This week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., returned from surgery and a brain cancer diagnosis to be the key vote in allowing the Senate to pass the motion to proceed on the Obamacare repeal options (Sidenote: Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., waited until after McCain voted, because he didn't want to be the third GOP defector and thus kill the motion. It's reasonable to believe that if McCain voted no, he would also have voted no. Because McCain voted yes, Johnson also voted yes.). McCain then gave a speech calling for the Senate to get things done, to return to Senate norms and traditions, and to work across party lines once again. He also said he wouldn't vote for "the bill" right now, though which bill he was referring to was unclear.
It was McCain in a nutshell: Equal parts frustrating, inspiring and confusing. He's not the maverick he pretended he was for a decade or so, and he's not the party-line man, either. So I figured I'd talk about him for a bit.
McCain will always have my respect for two moments: Being a POW and correcting his constituents who believed Obama was an "Arab" or worse. He is a war hero and always will be. He didn't have to defend his political opponent against the accusations of his own voters, yet he did. Both of those things took courage, and I will always respect courage in difficult situations.
However, McCain's had issues since being in the Senate. Let's talk first about his early years, when he was the sole Republican among what was termed the "Keating 5," a quintet of senators accused of corruption in the late 1980s. In short, a savings and loan bank chairman had given $1.3 million to the campaigns of five senators while under federal banking investigation. The investigation was dropped. The bank failed in 1989, costing many their life savings. Three of the five accused senators were found to have illegally interfered in the investigation. Two senators, McCain and Sen./ex-astronaut John Glenn, were found to have not interfered, but were said to have used "poor judgment."
He's been a "maverick," but not really. His first decade in the Senate hewed to the typical GOP line. Starting in 1997, he was more moderate than the average GOP senator. Then, after being defeated for president and starting in 2009, he has been an average GOP senator, more or less.
This week, he called for a return to Senate norms and traditions, but it came moments after he voted to ignore Senate norms and traditions. He said he wouldn't vote for "the bill" right now, then later voted for one of the bill options (Note: Reportedly, there's an out for McCain here. The vote was a proxy vote on a procedural move rather than the bill itself. McCain is a stickler for procedure and such, so said he voted for the procedural move but would not have supported the bill.).
So who/what is John McCain? He's a stickler for Senate traditions and norms, as expected for a man who's been in that circuit for 30 years. He's hawkish on foreign agitators like Russia, North Korea and Iran, but also just seems to take those threats more seriously. He is knowledgable on foreign affairs and wants competence and strategy on those issues, even if he doesn't agree with it — so he tends to vote differently than the GOP line on foreign affairs. But he's not as knowledgable about domestic affairs, where he sticks to the party line most of the time. He's even been known to vote out of spite when he's pissed off.
John McCain is a complicated man. He does not fit into a simple box. Those from both parties who think he's "on our side" are probably lying to themselves. So when he isn't on their side, they feel betrayed. I really hate this "you're either with us or against us" thing that I've seen from both sides. The world isn't binary.
UPDATE: McCain voted against the "skinny repeal" in what was considered a shocker. You can tell it was a shock because McConnell would not have brought Pence to the Senate floor if he didn't think the "skinny repeal" would pass. McCain's "no" caught everyone by surprise, but with hindsight, maybe it shouldn't have. See above where I mention how much of a stickler for Senate norms/procedures he is? See above where McCain said he couldn't vote for "this bill" but didn't say which one? Also, he was JUST re-elected in 2016 and he probably won't run for re-election when he's 86 -- there was not a lot of political pressure that could be placed on him. There were signs, but everyone figured he'd cave. I'd argue this is the biggest "maverick" vote he's had in a decade.
But I think it's interesting to note that two fairly reliable conservatives have been the deciding vote in Obamacare continuing to exist. The most recent is John McCain, while the other is Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. I think both would tell you privately that Obamacare is flawed, as would many Democrats. But for Roberts, the bill was legal even if he disliked it. For McCain, Obamacare was better than the alternatives.
Respect among colleagues
While McCain called for more respect and working across party lines, his fellow legislators have not gotten the message.
1) Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, spoke about three of the female Republican senators opposed to many of the GOP health care bills (Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Moore Capito). He said if they were men, he might ask them "to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style." On one hand, it's sexist not to treat female senators the same as male senators. Further, think about what he's saying: "I want to shoot you, but I won't because you're a woman." It's just gross. Even if you take out the sexism issue, it's still turning someone's political stance into a cause for violence. It's toxic, no matter which side it comes from.
2) Sen. Collins, R-Maine, heard those comments. She was caught on a hot mic talking with a Democratic senator about those comments, and she said Farenthold was "so unattractive it's unbelievable" and referred to a weird picture of Farenthold in his pajamas next to a Playboy bunny. So it's not his views that are disgusting, but his looks. That wouldn't fly if the roles were reversed, so it's outside the lines. While hers was a private conversation, she ended up apologizing and Farenthold wrote her an apology, too. Both apologies were warranted and both statements crossed the line.
3) And then Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., attacks both Collins and Murkowski for voting against the GOP bills, saying that someone needs to "snatch a knot in their ass," a Southern phrase for beating someone up. It came in a conversation about Pres. Trump's direct attacks on Murkowski, so many took it as against Murkowski specifically.
Look: If our politicians don't respect each other, it sends a signal down the line that politicians are not worthy of our respect. Legislators should have our respect, and it starts with each other.
On transgender troops
I'll keep this shorter. The two stated reasons for this, per President Trump are the 1) cost and 2) disruption to the troops. I don't care what other reasons other people have stated — he's the President and these are the reasons he's claimed. They're both crap.
1) In a study funded by the Department of Defense, the estimated costs of transgender surgeries are between $2.4 million and $8.4 million. Even if you take the "most extreme" version of that range, $8.4 million, that's a drop in the federal bucket. It's 1/5 of the budget for Viagra alone, and 1/10th of the budget for all erectile dysfunction treatments the Armed Forces covers. It's four trips to Mar-A-Lago. It's nothing. If you complain about the costs of this, you expose yourself to other, similar costs. Currently, Armed Forces insurance pays for one (1) cosmetic surgery in your lifetime, including breast enlargement if you're a woman. So... wouldn't gender reassignment surgery count, too?
2) It's a disruption to the troops makes me groan. I want to first acknowledge I'm not and have never been in the Armed Forces, so I can't claim to know if there are different views inside the Armed Forces on this one. Anyway, Truman integrated the troops in what was then a disruption. The Armed Forces adjusted. Transgender troops are already in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces were adjusting. Just because something's a disruption doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Finally, I want to note something quickly. Being transgender is not a mental illness. Do not compare it to schizophrenia or a disease -- that implies something is wrong with them. A person who is transgender is not dysfunctional. (Note: There are some diagnoses related to transgenderism and therapy can often be a prescribed treatment, but the intent there is not to "reverse" whether someone is transgender but rather to let the person be comfortable as transgender. Most people who are transgender are not diagnosed with anything.) They also can't just change being transgender like losing weight or cutting their hair. It reminds me of the old X-Men line: "Have you tried not being a mutant?" That's not how it works. Transgender people are perfectly functional and just wish to live their lives. Many have already been serving in the military, and this policy change is only stoking unwarranted transphobia.
Summary Judgments
Do not listen to the "survey" that shows 26 percent stopped watching the NFL because of the kneeling during the anthem protests. But only 12 percent of the respondents said they stopped watching the NFL, which means the 26 percent was of the 12 percent of respondents... so 3 percent-ish of all respondents. It's not meaningful. • • • So far, my prediction about "skinny repeal" passing seems right on. I think it'll pass by a 50-50 vote, and go to conference committee. I don't think it's a great idea to vote yes on the hope that conference committee will solve it. I've seen a nearly identical thing happen in the Kansas Legislature. The Senate passed a bill they didn't want to see become law in the plans that it would get fixed up in conference committee. But the House instead jumped on the Senate's bill and passed it quickly. • • • The Trump-speaks-at-the-Boy-Scout-Jamboree issue was a mess, but I think it's been handled almost the right way by the BSA. They annually invite the President to speak at the National Jamboree, and Trump accepted. After that, they can't really control what he speaks about, even if it is wildly political and over-the-top in self-promotion. The BSA was right to invite him and right to apologize for the insertion of politics into an apolitical environment. As an Eagle Scout, I would have liked to see more pointed discussion of where Trump has differed from the Scout ideals (kind, helpful, friendly, obedient, etc.), but that's a quibble. • • • I'm still behind where I need to be on training for the 10K. I'm running around 4 miles with a few walk breaks, but I need to be at 4.33/4.5 miles soon. Running farther distances also means waking up earlier to run, since 4.5 miles means roughly 45-50 minutes of me. This is the hard part about training: I want to train, but it's HARD. I think about this scene from a show I don't watch a lot. • • • You may have seen Alyson post this, but the other day, Evie was low-key mouthing off to me. Me: Evie, that was sassy and I don't like it. Evie: Yeeeaah it was.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Friday, July 21, 2017
Ranking the NFL Mascots, With Commentary
I'm so sick of politics right now. I need a break from talking about it. So I'm doing something silly.
We're ranking the NFL mascots, based on name, connection to the team/city name and look. It is entirely subjective. Points are awarded for unique items and taken away for being boring or scaring children.
T-32. New York Jets/Green Bay Packers/New York Giants/Washington Redskins — They don't have a mascot. Default loss.
28. Raider Rusher -- The NFL had a short-lived children's show on Nickelodeon that was... all sorts of a mess. At any rate, every team had its own "Rusher" figure. The Raiders, since they didn't have a mascot, decided to just make the Raider Rusher their actual mascot. It's just a Raider helmet with arms and legs. He looks like a Graveler.
27. Boltman -- At least it's not the NFL kids show mascot, but YIKES! I can't imagine any kid wanting to stand near this guy. Give him credit for dental hygiene and eye protection, but he's just creepy. He looks like Jim Carrey's The Mask mated with a Cheesehead.
26. Big Red -- It's just a generic cardinal. It doesn't even have a clever name. Put it in a Jewell jersey, and you'd think he works here on campus (Jewell's mascot is also the cardinals). Points given for remembering tail feathers. He looks like every other "Cardinals" mascot.
25. Who Dey -- This is the question you ask upon seeing this mascot. He's just a generic tiger. There's nothing unique about him, other than the name. He looks like the LSU Tiger's orange cousin or if Timber the Tiger from Diddy Kong Racing grew up.
24. Rampage -- Just a generic ram. You'll forget about him by the time you get to the next one. He looks like a high school mascot in a Rams jersey.
23. Roary -- Just a lion, but he looks like a nice lion. The name is both clever and groan-inducing, like good mascot names should be (MSSU liked it enough to name their lion Roary as well). He looks like a teenage lion that hasn't quite grown into his body yet, but will be a contributing member of society soon.
22. Miles -- I had a hard time placing Miles on this list. Part of that is my dislike of the Broncos. Part of that is I liked their old logo, so anything associated with the redesign has earned my ire. But I think he ranks so low because he just looks mean. He looks like if Bad Horse from Dr. Horrible had been a mascot rather than an actual horse.
21. Sir Saint/Gumbo -- Gumbo is a big, nice-looking, yet forgettable dog. He's got a nice name with the New Orleans tie-in. Sir Saint is frightening -- his head is clearly smaller than his jaw. I fear for that guy. Also, saints are not knighted, so what's with his name? Gumbo looks like the 1990s brand Big Dog wore a jersey, while Sir Saint makes you wonder if faces can have badonkadonk.
20. Captain Fear -- This was the one that rose the most after my initial rankings. He gets a few points for having an actual costume instead of the lazy "team jersey" outfit. Points for facial hair, but it's a beaded fu manchu (?) with a soul patch and overgrown eye brows. That said, he's not really well done. I'm sure there are some high schools with a better-looking "pirate" character. He looks like a rough draft of Jack Sparrow that was immediately discarded.
19. Toro -- Toro is the best baseline for comparisons. He really doesn't have much going for him — he's just a bull in a jersey. But the head has a smile and the eyes are welcoming and friendly. Anything ranked higher is just more unique, but anything below him is scary/creepy/has a major flaw. He looks like if the cattle industry had its own mascot.
18. Swoop -- A really generic eagle mascot, but I give credit for minor differences. Eastern Michigan also has a similar-looking eagle mascot named Swoop, but the Philadelphia Eagles gave their Swoop distinguishing feathers along the neck. That puts Swoop a little bit higher. He looks like a DARE mascot for patriotism.
17. Chomps -- I can not decide in the Google Images search if he looks nice or intimidating. I think it comes down to teeth. When the teeth are in, he looks creepy. When they take his teeth out, he looks like fun. Points awarded for not only wearing his team's jersey (lazy) but also wearing his team's helmet, albeit customized for his giant head. He looks like if Mega Man and Rush got combined and color-swapped.
16. Blitz -- Dropped three spots when I realized they replaced this with this. It's a downgrade. The previous version had beefy arms and looked more fun. The new version is just a tad bit more generic, less colorful and more animal-looking. On the scale of NFL mascots, though, it's still pretty good. The colors pop and the wings are neat. Points definitely taken away for his version of Baby Jay, the awful teenager-looking Boom. Blitz looks like the Windows Millennium edition of the mascot. Boom looks like Bird Poochie.
15. Blue -- At first I thought he was a unicorn before I realized it's just a white mane. He's zany/goofy like many good mascots are. He's distinguishably fat. He's also blue, which is fine -- it helps make him unique. A solid middle-of-the-pack mascot. He looks like if one of those oversized carnival toys got a professional makeover.
14. Billy Buffalo -- Short, stubby face is a different look than most animal mascots with snouts. He's got an interesting color. He's got facial hair in the form of a shaggy beard. Boring name, though: The Buffalo Bills have a mascot of Billy the Buffalo. Meh. His eyes are a little scrunched together and the eyebrows are up, which means he constantly looks surprised in a bad way. He looks like he's shocked to find out he's not a blue ogre.
13. Poe -- This is how you make a boring bird (ravens aren't particularly interesting visually) into a decent mascot. Nice, long beak. Cool wings. A version of the team jersey while not actually being the team jersey. Nicely done. Points taken away because the team retired his "brothers," Edgar and Allen. You could have had the only three-mascot team, Baltimore. Points gained for graduating from "The Institute of Poe-etry." He looks like if the Night's Watch had a mascot for befriending Wildling children.
12. T.D. -- This one was helped by the little features. On one hand, he's a pretty generic dolphin. But a dolphin is a unique mascot. He gets points for being a helmet-wearing dolphin, with a dolphin wearing a helmet on his helmet. Maybe it's himself on his own helmet. It's mascot Inception here, folks. They also remembered the dorsal fin (!) and the fact Dolphins don't have fingers -- just fins. It's attention to detail. He looks like Sea World rejected a mascot and asked if the Miami team wanted to throw their jersey on and call it a day.
11. Freddie Falcon -- I feel like they put work into him. He's got detailed tail feathers. He's got both hair and detailed feather work on the face, and it's blended nicely enough you might not notice on first glance. His eyes are big but not intimidating or dopey looking. I was most surprised by him. He looks like if Scooter from the Muppets was turned into a bird.
10. K.C. Wolf -- I bet you most people don't know why the Chiefs have a wolf mascot. I don't, and I'm a Chiefs fan. They used to (Note: USED TO) have a section of fans called the Wolfpack. They don't anymore. That said, he's friendly-looking, fat (a good quality in a mascot), zany, and has googly eyes. He also has a unibrow, for unexplained reasons. What I'm saying is that if you are going to go with a wolf mascot, make him unique. He's memorable, even if his reason for existing isn't. He looks like if the Sheriff of Nottingham had been turned into comic relief.
9. T-Rac -- Points definitely, definitely taken away for being a raccoon. The team's name is the Titans. Why is he a raccoon? Because the state animal of Tennessee is a raccoon. That seems like a social studies lesson instead of sound mascot logic. Although he looks vaguely cat-like, he's got the raccoon eyes and striped tail and just looks like no other mascot out there. He looks like the mascot for an also-ran in the Console Wars.
8. Sir Purr -- I love names that rhyme. Although a little on the generic side, they have little touches that are smart: whiskers and being fat. He also has "Sir" written on the bottom of one paw and "Purr" on the other. Awesome. He gains points for having a decent-looking Baby Jay version called.... Mini Meow. HAHAHAHA... Awesome. He's above K.C. Wolf and T-Rac because he's actually representative of the team name and he has his own unique jersey. He looks like he is as surprised as you are that he's good at this.
7. Staley Da Bear -- On one hand, he's a generic bear. I mean, he has a few nice touches, like the canine teeth jutting out from the bottom. He doesn't look exactly like every other bear out there. He looks cute and tough, which is a rare combo to pull off. But Staley's up this high almost entirely off his name. Staley is named after the team's founder, A.E. Staley, so he's got team history tied in -- a great thing for one of the few teams with a ton of history. And he's also "Da Bear" because of the great SNL skits from the 80s/90s about DAAA Bears. Great name. Average costume. He looks like the bear Teddy Ruxpin wants to be when he grows up.
6. Rowdy -- Of the "white guys with jobs" group (along with the next four on this list), he's the most goofy looking. There's a point where goofy looking crosses from "good" into "a little too much," and Rowdy is straddling the line. But I'm partial to mascots that don't try to do too much and fit with the team name. Points for the bandanna and Texas-sized hat. He looks like a mascot for the Wacky World of Tex Avery.
5. Pat Patriot -- He loses points for having his name be the first syllable of his ... last name (?). He just looks like the logo turned into a mascot, which is a positive. I like his hat and gloves. He loses a few points for the bulbousness of his face, though. He looks like Gaston with a goiter.
4. Sourdough Sam -- He's got an adjective in front of his name that is fascinating and tells a mini-story. They luckily gave him back his beard instead of making him look like a cosplaying version of the next mascot on our list. He's a ginger! He's got a pick! He's wearing overalls! He's got a silly hat! He looks like if Yosemite Sam cleaned up and found Jesus.
3. Viktor -- I didn't know Viktor before this research, but he's one of my favorites already. Start with the name: It's a pun! Then you get into the quality of his costume. The jersey is forgettable, but he's got a Viking helmet (of course) and blonde hair including a Hulk Hogan-style fu manchu and man braids (!) and Wonder Woman gauntlets (!!) and a butt chin (!!!). But the best part is his hammer, which is a football on a stick. He's friendly and fits thematically. I love Viktor. He looks like the Clash of Clans logo guy found his life's calling.
2. Steely McBeam -- Any of the ones above this point could have won on their own. e best of the "white guys with jobs" group, partly because of his name -- he has a first and last name, and it's great. He doesn't wear a jersey and instead wears the clothes of his trade -- checkered shirt, heavy overalls, gloves and a hard hat. It's as if he just got off the job and came down to the game in his spare time. I also like the 5 o'clock shadow and his own personal steel beam. He's excellent. He looks like if a Perfect Man doll had become a real man, Pinocchio-style, and got a job at the steel mill.
1. Jaxson de Ville -- This is how you do a memorable mascot for a team that's not very memorable. You name him after the city he's in, but change it up slightly enough to work as an actual name. His jersey isn't just a regular jersey, it's got shadowed paw prints on it, like his shorts. He's a jaguar, but he's goofy in the good way -- he's fat and has abnormal (but fitting the team) colors. He's got details like the whiskers and spots and even the omnipresent sunglasses. He's goofy and cool and he stands out while fitting with the team. I'd argue he's the best part of the Jacksonville Jaguars. He looks like if Spuds MacKenzie had been a cartoony Jaguar instead.
Summary Judgments
If you're going to accuse the outgoing director of the Office of Government Ethics of grandstanding, you might want to take the two seconds needed to spell his name correctly. Just a suggestion. • • • Game of Thrones is back. I love it. You have no idea how hard it was to not turn this into a Game of Thrones post. • • • I've been running again, but I'm trying to keep it to reasonable distances. I've run a 5K three times this week, but I need to double that in the next 6-7 weeks. So starting tomorrow, I'm bumping it up quickly. That's both fun and also terrifying and also time-consuming. But it feels good to be back in a groove even though it's approximately Burnt Toast degrees outside, even at 6:30 a.m. • • • The kids are doing well. Evie's turned the corner with potty training, and we think she's got it down for No. 1 and No. 2. Roland will get truly started soon, probably this weekend. Last night, Roland decided he wanted to jump over me (we were wrestling/playing on our bed). His idea of jumping over me is to land, knee-first, on my kidneys, then roll over. I feel like he learned this lesson from Evie. Last week, I needed to pick her up, and asked her to jump in my arms. She chose to go knee-first like a cannonball. That's... not all that comfortable, kid.
We're ranking the NFL mascots, based on name, connection to the team/city name and look. It is entirely subjective. Points are awarded for unique items and taken away for being boring or scaring children.
T-32. New York Jets/Green Bay Packers/New York Giants/Washington Redskins — They don't have a mascot. Default loss.
28. Raider Rusher -- The NFL had a short-lived children's show on Nickelodeon that was... all sorts of a mess. At any rate, every team had its own "Rusher" figure. The Raiders, since they didn't have a mascot, decided to just make the Raider Rusher their actual mascot. It's just a Raider helmet with arms and legs. He looks like a Graveler.
27. Boltman -- At least it's not the NFL kids show mascot, but YIKES! I can't imagine any kid wanting to stand near this guy. Give him credit for dental hygiene and eye protection, but he's just creepy. He looks like Jim Carrey's The Mask mated with a Cheesehead.
26. Big Red -- It's just a generic cardinal. It doesn't even have a clever name. Put it in a Jewell jersey, and you'd think he works here on campus (Jewell's mascot is also the cardinals). Points given for remembering tail feathers. He looks like every other "Cardinals" mascot.
25. Who Dey -- This is the question you ask upon seeing this mascot. He's just a generic tiger. There's nothing unique about him, other than the name. He looks like the LSU Tiger's orange cousin or if Timber the Tiger from Diddy Kong Racing grew up.
24. Rampage -- Just a generic ram. You'll forget about him by the time you get to the next one. He looks like a high school mascot in a Rams jersey.
23. Roary -- Just a lion, but he looks like a nice lion. The name is both clever and groan-inducing, like good mascot names should be (MSSU liked it enough to name their lion Roary as well). He looks like a teenage lion that hasn't quite grown into his body yet, but will be a contributing member of society soon.
22. Miles -- I had a hard time placing Miles on this list. Part of that is my dislike of the Broncos. Part of that is I liked their old logo, so anything associated with the redesign has earned my ire. But I think he ranks so low because he just looks mean. He looks like if Bad Horse from Dr. Horrible had been a mascot rather than an actual horse.
21. Sir Saint/Gumbo -- Gumbo is a big, nice-looking, yet forgettable dog. He's got a nice name with the New Orleans tie-in. Sir Saint is frightening -- his head is clearly smaller than his jaw. I fear for that guy. Also, saints are not knighted, so what's with his name? Gumbo looks like the 1990s brand Big Dog wore a jersey, while Sir Saint makes you wonder if faces can have badonkadonk.
20. Captain Fear -- This was the one that rose the most after my initial rankings. He gets a few points for having an actual costume instead of the lazy "team jersey" outfit. Points for facial hair, but it's a beaded fu manchu (?) with a soul patch and overgrown eye brows. That said, he's not really well done. I'm sure there are some high schools with a better-looking "pirate" character. He looks like a rough draft of Jack Sparrow that was immediately discarded.
19. Toro -- Toro is the best baseline for comparisons. He really doesn't have much going for him — he's just a bull in a jersey. But the head has a smile and the eyes are welcoming and friendly. Anything ranked higher is just more unique, but anything below him is scary/creepy/has a major flaw. He looks like if the cattle industry had its own mascot.
18. Swoop -- A really generic eagle mascot, but I give credit for minor differences. Eastern Michigan also has a similar-looking eagle mascot named Swoop, but the Philadelphia Eagles gave their Swoop distinguishing feathers along the neck. That puts Swoop a little bit higher. He looks like a DARE mascot for patriotism.
17. Chomps -- I can not decide in the Google Images search if he looks nice or intimidating. I think it comes down to teeth. When the teeth are in, he looks creepy. When they take his teeth out, he looks like fun. Points awarded for not only wearing his team's jersey (lazy) but also wearing his team's helmet, albeit customized for his giant head. He looks like if Mega Man and Rush got combined and color-swapped.
16. Blitz -- Dropped three spots when I realized they replaced this with this. It's a downgrade. The previous version had beefy arms and looked more fun. The new version is just a tad bit more generic, less colorful and more animal-looking. On the scale of NFL mascots, though, it's still pretty good. The colors pop and the wings are neat. Points definitely taken away for his version of Baby Jay, the awful teenager-looking Boom. Blitz looks like the Windows Millennium edition of the mascot. Boom looks like Bird Poochie.
15. Blue -- At first I thought he was a unicorn before I realized it's just a white mane. He's zany/goofy like many good mascots are. He's distinguishably fat. He's also blue, which is fine -- it helps make him unique. A solid middle-of-the-pack mascot. He looks like if one of those oversized carnival toys got a professional makeover.
14. Billy Buffalo -- Short, stubby face is a different look than most animal mascots with snouts. He's got an interesting color. He's got facial hair in the form of a shaggy beard. Boring name, though: The Buffalo Bills have a mascot of Billy the Buffalo. Meh. His eyes are a little scrunched together and the eyebrows are up, which means he constantly looks surprised in a bad way. He looks like he's shocked to find out he's not a blue ogre.
13. Poe -- This is how you make a boring bird (ravens aren't particularly interesting visually) into a decent mascot. Nice, long beak. Cool wings. A version of the team jersey while not actually being the team jersey. Nicely done. Points taken away because the team retired his "brothers," Edgar and Allen. You could have had the only three-mascot team, Baltimore. Points gained for graduating from "The Institute of Poe-etry." He looks like if the Night's Watch had a mascot for befriending Wildling children.
12. T.D. -- This one was helped by the little features. On one hand, he's a pretty generic dolphin. But a dolphin is a unique mascot. He gets points for being a helmet-wearing dolphin, with a dolphin wearing a helmet on his helmet. Maybe it's himself on his own helmet. It's mascot Inception here, folks. They also remembered the dorsal fin (!) and the fact Dolphins don't have fingers -- just fins. It's attention to detail. He looks like Sea World rejected a mascot and asked if the Miami team wanted to throw their jersey on and call it a day.
11. Freddie Falcon -- I feel like they put work into him. He's got detailed tail feathers. He's got both hair and detailed feather work on the face, and it's blended nicely enough you might not notice on first glance. His eyes are big but not intimidating or dopey looking. I was most surprised by him. He looks like if Scooter from the Muppets was turned into a bird.
10. K.C. Wolf -- I bet you most people don't know why the Chiefs have a wolf mascot. I don't, and I'm a Chiefs fan. They used to (Note: USED TO) have a section of fans called the Wolfpack. They don't anymore. That said, he's friendly-looking, fat (a good quality in a mascot), zany, and has googly eyes. He also has a unibrow, for unexplained reasons. What I'm saying is that if you are going to go with a wolf mascot, make him unique. He's memorable, even if his reason for existing isn't. He looks like if the Sheriff of Nottingham had been turned into comic relief.
9. T-Rac -- Points definitely, definitely taken away for being a raccoon. The team's name is the Titans. Why is he a raccoon? Because the state animal of Tennessee is a raccoon. That seems like a social studies lesson instead of sound mascot logic. Although he looks vaguely cat-like, he's got the raccoon eyes and striped tail and just looks like no other mascot out there. He looks like the mascot for an also-ran in the Console Wars.
8. Sir Purr -- I love names that rhyme. Although a little on the generic side, they have little touches that are smart: whiskers and being fat. He also has "Sir" written on the bottom of one paw and "Purr" on the other. Awesome. He gains points for having a decent-looking Baby Jay version called.... Mini Meow. HAHAHAHA... Awesome. He's above K.C. Wolf and T-Rac because he's actually representative of the team name and he has his own unique jersey. He looks like he is as surprised as you are that he's good at this.
7. Staley Da Bear -- On one hand, he's a generic bear. I mean, he has a few nice touches, like the canine teeth jutting out from the bottom. He doesn't look exactly like every other bear out there. He looks cute and tough, which is a rare combo to pull off. But Staley's up this high almost entirely off his name. Staley is named after the team's founder, A.E. Staley, so he's got team history tied in -- a great thing for one of the few teams with a ton of history. And he's also "Da Bear" because of the great SNL skits from the 80s/90s about DAAA Bears. Great name. Average costume. He looks like the bear Teddy Ruxpin wants to be when he grows up.
6. Rowdy -- Of the "white guys with jobs" group (along with the next four on this list), he's the most goofy looking. There's a point where goofy looking crosses from "good" into "a little too much," and Rowdy is straddling the line. But I'm partial to mascots that don't try to do too much and fit with the team name. Points for the bandanna and Texas-sized hat. He looks like a mascot for the Wacky World of Tex Avery.
5. Pat Patriot -- He loses points for having his name be the first syllable of his ... last name (?). He just looks like the logo turned into a mascot, which is a positive. I like his hat and gloves. He loses a few points for the bulbousness of his face, though. He looks like Gaston with a goiter.
4. Sourdough Sam -- He's got an adjective in front of his name that is fascinating and tells a mini-story. They luckily gave him back his beard instead of making him look like a cosplaying version of the next mascot on our list. He's a ginger! He's got a pick! He's wearing overalls! He's got a silly hat! He looks like if Yosemite Sam cleaned up and found Jesus.
3. Viktor -- I didn't know Viktor before this research, but he's one of my favorites already. Start with the name: It's a pun! Then you get into the quality of his costume. The jersey is forgettable, but he's got a Viking helmet (of course) and blonde hair including a Hulk Hogan-style fu manchu and man braids (!) and Wonder Woman gauntlets (!!) and a butt chin (!!!). But the best part is his hammer, which is a football on a stick. He's friendly and fits thematically. I love Viktor. He looks like the Clash of Clans logo guy found his life's calling.
2. Steely McBeam -- Any of the ones above this point could have won on their own. e best of the "white guys with jobs" group, partly because of his name -- he has a first and last name, and it's great. He doesn't wear a jersey and instead wears the clothes of his trade -- checkered shirt, heavy overalls, gloves and a hard hat. It's as if he just got off the job and came down to the game in his spare time. I also like the 5 o'clock shadow and his own personal steel beam. He's excellent. He looks like if a Perfect Man doll had become a real man, Pinocchio-style, and got a job at the steel mill.
1. Jaxson de Ville -- This is how you do a memorable mascot for a team that's not very memorable. You name him after the city he's in, but change it up slightly enough to work as an actual name. His jersey isn't just a regular jersey, it's got shadowed paw prints on it, like his shorts. He's a jaguar, but he's goofy in the good way -- he's fat and has abnormal (but fitting the team) colors. He's got details like the whiskers and spots and even the omnipresent sunglasses. He's goofy and cool and he stands out while fitting with the team. I'd argue he's the best part of the Jacksonville Jaguars. He looks like if Spuds MacKenzie had been a cartoony Jaguar instead.
Summary Judgments
If you're going to accuse the outgoing director of the Office of Government Ethics of grandstanding, you might want to take the two seconds needed to spell his name correctly. Just a suggestion. • • • Game of Thrones is back. I love it. You have no idea how hard it was to not turn this into a Game of Thrones post. • • • I've been running again, but I'm trying to keep it to reasonable distances. I've run a 5K three times this week, but I need to double that in the next 6-7 weeks. So starting tomorrow, I'm bumping it up quickly. That's both fun and also terrifying and also time-consuming. But it feels good to be back in a groove even though it's approximately Burnt Toast degrees outside, even at 6:30 a.m. • • • The kids are doing well. Evie's turned the corner with potty training, and we think she's got it down for No. 1 and No. 2. Roland will get truly started soon, probably this weekend. Last night, Roland decided he wanted to jump over me (we were wrestling/playing on our bed). His idea of jumping over me is to land, knee-first, on my kidneys, then roll over. I feel like he learned this lesson from Evie. Last week, I needed to pick her up, and asked her to jump in my arms. She chose to go knee-first like a cannonball. That's... not all that comfortable, kid.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
The Smoke Is Gun-Adjacent
There's been a lot of smoke regarding the Trump campaign and Russia. This weekend, a print newspaper — but not the Washington Post, surprisingly — found news on Donald Trump Jr. At first glance, I didn't get all that excited about the story. But the story has gained traction and then some after Trump Jr. tweeted (naturally).
So what happened?
Two days after his dad clinched the Republican nomination, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort met with a Russian lawyer named Natalia LONGLASTNAME. Trump Jr. was told before the meeting that this is "obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Further, he was told the information would "incriminate" Hillary. Trump Jr.'s response was "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." In short: He believed this was a meeting with a Russian government source to get dirt on his father's political opponent.
What has the New York Times actually reported and how has Trump Jr. responded?
Day 1) Kushner and Manafort disclosed on federal forms a meeting with this Russian lawyer, Natalia LONGLASTNAME, at the request/because of Trump Jr. Trump Jr. said that they had only talked about adoptions (see a few questions down about the Magnitsky Act).
Day 2) The Times reported that while they may have ended up talking about adoptions, the original purpose of the meeting was to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian contact. Trump Jr. responded with a quote that was something like "well, dirt on Hillary was the point, but this Russian lawyer didn't have anything, so we just talked about adoptions." This is Trump Jr.'s second version of the story.
Day 3) The New York Times was preparing to release the actual contents of the email when Trump Jr.'s team asked for more time to respond. During that waiting period, Trump Jr. tweeted out the email chain, which is... damaging. Trump Jr. claims his "transparency" shows he did nothing wrong.
Why is it damaging?
Trump Jr. was directly informed and involved in a conversation about what he thought was the Russian government's support of his father's campaign. He wanted the information and wanted to use it to hurt his father's political opponent. The email chain also shows he was told that Natalia LONGLASTNAME was a "Russian government lawyer", whether that was true or not. He sought material provided by a foreign government to hurt his political rival. That's... pretty much conspiracy to collude.
Did he collude?
There's a decent legal case that actual collusion didn't happen. (Conspiracy to collude isn't an actual crime, but may run afoul of other crimes).
What do you mean? Didn't this Russian lawyer have any dirt on Clinton?
Probably not. We don't know exactly what happened in the meeting, but the explanation from both Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer herself was that she talked mostly about the Magnitsky Act and kind of touched on some negative info to the DNC. She told NBC News that she had some potentially damaging information related to the DNC: a business that she claimed hadn't paid taxes in either Russia or the U.S. and had possibly donated to the DNC. When she didn't have any documentation to back it up, Trump Jr. moved on. So actual collusion probably didn't happen, but Trump Jr. seemed open to collude at the very least.
RELATED SIDEBAR: The Magnitsky Act has been mentioned a few times. What's the Magnitsky Act and why does it matter?
Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who investigated/revealed fraud by Russian tax officials in 2009. It was a big scandal, so of course Magnitsky was the one arrested and taken to Russian prison. He spent a year there, getting sicker and sicker (gall stones, pancreatitis, etc.: all very treatable, but painful) to the point of human rights violations. Eventually he was taken to a hospitable, where he died after being beaten to death by a Russian secret police officer.
In response, the U.S. under the Obama administration passed a law banning about four dozen Russian human rights violators from banking in the U.S. or visiting the country. Putin was upset about this law, and has basically shut down American adoptions of Russian children, banned some U.S. officials in retaliation and posthumously found Magnitsky guilty of various crimes.
It's important because it was one of the sanctions/sources of tension between Russia and the U.S. under Obama. The Magnitsky Act has led to some other Russian tension/U.S. prosecution as some of the Russian human rights violators sought to hide their American-based assets to avoid the Act.
Back to the recent news: Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia LONGLASTNAME talked about the Magnitsky Act... so what?
First of all, the Russian lawyer Trump Jr. et al met with is basically the world's foremost anti-Magnitsky Act person. She's fought it on every level both in her country and others, including helping to make a documentary last year "revealing" that Magnitsky was guilty and evil and mean and presumably hates puppies that she gave to one of the Russian TV stations that serve as Putin outlets. Basically, she's been the tip of the sword on fighting the Magnitsky Act.
So she's working for the Russian government?
Maybe? That's hard to say. She denies being directly linked to the Kremlin, but she's got some links to high-ranking Russian oligarchs. U.S. intelligence has long said the Russian government likes to use people who aren't directly working for it (outside lawyers, journalists, etc.) as advocates so the Kremlin has deniability in cases like this and so the advocate appears more credible. Some have directly called her a Russian agent in the past, though. You could make a plausible case either way, honestly. But here's what's important: the guy who set up the meeting sent Trump Jr. an email beforehand that said she had damaging information about the DNC and that it came from the Russian government to help his father's campaign. He further described her as a "Russian government lawyer."
So Donald Trump Jr. was told he was getting damaging information from a Russian government source to help damage his father's political opponent?
Yes.
Did he?
Probably/maybe not, although about a month later, 1) references to supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression were removed from the GOP platform at the Trump campaign's request and 2) a few days later, WikiLeaks reveals the DNC emails, which U.S. intelligence says came from Russian sources with the intent to damage the Clinton campaign and 3) Trump Jr. was on CNN denying a Hillary Clinton accusation that the Trump campaign was being boosted by the Russians. Maybe those things were not connected to this meeting. Maybe they were a result of the Russians finding fertile soil with the Trump campaign based on their receptiveness to this meeting. We don't have enough details right now.
What should we make of all this?
Well, first of all, I don't think this is THE MEETING in capital letters in which collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia took place. However, there was an intent/willingness on the part of Trump Jr. (and Manafort and Kushner, to a lesser degree) to work with a foreign power to gather information that could damage their political opponent. Everything after the parenthetical in that sentence is kind of the definition of collusion. So while this meeting probably/maybe wasn't collusion itself, it showed that the Trump campaign had the intent to collude. Further, these are probably the three highest ranking folks of the campaign at the time -- Trump can't logically claim they weren't acting on his behalf, and he can't disown his son or son-in-law. He's already issued a statement supporting his son. But you know it's bad when even Fox News has it plastered all over their website with seemingly little defense... but two days later, they seem to be spinning this into pointing the finger at the Obama administration.
What's been the reaction?
This should be the end of Donald Trump Jr. Hell, it should be the beginning of the end for Donald Trump. It should be more important than it seems to be already. I've heard some token anger from Democrats, but this should be a full-throated yell. People on Facebook seem upset, but not active/engaged/involved like they were for travel ban/Obamacare repeal/other things. I guess everyone is waiting for Mueller to tell us this is bad, illegal and awful. It appears few people have the conviction and courage to know what is right and wrong until we have a respected third party tell us. So we'll all wait a few years to find out that this is wrong and have outrage then, I guess.
Wrap it up with a metaphor or hypothetical so we can get on with our day.
Tim was told he could have sex with a minor if he showed up to a certain meeting. Tim expressed joy about the meeting despite being warned of its danger. When Tim got to the meeting, there was no child and he left disappointed. Did Tim directly commit an illegal act? No. But he certainly planned to, which is just as bad. But everyone is waiting for Tim to actually be charged before we decide if he's bad or not.
Summary Judgments
In two years, Republican opinions about colleges and universities have dramatically changed. As of 2015, GOP poll respondents supported colleges and universities by about a 55-36 margin. The 2017 version of the same poll found those numbers have switched: 36 percent of GOP poll respondents support colleges and universities, and 55 percent believe they have a negative impact on society. Poll results don't show why things change, just that they have. This is a change that needs to be closely watched and analyzed. • • • It's hard to get the Internet in rural places. Soon, Microsoft may be able to send the Internet to rural places using unused TV channels. It's pretty cool, but it could mean that after a set-up fee ($1,000 now, $200 in coming years), you could pay about the same as a cable bill for Internet in places you can't get cable Internet. Cool innovation, Microsoft. • • • That picture of Amelia Earhart supposedly on a Japanese island is... not what it was cracked up to be. It was disproven in about 30 minutes by a Japanese military blogger. The picture is not from 1939 (after her disappearance in 1937), but probably from late 1920s/early 1930s. In fact, the photo was published in a book in 1935. So... yeah. She almost certainly died on a desert island. • • • I ended up taking the week off of running after last week's 4 on the Fourth. I ran once on Tuesday, but only 2 miles because it was super hot. I'll run one more time this week, probably up to 3 miles. I'm going to slowly up the number of miles between now and Sept. 10, because I have two months to learn to run an extra two miles. Basically I have a lot of training to do, and I spent the first week being lazy. Good luck, me. • • • Evie had a rough first few days of the week, with accidents and lots of discipline at day care. Wednesday, we had a little discussion, and at the end of it, she told me, unprompted, that she loved me. She's not as affectionate as Roland, and doesn't say those words often. So that warmed my heart instantly and has filled my heart for the rest of the week.
So what happened?
Two days after his dad clinched the Republican nomination, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort met with a Russian lawyer named Natalia LONGLASTNAME. Trump Jr. was told before the meeting that this is "obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Further, he was told the information would "incriminate" Hillary. Trump Jr.'s response was "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." In short: He believed this was a meeting with a Russian government source to get dirt on his father's political opponent.
What has the New York Times actually reported and how has Trump Jr. responded?
Day 1) Kushner and Manafort disclosed on federal forms a meeting with this Russian lawyer, Natalia LONGLASTNAME, at the request/because of Trump Jr. Trump Jr. said that they had only talked about adoptions (see a few questions down about the Magnitsky Act).
Day 2) The Times reported that while they may have ended up talking about adoptions, the original purpose of the meeting was to get some dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian contact. Trump Jr. responded with a quote that was something like "well, dirt on Hillary was the point, but this Russian lawyer didn't have anything, so we just talked about adoptions." This is Trump Jr.'s second version of the story.
Day 3) The New York Times was preparing to release the actual contents of the email when Trump Jr.'s team asked for more time to respond. During that waiting period, Trump Jr. tweeted out the email chain, which is... damaging. Trump Jr. claims his "transparency" shows he did nothing wrong.
Why is it damaging?
Trump Jr. was directly informed and involved in a conversation about what he thought was the Russian government's support of his father's campaign. He wanted the information and wanted to use it to hurt his father's political opponent. The email chain also shows he was told that Natalia LONGLASTNAME was a "Russian government lawyer", whether that was true or not. He sought material provided by a foreign government to hurt his political rival. That's... pretty much conspiracy to collude.
Did he collude?
There's a decent legal case that actual collusion didn't happen. (Conspiracy to collude isn't an actual crime, but may run afoul of other crimes).
What do you mean? Didn't this Russian lawyer have any dirt on Clinton?
Probably not. We don't know exactly what happened in the meeting, but the explanation from both Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer herself was that she talked mostly about the Magnitsky Act and kind of touched on some negative info to the DNC. She told NBC News that she had some potentially damaging information related to the DNC: a business that she claimed hadn't paid taxes in either Russia or the U.S. and had possibly donated to the DNC. When she didn't have any documentation to back it up, Trump Jr. moved on. So actual collusion probably didn't happen, but Trump Jr. seemed open to collude at the very least.
RELATED SIDEBAR: The Magnitsky Act has been mentioned a few times. What's the Magnitsky Act and why does it matter?
Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who investigated/revealed fraud by Russian tax officials in 2009. It was a big scandal, so of course Magnitsky was the one arrested and taken to Russian prison. He spent a year there, getting sicker and sicker (gall stones, pancreatitis, etc.: all very treatable, but painful) to the point of human rights violations. Eventually he was taken to a hospitable, where he died after being beaten to death by a Russian secret police officer.
In response, the U.S. under the Obama administration passed a law banning about four dozen Russian human rights violators from banking in the U.S. or visiting the country. Putin was upset about this law, and has basically shut down American adoptions of Russian children, banned some U.S. officials in retaliation and posthumously found Magnitsky guilty of various crimes.
It's important because it was one of the sanctions/sources of tension between Russia and the U.S. under Obama. The Magnitsky Act has led to some other Russian tension/U.S. prosecution as some of the Russian human rights violators sought to hide their American-based assets to avoid the Act.
Back to the recent news: Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia LONGLASTNAME talked about the Magnitsky Act... so what?
First of all, the Russian lawyer Trump Jr. et al met with is basically the world's foremost anti-Magnitsky Act person. She's fought it on every level both in her country and others, including helping to make a documentary last year "revealing" that Magnitsky was guilty and evil and mean and presumably hates puppies that she gave to one of the Russian TV stations that serve as Putin outlets. Basically, she's been the tip of the sword on fighting the Magnitsky Act.
So she's working for the Russian government?
Maybe? That's hard to say. She denies being directly linked to the Kremlin, but she's got some links to high-ranking Russian oligarchs. U.S. intelligence has long said the Russian government likes to use people who aren't directly working for it (outside lawyers, journalists, etc.) as advocates so the Kremlin has deniability in cases like this and so the advocate appears more credible. Some have directly called her a Russian agent in the past, though. You could make a plausible case either way, honestly. But here's what's important: the guy who set up the meeting sent Trump Jr. an email beforehand that said she had damaging information about the DNC and that it came from the Russian government to help his father's campaign. He further described her as a "Russian government lawyer."
So Donald Trump Jr. was told he was getting damaging information from a Russian government source to help damage his father's political opponent?
Yes.
Did he?
Probably/maybe not, although about a month later, 1) references to supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression were removed from the GOP platform at the Trump campaign's request and 2) a few days later, WikiLeaks reveals the DNC emails, which U.S. intelligence says came from Russian sources with the intent to damage the Clinton campaign and 3) Trump Jr. was on CNN denying a Hillary Clinton accusation that the Trump campaign was being boosted by the Russians. Maybe those things were not connected to this meeting. Maybe they were a result of the Russians finding fertile soil with the Trump campaign based on their receptiveness to this meeting. We don't have enough details right now.
What should we make of all this?
Well, first of all, I don't think this is THE MEETING in capital letters in which collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia took place. However, there was an intent/willingness on the part of Trump Jr. (and Manafort and Kushner, to a lesser degree) to work with a foreign power to gather information that could damage their political opponent. Everything after the parenthetical in that sentence is kind of the definition of collusion. So while this meeting probably/maybe wasn't collusion itself, it showed that the Trump campaign had the intent to collude. Further, these are probably the three highest ranking folks of the campaign at the time -- Trump can't logically claim they weren't acting on his behalf, and he can't disown his son or son-in-law. He's already issued a statement supporting his son. But you know it's bad when even Fox News has it plastered all over their website with seemingly little defense... but two days later, they seem to be spinning this into pointing the finger at the Obama administration.
What's been the reaction?
This should be the end of Donald Trump Jr. Hell, it should be the beginning of the end for Donald Trump. It should be more important than it seems to be already. I've heard some token anger from Democrats, but this should be a full-throated yell. People on Facebook seem upset, but not active/engaged/involved like they were for travel ban/Obamacare repeal/other things. I guess everyone is waiting for Mueller to tell us this is bad, illegal and awful. It appears few people have the conviction and courage to know what is right and wrong until we have a respected third party tell us. So we'll all wait a few years to find out that this is wrong and have outrage then, I guess.
Wrap it up with a metaphor or hypothetical so we can get on with our day.
Tim was told he could have sex with a minor if he showed up to a certain meeting. Tim expressed joy about the meeting despite being warned of its danger. When Tim got to the meeting, there was no child and he left disappointed. Did Tim directly commit an illegal act? No. But he certainly planned to, which is just as bad. But everyone is waiting for Tim to actually be charged before we decide if he's bad or not.
Summary Judgments
In two years, Republican opinions about colleges and universities have dramatically changed. As of 2015, GOP poll respondents supported colleges and universities by about a 55-36 margin. The 2017 version of the same poll found those numbers have switched: 36 percent of GOP poll respondents support colleges and universities, and 55 percent believe they have a negative impact on society. Poll results don't show why things change, just that they have. This is a change that needs to be closely watched and analyzed. • • • It's hard to get the Internet in rural places. Soon, Microsoft may be able to send the Internet to rural places using unused TV channels. It's pretty cool, but it could mean that after a set-up fee ($1,000 now, $200 in coming years), you could pay about the same as a cable bill for Internet in places you can't get cable Internet. Cool innovation, Microsoft. • • • That picture of Amelia Earhart supposedly on a Japanese island is... not what it was cracked up to be. It was disproven in about 30 minutes by a Japanese military blogger. The picture is not from 1939 (after her disappearance in 1937), but probably from late 1920s/early 1930s. In fact, the photo was published in a book in 1935. So... yeah. She almost certainly died on a desert island. • • • I ended up taking the week off of running after last week's 4 on the Fourth. I ran once on Tuesday, but only 2 miles because it was super hot. I'll run one more time this week, probably up to 3 miles. I'm going to slowly up the number of miles between now and Sept. 10, because I have two months to learn to run an extra two miles. Basically I have a lot of training to do, and I spent the first week being lazy. Good luck, me. • • • Evie had a rough first few days of the week, with accidents and lots of discipline at day care. Wednesday, we had a little discussion, and at the end of it, she told me, unprompted, that she loved me. She's not as affectionate as Roland, and doesn't say those words often. So that warmed my heart instantly and has filled my heart for the rest of the week.
Friday, July 7, 2017
Civility War
Editor's note: Short entry this week because of the holiday week and other reasons. But I wanted to post a little bit to keep on regular posting schedule.
Last week, I mentioned Sen. James Lankford's beautiful words on the call for more civility in politics. I thought it was striking and heartfelt. I came across his piece for The Atlantic on the issue, and Facebook gave me the following two comments on his article: "Fight terrorism: Ban the Democratic party!" and "Hollow words from a hollow politician." SIGH. Democrats are not terrorists, and it's repugnant to say so. Sen. Lankford is not a hollow politician — I have met many, and he is not one from what I've read.
Perhaps it's not the loss of civility and respect that have caused this rift in our politics. Perhaps it's something different. I think the issue is a loss of empathy. In politics, like any debate, it's important to empathize with those of a different viewpoint even if you don't agree with them. I'm not a West Virginia coal miner or a person of color from an inner-city neighborhood. But their struggles are equally important and each deserve empathy. It's easy to write off people you don't understand as being misguided or wrong or evil-intentioned or not knowing what's best for them. It's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes. But that's important and necessary to a functioning democracy, even if it's hard.
"Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions." -- George W. Bush, 2016
Summary Judgments
This was a really inside journalism-type story, but I found this to be one of the better breakdowns of the CNN kerfuffle this week. I don't think they had any ill intent, but mistakes by upper-level (read: not the reporter) ended up making them the story rather than the story they were trying to tell. CNN has been losing my attention because they seem more interested in narrative telling (not on the scale of Fox News, mind you) than good reporting and journalism choice. I've been moving more toward the Washington Post and NBC News. • • • I ran the Four on the Fourth on Tuesday, and I did walk a little bit. The first time was at the end of a 1.5-mile slightly uphill section. The second time was up a steep hill about a half-block roughly 1/2 mile from the end. I think the second walk gave me enough energy to run the remainder of the race and have a bit of a kick at the finish. I finished in 44 minutes or so, but the time was not recorded by the timer -- BOO! Also, it was in the pouring rain, so that might have had an impact. • • • Evie has been really cuddly with me lately. Like, I'm the only one that can calm her down and she wants me to take her to day care, etc. I love it. Either she's got me wrapped around her finger, or she's just being sweet. Right now, I'm OK with either.
Last week, I mentioned Sen. James Lankford's beautiful words on the call for more civility in politics. I thought it was striking and heartfelt. I came across his piece for The Atlantic on the issue, and Facebook gave me the following two comments on his article: "Fight terrorism: Ban the Democratic party!" and "Hollow words from a hollow politician." SIGH. Democrats are not terrorists, and it's repugnant to say so. Sen. Lankford is not a hollow politician — I have met many, and he is not one from what I've read.
Perhaps it's not the loss of civility and respect that have caused this rift in our politics. Perhaps it's something different. I think the issue is a loss of empathy. In politics, like any debate, it's important to empathize with those of a different viewpoint even if you don't agree with them. I'm not a West Virginia coal miner or a person of color from an inner-city neighborhood. But their struggles are equally important and each deserve empathy. It's easy to write off people you don't understand as being misguided or wrong or evil-intentioned or not knowing what's best for them. It's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes. But that's important and necessary to a functioning democracy, even if it's hard.
"Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions." -- George W. Bush, 2016
Summary Judgments
This was a really inside journalism-type story, but I found this to be one of the better breakdowns of the CNN kerfuffle this week. I don't think they had any ill intent, but mistakes by upper-level (read: not the reporter) ended up making them the story rather than the story they were trying to tell. CNN has been losing my attention because they seem more interested in narrative telling (not on the scale of Fox News, mind you) than good reporting and journalism choice. I've been moving more toward the Washington Post and NBC News. • • • I ran the Four on the Fourth on Tuesday, and I did walk a little bit. The first time was at the end of a 1.5-mile slightly uphill section. The second time was up a steep hill about a half-block roughly 1/2 mile from the end. I think the second walk gave me enough energy to run the remainder of the race and have a bit of a kick at the finish. I finished in 44 minutes or so, but the time was not recorded by the timer -- BOO! Also, it was in the pouring rain, so that might have had an impact. • • • Evie has been really cuddly with me lately. Like, I'm the only one that can calm her down and she wants me to take her to day care, etc. I love it. Either she's got me wrapped around her finger, or she's just being sweet. Right now, I'm OK with either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)