one of the most poorly run franchises in the league) back to LA, where the city shrugged it's collective shoulders and the team promptly played in a half-empty stadium.  To make matters worse, the league also moved the Chargers out of San Diego and to Los Angeles as well.  The Chargers temporarily play in a 27,000 soccer stadium and they can't even fill that!  LA goes from 0 teams to 2 teams in a span of two years, but it almost seems like the people in LA could not care less.  During the past 20 years, they apparently found better things to do with their Sunday afternoon. Four franchises all moving in an attempt to make obscenely wealthy people even more wealthy with little regard whatsoever for the football fans they are leaving behind.
• On the college football front, it's been a brutal season so far.  My beloved Baylor Bears are 0-5, while the Mizzou Tigers aren't much better at 1-4.  But, from where I sit, the two programs are in vastly different places.  Baylor is down because of the Art Briles scandal and the loss of almost two complete recruiting classes.  As such, they are being forced to play far more underclassmen than you would normally see.  But I believe that their new coach, Matt Rhule, was a very good hire and I fully expect the Bears to be making regular bowl game appearances within a few years.  He has a history of a taking a program that was down and turning it around while instilling discipline on the program and that's exactly the kind of person Baylor needed to hire.  I believe he will turn Baylor back into a winner and do so without the garbage that happened during Briles's watch.  Mizzou, on the other hand, replaced it's winningest coach ever with a guy who'd never been a head coach at any level before.  I want Barry Odom to do well because he's a Mizzou guy, but I think he may be in over his head as a first time head coach in the SEC.  Most successful college football colleges work their way up to those Power 5 conference jobs, establishing winning programs at smaller schools before ascending to the SECs and Big 10s of the world.  Nick Saban and Urban Meyer are two good examples. Saban got his head coaching start at Toledo, while Meyer coached at Bowling Green and Utah before moving to the SEC.  Mizzou might be better served to find an up and coming coach and handing the reins to him.  All I can say is "Is it basketball season yet?"
• Hockey season is underway and the Blues are 4-0.  Could this be the year they finally win Lord Stanley's Cup? Probably not, but we can only hope!

OK, that's enough of a rant for now.  Thanks for reading!

2017 Cardinals - Where Do We Go From Here?

Last Sunday marked the end of the 2017 Major League Baseball regular season.  For the second year in a row, the end of the regular season also meant the end of the baseball season for the Cardinals.  After making the playoffs 5 seasons in a row (2011-2015) and 12 times in a 16 year span (2000-15), the Cardinals have now missed the playoffs in consecutive years and they seem to be trending in the wrong direction.  Consider the team's results over the last 5 years:

• 2013: 97-65, 1st place, Lost in the World Series
• 2014: 90-72, 1st place, Lost in the NLCS
• 2015: 100-62, 1st place, Lost in the NLDS
• 2016: 86-76, 2nd place, Missed playoffs (eliminated on last day of the season)
• 2017: 83-79, 3rd place, Missed playoffs (eliminated with 3 games remaining)

So, after winning their 19th National League pennant in 2013, their season has ended earlier and earlier for four years running.  Clearly, something needs to change.

To an extent, the on-field results are no surprise given the lineups the team has put together the past few years.  From 2000-11, the Cardinals had numerous core, franchise players in their prime.  Albert Pujols, Jim Edmonds, Scott Rolen, Yadier Molina, Edgar Renteria, Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright.  Those linchpin players were then accompanied by several other good role players, like Reggie Sanders, Larry Walker, David Freese, and Jeff Suppan.  In a sense, it was an embarrassment of riches and the team racked up numerous playoff appearances, 3 NL pennants and 2 World Series titles.  Red October was an annual occurrence and the one of America's great baseball towns often took center stage.

Look at the roster now and what do you see? A bunch of guys.  Yadier Molina is the face of the franchise and still performing at a high level, but you can't build a team around a 35 year old catcher.  Several of their players are solid, decent players - Matt Carpenter, Kolten Wong, Dexter Fowler - but none of those guys are franchise players, those linchpin players that you can build a team around.  Perhaps Oscar Tavares might have filled that role, but we'll never know since he was killed in a car wreck following his exciting 2014 rookie season.  Tommy Pham had a terrific season in 2017, but can he repeat that again in 2018?  Paul DeJong gave us a lot to like in 2017, but then again, so did Aledmys Diaz in 2016 and he wound up stinking up the joint this year and toiling at AAA most of the year.  Can DeJong build on this season or will it prove to be an anomaly?

The team, as currently constructed, doesn't really excel at anything.  They are middling defensively and terrible on the basepaths.  They hit a fair number of home runs, but strike out way too often.  On top of it all, they are managed by someone who often seems to be in over his head.  Mike Matheny may foster good relationships with his players, but when you see a team make the same mistakes over and over again, at what point do you begin to start pointing the finger at the manager?  He jerked Kolten Wong around early in the year, taking a talented guy with a fragile psyche and subjecting him to frequent benchings and demotions.  He stuck with Aledmys Diaz too long and many of his managerial snafus in April and May cost the team wins that likely cost them a spot in the postseason.  He seems to still not grasp how to handle a pitching staff, which is particularly alarming since he was a catcher and that was what he was known for when he was a player.  Finally, he can't figure out how to beat the Cubs, who have pounded the Cardinals over the past few seasons.

The front office isn't helping, either.  John Mozeliak and company have done little to improve the team's talent level, even when it was clear to everyone that the team needed some help.  When was the last time the Cardinals signed a big free agent or made a blockbuster trade?  There have been glaring issues the past few seasons and the front office has mostly declined to do anything about it.

In a sense, it's almost like the Cardinals and Cubs have changed places.  For years, the Cardinals had the star power and the on field success, while the Cubs did just enough to be semi-competitive while packing in the fans. Why spend money to win if you can be mediocre and still sell out on a regular basis?  Now, those roles have reversed.  The Cubs have the star power and the on-field success while the Cardinals do just enough to be semi-competitive while packing in 3 million plus fans every year.  Again, why spend money to win if you can just be decent and still pack in the fans?  Why focus on winning when you can come up with a million different "theme nights"?  The Cardinals of the past few seasons remind me a lot of the Cardinals of the early 1990s: decent, fairly competitive team populated by just a bunch of guys.  They weren't ever terrible, but they weren't ever really good, either.

Looking forward, here's hoping the Cardinals stop being fat and happy and start trying to reward the fans and the city with more October baseball.

Thanks for reading!