Code Words and referees

There's been a lot of talk about "religious liberty" in bills that have made their way mostly through state Legislatures in the South. These claim to be protecting religious liberty, but really do little of the sort. Rather, they're code words for allowing harassment. These "religious liberty" bills are, in effect, giving people who don't like gay and lesbians the opportunity to discriminate without reproach.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled gay people can get married, there are still laws on the books on the subject of discrimination. In 28 states, you can be fired simply for being gay. You can be kicked out of your apartment if your landlord finds out you are gay. These religious freedom bills are trying to allow businesses to deny service, allow government officials to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses, and to write in ink that such discrimination is acceptable.

I have a two-part test to determine if something is discrimination. The first is "Would it still sound discriminatory if the roles were reversed?" The second is "Does the characteristic quality of Group B affect the situation?"

For example: Would it be illegal/discriminatory if a gay court clerk recused himself from allowing two Christians to get married? Would Christians be mad if a gay landlord kicked someone out of their apartment for being Christian? Would it be discrimination if Tim Cook, openly gay CEO of Apple, announced he'd fire anyone that was openly Christian? Of course it would! It goes back to the Golden Rule. People would be up in arms if the shoe were on the other foot.

But there are some situations in which homosexuality could be rightfully used for termination. They don't quite fit the reversal of roles argument. If a minister comes out of the closet, that should/could be grounds for his firing. However, that's because of the religious nature of his job. He works in the business of religion, and homosexuality would be incompatible with his position. If James Dobson or Pat Robertson came out of the closet tomorrow, they'd lose their jobs, and there should be no protection in such a case.

But most situations are not religious in nature, thus the second test. Does the fact that a person is gay affect whether they should be able to buy a telephone? No. Does the fact a person is gay affect their ability to pay rent? No. The government is a nonreligious entity, so whether a person is gay has no bearing on their ability to receive a marriage license. Gay money has just as much buying power as straight money.

So why do I bring all this up? Because CNN is using "religious freedom" right now. This is a problem, because objectivity is a major tenet of journalism. Using the phraseology of one group is like a referee saying they'll let the home team call all the fouls while they watch the out-of-bounds plays. Journalists should be the referee. And they're giving up inch by inch by allowing people to decide what to call things. These are not religious freedom bills. These are anti-gay discrimination bills. One sounds nice. The other sounds mean-spirited. Call it down the middle, ref.

Sesame Street Questions

The kids have started watching Sesame Street lately. I've mostly had a nostalgic trip down Sesame Street, and seeing the new characters has added some fun wrinkles. I definitely agree that there's been a bit of a decline in recent years, especially the more the show has become Elmo-centric. Here's a story from last year about that rise, and how it's been bad for the show. But on the whole, I've still liked a lot more than I didn't. The better part is, the kids like it. You can pretty much get the kids interested in watching (and being relatively still) by mentioning Elmo.

However, there have been a few silly questions I've had:
• On one show, they teach in detail how to wrap a present. However, the next show has one human character folding laundry like no one ever should. What gives?
• Why are there so many special appearances by characters from Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, a decidedly not-for-kids show? Also, who mailed Det. Stabler a pickle? And why would you do that?
• There are self-aware cakes in Sesame Street. If you eat one, is this murder? Are the cakes OK with this?
• Why are there so many broken toasters on Sesame Street? I've counted six so far.
• Is Elmo's Dad the Muppet Sammy Hagar?
 

Summary Judgments

Even if you don't care for his politics, former New York Democratic Senator Barney Frank had an honest, interesting interview with Slate recently. He speaks freely, has logic behind his arguments and doesn't stick to party lines. I like people on either side of the aisle who do that.   •  •  •  I was going to spend the majority of time talking about Donald Trump, and how the media has given up its duty, but other, better people have beaten me to it. This story from 538.com did the best job of summarizing how it happened, and the way journalism allowed itself to be used.  •  •  •  I've got a couple good kid stories I'll have to write next week. Thanks for reading!

A begrudging look at why Hulk Hogan's sex tape matters

*Heavy sigh.* There are almost no scenarios in which I want to talk about a Hulk Hogan sex tape, but such a scenario appeared this week. The Hulk Hogan v. Gawker Media lawsuit has important ramifications about the idea of First Amendment protections for journalists and even "journalists."

Hogan sued Gawker for publishing parts of a sex tape it received from an anonymous sender. After a jury trial in his hometown, Hogan won $140 million for an invasion of his privacy. Gawker plans to appeal. Normally, "plans to appeal" is a desperate cry of a losing team. However, Gawker is likely to win on the appeal and probably should.

A landmark case in journalism law is New York Times v. Sullivan. In short: Public figures have less privacy. Plaintiffs must prove that the accused either knew something was false and charged ahead anyway (doesn't apply to this case, since it was a video) or the invasion of privacy was not newsworthy. Is Hulk Hogan's sex life newsworthy? Here's where it gets a little complicated.

Hogan, a famous professional wrestler, often went on radio and television to discuss his sex life. He had a reality show. He is a celebrity, which falls into the category of public figure. Hogan's lawyers argued that there is a line between Hulk Hogan (character) and Terry Bollea (real name). In effect, they argued that what he says on radio and television interviews and reality television should be considered the character Hulk Hogan and not the person Terry Bollea.

Gawker's arguments are morally repugnant, but no less correct. Hogan's sexual braggadocio (ew!) made his sex life a public topic. It's like Hulk Hogan put a plate of sandwiches out for anyone, but Terry Bollea said not to eat them. Given that Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea are the same person, that public-private split doesn't work. From the New Yorker: "Public figures can't escape their special constitutional status by saying that deep down, they're really shy."

Did Gawker have to show video? Hogan's lawyers said no, but in modern media, that's the only way to "prove" anything. Think Ray Rice or any given law enforcement "incident" with minorities (both for and against). The value is in the video. Is it gross to publish a sex tape of a celebrity? Yes. Most news organizations (journalists) would not publish it, while most tabloids ("journalists" with quotation marks) likely would.

Ultimately, this case is about what's moral and what's legal. Although Gawker was found guilty, they were likely found guilty by a jury that was morally outraged. Legally, there was nothing wrong with Gawker's actions. If there was, then freedom of the press to publish video and images debunking the statements of public figures is threatened. If Tom Hanks goes on TV telling everyone he loves dolphins, then if a video of him punching dolphins in his backyard pool is newsworthy. (Disclaimer: Tom Hanks does not punch dolphins.)

One last note: I think Hogan sued not because of the sex tape, but what else was on the sex tape. The pillow talk (seriously, EW!) included racists statements about black people that made headlines. The sex didn't cost Hogan millions of dollars and his status with the WWE; rather, it was the use of the N-word in a negative way that did. Although he can't put that particular cat back into the bag, this lawsuit is about winning as much money as he can to replace that lost income.

Bathroom Break

Think about what your bathroom habits are. I bet everyone has the same general answer: Do your business, wash your hands and leave (I hope). But North Carolina lawmakers think that LGBT people don't do that. I don't know what they think LGBT people do in the bathroom, but the idea that they're somehow sexual deviants while they take a dump fails logic. Lawmakers say this is about protecting children... from what?

Say you're a transgender female. That is, you were born a man, but have always identified as a woman. You've undergone some amount of gender reassignment (think: Caitlin Jenner). You have breasts and long hair and wear a dress. Which bathroom does it make more sense to use? The women's restroom, of course. She's going to do what everyone else does in the bathroom — Do her business, wash her hands and leave. Many states are now requiring this person to use the men's bathroom — a person that by all appearances and action is a woman. She'd feel more uncomfortable at this point using the men's restroom. I'm sure the men would be more uncomfortable, too.

How do you enforce such a law, anyway? Have a birth certificate gender scanner at the entrance to every bathroom? LGBT people aren't child molesters and aren't spying on others when they use the bathroom. Mostly, they just want to use the bathroom. If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then just let them pee and poop with the ducks.

Summary Judgments

This has easily been the grossest entry on News Judgments I've had. Thank you for patiently and willingly reading about Hulk Hogan sex tapes and bathroom habits.  •   •   •   I don't usually read stories about shoes and endorsements, but here's a fascinating breakdown by True Hoop of how Steph Curry (last year's MVP) made the switch away from Nike and to Under Armour. You'd think Nike would have a) bothered to pronounce his name right and b) fixed the slides in their PowerPoint to the right name. You'd be wrong.  •   •   •   Good story by ESPN on how OU basketball coach Lon Kruger is the nicest, most boringly great coach.   •   •   •   The kids are sleeping better at night since they got tubes put in last week. And now I've jinxed it. Thanks, me.  •   •   •   Have a wonderful, renewing Easter!

The Game of the Name

You'll see breakdowns of the NCAA Tournament anywhere; I haven't followed college basketball much. But I do follow the Name of the Year bracket and I do have opinions. Is it silly? Yes. Do I care? No. So, without further ado, let's breakdown the Name of the Year  bracket — the only such known analysis in the world.

Bulltron Regional
Tillmann Buttersack should waltz to the second round easily, as 1 seeds should. Meanwhile, the underrated (9 seed? Really?) Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant should move on, too. While Duffy McSwiggin is a great name on St. Patrick's Day, Burm Snart is one of those one-syllable names that stand out. Neither's a word, and both are funny. Brodarious Hamm and Onno Hoes should make quick work of their first-round opponents. While Tchaikovsky Cantalicio has a delicious Russian-Italian mix, I don't think it's enough for the alliterative-sounding last name of Charol Shakeshaft. The surprise in this part of the bracket will be the splendid Furious Carney in an upset. The story behind Sicnarf Loopstok (read the name backwards) should be enough to advance over the best 15-seed, Chizu Shimizu Buckalew. In round 2, I think Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant will pull off the upset, while Brodarious Hamm moves on as well. I see Charol Shakeshaft moving on while Furious Carney is one of those names whose last name builds on the first. I've got them moving on, then beating Shakeshaft to make the Elite 8. Brodarious Hamm has two good names, but Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant has three. In a rare 9-seed v. 10-seed matchup, I have Furious Carney winning the Bullhorn.

Sithole Regional
This is easily the weakest regional. 1-seed Pope McCorkle III should advance, as will 8-seed Oozi Cats. Dr. Kim Nazi will walk past Saint Schwing into the second round. Snookie Catholique will prove no match for the happy-to-be-here Boy Waterman, while Cosmo Bjorkenheim will jet into the next round, too. Scholastique Koolimo should advance with the double-weird name over Zulaika Mook. The simple hilarity of Dick Tips will win out to meet 2-seed Attila Freska, a round one winner. In the Round of 32, Pope McCorkle III will use a Catholic-Irish combination to advance, while Dr. Kim Nazi will use her doctorate edge to move on. Cosmo Bjorkenheim's astral-Swedish combination will boost him (her? I don't know) on to face Dick Tips, who will pull off a minor upset. Pope McCorkle III has both a funny first and last name, giving them the edge over Dr. Kim Nazi (not a funny first name). While Dick Tips puts in a valiant effort, genitalia jokes usually only last so far. Therefore, Cosmo Bjorkenheim will advance. I expect Pope McCorkle III to prove worthy of a 1 seed in a weak regional, using generational power to win.

Dragonwagon Regional
Whereas the Sithole was weak, the Dragonwagon is stacked. Joylord Gumbie should be enough as a one-seed for the first round, and Taco Pope should win out, getting a victory over JoJo Victory. Lt. Charlene Sprinkle-Huff will pull out the 12-5 upset, while Dr. Shark Bird proves no match for Rusty Justice. Howdy Goudey should dominate the first round, as should Oscar-sounding DiCaprio Bootle. The Ransom Barefoot-IV Seacat matchup is a coin toss, but I give the edge to Barefoot. Finally, Inta Mulch will move on as a 2-seed. Taco Pope should upset Gumbie in round 2, while Dr. Shark Bird will be too much for Sprinkle-Huff, who really only has one great name. The rhyme of Goudey will prove too much for DiCaprio Bootle. I've also got Inta Mulch moving on in the bottom of the regional. The Taco Pope-Dr. Shark Bird matchup will prove beautiful to any Name of the Year purists out there should it happen. As much as I like the idea of Mexican-flavored vestments, I give the edge to the mental imagery of Dr. Shark Bird. I've also got Howdy Goudey coming out of the bottom of the bracket, despite the 1-2 punch of Inta Mulch. The rhyming Howdy Goudey will be no match for the deadly wings of Dr. Shark Bird.

Crotchtangle Regional
A mix of great names and weak names in the Crotchtangle, but the top seeds should dominate. Shuntavyious Primes-Willes is a great 1-seed, and will advance to face Tre McKitty, who will win his first-round matchup. Divine Deablo will dominate the first round, while Jorja Pound Turnipseed should pull off a first-round upset over Jasmine Squirrel (only one good name, and the two names aren't really good together). Muna Tuna-Langstaff Dickerson is a great first-round pairing, but I give the edge to Dickerson. Sweet Orefice is underrated as a 3 seed, and should easily beat Peola Smith-Smith. I've also got Mighty Fine and Bevis Mugabi winning to round out the first round. Shuntavyious Primes-Willes looks to have enough to make the Sweet 16 against a weak Tre McKitty, while Divine Deablo should make easy work, too. Sweet Orefice has great name synergy, compared to Langstaff Dickerson. Bevis Mugabi has enough '90s-themed names to advance past Mighty Fine. I've got the oxymoronic Divine Deablo (5-seed) and Sweet Orefice (3-seed) pulling off upsets in the Sweet Sixteen over the regional's top seeds. But while genitalia jokes are usually short-lived, Sweet Orefice will prove the exception.

Final Four
There are no losers here. Furious Carney has perfect, hilarious name synergy. But that's all it's got going for him. Pope McCorkle III is my last one-seed standing, and he earns a trip to the finals with not only individually funny names, but the fact that two other people named their son Pope McCorkle. Remember what I said about genitalia jokes? This is where that comes into play. Sweet Orefice is no match for Dr. Shark Bird. A finals of Dr. Shark Bird v. Pope McCorkle III is the match we've been waiting for all year. On one hand, beautiful mental imagery of a shark with wings wearing a stethoscope. On the other, an Irishman wearing an askew pope hat, with his dad and grandpa standing behind him. In the end, I've got to go with Dr. Shark Bird, because I think a doctor-educated Shark Bird would beat a third-generational Irish pope in a fight.

SCOTUS' Honor

The battle to nominate and approve a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia continues to rage. Well, that's not exactly true. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for Supreme Court Justice on Wednesday. Now comes the question of Senate approval, which appears dead in the water at this point.

Garland is as an olive branch offering for a President who didn't have to make one. And the GOP is burning the branch. There are two reasons Garland is an olive branch: 1) He's old for a Supreme Court nominee at age 63. He's the eighth-oldest nominee ever, which would limit his time on the bench if approved. 2) He's a non-minority moderate, limiting embarrassment for the GOP.

The GOP has put themselves in an unlikely-to-win scenario:
1) Democrat wins Presidency, Democrats take over Senate. Clinton or Sanders likely to nominate someone even more liberal, knowing they can get the person approved. Court tips 5-4 to moderate/liberals.
2) Democrat wins Presidency, GOP hangs onto Senate. Clinton or Sanders likely to nominate someone more liberal but also qualified (Srinivasan? Watford?). GOP can't prevent a moderate nominee for four years. Court tips 5-4 to moderate/liberals.
3) Trump or Cruz wins the Presidency, Democrats take over Senate. This is an incredibly unlikely scenario. I will rule this one out.
4) GOP wins the Presidency, keeps control of Senate. Conservative judge nominated. This is the only scenario in which things work out for the GOP. But it also means putting faith in Donald Trump. God help us all.

Summary Judgments

Ever wondered what would happen if you were pulled over for speeding on the way to a bathroom? If you guessed "Peeing and pooping in a police car," you guessed right.   •   •   •   Remember all that freaking out we did about the stock market at the beginning of the year? Well, the stock market bounced back, pretty under the radar.   •   •   •   Recently, we had a case where the defendant married the main witness to prevent her from testifying against him. That's small potatoes for what's going on in Brazil.   •   •   •   I'm really excited to find out what's in King Tut's Chamber of Secrets.    •   •   •  The kids had surgery to get tubes in their ears on Wednesday. Roland freaked out before the surgery, and Evie was calm. After the surgery, he was cool as a cucumber while she screamed and writhed around. They're total opposites.

Sanders Surprise

Some weeks you have things planned out, and then something totally unexpected sneaks up on you. That's what happened to me with Michigan.

Hillary was leading in polls by roughly 20 percent on average. And she lost. Surprises like this — and this is a historic surprise — do happen, and it causes the political science world to get excited. "Maybe we don't have this thing figured out, huh?" they (we?) say to themselves. It's a smaller-scale equivalent of a major astrological discovery, like proof of gravitational waves. Surprises are fun and interesting, and cause discussion. It's why people study these things. I don't want to downplay the size of this upset.

BUT. Aw, there had to be a but, right? This doesn't mean that political science should be completely discounted, and it's not as big of a win for Sanders as you think.

On the first point, sometimes the unlikely happens. That's partly math — outliers and unlikely events do have some probabilistic chance of occurring — and partly logic. So just because this series of polls were way off doesn't mean all polls should be ignored. They're a predictive tool, but they're not perfect.

And on the second issue: Sanders won Michigan, but by a little bit (2%). Meanwhile, Clinton won Mississippi by a huge margin (83-17%). Delegates are awarded proportionally. So although Sanders won Michigan, Clinton not only won more delegates, she increased the size of her lead in the delegate count.

The speculation will run rampant for only one week. There are a huge number of delegates on Tuesday: Illinois, Ohio, Florida, Missouri and North Carolina. In my opinion, that will be the day that decides the Democratic nomination.

As for the GOP... either stop Trump on Tuesday in Ohio/Florida or prepare for Trump to be your candidate. He is unlikely to beat either Democrat, but a President Trump is more likely than it was.

Commercial Madness

A commercial on the radio here cracks me up. It uses the tagline "Think you're fat? You may just be bloated!" It goes on to say that a pill you take will cause your belly to unbloat, I guess.

There's a lot to unpack here. Let's start with the thought process they want people to have:

Commercial: "Think you're fat?"
Audience: *looks down, sighs sadly but knowingly.* Yes, probably.
Commercial: "You may just be bloated!"
Audience: Oh, thank God! I'm not really fat!
Commercial: "Take this pill, and you can cause your bloating to go away!"
Audience: You mean I can lose weight with the minimum of effort? I'll do it!

Or how about applying their message to any number of other issues:
• Think you're ugly? You may just have bad skin! Try this ointment!
• Think you're diabetic? You may just have a bad pancreas! Try chia granola to improve pancreas health!
• Think you're bald? You may just have weak follicles! Take this pill to improve follicular fortitude!
• Think you're white? You may just have a melanin deficiency!

Color Clashes

Sports teams are always trying to reinvent the wheel as far as jerseys are concerned, but I've seen a rising trend that needs to stop: Dark jerseys v. dark jerseys. The NFL experimented with both teams using a head-to-toe color approach with the "Color Rush" series this year. Here's a picture of the Buffalo Bills and the New York Jets:

Another incident recently was my beloved Oklahoma City Thunder playing in dark orange against the really dark green Milwaukee Bucks.

I'm colorblind. Mostly red-green. I honestly cannot tell the Jets and Bills apart without staring at it for 10 seconds. The Thunder game was another where my colorblindness caused too much pause. I kept thinking about what would happen if I played for either team, and I'd probably have to sit out of the game, because I couldn't tell the jerseys apart (Also, I am short and fat, but follow me on the fantasy.).

Jersey designers, I'm not the only colorblind person. Please choose one team to be "light" and one to be "dark." One team can be white and the other a dark color. Or choose one to be a powder blue or yellow or a pastel color, and the other to be a bold color. If you can't make this work, you're a bad jersey designer.

Summary Judgments

So West Virginia passes a law allowing unpasteurized milk. Lawmakers celebrate by drinking raw milk. Do you think any of them got sick? Of course they did.   •   •   •   I've seen several news reports, like this one, that suggest President Obama is giving the cold shoulder to Nancy Reagan's funeral. It leaves out historical context: Sitting presidents have only attended the funerals of two former First Ladies: Jackie Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt. Both were symbols of something greater. Now, sitting First Ladies (as Michelle Obama is doing) do attend the funerals of former First Ladies, but not sitting Presidents. Nancy Reagan was important, but I wouldn't put her on Jackie O or Eleanor Roosevelt level.  •   •   •    At one point today, the top eight stories on cnn.com were related to Trump. The top eight! And people wonder why he has so much power...

Apologies and Possibilities

I warned last week that I likely wouldn't be able to post on time, and that ended up being correct. We moved to Liberty, and so the process of moving has kept me unable to write until now. This will be your catch-up post, and then I'll have a regular post on Thursday.

State of the Races

On the Democrat side, it's all over but the details. Sanders wins either 1) states with a small delegate count or 2) barely wins. And margin is important, as the Democratic party decides pledged delegates proportionally. Saturday was the race in miniature: Sanders won Kansas and Nebraska. But Clinton won more delegates because she won the biggest prize, Louisiana, by a huge margin. Clinton leads the next six states by HUGE margins — and five of the six are states with more than 100 delegates (Michigan, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Illinois). In fact, only one poll taken since February has shown Sanders to be within 10 points of Clinton (!). Sanders is close or winning a few states yet to come, like Wisconsin and Utah, but they're small potatoes.

On the GOP side, there's something that's been missed by nearly every outlet about Trump's "Rise to Power." No Republican candidate has won 50 percent in any state. Again, because it's significant: No Republican has won 50 percent yet anywhere. That includes Trump. The fact is that Trump is winning a plurality, but not a majority. He's winning because his opposition is splitting its vote.

And at this point, it's important to each of his three opponents that they all stay in. No one other than Kasich can beat Trump in Ohio — and he just might. No one other than Cruz can beat Trump in the Midwest and states with a high evangelical population. Rubio won Minnesota and Puerto Rico. Only by Cruz/Kasich/Rubio staying in and winning enough delegates each can they prevent Trump from winning the nomination. If so, each of the three will have a chance come the lottery ticket that is a contested convention.

But there is a word of warning, particularly that Cruz should have learned. I heard from many conservative friends that Cruz won the Battle for Iowa but lost the War for the Nomination. His tactics against Carson and Rubio turned many against him. Likewise, if Rubio/Cruz/Kasich prompt a contested convention, that's good for each of them individually. But it may cause a split in the Republican party if the guy who won the most votes (Trump, theoretically), is not the guy who wins the nomination. I could easily see Trump going independent if the GOP doesn't pick him at the convention.

Quick Hits on Moving

• Having two kids around does not help with getting rid of clutter. My parents watched the kids until Saturday, and that was when our progress in unpacking ended abruptly.
• We've given the kids their own room. So far, so good, but I will admit to using one room as "kid jail," on Sunday morning. I blocked them in with a gate, and let them play while I went around the house doing stuff. This was less successful than I'd hoped, but the idea has potential.
• Our house is still full of boxes and disarray. We hired movers to move all the things to our house, which was a great idea. But we're still not able to find nearly anything. Where are the needle-nose pliers/soap/kids? I know we have at least two... I just had them a minute ago... I saw them and said, "Oh, that's where they are.. I'll need to remember that for later."

Summary Judgments

For some of the day on Monday, nbcnews.com was linking to their 2014 election results page. I was very confused why I the midterm elections from two years ago were suddenly top news.   •   •   •   Michael Bloomberg is not running for President. He spoke at my OU graduation, and I thought he was phenomenal. However, I think he would have split votes with Hillary, which is something he didn't want to do. Also, this race already has one too many billionaires.   •   •   •   I'm a longtime fan of the Chiefs. Therefore, I couldn't be more excited that Peyton Manning is retiring. I'm so sick of him being so good.   •   •   •   Lately, thinking ahead has scared me. The next Leap Day will be when the kids are either in school or ready for school. HOLY CRAP. It's only nine years until your mortgage payment goes down. UGH WHY? I will be 60 when we pay off the mortgage. I'LL BASICALLY BE DEAD. I'd rather think about things that are less scary, like what's for dinner on Friday. Pulled pork sounds great and I won't be aging. Food is my worry blocker.