We may have already seen the trial balloons of Clinton's vice president candidates, but I and you and probably no one you knew paid attention. Mass. Sen. Elizabeth Warren made her presidential endorsement on Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC earlier this month. Former Va. Gov. and current Sen. Tim Kaine made the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows. There are other names, of course, like Tom Vilsack, Tom Perez and Julian Castro (who I think would be a smart long-term pick).
Looking at the veep shortlists, I have no idea what Donald Trump will do. If he chooses someone with "experience," like Newt Gingrich, then he gets all their Washington baggage and no longer looks like as much of an outsider. If he chooses someone without "experience," like — I don't know — Ben Carson, then he's doing the same thing he jumped all over Obama for. If I had to guess, I'd go with someone like Fla. Gov. Rick Scott. He is from a battleground state, doesn't fall in line with GOP establishment, and is enough of an outsider to be a good fit for the Trump camp.
Who do I think for the Democrats? I think Clinton will avoid any senator whose seat in the Senate would be up for grabs, especially those in states with a GOP governor. That rules out Sherrod Brown, Cory Booker, and sadly Elizabeth Warren. (Honestly, I think Warren's better off as a senator than as a VP.) I think Clinton wants a Hispanic influence with her veep pick, but wants someone with experience. As much as Castro or Perez or even Calif. Rep. Xavier Becerra would be good picks, Tim Kaine is probably your frontrunner. He speaks Spanish fluently, and could be an attack dog against Trump on Univision, et al. He's against abortion personally, but doesn't believe it's a government decision (a rare, nuanced view). He was the elected governor of a battleground state, and he's admitted he's boring. But boring is good. Biden is boring. Dan Quayle was boring. Dick Cheney was boring. Al Gore was boring. Sarah Palin was NOT boring. Boring VP picks win.
What Trump needs is more boring. And because of who he is, I doubt he can do that. As I mentioned/predicted/wrote here a few weeks ago, Clinton has seen a polling bump after she secured the nomination. And this is the "new normal." She's now up about 6-7 points on Trump nationally, and leads in most polls out of Virginia, Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida. If she wins most traditional blue states, and then adds Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, she could lose New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and ALL OTHER battleground states (Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Michigan... even Arizona, where she has a polling lead) and still win the presidency.
Explaining Math is Hard
I love to read FiveThirtyEight's political coverage, and their analytical, math-based breakdowns of the election are usually pretty spot-on. Nate Silver and his team have Clinton at an 80 percent chance of winning. I've seen a few TV reports misinterpret this as "Silver predicts Clinton win," which isn't necessarily accurate. See, I had this whole section written, and then Silver and his team wrote exactly what I was thinking. Which is that a) 20 percent isn't nothing and b) percent chances are saying who's favored as of now, not who will win.
Summary Judgments
The Supreme Court overturning the Texas abortion laws (and by extension, others) wasn't a huge surprise to me. There was a comment by the Solicitor General during oral arguments in which he said the Texas restrictions would allow the right of abortion "only to exist in theory and not in fact." What was a surprise was the affirmative action ruling in Fisher II. Kennedy has not approved affirmative action in any case ever. And he did in this case. I think the Fisher II case gave a blueprint for how a college can arrange for diversity while also projecting fairness. Of note is that Scalia would not have made any difference: The former was a 5-3 vote, the latter would have been 4-4, meaning Texas' program would have remained intact. • • • I have not run since the 5K. I am sure I've been putting on weight, and I'm sure I need to get back in the saddle of running. My thing right now is finding a race to sign up for, and not all of them sound great. One sounded awesome.... free ice cream after the race! Then I started thinking about it, and dairy products are a terrible choice after running 3 miles. Why would that be offered? • • • Please stay, Kevin Durant. Please stay. • • • There will not be a News Judgments next week. I'm taking the week off, as Alyson and I are going on vacation to Chicago for about 4-5 days. The respective grandparents will split kid-watching duties. This is our first vacation we've taken since the kids were born. Also, Alyson's turning 30. Or 29 for the second time.... You'll have to ask her.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Thursday, June 23, 2016
What the Sit-In Did
In theory, the Democrat sit-in at the House has done nothing. Its stated objective -- to get the House GOP to at least vote on a gun control bill -- won't happen until July 6 at least. But I believe the sit-in has already done plenty.
Rep. John Lewis is basically unassailable. He was/is a Civil Rights era icon. You can't be forceful with him (arrest a Civil Rights icon? have security show him out?) and expect to come out looking well. With him as your standard bearer, it was a smart move for Dems. So what did the sit-in actually do?
Four things: 1) It changed the conversation from "what can we do" to "why is the GOP obstructing a vote?" The GOP has the votes. But they know that if they allow a vote, they'll be tied to the argument of letting those on the no-fly list have guns. By not allowing a vote, it appears obstructionist for no reason. 2) It was a sign that the Democrats are going to have a spine. This has been a problem for Democrats. I'll leave it there. 3) It made the Republicans who tried to break up the sit-in look silly. Outspoken Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert showed up, yelled "The problem is radical Islam!" as though there hadn't been Colorado Springs or Charleston or other, non-ISIS inspired attacks. Further, if that is the problem, then why not keep those identified as terrorists from buying guns? It's a poor argument. 4) It may just be a coincidence, but it changed the news coverage for the week. Donald Trump gave his big anti-Hillary speech yesterday that he's been touting for weeks. And it's not going to be on the front of any paper, because of the sit-in. Comparatively, no one is talking about his speech. It was brilliant timing.
Inside Missouri Politics
To get myself more familiar with statewide politics, I'm going to have an occasional recurring segment. I'll take a look at the state elected officials, the districts, etc., and so on. Today, I wanted to focus on the U.S. House districts in Missouri. I'll analyze how the district leans and how the district has changed since 1970 on redistricting maps, because I'm kind of a redistricting nerd (thanks, newspaper career!) and because it informs me about the districts. One note: Missouri lost a district in the last Census, and the gains will be noted in the respective districts.
District 1
This is downtown St. Louis. Over the next 30 years, the district moved almost entirely north of I-64, to the north and west a bit, before taking back a little space to the south in the last redistricting. This is probably the least changed district of any of them. It may not surprise you that this has been Democratic since 1949. It may surprise you that the representative has been either Bill Clay Sr. or Bill (aka Lacy) Clay Jr. since.... 1969 (!).
District 2
This could be described as "suburban St. Louis." Traditionally, it hugged District 1 on the west and north sides, even gaining an extra couple counties to the northwest in the 2000 redistricting. However, after the last Census, it's been rejiggered (technical term). It's lost some of south St. Louis and almost everything north of I-70 while gaining some southern suburbs. It's more compact than before, which could mean it's growing. Since 1993, this district has voted for Republicans. First Jim Talent, who became a senator; then Todd Akin, who gained national notoriety and did not become a senator; and now Ann Wagner, who won by 23 percent over her opponent in 2013.
District 3
This one's changed a lot. It used to be southern suburban St. Louis back in 1970, before gaining territory to the south (St. Genevieve/St. Mary) and remaining largely unchanged for a few decades. Then 2010 came, and the Third lost St. Genevieve/St. Mary and most of its Missouri River territory, wrapping around Districts 1 and 2 and gaining territory above the Missouri River north of St. Louis up to Elsberry, then gaining everything through Jefferson City (!) and even down to Osage Beach (!!) in the central part of the state. This likely means the district lost population AND was given much of the dissolved district's territory. This district went Democrat from 1949 to 2013, with notables Russ Carnahan and former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt coming from the Third. In 2013, however, it flopped red to Blaine Luetkemeyer.
District 4
At first glance, this district hasn't changed much. A closer inspection shows that's not true. In 1970, this included KC's east suburbs, following the Missouri River to just west of Columbia, then diagonally moving southwest to the stateliness, including Lamar but not Joplin. In 1980, it dropped some central Missouri territory along I-70 and picked up the Lake of the Ozarks and through Mountain Grove and Ft. Leonard Wood. By 1990, it had ceded all of Jackson County (KC) and Mountain Grove/Ft. Leonard Wood and gained back a bit of I-44 and I-70 territory. The next Census had it gain back Lamar and add a county north of the Missouri River just east of Clay County, while losing much of the Lake of the Ozarks and some of the south and east KC suburbs. Now, the district has lost much of its I-70 territory, while gaining Columbia. It stretches from Lamar to Rich Hill to Columbia to wrap around Camdenton/Lake Ozark and pick up Lebanon. Like the last district, this was Democratic from 1955-2011, represented notably by Ike Skelton for nearly 35 years. Vicky Hartzler won the seat for Republicans in 2011, and has occupied since. I'd say that the redistricting has made this a more Republican-leaning district, as democratic areas like Jackson County have been replaced by Republican-leaning southwest and central Missouri.
District 5
Essentially, this is "Kansas City + change." It used to be western Jackson County only. Then it became central-west Jackson County. Then it added a bit of territory to the east and south (it looks like Blue Springs was not included, oddly) in 2000. Then 2010 made a big change. It looks like all of Blue Springs and most of Lee's Summit were lost to District 6 and Harrisonville was lost to District 4, but then adding Ray, Lafayette and Saline counties along the Missouri River/I-70. This probably means a population decline in KC. This district has only voted for one Republican since the Great Depression — Albert Reeves Jr. for one term in 1947. Former KC mayor Emanuel Cleaver is the current seat holder.
District 6
What was once "northwest Missouri" is now "north Missouri + change." In 1970, it was everything north of the Missouri River until and including Kirksville. Through 2000, it changed little, ceding Kirksville but gaining some territory to the west of Columbia and curling in to get north Blue Springs, then only losing Ray County. In 2010, it absorbed much of the vanishing ninth district (it means a population decline, probably.). Now the district wraps in from Lee's Summit to Liberty where I live to... well, draw a line straight east from Kansas City, and everything to the north of that is probably the Sixth. As you'd expect from a more rural district, it's been more Republican than other districts, but not dramatically so. It's been Republican since 1976, with an 8-year blue streak for Pat Danner in the 1990s. Sam Graves has held the seat since 2001.
District 7
Super easy. This is "Southwest Missouri." There've been a few line wobbles, but it's largely unchanged: Springfield/Joplin/I-44 corridor/Branson. It's heavily Republican and has been since... 1935 (!) under Dewey Short. In fact, the only Democrat in that time was... Charlie Brown? Well, Charles Brown in 1957-1961. Roy Blunt, current U.S. senator, left this district to run for Senate. He was replaced by Billy Long.
District 8
This used to be central-south Missouri, including Columbia and Jeff City and Ft. Leonard Wood. But since the 10th District was dissolved after 1980, it has essentially become "southeast Missouri." It's picked up a little territory to the west and north, now encompassing much of Ft. Leonard Wood, but it's largely unchanged since 1980. It stretches almost all the way to Branson on the west, nearly to Lebanon on the northwest, and nearly to the St. Louis suburbs on the far northeast side. It's been in Republican hands — as you might expect for a rural district — since 1981, including a run from 1983 to 2013 by either Bill or his wife, Jo Ann, Emerson. After she resigned to be CEO of the National Rural Electric Co-op, Jason Smith was elected to succeed her.
Dissolved districts
District 10 used to be Southeast Missouri. It dissolved after 1980. District 9 would best be described as "northwest-ish of St. Louis along the Missouri River." It was dissolved in 2010. It doesn't appear the state will lose any seats in 2020.
Gun Laws
Here's an example of how absurd our priorities are: I have to have a permit in this and all our neighboring states to go fishing. The state knows who I am and if I should be allowed to fish. However, I do not have to have a permit to purchase and concealed carry a gun in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nebraska or Kentucky. The same is true for open carry, except leave Oklahoma out.
But one is inherently more dangerous than the other. If you doubt that, then you take a fishing pole, and I'll take the gun, and let's see who wins. Ultimately, while no bill will be perfect, an attempt to try something — anything — would go a long way with people. Inaction is what we've had for 20 years. Let's try something this time and see if it works.
Summary Judgments
I liked how around 12:30 p.m., CNN split the front page of its website into five parts, since there were five major breaking stories (Supreme Court, Freddy Gray, German cinema shooting, Democratic sit-in, and the Brexit vote). It was a good look when there are multiple stories of equal importance. • • • I've been taking off the last week or two from running/eating well. I was going to start both again this week, but... it was Father's Day, then my mom brought cookie dough, so... I really need to get going again on both. I thought about another race, but nothing's jumped out to me so far until the fall. • • • Evie's new favorite word is "No." Normally, this would be a sigh from an exhausted parent, but I find it endearing because of how she says it. While Roland will be more forceful, hers is polite, almost respectful. It's almost a "no, but thanks for asking." I'm sure it'll annoy me soon, but for now, it's delightful.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Orlando or Newtown or Charleston or San Bernardino or Paris or...
I'm tired of several arguments when it comes to mass shootings.
Argument: "Mass shootings" isn't a defined term, so we shouldn't count them.
Translation: If we don't have numbers, we can't admit there's a problem. A GOP-led Congress has passed laws banning the Centers for Disease Control from researching gun violence. By my count, there have been six U.S. shootings involving more than five deaths in the last year alone (Orlando, San Bernardino, Colorado Springs, Roseburg (Ore.), Chattanooga, Charleston). That's a problem.
Argument: Gun violence is a symptom of "radical Islamic terrorism."
Translation: We need a face for terror, and Islam fits that face. We want to give evil a name, and wrap our heads around it. But when Charleston or Colorado Springs or Roseburg, Ore., happened, we didn't define them as "white supremacy terrorism" or "abortion rights terrorist." While radical terrorism exists, and it should be fought on many levels, there's a danger in making "radical Islamic terrorism" shorthand for "All Muslims are evil," which I've seen argued already. Most Muslims denounce terrorism, especially when it masquerades as their religion. Can we all agree on "ISIS-inspired" and move on? That way, we avoid the religious link while simultaneously giving the enemy a name.
Argument: Now's not the time to make things political. AKA We need to remember that people died.
Translation: Don't do anything while you care about it; wait a while and maybe you won't care anymore. These arguments are dismissive of emotions. I'm mad as hell that this keeps happening, and I want to do something. Just because I'm emotional doesn't mean I'm not making a sound argument. Further, this is an attempt to delay, because maybe the person mad won't want to act as much in the future.
Argument: A bad guy will still get a weapon, so we shouldn't have laws about it.
Translation: Haters are gonna hate, criminals are gonna criminal (?). This is the dumbest argument I hear. By this logic, a bad guy will still murder, so we shouldn't make that illegal. Or counterfeiters will still counterfeit money, so we shouldn't try to stop them. Or bombers will still make bombs, so we shouldn't have laws against explosives. So dumb. DUMB.
Argument: A good machinist/metalsmith/etc. can make their own guns from videos online and books.
Translation: There are ways to avoid potential laws. Sure, I guess you could make your own gun. But now you're probably involving others to make it. There aren't a ton of people good at smithing, metalwork, and machining, so it'll probably involve another person. It'll also take more time. Time + involvement of others means that bad things are less likely to happen, or that someone will get tipped off to cruel intentions. Instead, we have a system in which a person can get a semi-automatic weapon in 7 minutes.
Argument: A gun is just a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. AKA Don't blame the gun.
Translation: A gun is not meant for killing things./People kill, not guns. A gun is not the same thing as a screwdriver. If you think that it's a tool, you're downplaying the lethality of a gun on a massive scale. If you think it's a tool, we'll have a duel. You choose the screwdriver, and I'll take the gun. It's just a tool, right? Imagine if the Orlando shooter had a knife instead? I imagine that he wouldn't have killed/injured nearly as many people.
Argument: We can't ban guns. It's in our Constitution.
Translation: Guns are a right and that right shall not be infringed. Yeah, but they already have been. We already ban automatic weapons (machine-gun style). That's a gun control in place. Why can't we go further? Also, when it was written, the Constitution allowed people to be owned by other people. We changed that law. Why can't we change this one? Further, if other "rights" as defined by the courts can be restricted and regulated, then what makes this right so special?
Argument: Gun reform won't work.
Translation: Don't try gun reform. The only problem with this is that it has worked, to great degree, in other countries. The more I've studied and read up on this issue, the more I'm moving toward an Australian model. They have licenses for different categories of weapons, and have mostly banned automatic and semi-automatic (pull the trigger) weapons. You can get a permit for a semi-automatic weapon if you are a farmer (for the legitimate reason of hunting feral pigs) or go through an intense training/scrutiny/waiting period/etc. Serial numbers for guns produced after 1900 are registered with the government. They've offered gun buybacks and gun amnesty programs. It's worked like gangbusters there. In the last 20 years, they've practically eliminated mass shootings. The number of suicides by gun has dropped dramatically.
Argument: See? The U.K. had a shooting, so gun bans don't work.
Translation: We shouldn't do anything unless it eliminates all gun violence. I saw this one, and it's so dumb. SO DUMB. It's like saying "There's still lung cancer, so cigarette restrictions don't work." Or saying "A house got struck by lightning and burned down, so we shouldn't have lightning rods." Yes, it's difficult to completely eliminate all shooting deaths, even in places with strict gun laws. However, countries with strict gun laws have far fewer people dying from gun violence or suicide than the U.S. Surely broad policy initiatives shouldn't be thrown out just because they only work 80-90 percent of the time.
Mostly I want to see something happen. Anything. The most important thing is that we do something at all. If, after every one of these mass shootings, the Congressional/national response is "that's tragic... nothing we can do about it," that's not good enough.
Finally, I usually see a lot of people quoting Mr. Rogers to "look for the helpers" after such a tragedy. I like this idea, because I saw a lot of such helpers as a journalist. John Oliver spoke for me a lot on this topic, noting a blood drive in Orlando that wrapped around the block on Sunday. When tragedy strikes, the best thing you can do is to look for the overwhelming good that follows. As a kid who was 9 and going to school in an OKC suburb on April 19, 1995, I remember the school eventually turning away people who offered stuffed animals and other comforts because we had too many. That show of good is incredible and uplifting and heartfelt and hard to be cynical about. They are courageous and restore our hope in humanity.
But please, please, please, please: Don't forget about why the helpers have to be there in the first place. The helpers are wonderful, but let's do a few things so we don't need them as often.
Remember that Hulk Hogan v. Gawker story?
I wrote a lot about the Hulk Hogan v. Gawker case a while back, but there's a new wrinkle. While Gawker continues to plan an appeal (as well they should), they still have to pay $50 million of the $140 million judgment as a bond. Of course, Gawker doesn't have that much money sitting around. So, to protect their assets from Hogan et al, they've filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It means that Gawker is giving up their independence as an organization so they can continue to fight for their existence in appeals court.
Court Someones (Get it? It's like Summons... No? Let's move on.)
Let's play pretend real quick. Say you're Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader. The Senate is in danger of flipping to Democratic control in November. The sitting President has nominated someone that is eminently qualified, but is probably more of a moderate. If you don't like this pick, then there's an election between Hillary Clinton (who would have no incentive to pick a moderate) and Donald Trump (who you've said "doesn't know a lot about the issues"). Neither of those options sounds particularly good. What would you do? I don't know that there's a great option for him.
Summary Judgments
One quick note on LGBTQ rights: Those who died in Orlando did so in a state (and country) in which they can legally be fired or kicked out of their house or turned away from a library/restaurant/public place simply for being gay. • • • Speaking of LGBTQ rights, I thought this was a tough, but pointed interview by Anderson Cooper. Often, he can be over the top for major events or allows people to twist out of things, but he WAS. NOT. HAVING. IT. with the Florida AG, noting that after the shooting, she was all about protecting gay people, but it was a radical change given her history of fighting LGBT rights in court. • • • This was an interesting story about the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. I hear a lot of people fed up with our current candidates, saying they'd rather vote for Johnson or Jill Stein, but I wonder how much of that is just being uninformed or if they really like Johnson/Stein. • • • The 5K went great. I was sore afterward not on my legs, but on my pecs/shoulders. I had not prepared for the monkey bar obstacle, apparently. • • • We sat down for dinner at my parents' house this weekend, and we started to pray before the meal. Roland, unprompted, put his hands together and said, "God God God." He's got this prayer thing down!
Argument: "Mass shootings" isn't a defined term, so we shouldn't count them.
Translation: If we don't have numbers, we can't admit there's a problem. A GOP-led Congress has passed laws banning the Centers for Disease Control from researching gun violence. By my count, there have been six U.S. shootings involving more than five deaths in the last year alone (Orlando, San Bernardino, Colorado Springs, Roseburg (Ore.), Chattanooga, Charleston). That's a problem.
Argument: Gun violence is a symptom of "radical Islamic terrorism."
Translation: We need a face for terror, and Islam fits that face. We want to give evil a name, and wrap our heads around it. But when Charleston or Colorado Springs or Roseburg, Ore., happened, we didn't define them as "white supremacy terrorism" or "abortion rights terrorist." While radical terrorism exists, and it should be fought on many levels, there's a danger in making "radical Islamic terrorism" shorthand for "All Muslims are evil," which I've seen argued already. Most Muslims denounce terrorism, especially when it masquerades as their religion. Can we all agree on "ISIS-inspired" and move on? That way, we avoid the religious link while simultaneously giving the enemy a name.
Argument: Now's not the time to make things political. AKA We need to remember that people died.
Translation: Don't do anything while you care about it; wait a while and maybe you won't care anymore. These arguments are dismissive of emotions. I'm mad as hell that this keeps happening, and I want to do something. Just because I'm emotional doesn't mean I'm not making a sound argument. Further, this is an attempt to delay, because maybe the person mad won't want to act as much in the future.
Argument: A bad guy will still get a weapon, so we shouldn't have laws about it.
Translation: Haters are gonna hate, criminals are gonna criminal (?). This is the dumbest argument I hear. By this logic, a bad guy will still murder, so we shouldn't make that illegal. Or counterfeiters will still counterfeit money, so we shouldn't try to stop them. Or bombers will still make bombs, so we shouldn't have laws against explosives. So dumb. DUMB.
Argument: A good machinist/metalsmith/etc. can make their own guns from videos online and books.
Translation: There are ways to avoid potential laws. Sure, I guess you could make your own gun. But now you're probably involving others to make it. There aren't a ton of people good at smithing, metalwork, and machining, so it'll probably involve another person. It'll also take more time. Time + involvement of others means that bad things are less likely to happen, or that someone will get tipped off to cruel intentions. Instead, we have a system in which a person can get a semi-automatic weapon in 7 minutes.
Argument: A gun is just a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. AKA Don't blame the gun.
Translation: A gun is not meant for killing things./People kill, not guns. A gun is not the same thing as a screwdriver. If you think that it's a tool, you're downplaying the lethality of a gun on a massive scale. If you think it's a tool, we'll have a duel. You choose the screwdriver, and I'll take the gun. It's just a tool, right? Imagine if the Orlando shooter had a knife instead? I imagine that he wouldn't have killed/injured nearly as many people.
Argument: We can't ban guns. It's in our Constitution.
Translation: Guns are a right and that right shall not be infringed. Yeah, but they already have been. We already ban automatic weapons (machine-gun style). That's a gun control in place. Why can't we go further? Also, when it was written, the Constitution allowed people to be owned by other people. We changed that law. Why can't we change this one? Further, if other "rights" as defined by the courts can be restricted and regulated, then what makes this right so special?
Argument: Gun reform won't work.
Translation: Don't try gun reform. The only problem with this is that it has worked, to great degree, in other countries. The more I've studied and read up on this issue, the more I'm moving toward an Australian model. They have licenses for different categories of weapons, and have mostly banned automatic and semi-automatic (pull the trigger) weapons. You can get a permit for a semi-automatic weapon if you are a farmer (for the legitimate reason of hunting feral pigs) or go through an intense training/scrutiny/waiting period/etc. Serial numbers for guns produced after 1900 are registered with the government. They've offered gun buybacks and gun amnesty programs. It's worked like gangbusters there. In the last 20 years, they've practically eliminated mass shootings. The number of suicides by gun has dropped dramatically.
Argument: See? The U.K. had a shooting, so gun bans don't work.
Translation: We shouldn't do anything unless it eliminates all gun violence. I saw this one, and it's so dumb. SO DUMB. It's like saying "There's still lung cancer, so cigarette restrictions don't work." Or saying "A house got struck by lightning and burned down, so we shouldn't have lightning rods." Yes, it's difficult to completely eliminate all shooting deaths, even in places with strict gun laws. However, countries with strict gun laws have far fewer people dying from gun violence or suicide than the U.S. Surely broad policy initiatives shouldn't be thrown out just because they only work 80-90 percent of the time.
Mostly I want to see something happen. Anything. The most important thing is that we do something at all. If, after every one of these mass shootings, the Congressional/national response is "that's tragic... nothing we can do about it," that's not good enough.
Finally, I usually see a lot of people quoting Mr. Rogers to "look for the helpers" after such a tragedy. I like this idea, because I saw a lot of such helpers as a journalist. John Oliver spoke for me a lot on this topic, noting a blood drive in Orlando that wrapped around the block on Sunday. When tragedy strikes, the best thing you can do is to look for the overwhelming good that follows. As a kid who was 9 and going to school in an OKC suburb on April 19, 1995, I remember the school eventually turning away people who offered stuffed animals and other comforts because we had too many. That show of good is incredible and uplifting and heartfelt and hard to be cynical about. They are courageous and restore our hope in humanity.
But please, please, please, please: Don't forget about why the helpers have to be there in the first place. The helpers are wonderful, but let's do a few things so we don't need them as often.
Remember that Hulk Hogan v. Gawker story?
I wrote a lot about the Hulk Hogan v. Gawker case a while back, but there's a new wrinkle. While Gawker continues to plan an appeal (as well they should), they still have to pay $50 million of the $140 million judgment as a bond. Of course, Gawker doesn't have that much money sitting around. So, to protect their assets from Hogan et al, they've filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It means that Gawker is giving up their independence as an organization so they can continue to fight for their existence in appeals court.
Court Someones (Get it? It's like Summons... No? Let's move on.)
Let's play pretend real quick. Say you're Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader. The Senate is in danger of flipping to Democratic control in November. The sitting President has nominated someone that is eminently qualified, but is probably more of a moderate. If you don't like this pick, then there's an election between Hillary Clinton (who would have no incentive to pick a moderate) and Donald Trump (who you've said "doesn't know a lot about the issues"). Neither of those options sounds particularly good. What would you do? I don't know that there's a great option for him.
Summary Judgments
One quick note on LGBTQ rights: Those who died in Orlando did so in a state (and country) in which they can legally be fired or kicked out of their house or turned away from a library/restaurant/public place simply for being gay. • • • Speaking of LGBTQ rights, I thought this was a tough, but pointed interview by Anderson Cooper. Often, he can be over the top for major events or allows people to twist out of things, but he WAS. NOT. HAVING. IT. with the Florida AG, noting that after the shooting, she was all about protecting gay people, but it was a radical change given her history of fighting LGBT rights in court. • • • This was an interesting story about the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. I hear a lot of people fed up with our current candidates, saying they'd rather vote for Johnson or Jill Stein, but I wonder how much of that is just being uninformed or if they really like Johnson/Stein. • • • The 5K went great. I was sore afterward not on my legs, but on my pecs/shoulders. I had not prepared for the monkey bar obstacle, apparently. • • • We sat down for dinner at my parents' house this weekend, and we started to pray before the meal. Roland, unprompted, put his hands together and said, "God God God." He's got this prayer thing down!
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Declaring a Winner and the Difficulty of Delusion
Sometimes, I'm affected by the timing of when I write these. Today's big issue was made moot by Tuesday's election. However, there was a lot of people I read or see on Facebook who were upset to see the Associated Press (followed by many other news organizations) declare that Hillary Clinton had become the presumptive nominee on Monday.
There were several angry reactions to it that I don't think were warranted. The first was the question of How did they decide?, often typed as HOW COULD THEY DO THIS?????? and usually followed by some angry missive about "the media." Instead, the answer was simple: Math. The AP counted the pledged delegates and the announced plans/intentions of the super delegates. Once that number was equal or greater than the number needed to clinch, they made the announcement. Simple, right?
The next question was But what if super delegates change their minds? This appears to be the biggest source of contention for those holding on to the Bernie Sanders hopes. Even media watchdog the Poynter Institute fell for this one (Normally, I like Poynter's work, but this was a shoddy article that fell apart to the most basic of logic. Because it was poorly thought out, it came across like a Bernie supporter pounding his fist on the table. I'll save you the time of a detailed critique). The overall point is that reporters are assuming too much, since super delegates can legally change their mind before the convention in late July and, effectively, anything could happen (?). But I'd suggest the people making assumptions are the Bernie supporters: Clinton won millions more votes, won more states, and won more pledged delegates. While yes, a few dozen switched in '08 from Clinton to Obama, Obama was actually ahead in all three of those statistics. And 30 super delegates is not the 300-400 that Bernie would need. Super delegates can change their mind, but using the phrase "presumptive nominee" also describes the off, slim chance that the unknown something is theoretically possible. Reporters are not being misleading when describing the race accurately.
That lead to the next question: Why now? The AP declared Clinton the winner Monday night, the day before the final (with the exception of D.C.) primaries of the cycle. The AP did a survey over the weekend of super delegates to see how they'd vote. The results probably came in Monday. Counting put her over the limit ... voila! If that's when the news breaks, that's when it breaks. Anything else is collusion.
Finally, the crux of the why now group: Won't this suppress votes in the remaining primaries? How come this wasn't asked in the Republican race? Donald Trump was declared the winner weeks ago, but no one crowed about how declaring a winner was going to suppress votes. The AP's job is to report news. It's not their job to worry about how that affects voters. And if they've already determined the race is over, then why not declare it? It'd be like if the Golden State Warriors won the best-of-seven NBA finals 4-1, but Cleveland fans were like "Declaring the winner after three games just means you're suppressing the score of the last two games! Anything could happen!" Further, the idea that it had much effect is overblown. Let me make this perfectly clear: Bernie Sanders lost the election because he couldn't convince minorities that he was the right candidate. That wasn't going to change in California or New Jersey or New Mexico just because the AP declared her the winner a day before the primary.
I think this speaks to a greater issue: Our ability as humans and social beings to delude ourselves. Don't take me wrong, I don't think this is sinister. It's something we all do, I just think it gets played on a grander stage during election cycles. It can be good, in that sometimes self-delusion allows us to accomplish more than we thought possible. It can also be bad, because it often causes us to deny truth and facts (I'm looking at you, Mr. Trump.). The dual hypocrisy and irony can best be found in, of all places, the intro to the old show Mythbusters, in which one of the hosts says, "I reject your reality and substitute my own," which is a funny thing on a show called Mythbusters.
Again, this self-delusion is not a bad thing. Our self-delusions give us hope. Our self-delusions give us energy. Our self-delusions give us the power to move mountains or run 5Ks (heh). But it's also a hard thing to shatter. Our "how we imagine the world to be" is a difficult thing to give up because we often think it means "we were wrong to believe that." And (especially on a political stage) admitting you were wrong, even to yourself, is one of the hardest things for a person to do.
Summary Judgments
Now that Hillary's the presumptive nominee, expect to see her get a boost in polling against Trump in the next few weeks. Wherever the polls are in three weeks will be the "new normal." • • • NBC News placed the story of who Hillary Clinton should pick for VP as its featured story on the front of its web site this morning. A similar story on Donald Trump was next to it, but not with a picture and not given equal placement. My opinion: Their site needs a little flexibility to post two stories of equal weight next to each other. Otherwise, it appears partisan. • • • I'm getting excited. My 5K is Saturday morning. This week, I had my last two runs before the race. Monday, I did really well and ran 3 miles without stopping in a bit less than 33 minutes. Then today I went out for a run, and ran 3 miles, but stopped three times (none for more than 15-20 seconds). If the order had been reversed, I'd be feeling great. Despite today's let-down, I'm anxious/excited about Saturday. • • • I don't know where Roland got it, but he knows exactly one math question. We were watching Sesame Street a month or so back, and we discovered this. Ask him "What comes after eight?" and he'll answer "Nine" every time. But if you ask "what comes after [literally any other number]?" and he'll just repeat the number. • • • One last kid note: We're getting into the hitting/biting stage, so that's been fun.
There were several angry reactions to it that I don't think were warranted. The first was the question of How did they decide?, often typed as HOW COULD THEY DO THIS?????? and usually followed by some angry missive about "the media." Instead, the answer was simple: Math. The AP counted the pledged delegates and the announced plans/intentions of the super delegates. Once that number was equal or greater than the number needed to clinch, they made the announcement. Simple, right?
The next question was But what if super delegates change their minds? This appears to be the biggest source of contention for those holding on to the Bernie Sanders hopes. Even media watchdog the Poynter Institute fell for this one (Normally, I like Poynter's work, but this was a shoddy article that fell apart to the most basic of logic. Because it was poorly thought out, it came across like a Bernie supporter pounding his fist on the table. I'll save you the time of a detailed critique). The overall point is that reporters are assuming too much, since super delegates can legally change their mind before the convention in late July and, effectively, anything could happen (?). But I'd suggest the people making assumptions are the Bernie supporters: Clinton won millions more votes, won more states, and won more pledged delegates. While yes, a few dozen switched in '08 from Clinton to Obama, Obama was actually ahead in all three of those statistics. And 30 super delegates is not the 300-400 that Bernie would need. Super delegates can change their mind, but using the phrase "presumptive nominee" also describes the off, slim chance that the unknown something is theoretically possible. Reporters are not being misleading when describing the race accurately.
That lead to the next question: Why now? The AP declared Clinton the winner Monday night, the day before the final (with the exception of D.C.) primaries of the cycle. The AP did a survey over the weekend of super delegates to see how they'd vote. The results probably came in Monday. Counting put her over the limit ... voila! If that's when the news breaks, that's when it breaks. Anything else is collusion.
Finally, the crux of the why now group: Won't this suppress votes in the remaining primaries? How come this wasn't asked in the Republican race? Donald Trump was declared the winner weeks ago, but no one crowed about how declaring a winner was going to suppress votes. The AP's job is to report news. It's not their job to worry about how that affects voters. And if they've already determined the race is over, then why not declare it? It'd be like if the Golden State Warriors won the best-of-seven NBA finals 4-1, but Cleveland fans were like "Declaring the winner after three games just means you're suppressing the score of the last two games! Anything could happen!" Further, the idea that it had much effect is overblown. Let me make this perfectly clear: Bernie Sanders lost the election because he couldn't convince minorities that he was the right candidate. That wasn't going to change in California or New Jersey or New Mexico just because the AP declared her the winner a day before the primary.
I think this speaks to a greater issue: Our ability as humans and social beings to delude ourselves. Don't take me wrong, I don't think this is sinister. It's something we all do, I just think it gets played on a grander stage during election cycles. It can be good, in that sometimes self-delusion allows us to accomplish more than we thought possible. It can also be bad, because it often causes us to deny truth and facts (I'm looking at you, Mr. Trump.). The dual hypocrisy and irony can best be found in, of all places, the intro to the old show Mythbusters, in which one of the hosts says, "I reject your reality and substitute my own," which is a funny thing on a show called Mythbusters.
Again, this self-delusion is not a bad thing. Our self-delusions give us hope. Our self-delusions give us energy. Our self-delusions give us the power to move mountains or run 5Ks (heh). But it's also a hard thing to shatter. Our "how we imagine the world to be" is a difficult thing to give up because we often think it means "we were wrong to believe that." And (especially on a political stage) admitting you were wrong, even to yourself, is one of the hardest things for a person to do.
Summary Judgments
Now that Hillary's the presumptive nominee, expect to see her get a boost in polling against Trump in the next few weeks. Wherever the polls are in three weeks will be the "new normal." • • • NBC News placed the story of who Hillary Clinton should pick for VP as its featured story on the front of its web site this morning. A similar story on Donald Trump was next to it, but not with a picture and not given equal placement. My opinion: Their site needs a little flexibility to post two stories of equal weight next to each other. Otherwise, it appears partisan. • • • I'm getting excited. My 5K is Saturday morning. This week, I had my last two runs before the race. Monday, I did really well and ran 3 miles without stopping in a bit less than 33 minutes. Then today I went out for a run, and ran 3 miles, but stopped three times (none for more than 15-20 seconds). If the order had been reversed, I'd be feeling great. Despite today's let-down, I'm anxious/excited about Saturday. • • • I don't know where Roland got it, but he knows exactly one math question. We were watching Sesame Street a month or so back, and we discovered this. Ask him "What comes after eight?" and he'll answer "Nine" every time. But if you ask "what comes after [literally any other number]?" and he'll just repeat the number. • • • One last kid note: We're getting into the hitting/biting stage, so that's been fun.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Sesame Street Muppets, Ranked and Annotated
Most days, Roland and/or Evie will let us know what they want by shouting "ELMO!" or "ABBY!" They also know the names of "Bibber (Big Bird)," "Gwover," Telly and can do the Count laugh. Because we've watched so much Sesame Street, the best and worst current muppets on Sesame Street are quite clear. I'm not counting family members like Elmo's Dad or one-off characters like Dan Rather-Not and Donald Grump (both Grouches). I'm also not counting non-talking pets like Ovejita (Murray's little lamb) or Slimey (Oscar's pet worm). This list is only recurring, often-used or main characters that are still in use.
1. Cookie Monster -- The best. He can be both the straight man or play silly. Often uses words or phrases you wouldn't expect for a pre-school age show, like "horn of dilemma." Often makes sense before devolving into chaos (Example: Upon being warned not to eat letter of the day, he says, "Me Cookie Monster, not Letter Monster." Of course, he soon eats the letter anyway). Can be quite sweet when paired with children. He's proven to be intelligent, just with a fatal flaw of being unable to control himself around cookies.
2. Baby Bear -- He's the Baby Bear from fairy tales, but he's also simply interesting. He cares deeply for his family and is also one of the more creative characters on the show. He's often painting or writing a story or taking care of his sister. He also uses relatively big words on occasion and is pretty even-keeled. Only downside is the speech impediment, but I find it charming. You just imagine he has a rich life when the camera's not on him.
3. Oscar the Grouch -- Speaking of someone with a rich life, Oscar is awesome. He has a pet, and reads it bedtime stories. His trash can is practically a TARDIS of trash (it's bigger on the inside). He has a girlfriend, Grundgetta. He has a worldview that is different from the other muppets. He shines because of the contrast.
4. Abby Cadabby -- Her name is a take on abracadabra. I expected to hate her, because she's pink and a fairy and has freckles and seems a little twee. But although she's a girly-girl, she's not over-the-top. Very excitable, but also an independent thinker and leader. She has a unique look, I think. She works well when paired with nearly any other muppet or human. Biggest downside is that her animated segment, "Abby's Flying Fairy School," has her often say the word "twinklethink," which hurts my brain.
5. Telly -- Not the flashiest muppet, but his neuroses and excitement often drive the action. He can be both the straight man when paired with someone like Oscar or the silly man when paired with his best friend, Baby Bear. He goes all-in and is a member of several clubs, like the Triangle Lovers Club and the Grouchketeers. Whereas Baby Bear is even-keeled, Telly is far more emotional. He's a vital player on the Sesame Street stage.
6. Grover -- He was a much bigger deal when I was a kid. Voiced by Frank Oz (also Miss Piggy and Yoda), he's pretty recognizable. "Sweet and lovable" is how he describes himself, and it's accurate. He often hosts global segments, which shows he's well-traveled. He simply wants to help, whether as Grover or Super Grover, but his tragic flaw is he's not good at helping. Can be frustrated, but remains determined. He also thinks he has all the answers, but rarely does. He's pretty relatable given everything. His speech tics are subtly hilarious (long gap between Sup and Er in Super Grover, no contractions).
7. Murray -- I'd never heard of him until we started watching with the kids. Turns out, he's kind of cool. He can play straight or silly. He is the muppet most often seen away from Sesame Street, going on remote segments or asking people on the street questions. He has a little lamb named Ovejita that is his best friend. Unfortunately, because he doesn't really interact with other muppets, so he's also kind of isolated. His role could be done by other muppets, but that doesn't mean he's not enjoyable.
8. Big Bird -- Kind of aloof, but endearingly wide-eyed. When he walks, he often sings "La-la-la." It's cute. He's a little detached from the craziness of the world, but is very expressive. When the show wants a big emotional moment, he's usually the best candidate. He's got a best friend in Snuffy, and a teddy bear named Radar (Radar > Ernie's rubber ducky). The reason he's low on the list is that he doesn't appear as much anymore.
9. Bert -- The straight man to Ernie's insanity. I'll get into his and Ernie's dynamic more in the Ernie portion, but Bert's entirely sympathetic. He has hobbies like reading or collecting bottle caps, and also loves pigeons. His unibrow is one of the most expressive portions of any muppet's face. He's got a rich life, but Ernie just keeps barging in and ruining it. He should probably be in the top half, but he's not a muppet that can stand on his own.
10. Count Von Count -- He has one trick, but man, does he do it well. He has a girlfriend, the Countess Von Backwards (heh). He never really changes, though. He's got a stylish cape and nice wing-tip shoes (I just got that... ha!). He rocks the monocle. His job is to come in, do his one thing, then leave. You rarely get tired of him, but you also never get much of him. After him, there's a sizeable drop in awesomeness.
11. Rosita -- It's easy to describe her as "the bilingual muppet." She first appeared in 1991 (!), but I hadn't heard of her until we started watching recently. She often uses Spanish when it's kind of weird, like "astronauta," then explaining that it means astronaut. Seriously. She plays the guitar. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of personality to describe other than "she speaks Spanish, too." I like her, but the more I think of it, I'm not sure why.
12. Zoe -- She's not annoying, which is a positive. She likes to dance and has a pet rock named Rocco. Although I've never seen it, she drives a Zoemobile. That's about all there is to her. Kind of forgettable. She, Rosita and Abby hang out together a lot, but Zoe has the least personality of the three.
13. Ernie -- My biggest disappointment in watching modern Sesame Street is this guy. I used to love Ernie. Now, he seems mean. He's a terrible friend to Bert, constantly interrupting Bert's life so he can sing to him or tell him to wake up or to tell Bert to stop enjoying his hobbies. He and Bert need to separate, because Ernie's actually quite charming with Big Bird during the "Journey to Ernie" segments or when he's singing on his own. One other note: His limbs are creepily disproportional to his body.
14. Prairie Dawn -- The original straight man, she's best when paired with Cookie Monster. She goes out of her way to make sure the letter/cookie doesn't get eaten, then gets flustered when it inevitably does. She also writes pageants and plays for her friends. She's not all that funny on her own, but is good at setting up other muppets.
15. Aloysius Snuffleupagus -- He has a first name! Rarely on the show anymore. Seems pretty dimwitted even by show standards. His role is relegated to "Big Bird's friend" almost exclusively now.
16. Elmo -- THE DIRT WORST. Everything revolves around him. The show often feels like "Elmo's Sesame Street," because he's practically in everything. "Elmo's World" takes up the latter quarter of every episode, even when he stars in the episode. His voice is shrill. He asks Mr. Noodle questions like "How do you go to sleep?", then corrects him on the right way to do it (If you knew how to do it, why did you ask?). He asks questions of babies — they never respond, then he laughs and gives the baby a kiss, which is just a waste of time. He sings almost every song to the tune of Jingle Bells. He's precocious and curious, but shoved down our throat too much. Of course, he's my kids' favorite.
Summary Judgments
I've seen a few people say that President Obama apologized to Japan when he visited Hiroshima recently. Read his words. I see no apology. • • • The Undefeated took a look at how much the vitriol targeted at Obama has been because he is black. It's a good question, and the best answer is "certainly some, but how much?" • • • My training for a 5K is going very well. The mud/obstacle 5K is next Saturday, and I've run 2.75 miles twice this week. Today, I ran that distance in a little over 30 minutes, meaning I had about an 11-minute/mile pace. Not bad, for being horribly out of shape when I started. • • • One of the kids' teachers caught them hitting or something, and told them we need to be nice to our siblings. She demonstrated this by lightly patting their heads and saying, "Nice." Now when we tell them to be nice to each other, they almost always go: "Nice," then gently pat the other on the head. It's cute, even if I know they were turds seconds before.
1. Cookie Monster -- The best. He can be both the straight man or play silly. Often uses words or phrases you wouldn't expect for a pre-school age show, like "horn of dilemma." Often makes sense before devolving into chaos (Example: Upon being warned not to eat letter of the day, he says, "Me Cookie Monster, not Letter Monster." Of course, he soon eats the letter anyway). Can be quite sweet when paired with children. He's proven to be intelligent, just with a fatal flaw of being unable to control himself around cookies.
2. Baby Bear -- He's the Baby Bear from fairy tales, but he's also simply interesting. He cares deeply for his family and is also one of the more creative characters on the show. He's often painting or writing a story or taking care of his sister. He also uses relatively big words on occasion and is pretty even-keeled. Only downside is the speech impediment, but I find it charming. You just imagine he has a rich life when the camera's not on him.
3. Oscar the Grouch -- Speaking of someone with a rich life, Oscar is awesome. He has a pet, and reads it bedtime stories. His trash can is practically a TARDIS of trash (it's bigger on the inside). He has a girlfriend, Grundgetta. He has a worldview that is different from the other muppets. He shines because of the contrast.
4. Abby Cadabby -- Her name is a take on abracadabra. I expected to hate her, because she's pink and a fairy and has freckles and seems a little twee. But although she's a girly-girl, she's not over-the-top. Very excitable, but also an independent thinker and leader. She has a unique look, I think. She works well when paired with nearly any other muppet or human. Biggest downside is that her animated segment, "Abby's Flying Fairy School," has her often say the word "twinklethink," which hurts my brain.
5. Telly -- Not the flashiest muppet, but his neuroses and excitement often drive the action. He can be both the straight man when paired with someone like Oscar or the silly man when paired with his best friend, Baby Bear. He goes all-in and is a member of several clubs, like the Triangle Lovers Club and the Grouchketeers. Whereas Baby Bear is even-keeled, Telly is far more emotional. He's a vital player on the Sesame Street stage.
6. Grover -- He was a much bigger deal when I was a kid. Voiced by Frank Oz (also Miss Piggy and Yoda), he's pretty recognizable. "Sweet and lovable" is how he describes himself, and it's accurate. He often hosts global segments, which shows he's well-traveled. He simply wants to help, whether as Grover or Super Grover, but his tragic flaw is he's not good at helping. Can be frustrated, but remains determined. He also thinks he has all the answers, but rarely does. He's pretty relatable given everything. His speech tics are subtly hilarious (long gap between Sup and Er in Super Grover, no contractions).
7. Murray -- I'd never heard of him until we started watching with the kids. Turns out, he's kind of cool. He can play straight or silly. He is the muppet most often seen away from Sesame Street, going on remote segments or asking people on the street questions. He has a little lamb named Ovejita that is his best friend. Unfortunately, because he doesn't really interact with other muppets, so he's also kind of isolated. His role could be done by other muppets, but that doesn't mean he's not enjoyable.
9. Bert -- The straight man to Ernie's insanity. I'll get into his and Ernie's dynamic more in the Ernie portion, but Bert's entirely sympathetic. He has hobbies like reading or collecting bottle caps, and also loves pigeons. His unibrow is one of the most expressive portions of any muppet's face. He's got a rich life, but Ernie just keeps barging in and ruining it. He should probably be in the top half, but he's not a muppet that can stand on his own.
10. Count Von Count -- He has one trick, but man, does he do it well. He has a girlfriend, the Countess Von Backwards (heh). He never really changes, though. He's got a stylish cape and nice wing-tip shoes (I just got that... ha!). He rocks the monocle. His job is to come in, do his one thing, then leave. You rarely get tired of him, but you also never get much of him. After him, there's a sizeable drop in awesomeness.
11. Rosita -- It's easy to describe her as "the bilingual muppet." She first appeared in 1991 (!), but I hadn't heard of her until we started watching recently. She often uses Spanish when it's kind of weird, like "astronauta," then explaining that it means astronaut. Seriously. She plays the guitar. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of personality to describe other than "she speaks Spanish, too." I like her, but the more I think of it, I'm not sure why.
12. Zoe -- She's not annoying, which is a positive. She likes to dance and has a pet rock named Rocco. Although I've never seen it, she drives a Zoemobile. That's about all there is to her. Kind of forgettable. She, Rosita and Abby hang out together a lot, but Zoe has the least personality of the three.
13. Ernie -- My biggest disappointment in watching modern Sesame Street is this guy. I used to love Ernie. Now, he seems mean. He's a terrible friend to Bert, constantly interrupting Bert's life so he can sing to him or tell him to wake up or to tell Bert to stop enjoying his hobbies. He and Bert need to separate, because Ernie's actually quite charming with Big Bird during the "Journey to Ernie" segments or when he's singing on his own. One other note: His limbs are creepily disproportional to his body.
14. Prairie Dawn -- The original straight man, she's best when paired with Cookie Monster. She goes out of her way to make sure the letter/cookie doesn't get eaten, then gets flustered when it inevitably does. She also writes pageants and plays for her friends. She's not all that funny on her own, but is good at setting up other muppets.
15. Aloysius Snuffleupagus -- He has a first name! Rarely on the show anymore. Seems pretty dimwitted even by show standards. His role is relegated to "Big Bird's friend" almost exclusively now.
16. Elmo -- THE DIRT WORST. Everything revolves around him. The show often feels like "Elmo's Sesame Street," because he's practically in everything. "Elmo's World" takes up the latter quarter of every episode, even when he stars in the episode. His voice is shrill. He asks Mr. Noodle questions like "How do you go to sleep?", then corrects him on the right way to do it (If you knew how to do it, why did you ask?). He asks questions of babies — they never respond, then he laughs and gives the baby a kiss, which is just a waste of time. He sings almost every song to the tune of Jingle Bells. He's precocious and curious, but shoved down our throat too much. Of course, he's my kids' favorite.
Summary Judgments
I've seen a few people say that President Obama apologized to Japan when he visited Hiroshima recently. Read his words. I see no apology. • • • The Undefeated took a look at how much the vitriol targeted at Obama has been because he is black. It's a good question, and the best answer is "certainly some, but how much?" • • • My training for a 5K is going very well. The mud/obstacle 5K is next Saturday, and I've run 2.75 miles twice this week. Today, I ran that distance in a little over 30 minutes, meaning I had about an 11-minute/mile pace. Not bad, for being horribly out of shape when I started. • • • One of the kids' teachers caught them hitting or something, and told them we need to be nice to our siblings. She demonstrated this by lightly patting their heads and saying, "Nice." Now when we tell them to be nice to each other, they almost always go: "Nice," then gently pat the other on the head. It's cute, even if I know they were turds seconds before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)