An Open Letter to Men; and Lessons from the Alabama election

Men. MEN!

Lately you might have heard about all these chicks ladies women coming forward with claims of sexual harassment. You probably have a lot of questions about what this means for you, a man. Well luckily, I'm a man (manly man!), and I've been paying attention to the news. So let me be your guide to the sexual harassment allegations and how you can avoid them. Because it's possible, and there's a two-step process that's easy to follow. Tell your friends!

What's Happening

You know how you like women? (YEAH!) And you think they look fly/hot/cool/whatever the kids say these days? (HELL YEAH!) and you always thought about saying or doing something, but never did because you are either lack the self confidence or have a pesky sense of shame? Well, some men both have the self confidence AND lack a sense of shame. And by "saying or doing something," I mean physically grabbing women or masturbating in front of them or forcibly kissing them or dating underage women or using taxpayer funds to pay for your sexual assault settlements or coerced them into compromising positions in hotel rooms or .... [LIST CONTINUES INDEFINITELY]. And don't think that I'm leaving you out, LGBTQ community. Just because you're not a heteronormative person doesn't mean you're immune from this discussion. Women, too, can be potential harassers, but the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority are men.

Who's At Risk

Women in the entertainment industry, music industry, politics, business and more are coming forward saying that they've experienced this sort of assault or harassment. There's the #MeToo movement telling women that they're not alone and that others have experienced similar stories. If you're into doing terrible things to women, maybe you should be out of a job.

Those accused are often losing their jobs, their seats in Congress or GASP! their donors/advertisers. But perhaps most significantly, they're losing their power. And let's face it: Power is the underlying factor (besides the Y chromosome) here. This wouldn't be happening if men everywhere viewed women as equals. That's hard, I know. It's way, way easier to view women as *takes deep breath* maids, China dolls, damsels in distress, assistants, moms (forms include: welfare, soccer, Grizzly, hockey), queens (both real and drama), children, bitches, Pollyannas, Mary Sues, women in refrigerators, babysitters, secretaries, playthings, mistresses, underlings, weaklings, servants, Mrs. Pac-Man, Wendy Koopa, "sexy" professionals (forms include: nurse, teacher, secretary, maid, farmer, mechanic, masseuse, carny?), whores, prostitutes, ladies of the night, ring girls, the Girl from The Ring, pixies, Madonnas, virgins, rewards/prizes and property. *inhales sharply*

It's easy to view women that way because a lot of that is written into our pop culture. You see it in video games, movies, music, TV shows, pamphlets, books, tomes, takeout menus, and legislation.  Great, so I'm off the hook! It's society's fault! NOPE. Pop culture doesn't make you do those things. It might enable those things, but it doesn't excuse it. At the end of the day, society may let you get away with something, but it doesn't make you do it. Society and pop culture can lead you (you're a horse in this analogy, keep up) to water, but it can't make you drink (though women aren't water, so this analogy doesn't work right, but you get the point).

How To Avoid It

How do I avoid sexual harassment? Women are complex creatures, and I just don't know what they want! How can I tell if what I'm doing will make me lose my power/position/job/importance? How do I know if I should sexually harass or assault or not? It's so confusing. You might ask those questions to yourself if you are a man. If you're asking yourself those questions, you probably already need to hear the answer. So here's my two-step answer to avoid sexual harassment and sexual assault. It's proven by hundreds, thousands, millions, perhaps billions of men the world over.

Step One: Don't. 

Just don't. You know that thing you're already thinking about? Don't. I can tell you about all the times I haven't sexually harassed or assaulted someone. There was yesterday. There was last week. Heck, there was even the time I was an editor and had women working for me, and I somehow managed not to sexually harass them. Women will tell you if they want to make a situation sexual. Don't make that decision for them. Or don't put them in a position where they might feel compelled or coerced into making a decision they wouldn't normally make. Maybe those last two sentences are confusing, so let me boil it down for you: Don't. Just don't.

Step Two: Ask First. Ask Nicely. See Step One.

Did you read that first step? Maybe you should read it again.

But what if I really want to tell a woman how big my genitalia is? First of all, sure. Sure it is. Go back to Step One. But what if I think she would like it? Did she tell you that or are you presuming? Go back to Step One. But what if she's asking for it? That's not a thing. Go back to Step One. But what if...? Stop. Stop it. You can keep coming up with what ifs, but it's tactically and strategically and morally and logically smarter to just Go back to Step One.

That's it. Simple. Easy. Tell your friends.

Lessons from the Alabama Senate race

1) The GOP is going to have to fight to keep both chambers of Congress. Democrats are fired up and ready to vote. Every election — even those the GOP has won — has shown a heavy swing toward Democrats. The House was already in play for 2018, because all the Democrats need is about two dozen seats to win control of that chamber. The Senate was less likely. The GOP had a 52-48 advantage, and the 2018 Senate map was tilted heavily toward the Republicans, in that nearly all the seats up were Democratic seats. Even if the Dems flipped the two most likely candidates (Nevada and Arizona), they still would have had to hold on to all their seats AND flip somewhere far more GOP-friendly, like beating Ted Cruz in Texas. But with Alabama already flipped and a 51-49 margin, the Dems now face the easier task of holding on to all their seats (not easy, but doable) and flipping Nevada and Arizona (polls show the Democrat ahead right now, but it's way early). So rather than coast through 2018 without spending as heavily, the GOP will have to invest if it wants to keep either or both chambers of Congress.

2) Mitch McConnell is in a battle with Steve Bannon. This was etched in pencil and is now written in pen. Of all people, Donald Trump is in between the two. Bannon wants to target "establishment" candidates, namely those supported by people like McConnell. McConnell thinks the Bannon acolytes are too extremist, and can't win in a general election. Trump endorsed Luther Strange (establishment) in the Alabama GOP primary, even though he's far more similar to Roy Moore. Then after Moore won the primary, he endorsed Roy Moore (Bannon). Now that Moore lost, Trump is claiming that Moore was too extremist to win and he knew it all along (sure you did, Mr. President). Bannon and McConnell seem to be diametrically opposed and causing a fissure in the party. Meanwhile, the Democrats are eager to pick up the pieces.

3) The tax bill has to pass soon or it'll never pass at all. This is more of a practical issue for McConnell and the GOP. There was one defection in the Senate for the GOP tax bill: Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker. The bill passed 51-49. Doug Jones likely won't take office until later this month, which is a deadline for the GOP. If they can't ram the tax bill through conference committee in a matter of weeks, then the bill is living on a knife's edge at a 50-50 vote. But there's an assumption there that the conference committee can smooth out the details to make everyone happy in both the House and the Senate. But this gives senators on the edge (Jeff Flake? Susan Collins? John McCain?) a lot more power to stand strong on their issues, which may create problems in the House (Flake/Collins/McCain's desires don't line up with the Freedom Caucus at all). UPDATE SINCE I WROTE THIS: The GOP is rushing. Marco Rubio made a demand, and since they had to have his vote, the bill writers capitulated. They want this bill to pass, they don't want Doug Jones to vote on it, and they want to vote before America has more time to think about how much they don't like the bill. Sounds great, right? I'm sure it'll pass at this point, because the GOP is kind of all-or-nothing on it and need to pretend like they did something popular, even if that's not true. 

4) Donald Trump is a drag on his party's candidates. It's easily forgotten based on the results of the 2016 election, but neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton were popular. Someone had to win the race anyway. But following that election, one is off the political table. Which leaves only one unpopular politician left. There's no singular Democratic bogeyman out there.

5) African Americans decided this election. White men voted overwhelmingly for Roy Moore (72 percent). White women voted for Roy Moore, but with less of a margin than white men (63 percent). The Alabama election was largely driven by turnout and the black vote. African Americans voted for Doug Jones. There's no wiggle room in that sentence — 96 percent of black voters picked Doug Jones. They also came to the polls, increasing turnout from 20 percent of the electorate to nearly 30 percent. African Americans are a powerful bloc when they choose to vote.

Summary Judgments

Roland put on some reindeer antlers the other day. "I'm a rhinoceros!" he said. So close.

Domino Rally

I had this whole thing written on Tuesday about how I didn't think the tax bill was going to pass. Then the GOP started making major concessions to their holdouts. As of this writing, there are only three unofficial holdouts left, but my gut feeling is that it gets passed. Which sucks for a myriad of reasons and isn't terrible for a few others that I was going to get into, but... well, even if it does, it's not the biggest story of the week.

That would be the plea deal taken this morning by Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, formerly the National Security Advisor of President Trump. I wrote these sentences on Tuesday for this week's post: "In my big write-up on the Mueller investigations, I left one out: Lt. Gen. Flynn and his son. I'd say he's in just as much hot water as Manafort et al. He's my next most likely to be indicted." I didn't think it would happen within the week.

I'll be closely watching the news today to see what trickles out about Flynn's plea deal, but let's summarize the main takeaways:

Mueller is gunning for the top. Flynn was the national security advisor and one of Trump's closest allies. In this post from Dec. 15 last year, I wrote that he was "highly troubling" even before he took office. But while Flynn's plea deal doesn't necessarily put him on the side of angels, it does smell of a something larger at foot. Mueller, as I've said repeatedly, is a smart and methodical man. He had Flynn dead to rights. If the trail of breadcrumbs stopped at Mike Flynn, he wouldn't have offered a very, VERY lenient deal. The deal sounds like this: You testify about "very senior leadership" in the Trump campaign, and I'll let your son off the hook and only convict you of one minor count. But think about what Mueller is giving up there. He's giving up a major conviction (lying to the FBI is minor in the grand scheme of things) against a Trump Cabinet member and his son. Why would he do that? Because he's aiming higher. So that leads to the next question: Who is higher than campaign manager Paul Manafort and National Security Advisor Mike Flynn? The list is short, and comes down to probably two people: Jared Kushner or Donald Trump (Update just before I publish: It's Kushner according to some reports). If you come at the king, you best not miss. Mueller is a lot closer to making sure he doesn't miss. Further, you don't give up that much unless you know you're getting something that is useful. Mueller isn't happy aiming at minibosses. He is coming for the king.

Trump can't distance himself from this. Maybe he didn't know Papadapolous all that well. He dropped Manafort in August 2016 and is pretending that his time as campaign manager meant nothing. But Trump can't claim the same about Flynn. Flynn was his national security advisor. Sure, he was only in the office for about a month, but he was also a frequent presence on the campaign trail. In fact, it was Flynn who popularized the "Lock Her Up!" chant.

Flynn helps Mueller close in on obstruction of justice. This was pointed out by FiveThirtyEight's Perry Bacon Jr. Fired FBI director James Comey testified that Donald Trump told him "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy." As Bacon points out, Trump fired the FBI director for not letting go of an investigation of a man who was in enough legal jeopardy to be charged by a grand jury and plead guilty. If Mueller is investigating for obstruction of justice, this doesn't prove that, but it reinforces a pattern of Trump behavior.

UPDATE: Finally, Trump's team isn't sure they have the facts on their side. There's an old legal adage: If you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table. Trump's team is not pounding the facts. Over the weekend, his lawyers said that the President can't be charged with obstruction of justice. That's pounding the law and table at the same time. Most of what I've heard from them has been technical arguments rather than practical "He's innocent" arguments. There may be a reason for that.

I named this post "Domino Rally" after an old toy set that doesn't exist any longer. That set included a row of dominoes attached to a board with hinges at the bottom to quickly put them back up. I had this one. When dominoes are in this method, there is no chance that they don't fall over — they WILL. Mueller isn't setting up dominoes. He's going to eBay and buying Domino Rally.

Learning Lessons

I've learned a lesson about the distinction between Roy Moore/Donald Trump and Al Franken/others. The lesson was taught to me by a White House official quoted in a CNN story about that distinction. What makes Donald Trump and Roy Moore different than Al Franken is that Trump and Moore have never admitted fault, whereas Franken has. (Note: I defended Franken early on when he apologized for what seemed at the time to be an isolated incident. Now that there are several others, it is a pattern and is no longer defensible.)

I think this teaches a bad lesson to politicians — if you never admit fault, then we don't know whether you did or didn't do something. If you never admit fault, then the truth is "impossible to know," so it becomes viewed as partisan. If you never admit fault, then you can go on and ignore the substantial, heavily documented statements made by accusers. If you never admit fault, then you are the victim from these desperate attempts to ruin your name. If you never admit fault, then you're innocent. If you never admit fault, you're daring people to answer this question: who do you want to believe, these nobodies or this somebody? If you never admit fault, there is no consequence. If you remain defiant and obstinate and bull-headed long enough, you win. That's a dangerous lesson for our politicians that is on display on the national stage. I'd rather have leaders who admit their faults.

But I'd also like to draw a line in the sand: I think Franken should resign. I think Roy Moore should drop out. I think Rep. John Conyers should quit. I think Donald Trump should have quit. I think Bill Clinton should have as well. It seems both parties are too reluctant to oust their members out of fear that they might lose political power. That sends an entirely wrong message: Political power is more important than doing the right thing (or that doing the right thing is politically stupid). Each side has to say that morality matters. If you're a Democrat and you let Al Franken/John Conyers off the hook, then you're saying that Trump/Moore should be off the hook. And if you're a Republican calling for the head of Al Franken and John Conyers, you're also saying that Trump/Moore should be ousted, too. For the Democrats, Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (who took Hillary Clinton's old Senate seat in New York) made a bold move: She said that in retrospective, she thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned. It positions her as taking a moral stance and sets her apart from both her colleagues (any who jump on now will be seen as latecomers) and the Clintons. I told you last time: Keep your eye on Gillibrand.

While yes, there are occasionally women who want to take powerful men down with lies, most of these above cases are not just one incident and they are (as demonstrated by the Washington Post/James O'Keefe/Project Veritas incident) well researched and fact checked. These accusations are not coming out in the Enquirer or some false-on-its-face checkout aisle rag. They're coming from the Washington Post and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, etc. These are the most reputable sources of journalism in the country.

Summary Judgments

Alyson and I disagree over the potential for nuclear power. I am more bullish about it, and she's more bearish. But this video by Wendover Productions does a good job explaining the problem — what to do with the waste?  •  •  •  Another good one by Half as Interesting (same guy as Wendover Productions, just shorter videos) about the only sovereign nation without any territory — but with passports, money and stamps! It's fascinating, and makes me want to visit Rome, if only for the experience of visiting a country that only half exists.  •  •  •  Evie has been a real handful lately at day care and at home. But she's also really funny when she's happy. Alyson took the kids shopping on Thursday and told them they were going to Michael's. Evie: "Your-kles?"

A Not-Exactly-Too-Early Look at Democrats' 2020 Options

A few months ago, I told Alyson that Al Franken was the person I thought would emerge as the Democrats' candidate in 2020. As of Thursday, I don't believe that's true any longer. So in the wake of this week's news, I began to wonder who will emerge without Franken running. That made me wonder if it's too early to talk about this — It's three years away, people! But it's not really. Primary debates in the GOP began in the fall of 2015, so candidates have to be "in it" within two years. Heck, Trump announced his candidacy in spring 2015, so it's closer to a year and a half. Then we've got the bigger issue: fundraising and exposure. Candidates have very little time in the grand scale to build their name recognition and donor base before they run. This is not a crazy exercise.

Let me start with a few assumptions: Hillary Clinton will not run again. She, perhaps more than anyone else, has too much baggage. I will also assume Donald Trump has a) not been impeached and b) is running for a second term. Maybe he quits and throws his weight behind Mike Pence? I doubt it. Trump loves power and the appearance of power too much. I drew this list from three good political websites who've done a similar exercise, originally listing 27 people. I eliminated anyone who I've never heard of who does not have an elected job in Washington or is governor (state officials or mayors, essentially). Also, some of these things may apply to other candidates, but I'm trying to cover a ton of candidates, so... cut me some slack, OK anonymous person in my head?

Most High-Profile

Former V.P. Joe Biden — Pros: The connection to Obama without being Obama. As a white male, he's less threatening to the... let's go with "more close-minded" in our country. He's got a heartbreaking background story and wins the George W. Bush Test (Would you rather have a beer with him or his opponent?) against pretty much everyone. Large contingent of "Biden Would Have Won" fans. More of a centrist than a far left liberal. Cons: He'd be 78 on Inauguration Day, even older than then-74-year-old Donald Trump. Age doesn't exactly shout "progressive party of the future." He does carry some of the Obama baggage. Prone to saying something stupid on accident. Verdict: Among the better options for Democrats. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — Pros: Seems to be the flag-bearer for "progressive ideals." He's been practicing his debate skills on various issues against GOP candidates on CNN that I haven't watched. He has his own cheering section: Bernie Bros, the "Bernie Would Have Won" fans. Great baby cosplay. Perceived victim of DNC shenanigans (overblown, but still the perception). Seems to connect to everyday Americans pretty well. Cons: Oldest candidate in the race. He'd be 79 by Inauguration Day 2020. He lost to Hillary Clinton because he couldn't get the minority vote and he still can't. He lost the debates to her because he got destroyed on foreign policy. I don't think his international trade deal stance will look good in 2020, because it's too similar to Trump's positions. Verdict: I think Bernie will be like Moses: Sees the Promised Land, but one of his disciples makes it while he never makes it himself.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Mass. — A woman! Who's smart! Definitely in the Bernie "progressives" camp (Quick sidebar: Some Democrats get too hung up on labels, which just hurts their party.). I used to love it when she'd go on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and speak brilliantly against Wall Street — she knew what she was talking about and made it understandable, which is a great trait to have. She is one of the most high-profile, influential voices of Democrats. Cons: She would be in her 70s on Inauguration Day 2020. She might come off as "East Coast liberal snob." Also, there's the Mom Test: My Mom doesn't like her. Mom didn't elaborate on why, but there's something off-putting about Warren for many. Maybe she comes off as badgering or whiny? I don't know. Verdict: Is she the Joshua to Sanders' Moses? She has as good a shot as any listed here, and this might be her only opportunity. I feel others might have a better shot, but she's up there.

A-/B+ Candidates

Sen. Cory Booker, N.J. — Pros: Charismatic minority candidate who isn't Obama. High-profile because of frequent television appearances. He's single, ladies. He's young (51 by Election Day). He's funny. He did a lot of things as Newark mayor that are worthy of praise — selfless, hands-on things, as well as bringing in major donations. Cons: Lots of connections to Wall Street. He's voted or held stances that are arguably too pro-business for Democrats. Liberals don't seem to like him very much. He's for raising the retirement age. For everything he does well, there's somebody on this list that does it better. I don't know whether to put this in Pro or Con: He's vegan. Verdict: Probably a better VP candidate (for a Biden or Warren, perhaps?) than a president on his own. 

Sen. Kamala Harris, Calif. — Pros: Younger (mid 50s) than frontrunners, woman, African-American and Indian-American. Positioned herself in opposition to Trump on a lot of issues. Very smart. I expect she's a good debater because of her background. I expect she's Cons: Against the death penalty (more a general election problem than primary problem). Lower name recognition than the folks above. I don't know if this helps or hurts: F rating from the NRA (hurts a little, maybe?), got criticized by John McCain for questioning Jeff Sessions too hard (views on this are typically partisan) and signed on to Bernie's Medicare for All plan (helps a little, maybe?). Verdict: I'm bullish on Kamala Harris. She does everything Booker does, but better.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, N.Y. — Pros: New York senator who isn't Hillary Clinton. Comes off much warmer and less confrontational than Clinton, Warren or Harris. Same age range as Booker and Harris. Makes occasional trips to late night TV shows and comes off well. Started in an upstate New York district, so she knows how to win over rural folks. Started more centrist, but moved more liberal and can convincingly explain why she shifted. Studied in Beijing and China, so has connections there. Sponsored and passed the Zadroga Act (big deal if you know what it is). Cons: Not great name recognition outside those who follow politics. Defended Phillip Morris for a long time as a private defense attorney. Deep connections to Wall Street. Said she doesn't want to run. Verdict: She and Harris are my two favorites right now. I think they're both sharp as a tack and ready to get things done. They both look great in comparison to Donald Trump. But they both need greater name recognition. She'd be great as a VP to Harris, maybe?  (Update: Gillibrand said this weekend that Bill Clinton should have resigned over his sexual harassment scandals. To me, this is a) her staking out a moral position and b) getting her name in the news. Both of those are testing the waters of name recognition.)

Middling Candidates 

Va. Gov. Terry McAuliffe — Pros: Will be former Va. Gov. in a few months, so has time to run without abandoning his post. Governed effectively in a purple (GOP-controlled state Legislature) state. Raises a hell of a lot of money. Mega ties to the Clintons. Cons: Mega ties to the Clintons. Another nondescript white guy. Verdict: Better behind the scenes than in front of the camera. 

Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio — Pros: Eagle Scout! Elected Democrat from a swing state! Socially progressive. Vocal critic of Chinese policies rather than just yelling "CHINA!" Supportive of veterans and tough on terrorism compared to other Democrats. Has produced some decent bipartisan bills that actually got signed. Perhaps if Dems want to go back to the white male catalog, he's a good choice?Cons: He's got to win re-election in 2018 first, and his seat is on the GOP target list. Spellcheck wants to change his name to Shred. He's about as reliable a liberal as they come, and "liberal" is an epithet in some states he'd need to win. Verdict: VP candidate? He's a decent choice for Democrats, but he's the white Cory Booker: Everyone else can draw the same people, but better. 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minn. — Pros: Visited Iowa. Great political origin story about the birth of her daughter. Democrat from the Upper Midwest, so likely knows how to win in Michigan/Wisconsin/Ohio, too. Has liberal bona fides. Cons: Name recognition. Not the most charismatic senator from her own state. Has taken some strange stances for specific companies, like Schwan's and getting pizza counted as a vegetable... yeah. Verdict: Not bad. She's a likable but unknown Upper Midwest Democrat. If she wants to be President, 2020 might be a good trial run. 

Sen. Al Franken, Minn. — Three days ago, he'd have been in the tier above. After the photo and allegations, I think he's fallen this far. Pros: Funny as hell, rolls with the punches, smarter than you'd think. Democrat from an Upper Midwest state. Liberal enough for Democrats. If Donald Trump can overcome the Access Hollywood stuff, maybe two years from now, he can too? Cons: That picture and story will cost him. You can't claim moral authority over Donald Trump when you both have gross sexual incidents. Muddled his first attempt at an apology before getting it right the second time. Verdict: He could have been President, but will never be now. 

Gov. John Hickenlooper, Colo. — Pros: Democrat from a (typically) swing state. One of the few who is firmly in the moderate and not far left camp. Willing to work with moderate Republicans like John Kasich. Memorable name. Family connections to Iowa. Cons: Low national profile. Probably can't win the primary. I don't know if this helps or hurts: Has evolved to be pro-marijuana use. Verdict: Just A Guy in a year you probably need to be memorable in some way to win. 

Lightning Round of Other Candidates Suggested by One of The Sites I Checked

Bill de Blasio/Mitch Landrieu/Eric Garcetti — Pros: Mayors of New York City, New Orleans and Los Angeles, which requires a lot of fundraising, people and electability skills. De Blasio has a mixed-race family. Garcetti is Mexican-American, Jewish and was a lieutenant in the Navy. Cons: Mayors have never successfully run for President without a governor or Congressional stop first. Verdict: Landrieu has no chance. De Blasio has the best name recognition, but Garcetti seems the best bet from this bunch. 

Sen. Jeff Merkley, Ore. — I don't know who this is. Verdict: No.

Rep. Seth Moulton, Mass. — Pros: Very young (41 now) former Marine and Harvard Business School grad. Iraq War veteran. Newlywed. Pro-marijuana, pro-infrastructure, bipartisan record but liberal in major legislation. Cons: I've never heard of him. People never win President from the House. Verdict: Not in 2020. Keep an eye on him; he's a rising star among Democrats. 

Rep. Tim Ryan, Ohio — Pros: Unsuccessfully ran against Pelosi for chair of House Democrats. Democrat from a swing state. Cons: Not real well known. I dare you to name an accomplishment of his without looking it up. Verdict: Shrug emoji.

Mark Cuban, billionaire — We've already got a billionaire as president. Verdict: Nah, but it'd be fun.

Mark Zuckerberg, billionaire — See above, but less fun.

Jason Kander — You can't win president these days unless you win some other major race first. Close doesn't count.

Sen. Christopher Murphy, Ct. — Sandy Hook changed his stance on guns. Led a Congressional sit-in on the issue. Won a hotly contested race for his Senate seat. Verdict: Slightly higher profile Just A Guy.

Gov. Steve Bullock, Mont. — I don't know him. Centrist from a red state, but I don't know him and I don't think anyone else does, either. Verdict: Not unless Montana gets a lot more popular. 

Rep. John Delaney, Md. — He's the first to officially enter the 2020 Presidential race. I have never heard of him. Outside of my few Maryland readers, I bet you haven't, either. Verdict: Future Martin O'Malley-type Remember That Guy? 

Gov. Roy Cooper, N.C. — Well, he's a democratic governor, so... some people are just throwing darts at the board. Verdict: New governor, who dis?

Julian Castro — former San Antonio mayor and former HUD director. Well-liked Hispanic with halfway decent name recognition. Verdict: He and Eric Garcetti are the most likely from this group to make a decent run. 

On Al Franken and Sexual Allegations

There are distinctions between Al Franken and GOP figures like Roy Moore and Donald Trump. Franken is accused by one (1) person of inappropriate behavior, and none of the accusations involve him revealing his genitalia. Also, he has apologized and his accuser has accepted his apology. Moore and Trump each have multiple accusations of inappropriate or lewd behavior, corroborating evidence,  and — as these things go — are accused of doing worse than Franken. Moore is said to have done terrible things to underage girls. Trump is said to have committed rape and more graphic sexual assaults. If you can find a Moore or Trump apology for any of those, please give me a link.

But those distinctions don't really matter once you get into the realm of "sexual misconduct." Then you have false equivalency arguments being thrown about, and that puts people on the defensive... it gets messy, is the point. And if, like me, you liked Al Franken before this, you suddenly don't have much of a desire to argue in his defense. And that's how the false equivalence ends up being established rather than knocked down.

Republican Retirements

I find CNN to be a bit alarmist in their treatment of President Trump. Not that they're wrong, mind you, but that everything tends to get a little more "play" with headline size and such than it would with other networks. But that doesn't mean that the small scale — individual stories — aren't well researched.

I thought this chart showing the rate of Republican retirements and resignations from the House compared to both the past and the opposite party was surprising. In case you don't want to click the link, more Republicans have departed the House by this time than any of the last six election cycles. There have already been more resignations/retirements than three of those cycles, and is within four of the other three cycles — with more than 14 months left to go. Democrats, on the other hand, are pretty well in line with history. That's surprising news, and it also doesn't take into account the Senate, where at least three Republicans (McCain, Corker and Flake) are leaving.

Summary Judgments

I don't care if a person at the center of controversy (Roy Moore in this case) threatens to sue the newspapers. That's not news. What is news is them filing a lawsuit. At the bottom of that story is a list of three more people, including the President, who've threatened to sue and then never actually did. If you're just threatening it, then it's kind of what we did on the playground any time we got in a fight: "I'll sue you! My dad will sue you!" It's useless unless you follow through.  •  •  •  Need some restored faith in celebrities? Visit this link and smile.  •  •  •  Here's another bittersweet story, about a horse that had no right to be good — and the owner who wishes he'd believed in it more. It's a story that needs to be made into a movie.  •  •  •  My response to this column a friend posted on Facebook is long and complicated. But I'd rather just post it and see what others have to say. It echoes some of my thinking, but I think he conflates "Christianity" and "evangelicals" too easily and paints "evangelicals" as a whole with a bit broad of a brush. I think it's certainly worth a read.  •  •  •  Interesting development. Kushner was among my 5 Mueller investigations.  •  •  •  I haven't had much time to read on the GOP tax bill. I think it goes through major changes before/unless the Senate passes a version. My gut reaction is it sells people on a tax cut that only lasts 3-4 years before you're actually paying more than you are now.  •  •  •  We've been watching YouTube videos of OK Go lately, and Roland wanted to watch one the other night. He kept yelling at me "WAN LE CHUGO!" I sat there dumbfounded as he's getting madder and madder at me for not understanding. After I brought up the list, I finally figured it out the name of the song he wanted: "I Won't Let You Down." But now Alyson and I joke about Juan Le Chugo, who we presume sings the Hispanic version.

Lessons from an Off-Year Election

Did you vote on Tuesday? I didn't. Although some in my county had something to vote on (KC's getting a new airport! Woo!), those of us in Liberty did not. Other than a few city elections, there really weren't any major elections in Missouri. Nor were there across the country. But there are a few lessons we can learn now that we have another election's worth of data points.

I think there's a little overreaction to both of the party talking points I've seen so far. On the small scale, I've seen Republicans try to chalk most of Tuesday's results up to "what we expected." And to some degree, they're right. A Democrat won the governorship of New Jersey, which is no surprise. A Democrat won the governorship of Virginia (which was expected, but a GOP win would have meant Democrats were in real trouble). Democrats mostly won things in heavily Democratic places. Just like during the last four special elections, Republicans won races in heavily GOP places. So in the broad sense, not much in the big picture has changed yet.

Some things did change, however. A GOP candidate who ran on Trump-style "law and order" and immigration fears lost the race for governor of Virginia, a state that was "red" within this writer's memories. Chris Christie, a belligerent shell of his former self who was battling with Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback for most unpopular state governor, was replaced as New Jersey governor by a Democrat. In Maine, voters passed Medicaid expansion over the objections of their Republican governor.

There are also some small-scale successes, and I think you can state that without dwelling too much on party affiliation. For instance, a New Jersey politician who declared on social media that the Women's March should have ended earlier so women could get back to the kitchen was defeated by a woman who was inspired to run against him after she saw his social media post. A trans woman in Virginia ran against a man who called himself the "chief homophobe" and the author of an anti-trans "bathroom bill." She ran a campaign that focused on the issues and only briefly touched on her biology, whereas her opponent refused to debate her and also refused to use female pronouns. She not only won, but she was gracious when asked if she had anything to say about her opponent, she said: "I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now." A man in Hoboken, New Jersey, was elected the first Sikh mayor of that town despite opposition ads that called him a terrorist (Sikhs are not Muslims. But I guess that doesn't matter much to some people.). A former refugee just became Helena, Montana's first black mayor. I have taken out the party affiliations on these more personal stories, but those are exciting stories of taking action, no?

But moving back away from the individual stories and to the bigger picture, Tuesday's election was another signpost. FiveThirtyEight, a good source of politics analysis, noted that American politics only rarely (at most 2-3 times a year?) has these moments where we get to see which way the electoral leaves are blowing. And signposts are showing a big Democratic swing in next year's midterm elections. That's not really a surprise: the opposition party usually wins big in the midterms, and especially against an unpopular president whose party is in control of both houses of Congress. It would be more surprising if the Democrats weren't having success right now.

But looking at those signposts, and you see a pattern. In four special elections since Trump's victory, the GOP has won all four. However, those were all in reliably safe GOP districts, and none of them — NONE — won by more than 8 points. All of them were closer races than expected. The Virginia state legislature went from 2:1 control by Republicans to (possibly... it's unclear at press time) flipping the state assembly narrowly. That's even more than expected there. Women and minorities were many of the winners on Tuesday, and that may continue in the national scale soon.

So what are we seeing? I think it's safe to say that the House is in play for Democrats next year. I don't know if they're quite going to make it (my gut is they fall 2-3 votes short), but the evidence indicates Democrat-leaning voters are energized. Not only that, but they also don't have the baggage (whether real or imagined) of Hillary Clinton weighing them down. Instead, the GOP has the baggage (ditto) of Donald Trump. They also have the baggage of a failed Obamacare repeal and an unpopular tax plan that may or may not be passed.

On the other hand, I'd also note something I've said to my political science friends lately: I feel like the Democrats were far more united and cohesive when the majority party than they are as the minority party. I feel they're still fighting battles from 2016 (as evidenced by the Donna Brazile book) and arguing over the party's direction right now. The GOP, on the other hand, was far more united and cohesive as a minority party. Against Obama, they had a strong, clear message on where they stood and what they stood for. The Obamacare failure and the infighting over the GOP tax cut plan, which is unpopular to the American public but popular to rich donors, has created tensions between Tea Party/Trumpian politicians and more traditional (think the Bushes or Mitt Romney) Republicans. I believe whichever party can get their ducks in a row first will win the midterms next year. But as for right now, it's looking like Democrats will have a big win — how big has yet to be determined.

You're Not Helping

Two racial incidents that made recent headlines were revealed to be hoaxes this week. A black student at the Air Force Academy and another at Kansas State have admitted that the racial slurs they discovered and spoke about were, in fact, written by them. Look: There's a lot of discrimination in the world. You don't have to make it up. You should tell what has actually happened. But with every hoax story like this, ignorance is given evidence. It gives the true racists and people whose heads are buried in the sand a chance to say "See, this racism stuff is made up!" And, at least in these two cases, they were right.

I think it gets taken for granted that the vast, vast, vast, vast number of these cases are not made up. We're seeing the bounce back on sexual assault and sexual harassment: After years of it being a thing people tended not to talk about because they were afraid they wouldn't be believed, women (and men) are starting to be more open about it, and you're seeing some major players in politics and entertainment go down. But hoaxes don't help with being taken seriously.

Summary Judgments

Here's an interesting feature by FiveThirtyEight on a county in Iowa that voted in a landslide for Obama, then a landslide for Trump.  •  •  •  North Korea's nuclear weapons are the top-line threat, but people often don't take the rest of their arsenal seriously. Their biological, chemical and traditional weapons could easily devastate and decimate South Korea if war were to happen. Seoul, which is within striking distance of many of these weapons, is bigger than Paris and about the size of Rio de Janeiro by metro area. It would be targeted first.  •  •  •  It's not particularly surprising (I knew the answer already), but good video by Half as Interesting on why the U.S.'s land is blocky.  •  •  •  A couple cool medical breakthroughs. First, genetically modified mosquitoes are now approved! Second, and even cooler: Check out this cool bandage-gadget that creates much smaller scars, is less painful and easier to apply. Cool job, technology!  •  •  •  GOP lawmakers have asked the well-out-of-the-mainstream Roy Moore to step aside from his Senate candidacy if accusations are true about him nearly 40 years ago sexually assaulting a 14-year-old. If he does pull out, I expect him to deny the accusations while saying something like "to avoid further embarrassment to the party and to help us move on as a country, I will not continue with my campaign for Senate." That way he denies the accusations while also pulling out. It's saying "This isn't true, but I'm backing out anyway, just in case."  •  •  •  No run story until I start running again.  •  •  •  Evie's been doing a lot of baby things lately. She's been talking baby talk, pretending to be a Baby Tiger while I'm a Daddy Tiger (Note: I don't know what it is she wants me to do when we're doing this, I just know I'm supposed to growl and crawl or something. It's not a clear game) and being baby-like. I don't know what this means. Then, like, the next day, she does something super grown-up and big and I don't know what this means. I am quickly learning that 90 percent of parenthood is wondering what the heck is happening and what it means, then moving on to the next thing.

Mueller, Manafort and Meaningful Moves

I feel like I called the Manafort arrest about a month ago. I also feel like I foresaw the Papadopoulos thing under the "other" category. But I think Monday's news will be the first stop of many rather than the end point. So why do I think that, and what did we learn Monday?

The Manafort/Gates arrests seem small in the grand scheme of things. They're mostly money laundering and failure to file proper reports and registrations. "Conspiracy against the United States" sounds like treason, but it's not. It's really about defrauding the government, or more specifically "to cheat the Government out of property or money" per former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft in 1924. It's such a low-level crime that even the maximum penalty (which is rarely handed down) is five years. The amount of accused money laundering is a significant amount: $18 million. NBC News reported that there was a statute of limitations issue that likely prompted the timing of the Manafort/Gates arrests. These charges do not preclude other charges from being filed in the future, though. Many are speculating that Mueller's team is using these arrests to try to "turn" Manafort and Gates against Donald Trump. That certainly sounds logical, but given how secretive the Mueller team has been, I hate to speculate myself. Maybe that is the plan; maybe it's not. Manafort is (despite the Trump administration's efforts to distance themselves from him) a significant piece in this whole thing: He was in the Trump Jr./Trump Tower meeting with Russians, he was campaign manager when Trump won the primary and when the Clinton emails were leaked, and he was as central a figure to the dealings of the Trump campaign as you can find. It COULD be significant, but I don't think it's significant enough on its own YET.

What I find to be most interesting from Monday is the George Papadopoulos plea deal. He plead guilty to lying to the FBI during an interview on Jan. 27. He's not a nobody. While the statement of offense lists "The Campaign" as naming Papadopoulos as one of his five foreign policy advisors, the words actually came from Donald Trump's mouth. I think it's downplayed a bit, but this isn't just an indictment, it's a guilty plea and therefore a conviction. It's hard fact. In lieu of parsing commentary from other sources, I figured I'd read the statement of offense and affidavit myself. Here's what I learned:

1) He admitted he lied about the timing of meeting with a Russian-connected "professor." He had told the FBI that he met with the "professor" BEFORE he had joined the Trump campaign. This "professor" told him the Russians owned "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails." (Note: True.) However, the lie is that the "professor" only took interest in Papadopoulos and met with him AFTER it was made clear Papadopoulos was with the Trump campaign. According to the documents, Papadopoulos only learned about the "thousands of emails" after being a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign for more than a month. He also lied to the FBI that the "professor" was unimportant, but he actually knew the "professor" had ties to the Russian government. He used his connection with the "professor" to try to arrange a meeting between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

2) A campaign supervisor (Confirmed as Sam Clovis, former Trump campaign official and currently Trump's pick as chief scientist to the Department of Agriculture, although he is not a scientist.) told Papadopoulos upon his hiring that improved relations with Russia was a goal of the campaign.This same campaign supervisor said "Great Work" after Papadopoulos said he met with the "professor" and a woman he believed to be Putin's niece.

3) At a "national security meeting," Papadopoulos introduced himself to the group as a guy who could arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin. Trump didn't really react one way or another in the meeting, though Jeff Sessions said it shouldn't happen. Later, Papadopoulos learned of the "thousands of emails" the Russians had as "dirt" on Clinton and told the campaign the Russian state was "open for cooperation." He then continually tried to set up meetings with the Russians, and the campaign (through a person who's probably Manafort, but who told him to work with Clovis) seemed open to it, though the documents say these meetings never ended up happening.

4) After the FBI met with him for a second time, Papadopoulos deleted his Facebook account and changed phone numbers to try to hide his conversations with the "professor" and the possible Putin's niece. Eventually, he started cooperating with the FBI since July and pleaded guilty on Oct. 5.

The FiveThirtyEight podcast correctly noted that Mueller's team doesn't leak, so reading any information from him or his team is like understanding the aliens' language in Arrival (great movie, by the way). Keith Olbermann (who I find frequently over-the-top but usually shows his logic) correctly pointed out that Papadopolous has been working with the FBI since July, signed a plea deal in early October, yet the first we heard about it was Monday. It shows that a lot of work is taking place, even if the public doesn't get to see all the cards that are on the table. Jeffrey Toobin (a fantastic legal analyst for CNN who I feel is getting a little over his skis about this issue) said that what this secretive process means is that Papadopoulos was possibly wearing a wire since July. That's interesting, but it's pure speculation.

We've also recently learned that Sam Clovis himself has already been interviewed and testified before the grand jury, and longtime Trump spokesperson (and current communication director) Hope Hicks is also set to be interviewed. Manafort, Hicks, Clovis and Papadopoulos are about as high as you can get in the Trump campaign without being either a) Trump family or b) Cabinet members. In the Manafort documents (which I didn't read directly) and the Papadopoulos ones, there is an indication that this goes higher. "Campaign staff." "Campaign manager." "High-Ranking Campaign Official." "Together with Others."

So what we, the public, is learning is that there's a lot more to the case than we publicly knew. Mueller's team is being cautious, deliberate, and they're making progress.

Why the Executive Should Stay Out of the Judicial

This morning, President Trump tweeted that the New York truck terrorist should be executed. He called the justice system a "joke" and a "laughing stock" when dealing with terrorists. This is the President of the United States claiming that our judicial system is broken. That undermines our faith in the judicial branch, which is doing its job — which doesn't happen overnight. President Trump advocated for a punishment that is "far quicker and far greater" for terrorism. (Note: What's greater than death? What's quicker than lethal injection or hanging or firing squad? Is he advocating for torturing someone, then a bullet to the head?) The bigger picture is that words matter. And the President's words carry a lot of weight.

Which is why he needs to shut up about the judicial branch. When he says what should or should not be done with punishment, it potentially taints the jury pool. One former federal prosecutor tweeted: "Mr. President, we all know [the truck terrorist] should get the death penalty. But when *you* say it, it makes it harder for DOJ to make it happen." We've already seen this in action once this year with the case of Bowe Bergdahl. The President tweeted about Bowe Bergdahl (who abandoned his post before being captured by the Taliban for five years) before becoming President, and what he's said as president have sway in military courts, since he's the commander-in-chief. And as President, he has said he can't comment on the Bergdahl case, "but I think people have heard my comments in the past." Arguments in military court lasted for an hour over that phrase, and the military judge in charge of the Bowe Bergdahl sentencing has already said that it could affect the sentencing (The judge can sentence Bergdahl to anywhere from life in prison to letting him go.). The more the President talks, the more he imperils the actions he wants to see. Perhaps that could be applied on a larger scale.

Scheduling Note

I'm sorry my posts haven't been as regular or lately. I have been having two separate problems. The first is finding the time to write. I've been busy with an outside-of-work project that's going to take me through the rest of the year and into next year. It's a big undertaking, and I'm happy to do it, but it's time-consuming. the other is that I just haven't felt compelled about many subjects without feeling like I'm just taking a partisan view. I want my writing to have a purpose, and if I'm just standing on a soapbox saying what every other loudmouth with a blog is saying, then I should save my words. So I hope you appreciate that I'm trying not to force myself into opinions, while I also try to find the time to write. In case you missed it, I did have a recent post, but I haven't said much about it because... the main topic never felt like I hit the right tone. The smaller story and the summary judgments section were great, but if someone doesn't get through the first part, they're not going to get to that.

Allegedly. 

This story on Deadspin about journalistic practices and the use of "allegedly" got me thinking. Hard. If you don't want to read it — though you should — the sum is this: Journalists use "alleged/allegedly/allegations" too much, when they should never use it. It's a crutch for bad writing and bad journalism. It's "another layer of ass-covering doubt," Diana Moskovitz writes. What's she's saying is all (mostly) true. I'll save you more pontificating on the wisdom of her essay, but I found myself wondering if I had made those same mistakes. I feel the same way about "alleged/allegedly/allegations," so surely I didn't make the same mistakes.

I searched my old newspaper and found 31 articles containing my name and "alleged." That's 31 times too many. Seven were from one murder case. Five more were from a different murder case. Three were from a case in which a church employee stole money from the church. An animal cruelty case prompted two more. Two more from a fireworks case and two more from a fraudulent bidding scheme by the county 911 director.

It does appear I learned my lesson, though. I only used the words in question four times in the last three years. In fact, the last time I used any of them (allegations, in this case) was in the context of saying someone was innocent until proven guilty. I used the word "allegations" as a synonym for "claims" or "accusations" more often as I became more experienced. But the earlier episodes do bother me. For example, in one story, mention the aforementioned county 911 director was indicted and dismissed "for alleged wire and mail fraud." That's lazy writing. What I should have said was he was indicted for wire and mail fraud and subsequently dismissed. That's better.

We owe a little grace to small newspapers, who often don't have time or resources to edit as carefully as needed. But larger papers and media organizations certainly demand a higher bar.

Summary Judgments

This essay at Splinter News broke my heart.  •  •  •  The AP reported that the hackers who infiltrated the DNC emails had a "hit list" of "who you'd want to target to further Russian interests." The attacks spiked from 9-6 Moscow time. They targeted not just U.S. enemies, but Ukrainian, Russian, Georgian and Syrian targets. If you're waiting for proof the Russians were behind it, wait no longer.  •  •  •  I signed up for a Thanksgiving Day run, but I'm going to have to miss it. Our Thanksgiving plans have changed, so I probably won't run again this year. I mean, I could start running again and do the race virtually... but there's all this Halloween candy that needs to be eaten.  •  •  •  We went trick or treating for Halloween. Within seconds the kids didn't want to wear their Woody and Jessie hats any longer, so I wore them both on my head. They were cold (it was barely snowing) and their buckets got so full that Roland kept asking me to carry it, because it was too heavy. They whined and had to be cajoled and pushed into getting candy or saying anything ("Trick or treat? Thank you?"). And yet... yesterday they both asked if they could go trick or treating again. Such is kids.

What I Should Have Said Is Nothing

One of my favorite comedians is Mike Birbiglia. He still performs regularly, but he's doing a lot of behind-the-scenes work these days. The album of his that always sticks out is one titled "What I Should Have Said Is Nothing." Here's a link to an excerpt with a perfect example starting around the 3:27 mark.

Anyway, that's what I kept thinking about the Trump-Gold Star family dispute. At multiple times, Trump could have saved himself by Saying Nothing.

Let's start at the beginning. Four Green Berets died in Niger after an ambush by ISIS-connected attackers. Sgt. LaDavid Johnson's body was found nearly a mile away from the other three Green Berets. We, the public, still don't know much about this ambush. We don't know what the Green Berets were doing there, what happened, etc. There was nearly two weeks of public silence by the Trump Administration about the incident.

At some point, President Trump calls the soldier's (pregnant) widow Myeshia Johnson, with Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson in the room as well. The White House has not refuted reports that Trump said Sgt. Johnson "knew what he was getting into, but I guess it still hurt" and that he seemed not to know Sgt. Johnson's name. Rep. Wilson tweeted about those things as a criticism of Trump. What Trump and his allies could have said... was nothing.

Instead, Trump attacked Rep. Wilson over the course of the week and the two battled over who was telling the truth. Trump called her "wacky" and a surrogate, Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly, alluded to her as an "empty barrel."

But both Trump and Kelly stepped into further issues in their attempts to defend Trump's phone call. What they should have said... was nothing. They didn't have to drag in other people. Yet that's what happened.

First Trump claimed that he called ALL the Gold Star families killed under his watch, whereas his predecessors had not. That was a) false, since Trump hadn't called all the Gold Star families under his watch, and b) both Bush and Obama had called nearly all the Gold Star families AND visited soldiers in the veteran's hospital. As far as I know, President Trump hasn't visited the veteran's hospital. It was an ugly fight to have over an issue that presidents should absolutely not be fighting over. It's shameful.

Then, as if to double down on his previous claim, told the media to ask Gen. Kelly if Obama had called him when his son had died in battle. He didn't directly answer that during a press conference (though it appears he has confirmed that claim later). But again: We're now fighting not just over, in effect, "Who Cared About Fallen Soldier's Families More," but we're dragging people into it that didn't necessarily want to be in the conversation.

Anyway, Gen. Kelly had a press conference and used that opportunity, while calling Rep. Wilson an "empty barrel," to tell a story about how Rep. Wilson (unnamed, but clearly her) had once touted her own success in securing the funding for an FBI field office in Miami. He was intentionally derogatory to her in telling this story, let's be clear. What he could have said about her... was nothing. The problem is that the speech is on video. And she did not tout her success in securing the funding for the field office, she said merely how she helped get it renamed after fallen FBI agents. In fact, she wasn't in office when the funding was secured and said as such in the speech. Yet Sarah Huckabee Sanders said something to the effect of "Yeah, but she said it when no one was taping... and backstage," which was... you don't have to keep doubling down on a lie.

My point to all of this is that this scandal could have gone away much faster. It could have been less messy, involved fewer people, kept the President of the United States out of mudslinging with uninvolved people, and generally been less of a disaster if only... they had said nothing.

Fall of Raqqa

For the life of me, I can't figure out why this wasn't the lead story on any of the major news sites. Fox News had it buried at the bottom of the front page, CNN had it listed as the third story, and NBC News had it as the fourth or fifth. I couldn't find it at all on ABC News, and CBS News had it in the third or fourth spot.

It's shocking, because here's the story: ISIS lost its capital. U.S.-backed troops (NOT U.S. troops) have been highly successful in pushing ISIS out. ISIS is losing. ISIS is already pushed out of Iraq almost entirely, and now the Syrian Democratic Force (Kurds + local Arabs) has pushed ISIS out of its own capital in Syria. The ISIS territory is now limited to a few pockets in Syria and a larger pocket along the Iraq-Syria border and the banks of the Euphrates — but without a true stronghold.

ISIS is losing, folks. If we give credit to Obama for killing bin Laden, then we have to give credit to Trump for ISIS losing much of its territory, even if the plans were already in the works. It's a success, and he deserves credit for it. Which is strange: This is arguably Trump's most successful accomplishment yet, and a man of his ego is not making a big deal of it. This is the same guy that threw a victory party on the White House lawn for passing a health care bill through the House before it went to the Senate. I'm honestly more shocked that he's not touting this more.

Flake and Corker Don't Impress Me Much

Two of the most outspoken Republican critics of Donald Trump have recently announced they will not seek re-election. Both Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, who have each been at odds with the President over his style, substance and various other reasons, have said their time will soon be up. A third, John McCain, is unlikely to make it to another term because of his unfortunate brain cancer diagnosis.

With the exception of Sen. McCain, Flake and Corker appear to be either a) emboldened to speak out against Trump because they don't have to worry about re-election or b) cowed into not running for re-election because of their anti-Trump stance. I don't think either option is particularly healthy for our country. Any president needs checks, and the most powerful checks on presidential power often come from one's own party — especially when one's party controls both houses of Congress. But neither reasoning is a good sign for Flake and Corker, either. It means either they were too cowardly to speak out before now or they are too cowardly to stand by their stances. If they believe what they were saying, shouldn't they be willing to die on that particular hill?

Summary Judgments

CNN had an interesting story from Iran: Trump's rhetoric has united the country against the U.S. There was and is an opportunity in Iran, as there is a deep rift between moderates and conservatives. But Trump's words, both belligerent and geographical in nature, have pushed even the moderates to an anti-U.S. stance.   •  •  •  Please read this interesting piece by The New Yorker on the possibility of a President Pence. Be careful what you wish for, as there's a lot of terrifying things there, including Trump joking that Pence wants to hang gay people. He jokes about that.  •  •  •  I linked to this story last week, but what powerful reporting from a 15-year-old in Texas, interviewing a man who calls the Border Patrol on immigrants.  •  •  •  I almost never recommend people read comments. But when Ivanka Trump revealed she had a "punk phase" in which she listened to grunge music (not punk) before Kurt Cobain died (she was 12 1/2 when he died) and died her hair blue, it sparked some hilarious comments in at least one site. I don't care about proving her right or wrong and it doesn't change my view of her at all. My point is: The comments were hilarious on that one.  •  •  •  Best wildlife photos of 2017.  •  •  •  Does the Trump decision to drop insurance subsidy payments sound confusing? Then this short video will explain why it's short-sighted and simply punitive.  •  •  •  I haven't been running. I need to start, but starting again is harder now that it's dark early in the morning and I don't like running in the dark.  •  •  •  We've finally gotten a reprieve from the every-morning madness of Little Einsteins. We have a new favorite at Casa del Nash: P.J. Masks. However, Roland can't quite remember the name of the show. "Can we watch Three Jay Masts?" "Can we watch T.J. Maxx?" Usually he gets it right on the third try or so, but it's fun to watch him stammer for the right words.

Puerto Rico and Compassion

Editor's note: Thanks for sticking with me. I was at my sister-in-law's wedding last week, so I couldn't write. And it's been a bit hard to want to write about topics that are ripe for discussion than just lead to anger. Thanks for your patience. 

Let's talk about Puerto Rico for a little bit. I noted three weeks ago on my Facebook profile that Puerto Rico would be roughly the 30th largest state based on population if it were a state. It puts them behind Oklahoma and Connecticut and ahead of Iowa and Utah.

But what I didn't say was that the population for Puerto Rico is a bit hard to pin down right now. Most estimates are between 3.3 and 3.5 million people, but that's down from nearly 4 million a few years ago. Years of economic turmoil and overbearing U.S. regulations have hurt Puerto Rico, and many people have fled the island territory for the U.S. mainland. Some of those problems could have been solved if they were a state, but the U.S. does not seem to desire that. An estimated 500,000 people from Puerto Rico are now living on the mainland — if they moved back, Puerto Rico would be roughly the size of Oregon or Oklahoma in population. As far as area goes, Puerto Rico is roughly the size of Connecticut — one of the smallest states.

But the truth is the island territory is in trouble, and our President has not been helpful. He's picked an unnecessary fight with the mayor of San Juan, the capital of Puerto Rico, who had been begging for help. And today, in three short tweets, he seemed to blame Puerto Rico for problems that already existed and imply that he'd pull FEMA, the military and first responders from the island. He seemed to brag that Puerto Rico "only" had 16 deaths, even though that number was incredibly preliminary and has already risen to 43. Add to that the terrible video of him seemingly using paper towels as free-throw practice (and having to be told not to do the same with canned chicken), and it seems as if Trump doesn't care.

It's a sharp contrast with the President's response in Texas and Florida. In case it appears I'm not being clear here, let me be explicit: The President did a good job in Texas and Florida. It's an easy bar to clear, but he's not meeting it in Puerto Rico. On the contrary, vice president Mike Pence is saying and doing the right things there. He said last week that "We will be here for the long haul." It's sad that our own president is failing to meet an easy test that's being met by his own vice president.

Maybe comparison — and the quick turnaround with Texas and Florida — is part of the problem. This interesting chart by CNN (scroll down) shows that when Irma hit Florida, 60 percent of the customers lost power. However, within 7 days, it was almost entirely restored. Puerto Rico lost power to 100 percent  of its customers to Maria, and no power at all was restored for eight days. Even now, nearly a month after Maria, Puerto Rico still has 83 percent of its customers without power. Cell phone service is only now restored to 22 percent of sites. There is some positive news: Nearly 90 percent of supermarkets are open and nearly 80 percent of gas stations, too. Roughly 60 percent of banks are back open. But then another statistic hits hard: 63 percent of Puerto Ricans do not have drinkable water. Nearly 2 out of every 3 people! And we're a month after Maria!

Since Connecticut is a good comparison to Puerto Rico both on population and size, can you imagine if all of Connecticut were without power for 8 days, still only had 17 percent power a month later, and only 2/3 of the state had drinkable water. That's what we're dealing with in Puerto Rico! It's just as much part of the USA as Connecticut, and yet the President is too busy being critical to be helpful.

Years from now — perhaps decades —we will likely not remember the details of Trump's battles on Twitter with Sen. Bob Corker or late night talk show hosts or (predicting here) Santa Claus. But I hope that we will remember that when it came to Puerto Rico, President Trump lacked even the most basic of compassion for well more than a month.

Chiefs

What's been surprising about the Chiefs' 5-0 start is something I haven't heard a lot of people discuss: this has been the hard part of the schedule. The Chiefs' schedule is very, very front-loaded. The Patriots, the Steelers, the Eagles, the Redskins, the Cowboys and the Broncos are all playoff-caliber teams, and they're all before the Chiefs' bye week in week 10. Then things get a lot easier.

After the bye week, the Chiefs play the (now) 0-5 Giants, the Bills and struggling Jets, then face three floundering teams in Kansas City: the Raiders, Chargers and Dolphins. The season finishes with a trip to Denver, probably the only tough game on paper from the last seven games of the season. Let's be super conservative here and say the Chiefs only go 5-1 against the Giants-Dolphins teams. Let's even say the Chiefs lose in the last game at Denver. That would put the Chiefs at 10-2 barring the next four games — usually guaranteed a playoff spot. But if we're not conservative, let's say the Chiefs sweep those six terrible teams to be 11-1, which would mean we're talking playoff seeding rather than just making the playoffs.

So the next four games will go a long way to determining playoff seeding, and they're not easy games. First is the Chiefs' bug-a-boo in the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Steelers are coming off a terrible performance against the Jaguars and haven't looked great. If the Steelers are going to bounce back, this would be a great time to show their spine. Then the Chiefs have a quick turnaround to the West Coast to play the Raiders. Derek Carr probably won't be back for that game and the Raiders aren't doing well without him (they also have the 31st-ranked defense). Then the Chiefs have an extra few days to prepare for the Broncos in Arrowhead on Monday Night Football. Then the Chiefs go at Dallas to round out the pre-bye week schedule. The Cowboys quietly have one of the worst defenses in the league, currently ranked 29th out of 32. Each of those four games are winnable, though, especially since the Chiefs have already beaten the 2nd, 5th and 6th ranked teams in the league.

What worries me is the increasing number of injuries, which may hurt the Chiefs in the next four weeks. 2/5 of our starting offensive line is injured, and you could make a decent argument for 3/5. Starting wide receiver Chris Conley is out for the year. Travis Kelce has a concussion. And that's just the offense, and I didn't even mention Spencer Ware's injury (since Kareem Hunt is amazing). As for the defense, Eric Berry being out for the year was a serious hit. Justin Houston has calf spasms and hasn't practiced much. Dee Ford has missed a few games. There's good news though: some players will come back. When Mitch Morse and Laurent Duvernay-Tardif come back, the offense should be even more dynamic. The defense is the team's weak point, and keeping Justin Houston on the field is important. Without someone pressuring the QB, the secondary without Eric Berry will be picked apart. But Steven Nelson, arguably our 2nd or 3rd best CB, might be back soon, too.

In short: hold on for the next four weeks, Chiefs. Then it gets a lot easier.

Summary Judgments

This was a thoughtful piece by pillar of journalism Dan Rather.  •  •  •  The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO under the Trump administration. UNESCO is the United Nations cultural organization (it's how you get UNESCO World Heritage sites, etc.). The arguments for pulling out seem fairly weak and only diminishes the U.S.'s ability to negotiate or to effectuate the reform they claim to want. Along with the decision to pull out of the Paris Accords, it makes me feel like the Trump Administration just doesn't want to be in the Room When It Happens (Hamilton reference!)  •  •  •  I haven't run since Sept. 23. I feel very fat right now.  •  •  •   OK. Sweet moment with Evie last night. We're kind of trying to get her to give up her pacifiers, which are usually the only thing that calms her down. We've already limited them to her room and long trips (>3 hours in the car). Last night, I told her that pacifiers are for babies, and since she's not a baby anymore — she's a big girl — she should give her pacifiers up to someone who needs them. She took the one out of her mouth and gave it to me then walked over to the cubbie where her other one was, took it out and brought it to me, too. My heart broke for how sweet she was being. Of course, we had a little rough bedtime, but she made it. We'll see if it sticks.

I've Seen This Movie Before

After eight years of rule by Democrats, a far-right Republican touting a return to GOP principles was elected. Not just that, but Republicans took control of both houses of government to make a one-party government that could not be stopped by Democrats — only by public pressure. After a series of increasingly right-wing measures, the Republicans began to split over budgetary issues. Soon, it was viewed that the moderates were the sticks in the mud blocking real change. At the midterms, moderates were ousted in favor of those who would hew closer to the Republican in charge's policies.  The Republican in charge called for tax reform of the grandest scale. It was trickle-down economics in action: cut taxes for corporations and small businesses drastically, as well as simplifying the tax code. It would mean tax cuts, and who doesn't want tax cuts? Promises were routinely made that if only taxes were lower, the economy would finally be free to boom again. The cries of both moderate Republicans and Democrats that this would prompt massive cuts and not produce results fell on deaf ears. You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't want to see taxes be cut! said those in the Republican in charge's camp.

But the economy never did boom. The effects of those tax cuts was devastating. As opponents said repeatedly warned, the tax cuts caused devastating effects on the budget. There are only two ways to fill holes in the budget: increase revenues (higher taxes) or cuts to services. At first, the Republican said the economic woes were temporary and cut services. He cut from transportation and education. (Around this time, the Republican in charge won a narrow re-election campaign). He cut from them again the next year. He made "changes" to the disability services, but they really amounted to cuts. The same was true for state retirees. He cut services to those who were reliant on services — those who could absorb the cuts the least.

Eventually, he ran out of places to cut. As the economy continued to flail and services were slashed, the voters grew wary of the Republican in charge. The continued to plead for more patience by the public — No, this year it'll work out! All the while, he refused to admit the tax cuts had failed. He vetoed attempts to restore many of the tax cuts that had forced such drastic spending and service cuts. He stood in the face of the mounting failure of his policy and refused to admit defeat. Soon enough, the voters chose for him. They picked moderates and Democrats who would be willing to overturn the tax cuts. They grew tired of the Republican in charge's schtick to the point that he became terribly unpopular, even in areas inclined to trust him. Before the end of his tenure, he declared victory by leaving his job for another. It was not his problem any longer.

The previous three paragraphs are about Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. I was an editor for the first two paragraphs and watched from afar for the third. I interviewed him in person and listened to his campaign speeches. I covered elections and watched the whole thing go down.

I feel like I'm watching the same thing happen. If you replace "The Republican in charge" in the first paragraph with Trump, that's kind of where we're at today. Trump has touted a tax plan still being worked out by the GOP that is an echo of Brownback's tax plan. Maybe lower and middle class families get out a little bit ahead, but those who are incredibly wealthy make out like bandits according to the details available to us. And none of the tax cuts are offset by cuts anywhere else, meaning deficits are likely. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this won't all play out the same. But so far it is, and I just want to get off the train.

Anthem Origins and False Patriotism

I'm really trying to stay out of the NFL/Trump/NBA/"Why won't this story just go away already?" issue. That's because it's like World War I: Everyone's in their trenches and hoping Americans will break the stalemate so we can get on with our lives (topical similes — that's what you came for!). We've been talking ourselves in circles on this issue for more than a year now, but President Trump came in and picked at the scab, re-opening the wound and arguably making it worse.

I made my stance clear last year, and nothing's changed since then. But what I've been surprised about is discovering the origins of the national anthem in football and remembering the origins of Colin Kaepernick's decision to kneel.

Before 2009, players during the day games (noon and 3-ish on Sundays here in Central time) would come out and stand before the anthem. For the primetime games (Sunday and Monday night football), the players came out after the anthem for TV reasons. At any rate, the anthem was rarely a part of telecasts. In 2009, the NFL decided to make it standard: Players are on the field before the anthem. Players back in the 1980s remember being out for the anthem, but it wasn't necessarily standardized until 2009.

This is not to be confused with a different issue during the same time period: paid patriotism by the Department of Defense. In a report filed in 2015 by two Arizona GOP senators — McCain and Flake — the Department of Defense paid the NFL and other leagues millions of dollars for "patriotic tributes" in roughly the same era. It's hard to be specific given that the money was mixed in with other marketing plans. So instead of saying "DOD spent $6.6 million on paid patriotism to the NFL," it's more accurate to say "DOD spent $6.6 million on marketing with the NFL in a 4-year time period, which included displays of paid patriotism." What constitutes paid patriotism? On-field color guard, enlistment/re-enlistment ceremonies, performances of the national anthem, full-field flag details, first pitches, welcome home promotions, recognizing Wounded Warriors, etc. The National Guard even paid for military appreciation night. Once this was revealed, the NFL returned nearly $725,000. But this doesn't mean players were paid to be on the field for the anthem — they weren't. But the size of those anthem presentations may have been paid by the federal government.

Alright, now I want to touch on the origins of Colin Kaepernick's sitting/kneeling. He sat on the bench during the anthem for two weeks before anyone noticed. If he wanted to get attention — he was interviewed by the media after each game — he could have brought it up. But he didn't. It was only the third week that someone in the media noticed and asked him about it. He explained why he did it, but the criticism he got was not falling on deaf ears. A Green Beret football player, Nate Boyer, wrote an open letter to Kaepernick, which started a dialogue between the two. They reached a middle ground of how to be respectful to the flag while still protesting. Boyer — remember, a Green Beret/veteran — told him that kneeling is still respectful since soldiers do it at fallen soldiers' graves and while on patrol. Boyer also stood next to Kaepernick at the next home game as Kaepernick knelt.

My point is not to argue that what Kaepernick and others did is the right thing to do. I don't think I'll convince anyone that hasn't already made up their mind. But what I'm trying to say is that Kaepernick did listen to criticism and modified his original protest. He sought out someone with a different point of view and changed his tactics because of that. Isn't that the goal of argument, to make someone change? But it seems the vitriol isn't that he changed, it's that he didn't change enough.

Summary Judgments

Repeat to yourself: This isn't a dystopian future. This isn't a dystopian future. This isn't a dystopian future... Apparently it's a strange reality.  •  •  •  Good investigation work by Deadspin's Patrick Redford on an inspiring paraplegic hiker who "hiked" the Pacific Coast Trail. Spoiler: She probably didn't.  •  •  •  For the record: Just because you want to make something better doesn't mean you don't appreciate it. I like cookie dough, but suggesting we put oatmeal in it doesn't mean I hate cookie dough. In fact, because I love it enough to want it to be the best it can be. Apply this to whatever you think I'm talking about.  •  •  •  I ran my last 4-miler on Saturday. It didn't go as great as I'd hoped because it was pretty hot that day. So of the four 4-mile runs I did this year, it went: snow, the sickest I've been all year, full monsoon, and unseasonably hot. Yuk. My only other race of the year is a 5K on Thanksgiving.  •  •  •  We went to a class recently to learn how to better discipline our kids. It was pretty helpful. We've made a lot of changes already and incorporated many lessons. The hardest one was "Kids are a mirror of you." Oh, wait... you mean Evie got in trouble for yelling at people in school because I have yelled at her when she misbehaves? WOOF. This parenting thing is going to take WORK. So in the (two days? Really?) time since then, I haven't yelled at them. I can't keep this up. I'm going to blow like a powder keg. I give it until Sunday night before I turn into The Hulk.

Mueller-ing it Over

We need to start breaking the Mueller investigation into parts, because there's not just one case that they're investigating. "Mueller" is used as shorthand for "anything shady and related to Russia," but there are multiple angles and multiple targets. To my eye, there are five major areas of investigation. So here's a list of separate investigations all wrapped within the Mueller umbrella:

1) Paul Manafort. He seems in the most hot water from the subpoenas, warrants, etc. He's got ties to Russian oligarchs, helped a pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine, he was in the meeting with Trump Jr. and the Russian contacts, ... the list goes on. In short, as the investigation continues to circle around people like buzzards, Manafort's the sickliest deer in the forest.

2) Jared Kushner. Possible business ties to Russia, his company may have some visa issues, met with Sergey Kislyak, clumsily tried to create a secret back channel for Russia-Trump transition team communication, was in that Trump Jr. meeting with Russians, etc. He also was the mind behind a data company that micro-targeted voters (more on this down below). The President can't exactly dismiss his son-in-law or pretend they aren't close. Kushner certainly seems to be a target of investigation, even if it's not as intense as Manafort.

3) Trump Jr. certainly seemed open to getting dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian source before taking the meeting that dominated coverage this summer. Even if nothing came of it, it shows a desire to pursue possible collusion. Whether that met the legal definition of a crime is up to Mueller's staff.

4) Russian collusion. This was the original point of the investigation. We know Russian sources created false information. We know Russians used Facebook and backed Donald Trump while disparaging Hillary Clinton. We know that the Russians used Facebook ads to target voters, but what we don't know is how they knew who to target. Some are making the connection to Kushner's data company, but I haven't seen anything firm on that. Did the Russians communicate/share information directly with anyone associated with the Trump campaign, and how high up did it go? That seems to be the focus behind some of the newest revelations, involving Facebook (traditionally pretty tight with information) providing documents in response to a subpoena.

5) Obstruction of Justice. Mueller's team is reportedly requesting meetings with... let's save space and say every communication staffer and top staff member in the White House. In particular, that includes those in office — like Sean Spicer — when the first press release about Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russians was crafted aboard Air Force One.

6) Others? The other items have gotten most of the attention, because they're the highest-level and closest to the president. We don't know much about Mueller's investigation and what exactly is the "get" here. While the above five issues are on the hot plate, there have been rumors of Russian business ties for President Trump. I don't know if that's true or not. I'm just going to say that I don't believe there's only five areas of focus — just that there are five major areas of focus known to the public.

One thing to remember is that these investigations take time. Mueller's team has been fairly tight-lipped, and we haven't seen much of their work. I doubt we will — they don't want to tip their hand if there is a criminal investigation (though they may have told Manafort to expect an indictment of some sort). Don't expect a flood of information. Instead, we'll get this slow drip-drip of "someone new was interviewed" or "documents were subpoenaed." It buys the GOP time to imagine that their President and his team are not under investigation/try to hold on in the midterms, while the Democrats get time to attack the GOP/fundraise for the midterms against an unpopular president under investigation. A cynical version of me would expect the Mueller investigation to wrap up in December 2018, one month after the midterms.

A Meme That Needs To Die

I've seen two Facebook friends like or link a meme about Trump's electoral wins v. Clinton's. It goes something like this: "There are 3,141 counties in the U.S. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them, Clinton won 16. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes..." It goes on to say that, because Clinton won the five boroughs of New York City by about a 2 million vote margin, that the 319 square miles that make up New York City should not decide the president for the rest of the country. Needless to say, smart friends of mine have fallen for this meme, which irritates me.

1) This is false. It's just not true. Clinton won 30 counties in Georgia. She won 27 in Georgia. There's 57 counties right there, and I haven't even gotten to a state that she won. She won California; She won Massachusetts; she won Illinois. She won counties in Florida and Missouri and Kansas and New Mexico and Mississippi. She won a county in North Dakota and West Virginia and Utah. I don't know the actual number, but it's at least 200 instead of 57. FURTHERMORE, the 2 million vote margin is wrong. That was the margin early on election night, but it was far closer to 3 million votes than 2 million. The actual number is just shy of 2.9 million votes.

2) We don't decide anything based on how many counties voted for something. It's a dumb metric. Why? Because the number of counties is completely arbitrary. Kansas has 105 counties. Arizona has 15. But Arizona has nearly 7 million people. Kansas has nearly 3 million people. Missouri has 114 counties! California only has 58 counties. But California has more than six times the number of people that live in Missouri. Counties don't matter in any electoral regard.  

3) Let's talk about the vote margin for a second. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes, but to assign that "victory" margin to one particular location is disingenuous. Even if you follow the logic of New York = size of Clinton's popular vote margin, that still only brings you back to even. It means that even if you take out the largest city in the country, the popular vote would have been close to tied. Clinton was just as popular as Trump among people even if you took out New York City.

4) This is the most important point I can make: It's about people/votes and not land. I don't care how many acres are covered by "red counties" and "blue counties." The whole point of the electoral college and our country's voting basis is one-person-one-vote. It means that it doesn't matter how much land you own, you get the same vote as someone in a studio apartment. The electoral college is divided so that states with great population but small size (like Massachusetts) gets a larger influence on the vote than a state with great size but tiny population (like Alaska). I don't care how big a state is or how big the territory covered by a Trump victory. It's about people. If you say that people are less important than square miles, you're saying that land ownership should decide elections. That's just wrong.

Summary Judgments

This story is incredibly sad. It doesn't look good for the cops involved and makes all cops look bad. Was shooting the man necessary?  •  •  •   This is the type of long, well-reasoned article I like. It's supposed to be a mea culpa about the GOP embracing personalities rather than policies, but it does make some solid points about the left as well. I don't agree with it entirely — but I feel it's the type of story I can disagree with respectfully and have an intellectual debate about, rather than just be a basis for partisan bickering.  •  •  •  I personally don't think Graham-Cassidy is happening. It's got 10 days to happen, and I can't imagine senators who objected to better bills suddenly being OK with this one just because they're desperate. But if you want a short, 4-minute video from someone who knows what they're talking about, look here.  •  •  •  Thanks to some ill-timed thunderstorms and more, I didn't get a lot of practice runs in during the last two weeks. In fact, I've only run twice since the 10K. I've got a 4-miler this weekend at the Kansas City Zoo. That should be fine — I've run 4 miles plenty before! But I've also been to the zoo a ton, and looking at the course, it goes over the parts of the zoo that are interminable when you're walking with kids. Suddenly, I'm feeling DAUNTED — the opposite of undaunted. •  •  •  Usually, I end this with a good kid story. But instead, I have a wife story. Alyson needed help for something related to class. Me: "I can help you with that. When is it due?" Alyson: "..." Me: "If you say Friday, I'll --" Alyson: "Friday."  /facepalm