Sorry I haven't written in a while. It's not that I haven't had thoughts about political events, but rather that I'm not sure what I'm adding to the discourse. Nothing I have written (and left unpublished) jumped out to me as something the world needed. I didn't know why I was writing beyond the desire to hear my own thoughts shouted into the ether.
Recently, Jewell hosted a good author, Tom Nichols, who wrote "The Death of Expertise." It was a fantastic lecture, and I encourage everyone to read his book. But one thing he said stuck out to me: Everyone needs an editor. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Unless I had an editor reining in my worst tendencies, this blog will cease to have reason, purpose and cohesion. So although it is, in itself, a tightrope, I'm trying to step back a bit and be my own editor, perilous as that may be. If I'm going to write something, it better be worth reading.
Thoughts on Justice Kavanaugh
I've written this portion probably a half-dozen times in the last two months. Yet while the event has passed, it is worth re-examining in the light of it now being a news cycle firmly rooted in the past.
Imagine a world in which Dr. Ford had been belligerent with questioners, agitated at the process, openly arguing partisan politics and refusing an FBI investigation. I have no doubt she would have been seen as overly emotional and her story would have been dismissed. Imagine Judge Kavanaugh had been the one who was calm, deliberate and open to an FBI investigation. I have no doubt he would have been seen as having the temperament for the highest court. And yet... he was approved anyway. His temperament and testimony and her temperament and testimony had little impact on the outcome.
For a while, I chalked this up to gender politics. The hearing was the first time I truly understood how deep the climb is for women in politics. An educated woman gave a powerful testimony about an event that happened to her. She said she was 100 percent confident. It was fine, even though it was decidedly the opposite of that. She sat in front of a committee that has never (!) had a female Republican among its ranks. Its Republican members were so worried about the optics of 11 male senators asking questions of a female victim that they brought in a special female prosecutor to ask her questions. This showed that the GOP committee members understood Dr. Ford's claims were serious, but did not trust themselves enough to show it. A hearing turned into a trial with the appearance of a prosecutor. Then, when Judge Kavanaugh arrived, they trusted themselves again. Along with Kavanaugh himself, they blasted partisan acts and pounded the metaphoric table. They turned a trial back into a hearing.
The most common refrain from the right is not over whether Ford was assaulted — that seems to be largely conceded. The argument was that yes, we believe she was assaulted, but we don't believe it was Kavanaugh. Which is a tremendous misinterpretation of her testimony. It says Dr. Ford was believable enough that she was assaulted, yet her statement that she was 100 percent sure that it was Kavanaugh was the bridge too far. And because we don't know for sure, we can do only one thing: grant Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. Her pain is secondary to his rise to greater power.
We've already lost the woman whose claims are at the basis of the hearing. Dr. Ford is now a footnote to history, only to surface again when the next confirmation sexual assault case happens, much like Anita Hill before her.
It didn't have to be this way. Judge Kavanaugh did not have to be nominated. Amy Coney Barrett is a conservative female judge in the mold of Neil Gorsuch (and female). Heck, Gorsuch was opposed on partisan grounds, yes, but not because of his sexual assault past. Raymond Kethledge is as conservative as Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. We could have had an in-depth FBI investigation if the facts were truly important. And yet we didn't.
A long time ago, I read Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine." It was a look at the nine members of the Supreme Court as of that writing. Nearly half the court has turned over, but one thought from the book has stuck out to me ever since: If the GOP couldn't change the results of the Supreme Court, they could change the courts. That's what we're seeing with judicial appointments on the federal, state and local level. The GOP was in win-at-all-costs mode to make this happen. Be careful what you buy at the cost of your souls.
Emotions on Writing
For the last year and a half, I've been working on our church's 175th anniversary book. I say "I," but it's really been a team of about a half-dozen people. The book comes out in 10 days; it's done and at the printer, as far as I know. And... I thought I'd be happier. That's a weird thing to write or admit to myself, but it's true.
In the last year, I've written more than 90 pages of church history, combining two different eras of books (the 125th book and the 150th book, both written by college professors) into a thematic narrative rather than a chronological one. I've researched and delved into rabbit holes and dug deep into corners of church history that have fascinated and excited me. I've been exceedingly proud of the work I cheerily and willingly put into this project for free. Luckily, I am not the only person working on this project, because I am a newbie to our church. I've only been at this church for about 2-3 years. The team's input has been amazing and added depth and recent history that I could not possibly know or find. I know that what they had put in has made the book better.
Yet when I consider the most recent copy I had in my hands, I was frustrated. And I've had a hard time figuring out why. Maybe I'm mourning the loss of control of the copy. "My" writing became less recognizable by the end of the editing process. That ego-driven part is one that I am constantly having to put in check. But I think the bigger factor is that I can see all the decisions along the way. I can see the arguments over style, the chapters that have been worked and reworked, the editing and the rewrites. I can see only the struggle and the emotions from every step in the process and the scars and warts in the end copy. No one else knows those fights. The audience won't see it. They won't know. But I do. And that's hard to deal with.
Senate/House/Local Races
I'm convinced that the House is going to flip to the Democrats. I'll be shocked if it doesn't. That's a blue wave, mostly thanks to the suburbs. I'm also convinced the Senate won't flip. I think Arizona and North Dakota's flipped seats will cancel each other out. I also think 1-2 of these states will flip to the GOP: Florida, Missouri (my bet) or Indiana. Nevada miiiiight switch to the Democrats, but I don't think so right now. My gut is the GOP gains a seat or two, which isn't a terrible outcome for either side, considering. (LATE UPDATE: I think Nevada will flip, but I think Missouri will flip too. My ultimate call for Senate is 51-49, just as it is now.)
As for local races, Missouri's so gerrymandered that it's not interesting outside of the Senate race. Josh Hawley, I think, will win by 1-2 percent over incumbent Claire McCaskill. I wouldn't be surprised if the medical marijuana bill passes, the minimum wage passes and the political finance reform passes.
The more interesting races are in Kansas. We will see if being a Republican in Kansas is enough to carry them to a victory. I think Sharice Davids beats incumbent Kevin Yoder in Kansas House District 3. Ads against her have only made her look awesome (definitely winning a UFC-type fight), and that already was a district that voted against Trump in the last election. I also think Paul Davis is the favorite for Kansas House District 2. He beat Brownback in that district when he ran for governor. Watkins has not been a particularly inspiring candidate. I have met Paul Davis in my old office and found him to be smart and thoughtful, though I warned him that losing to Brownback would be a bigger loss than he understood. Losing to Watkins would be less damaging to the state, but it would show that a smart, moderate Democrat can't win in Kansas even in a pro-Democrat environment.
I hope that Laura Kelly can win the governorship over Kris Kobach. She is endorsed by all former governors but Brownback, including all the other GOP governors. If she can't win, then no Democrat will ever win in Kansas again, and the GOP can get away with murder in that state.
Summary Judgments
Elizabeth Warren revealed the results of a DNA test "showing" she is, actually part Native American. I understand why she did it, although I think it was a mistake to do so. She played Donald Trump's game. Anyone who is going to beat him in 2020 will not play his game. She was my odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but this was a case of winning the battle but losing the war. I now think she's not the favorite. Biden and Kamala Harris are probably the leading contenders at this juncture. • • • I have done something silly. I signed up for a half marathon. The Liberty Half Marathon, on March 2, 2019, has a route that goes from William Jewell through downtown Liberty, around Liberty Hospital, up near the kids' future elementary school, down through the local park, up the street next to ours and then back to downtown and Jewell. I'm already training, and I'm up to a 7-mile run. This is the longest I've ever run, and the half marathon will be the longest I've ever run. • • • Roland was Owlette and Evie was Pinkie Pie for Halloween. Roland has already told Alyson about his plans for next year's Halloween costume. normally, I wouldn't expect that to hold up, but he decided on Owlette in like, April. So if he's the Greatest Showman next year, he called it already.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Friday, August 31, 2018
Monday, July 30, 2018
Rudy Giuliani is Full of Crap
Remember when Kellyanne Conway became so ridiculously full of obvious lies (See: alternative facts) that news media stopped putting her on the air? It's about time they did the same with once-respectable Rudy Giuliani. He's deliberately obtuse about the Mueller investigation.
To be fair, that's his job. His client is in hot water, and Giuliani is trying to play to the jury. In this case, the jury is the American public, who are able to affect their respective elected representatives and senators one way or another. Giuliani doesn't have to win in an actual courtroom — he has to win in Congress.
But looking at what he's saying with any critical eye at all is... weird at the least and likely troubling. For instance, he's gone after Michael Cohen in recent days. "I don't see how you can believe Michael Cohen" and calling Cohen a "pathological liar." This came after it was revealed that Cohen had (at least... don't forget that's a minimum number right now) 12 tapes of he and President Trump. Then one of those tapes was leaked to CNN.
What I wish a smart journalist would do is ask Giuliani when Cohen became a pathological liar. Because as of May, Giuliani was calling Cohen an "honest, honorable lawyer." As of Saturday, Giuliani told the same source that he didn't know Cohen that well when he made that first statement. Guess what that makes you, Mr. Giuliani? A liar. Anyway, the obvious answer to anyone paying attention is that Giuliani changed his mind when Cohen had evidence and/or turned on President Trump.
Then we had the most recent forehead-slapping defense by Giuliani: "Four months, they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians. You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime... the President didn't hack." Let's take that quote apart, Fire Joe Morgan style:
Four months...
He's talking about how long Paul Manafort was campaign manager for President Trump, implying that it wasn't enough time to collude with Russia. There's no way that Manafort had time to hear about and attend a meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton in the office/building that Trump owned and lived in. Four months is so short! It's not like he was campaign manager during the Republican National Convention, Trump saying that Russia should hack Hillary Clinton's emails and the start of Russian hacking attempts on the DNC.
...they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians.
First of all, that's a pretty definitive first statement about a hypothetical Trump campaign. I wish we had a real-world Trump campaign that we could compare it to...
Second, you don't know if it's a crime? You're a former prosecutor of the mafia in New York. At the very least, you're the main public lawyer for the President of the United States, who is under investigation for.... collusion. Either you're being obtuse or you're a bad lawyer.
Third, collusion itself is not explicitly a crime. No one has claimed it is. The word you're looking for is "conspiracy." That IS a crime. Further, the issue isn't really whether he's guilty of the theoretical crime of collusion. If it's proved that the President's campaign knowingly worked with Russians to hack political opponents and release their information at damaging times to his political opponents, then that's a) conspiracy and b) cause for immediate impeachment for subverting our democracy with the aid of a foreign rival. Impeachment is not criminal action, it's "you've embarrassed our country so much you don't get to keep your job."
You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime... the President didn't hack.
No s*** he didn't hack. I would pay $100 to see the President try to attempt two lines of code. I would pay $50 to see President Trump attempt to connect to a password-protected wifi. Hell, I would pay $250 to watch him try to create an Excel spreadsheet.
But apply Giuliani's argument to Watergate: You start analyzing the crime — the breaking into a rival political party's office is the crime... the President didn't break into the opposing party's office. I guess we got Watergate all wrong! Case solved, Det. Giuliani!
Elections Update
I'm going to do quick updates on my view of the Senate, the House, and the current Electoral College outlook.
Electoral College
Wisconsin and Michigan hate Trump now, by double digits in recent polling. If you consider them blue (I believe midterm elections will back me up), then there are four states that will be true battlegrounds: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. If [insert Democratic nominee] can flip any one of those four, in addition to Wisconsin and Michigan, then they will win the Presidency. That's not crazy to think of in Pennsylvania, Florida or North Carolina. One last kink in the works: Arizona went less for Trump than it did for Romney. It was only a 4 percent difference, and Trump did not break the 50 percent mark and had not announced policies targeting Hispanics. Arizona is a likely Senate seat to flip, and not by a slim margin. If Arizona flips and none of the aforementioned battleground states flip, then we have... a tie! 269-269 electoral votes (provided MI and WI flip, and if no other votes like those in Maine or Nebraska change)! That would send the election to the House of Representatives. Wow. Still way too early, but the MI/WI changes are significant.
Senate
I still have this as either staying as it is (51-49, Republicans) or maybe the Democrats picking up just one seat to make it 50-50, with VP Pence as the tiebreaker. I've got McCaskill holding on in Missouri, AZ/NV/TN flipping to Democrats (normally a good sign in a nearly impossible map, which I've talked about a lot) and Dems keeping their seats in WV, OH and the rest of the Rust Belt. However, I also see Florida, Indiana and North Dakota as real problems for Democrat incumbents. Best-case scenario for the GOP: 54-46 lead in the Senate. Best-case scenario for the Democrats: 52-48 lead in Senate. My guess: 51-49 GOP retains. In short, I agree with this guy. Also, quick note on the 2020 map: Unless Democrats become real popular or the GOP tanks, it looks like really only two clear opportunities for Dems to flip seats: CO and NC. It's a better map than this year, but not an easy map.
House
Sabato's Crystal Ball, one of the best in the analysis world, has the Democrats as slight favorites to flip the House. Cook's Political Report has the Democrats as "substantial favorites" to win the House. I think Sabato is closer to reality. To keep this short, I'll just say that I think a blue wave is likely, but 20+ seats should still be considered a blue wave. The GOP currently holds a 43 seat lead in the House, so even the Democrats flipping 20 seats would not be enough to win the House, barely. But what if they pick up 23? Or 24? Then the Democrats would be able to flip the House and win control of one house of Congress. Either way, I think this will come down to a few votes either way. Paul Ryan won't be there to keep the Freedom Caucus from running amok if the GOP wins -- governing would be harder than it is now.
Summary Judgments
This is terrifying to think about, but there are some solid points. The long and short of it is: Russia tried hacking our election systems. They breached seven states. Changing votes was something they could easily do. And yet some of those states insist nothing happened. Georgia, in particular, could be hacked by a 16-year-old. Hmmm.... I don't know if it's true, but I don't know that it's not, either. • • • This whole thing infuriates me. The CNN reporter was asking normal questions that any reporter would. Then they were banned, but I guess not using the word "ban" makes it not a ban? The attacks on the press are demoralizing. • • • Speaking of, wasn't there a giant conflict of interest with a Fox News host dating Donald Trump Jr.? I think that should have been brought up every time she was on TV. Her name is Kimberly Guilfoyle, and she was one of the more prominent female hosts on the channel. She left recently to take a job with a Trump PAC. (There's also some reports of abuse, but I'm ignoring those for now.) I would call that bias that should have been excised long ago. • • • I've been running 2.5 miles twice a week and then doing a bigger, 3-4 mile run on the weekend. I'm signing up for a 10K in September. It's going OK right now. I don't feel at ease about my long runs right now, but I am finishing them, so...? • • • Roland was having a rare bad day at day care the other day. The type that leads to the whole facility hearing him scream his head off and he had to be sent up front. One of the day care leaders talked to him and said, "This isn't you. The Roland I don't know doesn't act like this. Are you ready to calm down and go back in?" Almost immediately, he said, "Ok" and stopped crying and went back as if nothing happened. He can flick that switch instantly.
To be fair, that's his job. His client is in hot water, and Giuliani is trying to play to the jury. In this case, the jury is the American public, who are able to affect their respective elected representatives and senators one way or another. Giuliani doesn't have to win in an actual courtroom — he has to win in Congress.
But looking at what he's saying with any critical eye at all is... weird at the least and likely troubling. For instance, he's gone after Michael Cohen in recent days. "I don't see how you can believe Michael Cohen" and calling Cohen a "pathological liar." This came after it was revealed that Cohen had (at least... don't forget that's a minimum number right now) 12 tapes of he and President Trump. Then one of those tapes was leaked to CNN.
What I wish a smart journalist would do is ask Giuliani when Cohen became a pathological liar. Because as of May, Giuliani was calling Cohen an "honest, honorable lawyer." As of Saturday, Giuliani told the same source that he didn't know Cohen that well when he made that first statement. Guess what that makes you, Mr. Giuliani? A liar. Anyway, the obvious answer to anyone paying attention is that Giuliani changed his mind when Cohen had evidence and/or turned on President Trump.
Then we had the most recent forehead-slapping defense by Giuliani: "Four months, they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians. You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime... the President didn't hack." Let's take that quote apart, Fire Joe Morgan style:
Four months...
He's talking about how long Paul Manafort was campaign manager for President Trump, implying that it wasn't enough time to collude with Russia. There's no way that Manafort had time to hear about and attend a meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton in the office/building that Trump owned and lived in. Four months is so short! It's not like he was campaign manager during the Republican National Convention, Trump saying that Russia should hack Hillary Clinton's emails and the start of Russian hacking attempts on the DNC.
...they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians.
First of all, that's a pretty definitive first statement about a hypothetical Trump campaign. I wish we had a real-world Trump campaign that we could compare it to...
Second, you don't know if it's a crime? You're a former prosecutor of the mafia in New York. At the very least, you're the main public lawyer for the President of the United States, who is under investigation for.... collusion. Either you're being obtuse or you're a bad lawyer.
Third, collusion itself is not explicitly a crime. No one has claimed it is. The word you're looking for is "conspiracy." That IS a crime. Further, the issue isn't really whether he's guilty of the theoretical crime of collusion. If it's proved that the President's campaign knowingly worked with Russians to hack political opponents and release their information at damaging times to his political opponents, then that's a) conspiracy and b) cause for immediate impeachment for subverting our democracy with the aid of a foreign rival. Impeachment is not criminal action, it's "you've embarrassed our country so much you don't get to keep your job."
You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime... the President didn't hack.
No s*** he didn't hack. I would pay $100 to see the President try to attempt two lines of code. I would pay $50 to see President Trump attempt to connect to a password-protected wifi. Hell, I would pay $250 to watch him try to create an Excel spreadsheet.
But apply Giuliani's argument to Watergate: You start analyzing the crime — the breaking into a rival political party's office is the crime... the President didn't break into the opposing party's office. I guess we got Watergate all wrong! Case solved, Det. Giuliani!
Elections Update
I'm going to do quick updates on my view of the Senate, the House, and the current Electoral College outlook.
Electoral College
Wisconsin and Michigan hate Trump now, by double digits in recent polling. If you consider them blue (I believe midterm elections will back me up), then there are four states that will be true battlegrounds: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. If [insert Democratic nominee] can flip any one of those four, in addition to Wisconsin and Michigan, then they will win the Presidency. That's not crazy to think of in Pennsylvania, Florida or North Carolina. One last kink in the works: Arizona went less for Trump than it did for Romney. It was only a 4 percent difference, and Trump did not break the 50 percent mark and had not announced policies targeting Hispanics. Arizona is a likely Senate seat to flip, and not by a slim margin. If Arizona flips and none of the aforementioned battleground states flip, then we have... a tie! 269-269 electoral votes (provided MI and WI flip, and if no other votes like those in Maine or Nebraska change)! That would send the election to the House of Representatives. Wow. Still way too early, but the MI/WI changes are significant.
Senate
I still have this as either staying as it is (51-49, Republicans) or maybe the Democrats picking up just one seat to make it 50-50, with VP Pence as the tiebreaker. I've got McCaskill holding on in Missouri, AZ/NV/TN flipping to Democrats (normally a good sign in a nearly impossible map, which I've talked about a lot) and Dems keeping their seats in WV, OH and the rest of the Rust Belt. However, I also see Florida, Indiana and North Dakota as real problems for Democrat incumbents. Best-case scenario for the GOP: 54-46 lead in the Senate. Best-case scenario for the Democrats: 52-48 lead in Senate. My guess: 51-49 GOP retains. In short, I agree with this guy. Also, quick note on the 2020 map: Unless Democrats become real popular or the GOP tanks, it looks like really only two clear opportunities for Dems to flip seats: CO and NC. It's a better map than this year, but not an easy map.
House
Sabato's Crystal Ball, one of the best in the analysis world, has the Democrats as slight favorites to flip the House. Cook's Political Report has the Democrats as "substantial favorites" to win the House. I think Sabato is closer to reality. To keep this short, I'll just say that I think a blue wave is likely, but 20+ seats should still be considered a blue wave. The GOP currently holds a 43 seat lead in the House, so even the Democrats flipping 20 seats would not be enough to win the House, barely. But what if they pick up 23? Or 24? Then the Democrats would be able to flip the House and win control of one house of Congress. Either way, I think this will come down to a few votes either way. Paul Ryan won't be there to keep the Freedom Caucus from running amok if the GOP wins -- governing would be harder than it is now.
Summary Judgments
This is terrifying to think about, but there are some solid points. The long and short of it is: Russia tried hacking our election systems. They breached seven states. Changing votes was something they could easily do. And yet some of those states insist nothing happened. Georgia, in particular, could be hacked by a 16-year-old. Hmmm.... I don't know if it's true, but I don't know that it's not, either. • • • This whole thing infuriates me. The CNN reporter was asking normal questions that any reporter would. Then they were banned, but I guess not using the word "ban" makes it not a ban? The attacks on the press are demoralizing. • • • Speaking of, wasn't there a giant conflict of interest with a Fox News host dating Donald Trump Jr.? I think that should have been brought up every time she was on TV. Her name is Kimberly Guilfoyle, and she was one of the more prominent female hosts on the channel. She left recently to take a job with a Trump PAC. (There's also some reports of abuse, but I'm ignoring those for now.) I would call that bias that should have been excised long ago. • • • I've been running 2.5 miles twice a week and then doing a bigger, 3-4 mile run on the weekend. I'm signing up for a 10K in September. It's going OK right now. I don't feel at ease about my long runs right now, but I am finishing them, so...? • • • Roland was having a rare bad day at day care the other day. The type that leads to the whole facility hearing him scream his head off and he had to be sent up front. One of the day care leaders talked to him and said, "This isn't you. The Roland I don't know doesn't act like this. Are you ready to calm down and go back in?" Almost immediately, he said, "Ok" and stopped crying and went back as if nothing happened. He can flick that switch instantly.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
When I Was Scared to be a Journalist
There was only one time I was ever scared to be a journalist.
I was yards away from a big fire at a fireworks warehouse, and I was never scared. I was in a courtroom with a convicted child rapist, and I was never scared. I was in multiple tornado destruction paths with live wires and buildings in splinters, and I was never scared. I received a deluge of calls from Ron Paul supporters calling me vile, terrible names, and I was never scared.
There was only one time I was ever scared to be a journalist.
When we made errors — and we did — we worked to correct them. When others made errors, we called them out for it. When we saw injustice or corruption, we investigated. When poverty was the elephant in the room, we spent a year covering it in-depth. My stated goal, repeated ad nauseam to those who would listen to me pontificate, was to be a mirror to the community, both the good and the bad.
There was only one time I was ever scared to be a journalist.
It must have been 2012 or 2013 when a man came to the office asking for the editor (me). He demanded to know why we printed his name in the arrest records. He argued with me over where I got my information, and I calmly told him his quarrel was with the Crawford County Sheriff's Department, who supplied us with the list. He was about my height, maybe a couple inches shorter, with a lean grandpa-type build. His eyes were wide open and rarely blinking. He shook with agitation — or perhaps a drug addict's inability to keep still. In the midst of that heated, pitched conversation, I realized I was scared, because this man was dangerous. I was not worried about a gun, but I was worried about a physical attack or a possible knife. Our secretaries were behind the desk nearby, and I made sure to make eye contact with them so they were watching, too, in case something happened. I took a step back from the man and widened my stance so that in case he swung at me, I could not only dodge it, but could swing a right hook in response. I hoped that if I had to, I would hit hard and strong, but I was fearful, since I am no fighter. I was scared to be a journalist because there was a real threat in front of me.
James D. Russian left the office angry. I went back to my office and watched to make sure he got in his truck. Not long after that, he would sue our paper, the Crawford County Sheriff's Department and the judge for — of all things — copyright infringement for using his name in the arrest reports. Although it was a one-sided court case in our favor, it cost our paper nearly a full reporter's salary in legal fees. He was later convicted on federal firearms and drug charges and is now in prison for many years.
That was the only time I was ever scared to be a journalist. Until today.
Five employees of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Md., were killed by a gunman today. Most of those were newsroom employees. I can see myself in their faces. I can see my name in their names. I cried a little bit when I knew no one was looking. I mourn for these journalists, and for journalism in general. This assault came in the atmosphere of a President who has said that the greatest enemy of the American people is the press. This comes in the atmosphere of a far-right firebrand who said two days ago that he "can't wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight." It reminded me of a recent episode of "The Handmaid's Tale" in which the protagonist, on the run from a fascist patriarchal government, takes temporary shelter inside an abandoned Boston Globe only to discover that journalists had been massacred there.
Journalism is not an easy job. There's a joke that journalism is terrible hours and terrible pay, but on the bright side, no one likes you. There is a truth to that joke, but also a stubborn pride in it. Journalism is not a job for fragile people. It's not a job for the easily intimidated. The Capital Gazette will be "putting out a damn paper tomorrow." When the Joplin tornado hit, there were many Joplin Globe employees without a house who still went to work. It's what journalists do. It's their job.
Maybe tomorrow I'll be OK. Maybe I'll look back on this moment in the same way I was later able to talk with the judge and the Sheriff's Department and laugh about James D. Russian's wild antics. Maybe one day I won't feel anxiety over where journalism is going and how it's perceived in the world. Maybe one day I'll even go back to journalism, my first love. Maybe. But today? There is another real threat in front of me, and I was scared for the second time.
I was yards away from a big fire at a fireworks warehouse, and I was never scared. I was in a courtroom with a convicted child rapist, and I was never scared. I was in multiple tornado destruction paths with live wires and buildings in splinters, and I was never scared. I received a deluge of calls from Ron Paul supporters calling me vile, terrible names, and I was never scared.
There was only one time I was ever scared to be a journalist.
When we made errors — and we did — we worked to correct them. When others made errors, we called them out for it. When we saw injustice or corruption, we investigated. When poverty was the elephant in the room, we spent a year covering it in-depth. My stated goal, repeated ad nauseam to those who would listen to me pontificate, was to be a mirror to the community, both the good and the bad.
There was only one time I was ever scared to be a journalist.
It must have been 2012 or 2013 when a man came to the office asking for the editor (me). He demanded to know why we printed his name in the arrest records. He argued with me over where I got my information, and I calmly told him his quarrel was with the Crawford County Sheriff's Department, who supplied us with the list. He was about my height, maybe a couple inches shorter, with a lean grandpa-type build. His eyes were wide open and rarely blinking. He shook with agitation — or perhaps a drug addict's inability to keep still. In the midst of that heated, pitched conversation, I realized I was scared, because this man was dangerous. I was not worried about a gun, but I was worried about a physical attack or a possible knife. Our secretaries were behind the desk nearby, and I made sure to make eye contact with them so they were watching, too, in case something happened. I took a step back from the man and widened my stance so that in case he swung at me, I could not only dodge it, but could swing a right hook in response. I hoped that if I had to, I would hit hard and strong, but I was fearful, since I am no fighter. I was scared to be a journalist because there was a real threat in front of me.
James D. Russian left the office angry. I went back to my office and watched to make sure he got in his truck. Not long after that, he would sue our paper, the Crawford County Sheriff's Department and the judge for — of all things — copyright infringement for using his name in the arrest reports. Although it was a one-sided court case in our favor, it cost our paper nearly a full reporter's salary in legal fees. He was later convicted on federal firearms and drug charges and is now in prison for many years.
That was the only time I was ever scared to be a journalist. Until today.
Five employees of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Md., were killed by a gunman today. Most of those were newsroom employees. I can see myself in their faces. I can see my name in their names. I cried a little bit when I knew no one was looking. I mourn for these journalists, and for journalism in general. This assault came in the atmosphere of a President who has said that the greatest enemy of the American people is the press. This comes in the atmosphere of a far-right firebrand who said two days ago that he "can't wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight." It reminded me of a recent episode of "The Handmaid's Tale" in which the protagonist, on the run from a fascist patriarchal government, takes temporary shelter inside an abandoned Boston Globe only to discover that journalists had been massacred there.
Journalism is not an easy job. There's a joke that journalism is terrible hours and terrible pay, but on the bright side, no one likes you. There is a truth to that joke, but also a stubborn pride in it. Journalism is not a job for fragile people. It's not a job for the easily intimidated. The Capital Gazette will be "putting out a damn paper tomorrow." When the Joplin tornado hit, there were many Joplin Globe employees without a house who still went to work. It's what journalists do. It's their job.
Maybe tomorrow I'll be OK. Maybe I'll look back on this moment in the same way I was later able to talk with the judge and the Sheriff's Department and laugh about James D. Russian's wild antics. Maybe one day I won't feel anxiety over where journalism is going and how it's perceived in the world. Maybe one day I'll even go back to journalism, my first love. Maybe. But today? There is another real threat in front of me, and I was scared for the second time.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Cruelty, Impeachment and State Mottos
Perhaps no single word can show the divide in the last two administrations like the word "audacity." It was part of Barack Obama's book title, "The Audacity of Hope." The opposite sentiment can be found in the Trump administration's audacity of cruelty.
The cruelty has been eating away at me more and more this year. That's likely why my posts have dropped in frequency and why I feel myself drifting from politics while knowing I must stay engaged. The cruelty has been rampant and destructive to people. This cruelty shown by both Trump and his administration has been directed at people he does not know, at people he knows, at people outside of his party, at people within his party, at potential allies, at longtime allies, at enemies. Seemingly the only person to escape the Trump ire has been, of all people, Vladimir Putin.
But one thing that has been drilled into my head is to show my work.
So let me explain through examples. Let's start with immigrants. For illegal immigrants, the Trump administration is separating families at the border. I shouldn't have to explain how difficult that must be for people who are (mostly) seeking refuge. For legal immigrants, the Trump administration has made the process of seeking asylum nearly impossible. It has caused legal immigrants to flee away from the U.S. and toward others, like Canada. Our national attitude has been that if you're not from here, we do not care about you in the slightest. He has placed DACA recipients on pins and needles while blaming Democrats for a decision that he made.
Our president has been one of the most line-in-the-sand politicians I've ever seen. Either you're with him or you're against him. If you're against him, whether in his party (McCain, notably, but Flake/Corker/etc.) or not (Elizabeth Warren, Pelosi, Schumer, etc.), he has nothing but contempt — not just privately, but incredibly publicly.
In one breath, he can talk about the dangers of crime and thugs and drug dealers, often ignoring facts of cases (see the Central Park Five) to stoke the wildest fears of the easily frightened. He has simultaneously wiped the slate clean for people like Dinesh D'Souza, who pled guilty to election fraud, and Scooter Libby. Both of these men are the exact types of people who he would lead chants against if they had been Democrats.
He has placed punitive tariffs not just against our economic enemies (China, to a potentially overblown extent) and our economic allies (Canada, the EU, Mexico). He has turned the G7 Summit of the seven greatest economies into a G6 + the U.S., while pushing for the inclusion of, of all countries, Russia to make it a G8 once more.
He has enabled terrible people like Scott Pruitt, Jeff Sessions and Mick Mulvaney. Many of his political appointees have made it their direct, explicit goal to undermine the agencies which they head. Specifically, Mulvaney and Pruitt have done the most damage while managing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency. He has undermined his own Department of Justice and FBI for conducting an investigation into his campaign's ties with Russia. He cannot help himself from lashing out at anyone who dares suggest the investigation was legitimate. He has used Rudy Giuliani to muddy the waters before the Mueller investigation.
He has taken a flawed but working Affordable Care Act and made such a mess out of it that those who have come to rely on its provisions — the most vulnerable of us, by definition — have been in constant jeopardy since he took office, and the latest news will not make it any easier.
He has joined fights that were not his to fight, like the cancellation of Roseanne and the right of NFL players to kneel during the National Anthem. He has used invitations to the White House as a cudgel and played the victim when no one wanted to attend in the first place.
Cruelty is easy. It is easy to be cruel. It is easy to not care for people. It is hard to care about repercussions, to seek out common ground, to make compromises on difficult subject, to treat your enemies and allies with respect, to be a decent human at all times. I am no different. It is hard to be kind and generous and wise and reflective and forward-thinking and engaged.
There is an old line that you should do the right thing even when it's hard. I would argue that the right thing is almost always hard. Doing the right thing should challenge you, should push you past your comfort point, should be inconvenient, should not come naturally. But that's exactly why we should do it. As I've said over and over again, it is easier to dismantle and destroy and demolish than to build. I pray that our country — and the leaders in charge of it — would build a better America. I believe in a better America, worth working for and changing from within. It will not come without costs. It will not come easily. It is worth doing. I wish that our nation's highest leader would pursue such a path rather than the cruelty that has been on display nearly every day.
Note: This is not to dismiss everything the Trump Administration has done as useless or evil or malicious. I do not ignore success when success is earned. The economy is strong. I have many reservations about the North Korea summit, but I am willing to say that I feel the likelihood of nuclear war in Korea is lower today than before it. Trump deserves some credit for that.
Impeachment Book
I have no doubt that the Mueller investigation will be scathing, revealing and worthy of political ramifications. There has already been enough guilty pleas, enough evidence, enough cause to believe Trump's campaign, and Trump himself, have been involved in undermining democracy. The Trump Tower meeting alone should be impeachable, let alone the cover-up press releases that followed.
On my vacation last month, I read a book called the Citizen's Guide to Impeachment. It reviewed lessons from the impeachment cases that have taken place in the country's history. Here's what I learned:
1) Impeachment is not a criminal charge. It's merely for removal of office. If you're charged with, say, bank fraud in impeachment proceedings, then you can (and almost assuredly will) be charged with bank fraud in a criminal court afterward. Impeachment is done in the House, who becomes the "prosecutors." The Senate becomes the "jury."
2) What we think of as "impeachable offenses" is not particularly well defined. There are three descriptions for what a person can be charged with: treason, bribery and "other high crimes and misdemeanors." You will probably never see someone charged with the first two, because there is a certain burden of proof there. There are specific legal steps that have to be met in order to prosecute those crimes. Almost every person who has been impeached has been under the "other high crimes and misdemeanors" header, even when it is... bribery (this actually happened once).
3) The causes of impeachment are legion, but Trump has already met several, in my opinion. There is profiteering, lying to the American public (see the Trump Tower press release he dictated), undermining the freedom of the press, not protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (vague, but this would be pursuant to justice concerns), violating the emoluments clause, undermining the federal judiciary, encouraging law enforcement to violate the rights of others, deceit, undermining the office of the Presidency by siding with white supremacists.
4) Those are a ton of reasons that are unrelated to the most obvious reason: obstruction of justice. Every president that has been impeached (Johnson, Clinton, and nearly Nixon) were impeached on obstruction of justice charges. If you think Donald Trump has not obstructed the Mueller investigation, then please let me sell you anything at all. He has publicly denounced his own Department of Justice, fired an FBI director for not interfering in the investigation, lied about his reasoning after the fact, attacked investigators by name and undermined the credibility of a federal investigation. It is not a witch hunt, unless witch hunts have found multiple witches and more are on the way. Obstruction of justice is obvious and should be pushed by everyone, Republican or Democrat. Neither side seems to be pushing it right now, which is frustrating. Democrats appear to prefer an impeachable person in power (easier to campaign against?) than to take the risk of overplaying their hand. Republicans appear unwilling to oppose Trump, under the spell of his cult of personality. Here's the catch: there is some reporting that the FBI, and by extension Mueller, can not charge a sitting President with obstruction of justice directly. There has to be an impeachment action/removal first, and then he could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice criminal charges. This theory hasn't been tested in any court, but it would only go to delay the process.
5) Special investigations are usually a slow process. With an investigation as deep and complicated as this one, I would not be surprised if there is not a final report more than a year from now, let alone by the end of Trump's (first?) term. Patience is required from the Mueller team. I know this sounds like doublespeak, but patience is required for the Mueller investigation while time is of the essence for impeachment.
State Mottos, Ranked and Annotated in Reverse Order
50) Indiana, "The Crossroads of America"
This is not a state motto. It is a nickname masquerading as a motto. It is an Indiana tourism branding statement. It is the worst state motto.
49) Minnesota, "L'Étoile du Nord" (Star of the North)
Also a nickname and not a motto, but it gains points for alluding to its French fur trapping origin story.
48) Florida, "In God We Trust"
The only state truly too lazy to think of something original is the only state it could ever have been.
47) Texas, "Friendship," 6) Rhode Island, "Hope," 45) Utah, "Industry"
These are all one-word concepts, which isn't a motto... it's a state aspirational goal. They sound like parts of the Scout Law. Mottos should either be an ethos or represent the state/people, and none of these do that. Have you met Texas drivers? Most unfriendly people in the world. Rhode Island's motto seems to be a verb, which is... slightly better. The best of this bad bunch is Utah's, which at least fits with the beehive/Mormon settlers history concept.
44) Montana, "Oro y plata (Gold and Silver)," 43) Tennessee, "Agriculture and Commerce" 42) New Jersey, "Liberty and prosperity," 41) Delaware, "Liberty and Independence," 40) Vermont, "Freedom and Unity"
Two-word concepts, but not really a motto. It's just two things. Montana's (despite the rare Spanish motto) gets docked for being two things in the state rather than two personality traits. It'd be like if West Virginia's motto was "coal mines and hills." Tennessee's two things are boring and sound like a small-town grocery store: Farm N'Barter! The other three are near interchangeable.
39) Pennsylvania, "Virtue, Liberty and Independence," 38) Louisiana, "Union, justice, confidence," 37) Georgia, "Wisdom, justice and moderation"
Three-word concepts are also not mottos. They are better than one-word or two-word concepts, though. Georgia's sounds the smartest, Pennsylvania's is the worst because liberty and independence are the same thing, and Louisiana's just doesn't sound like Louisiana.
36) Nebraska, "Equality before the law," 35) Wyoming, "Equal Rights"
Nebraska's is fine. It's just a wordier version of Wyoming's. I can accept Wyoming's as a motto because it's an ethos, aspirational goal and nod to history all in one. Wyoming was the first to give women the right to vote, and they won't let the other 49 states forget it. Nebraska doesn't even have the history behind it.
34) Illinois, "State sovereignty, national union"
This is true for any and every state. It is boring and lame and merely says "We're a state and we're in the United States!" I'm tempted to push this one farther down. Nothing about this says Illinois.
33) Michigan, " Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam circumspice (If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you"
I love geography and mentioning your unique geography. Peninsulas are cool. But this motto is the sticker on a map of the mall saying "You are here." A better motto would be something like "Not afraid to stick out." See? It's a peninsula riff without being obvious about it.
32) Maryland, "Fatti maschii, parole feminine (Manly deeds, womanly words)"
Sexist? I don't want to peer too far into the abyss, but this is either talking about a dude with the voice of a woman or a woman who does manly things, like spitting sunflower seeds or running a beer mile.
31) Colorado, "Nil sine numine (Nothing without the Deity)," 30) Connecticut, "Quit transtulit sustained (He who transplanted sustains)," 29) Arizona, "Ditat Deus (God enriches)," 28) Ohio, "With God, all things are possible"
I have nothing against pledges of fealty to God. That's cool with me. But it's only a perfectly fine state motto. Colorado's is kind of a weird indictment of God, that he would enable the many strange/weird things about that state: pot dispensaries, ski bros and the Denver Broncos come to mind. Connecticut's is a bit obtuse of a God reference. The other two are perfectly cromulent but not particularly memorable state mottos. Ohio's is Philippians 4:13, and you can't go wrong with Bible verses.
27) Missouri, "Salus populi suprema lex esto (Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law)," 26) South Dakota, "Under God, the people rule," 25) Arkansas, "The people rule"
These are pretty similar, but Missouri loses points for being wordy. South Dakota's gets to the point faster and explains the legal hierarchy: God, then people. Arkansas has the punchiest and easiest to teach a grade schooler, which matters.
24) North Carolina, "Esse quam videri (To be, rather than to seem)"
This sounds like part of a Hamlet monologue. It's super esoteric and tries too hard, though. Short revealing story about myself: Once, when I was in middle school, I thought I could impress a girl I liked by acting pensive and trying to share with her some super-deep thoughts about snow. It was dumb, it failed, and it's the source of laughter to this day for everyone. North Carolina's state motto is the "deep thoughts about snow" of state mottos.
23) South Carolina, "Dum spiro spero Animis opibusque parati (While I breathe, I hope Ready in soul and resource)"
It's way too long,
22) Washington, "Al-ki (By and By)"
It's in Chinook! That's cool, right? Once you get past the four letters and rare language of it all, this is kind of lame. It seems unusual and cool and different at first, but is actually just boring, like [insert BBC sitcom that failed in America here].
21) Wisconsin, "Forward"
I give Wisconsin a pass on the one-word concept, because this is both a preposition, a command and a direction. It's simple, as the best state mottos are, but it's a little too simple.
20) Oklahoma, "Labor omnia vincit (Labor conquers all things)"
I grew up with Oklahoma's. It's easy enough to remember and explains the state work ethic. The only problem is it can sound kind of nose-to-the-grindstone/toil is your friend/"Some day you'll get that boulder to the top of the hill, Sisyphus" atmosphere. Not quite as good as its cousin from Kansas, which is further down.
19) Idaho, "Esto perpetua (Let it be perpetual)"
My friends from Idaho tell me how beautiful it is, and now I want to visit. The idea of it lasting forever sounds nice, like a garden of Eden pre-Fall. There's a hidden message of "It's already great, so keep it this way" that is both instructive and environmental-sounding. It's lovely.
18) North Dakota, "Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable"
This sounds more like an oath of office or pledge of allegiance than a state motto. It's longer than it should be and it's sort of repetitive with union/one/inseparable. But I'll be danged if it doesn't have good flow, sound like something a grade schooler can remember, and embrace multiple dichotomies. I like it even though I know I kind of shouldn't.
17) Kentucky, "United we stand, divided we fall"
It's an old platitude, but a good one. This doesn't make me think of Kentucky or say much about the state. We're starting to get into the better state mottos.
16) Hawaii, "Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono (The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness)"
That is wordy as hell, but it embraces its native language, which is great. It sounds like something any dad might tell his children, in that "I'm being poignant here, but taking too many words to say it" sort of way. The response is: "Yeah, Dad, I get it. If I'm good, the land will last forever. My morality is clapping and the land is Tinkerbell."
15) Iowa, "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain," 14) Virginia, "Sic semper tyrannis (Thus always to tyrants)," 13) Massachusetts, "Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)," 12) Alabama, "Audemus jura nostra defendere (We dare defend our rights)," 11) Mississippi, "Virtute et armis (By valor and arms)"
I call these the "We will fight you" mottos. It's no surprise that three of them are Southern states. Iowa's is the lamest of the bunch, because it's just an implied threat. Virginia's is too far in the opposite direction and loses points for being something John Wilkes Booth shouted after killing Lincoln, though it is still badass enough to be this high. Massachusetts is wordy and too stuffy, but perfectly Massachusetts in that way. Alabama's seems needlessly provocative, but still has that cutthroat mentality. I love the simplicity of Mississippi's.
10) California, "Eureka (I have found it)"
It's got the gold mining history incorporated, it's simple and punchy, it's a nod to Archimedes. It's also a little full of itself, which is perfect for California.
9) New York, "Excelsior (Ever Upward)"
It's one-word, but it's aspirational and implies growth over time. It's easy to remember and punchy. It gains points for me because of the Stan Lee connection. The famed Marvel Comics legend would end his columns with this word in the idea that other writers wouldn't copy. It is perfectly Stan Lee in that it's kind of hokey and outdated, but delightfully so. It's the Adam West Batman of state mottos.
8) New Mexico, "Crescit eundo (It grows as it goes)"
Sweet, simple and doesn't have the Stan Lee baggage. Points docked for Latin instead of Spanish.
7) Oregon, "Alis volat propriis (She flies with her own wings)"
Oregon is a feminist state, or at least a feminine pronoun state. Even though there's a bit of a Li'l Brudder aspect to it, the wings imagery is beautiful and poignant. But if you didn't know this was Oregon, you still wouldn't know.
6) Kansas, "Ad astra per aspera (To the stars through difficulties)"
I was kind of surprised how high this one rose, but it's got all the earmarks of a great state motto with only one drawback. It kind of rhymes in Latin, it's super easy to remember, it's aspirational while accepting of reality, and it's the name of a beer. The stars are a greater goal than merely flying, so it's better than Oregon. The only drawback is that it doesn't scream Kansas. It's one of the best mottos, but it just can't break through to the upper echelon. It is the Kansas City Chiefs of state mottos.
5) Maine, "Dirigo (I lead)"
The punchiest, best one-word motto in the country. It's a declaration and direction. It's aspirational and easy to remember. It's simple but not simplistic. This is the best motto that doesn't make you think of its state at all. Be honest: If you read the motto first, did Maine come to mind? Probably not, which is a shame. Any motto ranked higher than this gives off an "F yeah!" attitude, and this one is
4) Nevada, "All for our Country and Battle Born"
Points docked for having two mottos. However, each of these mottos is excellent. The first is so patriotic it hurts. The second gives a vibe of "we can handle anything." It's also the name of a Killers album. Honestly, they should drop the first motto and just be "Battle Born," since it sounds so incredible and like they can handle anything. It makes me think of Nevada, though again, that may just be the Killers album doing work for the state. It'd look great on a license plate.
3) Alaska, "North to the future"
Geography tie-in! But more importantly, there's maybe only one other state this could possibly be (Minnesota, maybe?). It's just a motto that immediately conjures Alaska. It's aspirational and a good motto. Quick thought: Is traveling north always a good idea, especially in the winter?
2) West Virginia, "Montani semper liberi (Mountaineers are always free)"
Hell yeah! This is the best "who we are" motto in the country. It screams place (mountains), people (mountaineers), identity (always free), and aspiration (implied). You don't want to mess with these guys, because they are one with the land.
1) New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die"
There's something to be said for keeping it simple. In 13 letters, it's an ethos, an identity, a dare to others, a charge, edgy, a line in the sand and morbidly awesome. You can imagine New Hampshire militia members yelling this as they charge up a hill. It'd make a great tattoo if you're from there. It's also immediately recognizable as New Hampshire, because of all those factors. Hell, it's practically a Die Hard movie. It's definitely not as mild and fluffy and star-eyed as the others. It's put-up-or-shut-up in New Hampshire. It's also got a great historic lineage. A classic for a reason.
Summary Judgments
Here's a short summary of the Inspector General FBI report: Clinton's emails were not criminal in any way, Comey was wrong to make not one but two public statements that likely damaged her status in the election, and the FBI had a few people that didn't like Trump. None of those actions were done for political reasons. It reminds me of an offshoot of Occam's Razor called Hanlon's Razor: Never assign to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. • • • Paul Manafort is now in jail for witness tampering. Surely he wouldn't do that if he were innocent, right? • • • This is a salient point that I should probably elaborate on next time, since this is News Judgments and all. In short: journalists are treating the President's quotes as gospel and quoting him as if he were an authority, even when what he is saying is contrary to the nuance and depth of a story. It misleads the public when a headline like "Trump: watchdog report a 'total disaster' for Comey" runs instead of "Watchdog report: Comey erred, but not biased in Clinton probe." The latter is a much better reflection of the report and doesn't grant supreme authority to the President. The former assumes that President Trump actually read a 500-page report. I encourage any Trump supporter to look me in the eye and say that he read the whole report. • • • I ran a Warrior Dash last week. It wore me out so much that I had trouble sleeping for two days. It was through a farm field, so it was dusty. It was a record high in Kansas City that day, with heat indices over 100. The mud dragged your body down and the water obstacles only did so much to remove the mud. It was brutal and exhausting and physically demanding. I loved it and want to do it again next year. • • • We have been telling the kids that if they want to stay up after we tuck them in and read/play quietly, they can do so. Evie has been exploiting this loophole even though she knows we want her to be in bed. Last night, it was 10:45 and I knew she was still awake. I walked by her room to a point I could see her but she didn't know I was there. She got up and was playing with her dresser when she looked up, saw me looking at her, had a moment of recognition like a deer in the headlights, then darted into bed and pretended she was sleeping. She fell asleep for real 10 minutes later.
The cruelty has been eating away at me more and more this year. That's likely why my posts have dropped in frequency and why I feel myself drifting from politics while knowing I must stay engaged. The cruelty has been rampant and destructive to people. This cruelty shown by both Trump and his administration has been directed at people he does not know, at people he knows, at people outside of his party, at people within his party, at potential allies, at longtime allies, at enemies. Seemingly the only person to escape the Trump ire has been, of all people, Vladimir Putin.
But one thing that has been drilled into my head is to show my work.
So let me explain through examples. Let's start with immigrants. For illegal immigrants, the Trump administration is separating families at the border. I shouldn't have to explain how difficult that must be for people who are (mostly) seeking refuge. For legal immigrants, the Trump administration has made the process of seeking asylum nearly impossible. It has caused legal immigrants to flee away from the U.S. and toward others, like Canada. Our national attitude has been that if you're not from here, we do not care about you in the slightest. He has placed DACA recipients on pins and needles while blaming Democrats for a decision that he made.
Our president has been one of the most line-in-the-sand politicians I've ever seen. Either you're with him or you're against him. If you're against him, whether in his party (McCain, notably, but Flake/Corker/etc.) or not (Elizabeth Warren, Pelosi, Schumer, etc.), he has nothing but contempt — not just privately, but incredibly publicly.
In one breath, he can talk about the dangers of crime and thugs and drug dealers, often ignoring facts of cases (see the Central Park Five) to stoke the wildest fears of the easily frightened. He has simultaneously wiped the slate clean for people like Dinesh D'Souza, who pled guilty to election fraud, and Scooter Libby. Both of these men are the exact types of people who he would lead chants against if they had been Democrats.
He has placed punitive tariffs not just against our economic enemies (China, to a potentially overblown extent) and our economic allies (Canada, the EU, Mexico). He has turned the G7 Summit of the seven greatest economies into a G6 + the U.S., while pushing for the inclusion of, of all countries, Russia to make it a G8 once more.
He has enabled terrible people like Scott Pruitt, Jeff Sessions and Mick Mulvaney. Many of his political appointees have made it their direct, explicit goal to undermine the agencies which they head. Specifically, Mulvaney and Pruitt have done the most damage while managing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency. He has undermined his own Department of Justice and FBI for conducting an investigation into his campaign's ties with Russia. He cannot help himself from lashing out at anyone who dares suggest the investigation was legitimate. He has used Rudy Giuliani to muddy the waters before the Mueller investigation.
He has taken a flawed but working Affordable Care Act and made such a mess out of it that those who have come to rely on its provisions — the most vulnerable of us, by definition — have been in constant jeopardy since he took office, and the latest news will not make it any easier.
He has joined fights that were not his to fight, like the cancellation of Roseanne and the right of NFL players to kneel during the National Anthem. He has used invitations to the White House as a cudgel and played the victim when no one wanted to attend in the first place.
Cruelty is easy. It is easy to be cruel. It is easy to not care for people. It is hard to care about repercussions, to seek out common ground, to make compromises on difficult subject, to treat your enemies and allies with respect, to be a decent human at all times. I am no different. It is hard to be kind and generous and wise and reflective and forward-thinking and engaged.
There is an old line that you should do the right thing even when it's hard. I would argue that the right thing is almost always hard. Doing the right thing should challenge you, should push you past your comfort point, should be inconvenient, should not come naturally. But that's exactly why we should do it. As I've said over and over again, it is easier to dismantle and destroy and demolish than to build. I pray that our country — and the leaders in charge of it — would build a better America. I believe in a better America, worth working for and changing from within. It will not come without costs. It will not come easily. It is worth doing. I wish that our nation's highest leader would pursue such a path rather than the cruelty that has been on display nearly every day.
Note: This is not to dismiss everything the Trump Administration has done as useless or evil or malicious. I do not ignore success when success is earned. The economy is strong. I have many reservations about the North Korea summit, but I am willing to say that I feel the likelihood of nuclear war in Korea is lower today than before it. Trump deserves some credit for that.
Impeachment Book
I have no doubt that the Mueller investigation will be scathing, revealing and worthy of political ramifications. There has already been enough guilty pleas, enough evidence, enough cause to believe Trump's campaign, and Trump himself, have been involved in undermining democracy. The Trump Tower meeting alone should be impeachable, let alone the cover-up press releases that followed.
On my vacation last month, I read a book called the Citizen's Guide to Impeachment. It reviewed lessons from the impeachment cases that have taken place in the country's history. Here's what I learned:
1) Impeachment is not a criminal charge. It's merely for removal of office. If you're charged with, say, bank fraud in impeachment proceedings, then you can (and almost assuredly will) be charged with bank fraud in a criminal court afterward. Impeachment is done in the House, who becomes the "prosecutors." The Senate becomes the "jury."
2) What we think of as "impeachable offenses" is not particularly well defined. There are three descriptions for what a person can be charged with: treason, bribery and "other high crimes and misdemeanors." You will probably never see someone charged with the first two, because there is a certain burden of proof there. There are specific legal steps that have to be met in order to prosecute those crimes. Almost every person who has been impeached has been under the "other high crimes and misdemeanors" header, even when it is... bribery (this actually happened once).
3) The causes of impeachment are legion, but Trump has already met several, in my opinion. There is profiteering, lying to the American public (see the Trump Tower press release he dictated), undermining the freedom of the press, not protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (vague, but this would be pursuant to justice concerns), violating the emoluments clause, undermining the federal judiciary, encouraging law enforcement to violate the rights of others, deceit, undermining the office of the Presidency by siding with white supremacists.
4) Those are a ton of reasons that are unrelated to the most obvious reason: obstruction of justice. Every president that has been impeached (Johnson, Clinton, and nearly Nixon) were impeached on obstruction of justice charges. If you think Donald Trump has not obstructed the Mueller investigation, then please let me sell you anything at all. He has publicly denounced his own Department of Justice, fired an FBI director for not interfering in the investigation, lied about his reasoning after the fact, attacked investigators by name and undermined the credibility of a federal investigation. It is not a witch hunt, unless witch hunts have found multiple witches and more are on the way. Obstruction of justice is obvious and should be pushed by everyone, Republican or Democrat. Neither side seems to be pushing it right now, which is frustrating. Democrats appear to prefer an impeachable person in power (easier to campaign against?) than to take the risk of overplaying their hand. Republicans appear unwilling to oppose Trump, under the spell of his cult of personality. Here's the catch: there is some reporting that the FBI, and by extension Mueller, can not charge a sitting President with obstruction of justice directly. There has to be an impeachment action/removal first, and then he could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice criminal charges. This theory hasn't been tested in any court, but it would only go to delay the process.
5) Special investigations are usually a slow process. With an investigation as deep and complicated as this one, I would not be surprised if there is not a final report more than a year from now, let alone by the end of Trump's (first?) term. Patience is required from the Mueller team. I know this sounds like doublespeak, but patience is required for the Mueller investigation while time is of the essence for impeachment.
State Mottos, Ranked and Annotated in Reverse Order
50) Indiana, "The Crossroads of America"
This is not a state motto. It is a nickname masquerading as a motto. It is an Indiana tourism branding statement. It is the worst state motto.
49) Minnesota, "L'Étoile du Nord" (Star of the North)
Also a nickname and not a motto, but it gains points for alluding to its French fur trapping origin story.
48) Florida, "In God We Trust"
The only state truly too lazy to think of something original is the only state it could ever have been.
47) Texas, "Friendship," 6) Rhode Island, "Hope," 45) Utah, "Industry"
These are all one-word concepts, which isn't a motto... it's a state aspirational goal. They sound like parts of the Scout Law. Mottos should either be an ethos or represent the state/people, and none of these do that. Have you met Texas drivers? Most unfriendly people in the world. Rhode Island's motto seems to be a verb, which is... slightly better. The best of this bad bunch is Utah's, which at least fits with the beehive/Mormon settlers history concept.
44) Montana, "Oro y plata (Gold and Silver)," 43) Tennessee, "Agriculture and Commerce" 42) New Jersey, "Liberty and prosperity," 41) Delaware, "Liberty and Independence," 40) Vermont, "Freedom and Unity"
Two-word concepts, but not really a motto. It's just two things. Montana's (despite the rare Spanish motto) gets docked for being two things in the state rather than two personality traits. It'd be like if West Virginia's motto was "coal mines and hills." Tennessee's two things are boring and sound like a small-town grocery store: Farm N'Barter! The other three are near interchangeable.
39) Pennsylvania, "Virtue, Liberty and Independence," 38) Louisiana, "Union, justice, confidence," 37) Georgia, "Wisdom, justice and moderation"
Three-word concepts are also not mottos. They are better than one-word or two-word concepts, though. Georgia's sounds the smartest, Pennsylvania's is the worst because liberty and independence are the same thing, and Louisiana's just doesn't sound like Louisiana.
36) Nebraska, "Equality before the law," 35) Wyoming, "Equal Rights"
Nebraska's is fine. It's just a wordier version of Wyoming's. I can accept Wyoming's as a motto because it's an ethos, aspirational goal and nod to history all in one. Wyoming was the first to give women the right to vote, and they won't let the other 49 states forget it. Nebraska doesn't even have the history behind it.
34) Illinois, "State sovereignty, national union"
This is true for any and every state. It is boring and lame and merely says "We're a state and we're in the United States!" I'm tempted to push this one farther down. Nothing about this says Illinois.
33) Michigan, " Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam circumspice (If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you"
I love geography and mentioning your unique geography. Peninsulas are cool. But this motto is the sticker on a map of the mall saying "You are here." A better motto would be something like "Not afraid to stick out." See? It's a peninsula riff without being obvious about it.
32) Maryland, "Fatti maschii, parole feminine (Manly deeds, womanly words)"
Sexist? I don't want to peer too far into the abyss, but this is either talking about a dude with the voice of a woman or a woman who does manly things, like spitting sunflower seeds or running a beer mile.
31) Colorado, "Nil sine numine (Nothing without the Deity)," 30) Connecticut, "Quit transtulit sustained (He who transplanted sustains)," 29) Arizona, "Ditat Deus (God enriches)," 28) Ohio, "With God, all things are possible"
I have nothing against pledges of fealty to God. That's cool with me. But it's only a perfectly fine state motto. Colorado's is kind of a weird indictment of God, that he would enable the many strange/weird things about that state: pot dispensaries, ski bros and the Denver Broncos come to mind. Connecticut's is a bit obtuse of a God reference. The other two are perfectly cromulent but not particularly memorable state mottos. Ohio's is Philippians 4:13, and you can't go wrong with Bible verses.
27) Missouri, "Salus populi suprema lex esto (Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law)," 26) South Dakota, "Under God, the people rule," 25) Arkansas, "The people rule"
These are pretty similar, but Missouri loses points for being wordy. South Dakota's gets to the point faster and explains the legal hierarchy: God, then people. Arkansas has the punchiest and easiest to teach a grade schooler, which matters.
24) North Carolina, "Esse quam videri (To be, rather than to seem)"
This sounds like part of a Hamlet monologue. It's super esoteric and tries too hard, though. Short revealing story about myself: Once, when I was in middle school, I thought I could impress a girl I liked by acting pensive and trying to share with her some super-deep thoughts about snow. It was dumb, it failed, and it's the source of laughter to this day for everyone. North Carolina's state motto is the "deep thoughts about snow" of state mottos.
23) South Carolina, "Dum spiro spero Animis opibusque parati (While I breathe, I hope Ready in soul and resource)"
It's way too long,
22) Washington, "Al-ki (By and By)"
It's in Chinook! That's cool, right? Once you get past the four letters and rare language of it all, this is kind of lame. It seems unusual and cool and different at first, but is actually just boring, like [insert BBC sitcom that failed in America here].
21) Wisconsin, "Forward"
I give Wisconsin a pass on the one-word concept, because this is both a preposition, a command and a direction. It's simple, as the best state mottos are, but it's a little too simple.
20) Oklahoma, "Labor omnia vincit (Labor conquers all things)"
I grew up with Oklahoma's. It's easy enough to remember and explains the state work ethic. The only problem is it can sound kind of nose-to-the-grindstone/toil is your friend/"Some day you'll get that boulder to the top of the hill, Sisyphus" atmosphere. Not quite as good as its cousin from Kansas, which is further down.
19) Idaho, "Esto perpetua (Let it be perpetual)"
My friends from Idaho tell me how beautiful it is, and now I want to visit. The idea of it lasting forever sounds nice, like a garden of Eden pre-Fall. There's a hidden message of "It's already great, so keep it this way" that is both instructive and environmental-sounding. It's lovely.
18) North Dakota, "Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable"
This sounds more like an oath of office or pledge of allegiance than a state motto. It's longer than it should be and it's sort of repetitive with union/one/inseparable. But I'll be danged if it doesn't have good flow, sound like something a grade schooler can remember, and embrace multiple dichotomies. I like it even though I know I kind of shouldn't.
17) Kentucky, "United we stand, divided we fall"
It's an old platitude, but a good one. This doesn't make me think of Kentucky or say much about the state. We're starting to get into the better state mottos.
16) Hawaii, "Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono (The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness)"
That is wordy as hell, but it embraces its native language, which is great. It sounds like something any dad might tell his children, in that "I'm being poignant here, but taking too many words to say it" sort of way. The response is: "Yeah, Dad, I get it. If I'm good, the land will last forever. My morality is clapping and the land is Tinkerbell."
15) Iowa, "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain," 14) Virginia, "Sic semper tyrannis (Thus always to tyrants)," 13) Massachusetts, "Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)," 12) Alabama, "Audemus jura nostra defendere (We dare defend our rights)," 11) Mississippi, "Virtute et armis (By valor and arms)"
I call these the "We will fight you" mottos. It's no surprise that three of them are Southern states. Iowa's is the lamest of the bunch, because it's just an implied threat. Virginia's is too far in the opposite direction and loses points for being something John Wilkes Booth shouted after killing Lincoln, though it is still badass enough to be this high. Massachusetts is wordy and too stuffy, but perfectly Massachusetts in that way. Alabama's seems needlessly provocative, but still has that cutthroat mentality. I love the simplicity of Mississippi's.
10) California, "Eureka (I have found it)"
It's got the gold mining history incorporated, it's simple and punchy, it's a nod to Archimedes. It's also a little full of itself, which is perfect for California.
9) New York, "Excelsior (Ever Upward)"
It's one-word, but it's aspirational and implies growth over time. It's easy to remember and punchy. It gains points for me because of the Stan Lee connection. The famed Marvel Comics legend would end his columns with this word in the idea that other writers wouldn't copy. It is perfectly Stan Lee in that it's kind of hokey and outdated, but delightfully so. It's the Adam West Batman of state mottos.
8) New Mexico, "Crescit eundo (It grows as it goes)"
Sweet, simple and doesn't have the Stan Lee baggage. Points docked for Latin instead of Spanish.
7) Oregon, "Alis volat propriis (She flies with her own wings)"
Oregon is a feminist state, or at least a feminine pronoun state. Even though there's a bit of a Li'l Brudder aspect to it, the wings imagery is beautiful and poignant. But if you didn't know this was Oregon, you still wouldn't know.
6) Kansas, "Ad astra per aspera (To the stars through difficulties)"
I was kind of surprised how high this one rose, but it's got all the earmarks of a great state motto with only one drawback. It kind of rhymes in Latin, it's super easy to remember, it's aspirational while accepting of reality, and it's the name of a beer. The stars are a greater goal than merely flying, so it's better than Oregon. The only drawback is that it doesn't scream Kansas. It's one of the best mottos, but it just can't break through to the upper echelon. It is the Kansas City Chiefs of state mottos.
5) Maine, "Dirigo (I lead)"
The punchiest, best one-word motto in the country. It's a declaration and direction. It's aspirational and easy to remember. It's simple but not simplistic. This is the best motto that doesn't make you think of its state at all. Be honest: If you read the motto first, did Maine come to mind? Probably not, which is a shame. Any motto ranked higher than this gives off an "F yeah!" attitude, and this one is
4) Nevada, "All for our Country and Battle Born"
Points docked for having two mottos. However, each of these mottos is excellent. The first is so patriotic it hurts. The second gives a vibe of "we can handle anything." It's also the name of a Killers album. Honestly, they should drop the first motto and just be "Battle Born," since it sounds so incredible and like they can handle anything. It makes me think of Nevada, though again, that may just be the Killers album doing work for the state. It'd look great on a license plate.
3) Alaska, "North to the future"
Geography tie-in! But more importantly, there's maybe only one other state this could possibly be (Minnesota, maybe?). It's just a motto that immediately conjures Alaska. It's aspirational and a good motto. Quick thought: Is traveling north always a good idea, especially in the winter?
2) West Virginia, "Montani semper liberi (Mountaineers are always free)"
Hell yeah! This is the best "who we are" motto in the country. It screams place (mountains), people (mountaineers), identity (always free), and aspiration (implied). You don't want to mess with these guys, because they are one with the land.
1) New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die"
There's something to be said for keeping it simple. In 13 letters, it's an ethos, an identity, a dare to others, a charge, edgy, a line in the sand and morbidly awesome. You can imagine New Hampshire militia members yelling this as they charge up a hill. It'd make a great tattoo if you're from there. It's also immediately recognizable as New Hampshire, because of all those factors. Hell, it's practically a Die Hard movie. It's definitely not as mild and fluffy and star-eyed as the others. It's put-up-or-shut-up in New Hampshire. It's also got a great historic lineage. A classic for a reason.
Summary Judgments
Here's a short summary of the Inspector General FBI report: Clinton's emails were not criminal in any way, Comey was wrong to make not one but two public statements that likely damaged her status in the election, and the FBI had a few people that didn't like Trump. None of those actions were done for political reasons. It reminds me of an offshoot of Occam's Razor called Hanlon's Razor: Never assign to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. • • • Paul Manafort is now in jail for witness tampering. Surely he wouldn't do that if he were innocent, right? • • • This is a salient point that I should probably elaborate on next time, since this is News Judgments and all. In short: journalists are treating the President's quotes as gospel and quoting him as if he were an authority, even when what he is saying is contrary to the nuance and depth of a story. It misleads the public when a headline like "Trump: watchdog report a 'total disaster' for Comey" runs instead of "Watchdog report: Comey erred, but not biased in Clinton probe." The latter is a much better reflection of the report and doesn't grant supreme authority to the President. The former assumes that President Trump actually read a 500-page report. I encourage any Trump supporter to look me in the eye and say that he read the whole report. • • • I ran a Warrior Dash last week. It wore me out so much that I had trouble sleeping for two days. It was through a farm field, so it was dusty. It was a record high in Kansas City that day, with heat indices over 100. The mud dragged your body down and the water obstacles only did so much to remove the mud. It was brutal and exhausting and physically demanding. I loved it and want to do it again next year. • • • We have been telling the kids that if they want to stay up after we tuck them in and read/play quietly, they can do so. Evie has been exploiting this loophole even though she knows we want her to be in bed. Last night, it was 10:45 and I knew she was still awake. I walked by her room to a point I could see her but she didn't know I was there. She got up and was playing with her dresser when she looked up, saw me looking at her, had a moment of recognition like a deer in the headlights, then darted into bed and pretended she was sleeping. She fell asleep for real 10 minutes later.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Ten Thoughts on the White House Correspondents Dinner
1) The White House Correspondents Association pretended to be surprised about comedian Michelle Wolf's performance. I say "pretended," because their press release announcing she'd do the dinner included the line that they liked the way she "speaks truth to power" and that she's no-nonsense. After the performance, the WHCA said that her performance did not fit the spirit of the dinner. This means one of two things: Either they didn't do their homework on Michelle Wolf's act (which is a bad sign for the people who are supposed to be doing their homework on the Administration) or they are being disingenuous now. I lean toward the latter, though I can't rule out the former.
2) The performance at the WHCA is traditionally a roast. The comedian of choice comes up and makes fun of the political powers-that-be, the media themselves, and whoever else is in the room. I have no idea why this didn't fit the spirit of the dinner, since it... exactly fits the spirit of the dinner. A quick scan of past hosts show that four of the last dozen have said/done something "controversial," no matter how benign.
3) I watched the whole performance. About 50 percent of her jokes landed as intended. About 30-40 percent weren't funny/didn't land. The remaining 10-20 percent were tasteless/bad jokes. That's not a bad ratio for any comedian. She's the sixth woman to host/perform at the event. She's the first female stand-up comedian of an opposite-party stance since... first female host Paula Poundstone in 1992. No offense to Cecily Strong or Aretha Franklin, but the nature of stand-up comedy is riskier. And most of the other women did so during liberal administrations. I don't know the reason for the reactions, because I'm not a psychiatrist. But I can't rule out her gender as a motivating factor here.
4) Most of her jokes were good. The best one was that Mike Pence looks like what would happen if Anderson Cooper wasn't gay. HILARIOUS. Some of the uproar has been Wolf's treatment of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. None of her jokes about Sarah Huckabee Sanders were about her appearance; they were about lying to the American public and that she is a woman that treats other women badly. She made some quite pointed Handmaid's Tale references, but they weren't about her looks. The jokes about lying should come as no surprise to SHS, as that's the nature of the job. Every press secretary obfuscates, diverts, blurs, confounds, hides, and mischaracterizes the truth. The worst joke of the night was a tasteless abortion joke. But in the end, is a tasteless abortion joke in a 20-minute routine really major news? If the whole controversy is "woman tells a few tasteless jokes," then what are we doing here? This wasn't bullying, as one bad CNN writer put it, because she didn't have any power. (Albert Burneko brilliantly takes that hot take down with a searing critique of his own.)
5) Alyson and I rewatched Stephen Colbert's famous WHCD performance in 2006, with George W. and Laura Bush on the dais. Several Bush aides walked out, and some said that Bush looked upset. After watching it again, Bush himself laughed at most of the jokes, particularly the one about Cheney shooting Colbert in the face. There were many jokes that didn't land, but it seemed everyone was willing to laugh at themselves a bit. Colbert also gave a "Sicilian hello" to Antonin Scalia, who guffawed and slapped his knee. That's the spirit of this event, and both Bushes notably shook Colbert's hand afterward.
6) I would make an argument that Michelle Wolf is a little less established than many of the other hosts have been. Maybe she didn't know how to read the room as well as the others? Maybe in 5 years, she will look back and maybe throw a few punches differently? I don't know. Just an observation.
7) Most people didn't know who Michelle Wolf was before the event. Most probably wouldn't have known who she was after the event. But by making a controversy out of it, you've only given her a greater platform for her comedy. Now, she's on the front pages of news sites because they drew attention to it.
8) Speaking of drawing attention to it, that's my whole problem with this "controversy." As an example, let me tell you a story about the kids. Often, they'll run into a wall or door or fall down or scratch their knee or bonk their head or... [list continues forever] and there will be a momentary pause. They're looking at us, the parents, to read our reaction. If we say "Are you hurt?", they'll start to sniffle and eventually cry. If we say "Ouchie! You're alright!", they pop back up and walk away. I think this was a case in which the media ran to the Administration and asked "Are you hurt?", and the Administration responded to the question.
9) Why do I say that? Because the first reactions to Wolf's comedy were not from the Trump administration or SHS. They were from the media itself. Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, most notably, but others, too, joined in on the rudeness/vulgarity/insert-your-adjective-here aspect of the dinner. They didn't actually get administration reaction for a while after the event, but by then the "controversy" had already been percolating. I don't blame SHS and the Trump administration for responding to "Are you hurt?" with a few sniffles and "Yeah, that joke was no fun." But it's a controversy entirely drummed up by the media itself. Maybe that's to cozy up to the Administration as a "we really are the moral arbiters of right/wrong, and you're wronged this time." Maybe it's just pearl-clutching by the media. At any rate, this was a media event that drew media attention that didn't need a national audience. It was a bad joke or two at a trade association. It was not deserving of a national audience. The right response is "Ouchie! You're alright."
10) Which brings me to my larger point: What is the purpose of the WHCD anymore? These days, it seems like an opportunity to dress up and hobnob with celebrities and whichever politicians show up. I kind of feel like Trump is right to choose not to attend. Is the event to pat other journalists on the back for their work in covering the highest of high politics? There's a coziness with its subjects that big-J Journalism never really wrestled with post-Trump. It's a symbiosis and encouragement of news-making behavior that Journalism has fed on like a lamprey. Journalism didn't learn any lessons from the 2016 election, and has only grown more parasitic. The "controversy" of Michelle Wolf has only obscured that her sharpest jokes were about the media itself: "You guys love breaking news, and you did it! You broke it!" she joked about CNN. "You helped create this monster, and now you're profiting off him." Amen.
Senate Midterms update
There have been a few changes in the Senate races that I think push it a little closer to a contest to flippable for the Democrats. While I still think it's unlikely that the Senate flips, a few new polls show some new battlegrounds for Democrats in an absolutely terrible map for them. Reminder: They have to win two more seats than they lose in order to flip the Senate.
First, the bad news for the Dems: Bill Nelson has a fight on his hands in Florida against incumbent Gov. Rick Scott. As much as Democrats have to hold on to their own battleground states in order to flip the Senate, I'd argue that this has suddenly become one of the two or three hardest to retain for the Dems, meaning they'd have to win three GOP seats to take control of the Senate.
The good news for the Dems is that things have changed in two states to make a Democratic flip feasible. In Texas, Beto O'Rourke is within a few points of Ted Cruz according to a Quinnipiac poll. Some of the better political pundits I read are skeptical that he could win, but if you're within single digits, it's not impossible, especially since O'Rourke's main handicap is the public doesn't know him well. O'Rourke is a charismatic guy and far more likeable than Cruz, so as people become more knowledgeable about him, the margin may narrow further. The other major pick-up would be the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Bob Corker in Tennessee, where polls show a lead for the Democrat, the former mayor of Nashville. This is surprising in a deep red state like Tennessee. Polls also indicate slim leads or ties for Democrats in battleground states, like Missouri's own Claire McCaskill and Arizona (Jeff Flake's old seat, would be flipped).
My current guess is Tennessee flips, Arizona flips, Florida/Missouri/North Dakota/West Virginia all barely stay blue, Texas stays red. That'd be +2 for Democrats, but Indiana and Nevada could go either way right now. I'm waffling on Florida and Missouri. If Democrats win Nevada, Indiana would be a moot point — they'd have control of the Senate. But if the GOP wins Nevada, the Dems would have to keep Indiana to take control of the Senate. Nevada — a 1-point GOP lead in the latest poll — is the key.
Name of the Year update
I'm feeling very good about my pick to win the Name of the Year. That's because it's in the finals, and my pick of Dr. Narwhals Mating (my pick) is in the finals against Jimbob Ghostkeeper. I'm really proud of my prognostication this year, as I picked 6 of the Elite Eight. I correctly called Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper emerging, and Miracle Crimes making a good run. I also called Makenlove Petit-Fard v. Rev. Dongo Pewee in the Fruithandler, where I also correctly picked the 14-seed upset by Obra Kernodle IV and tabbed Dr. Megha Panda to have a good charge. In the Dragonwagon, I had Quindarious Gooch making the Elite Eight and called the early exit of top seeds Ceejhay French-Love and La Royce Lobster-Gaines, but I didn't call Delicious Peters' march to the Final Four. Finally, I called Shaka Licorice's early exit and called 7 of 8 first-round matches in the Chrotchtangle. I didn't have Gandalf Hernandez going quite as far, but I did have he and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd duking it out in the Sweet 16. All in all, I'm incredibly proud of my prognostication skills, and I'll probably buy myself a Coke or something if I'm right and Dr. Narwhals Mating wins. (UPDATE: He's losing in voting... this is a travesty.) This has been "Andrew indulges in a little silliness."
Summary Judgments
In Japan, it's not Ronald McDonald, but Donald McDonald. This story explains why. • • • John Green had this quote in the excellent Vlogbrothers series that made me think: "I am attracted to information that is novel and surprising even though that kind of information is often not the most useful or accurate... Like any predator, I listen quietly to what is loud and look at what is bright, and that can make it easy to distract me or mislead me." That one hit me hard. • • • I can't read this story without feeling sympathy for Caster Semenya, whose track and field governing body is almost explicitly out to get her. • • • If you haven't read Kevin Wong's work on Peanuts, this is a great new article to start on. It's about how Lucy and Schroeder explored dysfunctional relationships. • • • This is a video of Future Roland. • • • I'm running again, but I've had a couple bad runs. I was kind of sick on Monday, so that might explain why I couldn't run hardly at all that day, but I'm simply not having the same results as I did last year. That's frustrating me. I mean, I'm up to 2.75 miles, but that's with a few walking breaks thrown in. The Warrior Dash is about a month from now, and I just don't feel like I'm where I want to be physically. :(
2) The performance at the WHCA is traditionally a roast. The comedian of choice comes up and makes fun of the political powers-that-be, the media themselves, and whoever else is in the room. I have no idea why this didn't fit the spirit of the dinner, since it... exactly fits the spirit of the dinner. A quick scan of past hosts show that four of the last dozen have said/done something "controversial," no matter how benign.
3) I watched the whole performance. About 50 percent of her jokes landed as intended. About 30-40 percent weren't funny/didn't land. The remaining 10-20 percent were tasteless/bad jokes. That's not a bad ratio for any comedian. She's the sixth woman to host/perform at the event. She's the first female stand-up comedian of an opposite-party stance since... first female host Paula Poundstone in 1992. No offense to Cecily Strong or Aretha Franklin, but the nature of stand-up comedy is riskier. And most of the other women did so during liberal administrations. I don't know the reason for the reactions, because I'm not a psychiatrist. But I can't rule out her gender as a motivating factor here.
4) Most of her jokes were good. The best one was that Mike Pence looks like what would happen if Anderson Cooper wasn't gay. HILARIOUS. Some of the uproar has been Wolf's treatment of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. None of her jokes about Sarah Huckabee Sanders were about her appearance; they were about lying to the American public and that she is a woman that treats other women badly. She made some quite pointed Handmaid's Tale references, but they weren't about her looks. The jokes about lying should come as no surprise to SHS, as that's the nature of the job. Every press secretary obfuscates, diverts, blurs, confounds, hides, and mischaracterizes the truth. The worst joke of the night was a tasteless abortion joke. But in the end, is a tasteless abortion joke in a 20-minute routine really major news? If the whole controversy is "woman tells a few tasteless jokes," then what are we doing here? This wasn't bullying, as one bad CNN writer put it, because she didn't have any power. (Albert Burneko brilliantly takes that hot take down with a searing critique of his own.)
5) Alyson and I rewatched Stephen Colbert's famous WHCD performance in 2006, with George W. and Laura Bush on the dais. Several Bush aides walked out, and some said that Bush looked upset. After watching it again, Bush himself laughed at most of the jokes, particularly the one about Cheney shooting Colbert in the face. There were many jokes that didn't land, but it seemed everyone was willing to laugh at themselves a bit. Colbert also gave a "Sicilian hello" to Antonin Scalia, who guffawed and slapped his knee. That's the spirit of this event, and both Bushes notably shook Colbert's hand afterward.
6) I would make an argument that Michelle Wolf is a little less established than many of the other hosts have been. Maybe she didn't know how to read the room as well as the others? Maybe in 5 years, she will look back and maybe throw a few punches differently? I don't know. Just an observation.
7) Most people didn't know who Michelle Wolf was before the event. Most probably wouldn't have known who she was after the event. But by making a controversy out of it, you've only given her a greater platform for her comedy. Now, she's on the front pages of news sites because they drew attention to it.
8) Speaking of drawing attention to it, that's my whole problem with this "controversy." As an example, let me tell you a story about the kids. Often, they'll run into a wall or door or fall down or scratch their knee or bonk their head or... [list continues forever] and there will be a momentary pause. They're looking at us, the parents, to read our reaction. If we say "Are you hurt?", they'll start to sniffle and eventually cry. If we say "Ouchie! You're alright!", they pop back up and walk away. I think this was a case in which the media ran to the Administration and asked "Are you hurt?", and the Administration responded to the question.
9) Why do I say that? Because the first reactions to Wolf's comedy were not from the Trump administration or SHS. They were from the media itself. Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, most notably, but others, too, joined in on the rudeness/vulgarity/insert-your-adjective-here aspect of the dinner. They didn't actually get administration reaction for a while after the event, but by then the "controversy" had already been percolating. I don't blame SHS and the Trump administration for responding to "Are you hurt?" with a few sniffles and "Yeah, that joke was no fun." But it's a controversy entirely drummed up by the media itself. Maybe that's to cozy up to the Administration as a "we really are the moral arbiters of right/wrong, and you're wronged this time." Maybe it's just pearl-clutching by the media. At any rate, this was a media event that drew media attention that didn't need a national audience. It was a bad joke or two at a trade association. It was not deserving of a national audience. The right response is "Ouchie! You're alright."
10) Which brings me to my larger point: What is the purpose of the WHCD anymore? These days, it seems like an opportunity to dress up and hobnob with celebrities and whichever politicians show up. I kind of feel like Trump is right to choose not to attend. Is the event to pat other journalists on the back for their work in covering the highest of high politics? There's a coziness with its subjects that big-J Journalism never really wrestled with post-Trump. It's a symbiosis and encouragement of news-making behavior that Journalism has fed on like a lamprey. Journalism didn't learn any lessons from the 2016 election, and has only grown more parasitic. The "controversy" of Michelle Wolf has only obscured that her sharpest jokes were about the media itself: "You guys love breaking news, and you did it! You broke it!" she joked about CNN. "You helped create this monster, and now you're profiting off him." Amen.
Senate Midterms update
There have been a few changes in the Senate races that I think push it a little closer to a contest to flippable for the Democrats. While I still think it's unlikely that the Senate flips, a few new polls show some new battlegrounds for Democrats in an absolutely terrible map for them. Reminder: They have to win two more seats than they lose in order to flip the Senate.
First, the bad news for the Dems: Bill Nelson has a fight on his hands in Florida against incumbent Gov. Rick Scott. As much as Democrats have to hold on to their own battleground states in order to flip the Senate, I'd argue that this has suddenly become one of the two or three hardest to retain for the Dems, meaning they'd have to win three GOP seats to take control of the Senate.
The good news for the Dems is that things have changed in two states to make a Democratic flip feasible. In Texas, Beto O'Rourke is within a few points of Ted Cruz according to a Quinnipiac poll. Some of the better political pundits I read are skeptical that he could win, but if you're within single digits, it's not impossible, especially since O'Rourke's main handicap is the public doesn't know him well. O'Rourke is a charismatic guy and far more likeable than Cruz, so as people become more knowledgeable about him, the margin may narrow further. The other major pick-up would be the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Bob Corker in Tennessee, where polls show a lead for the Democrat, the former mayor of Nashville. This is surprising in a deep red state like Tennessee. Polls also indicate slim leads or ties for Democrats in battleground states, like Missouri's own Claire McCaskill and Arizona (Jeff Flake's old seat, would be flipped).
My current guess is Tennessee flips, Arizona flips, Florida/Missouri/North Dakota/West Virginia all barely stay blue, Texas stays red. That'd be +2 for Democrats, but Indiana and Nevada could go either way right now. I'm waffling on Florida and Missouri. If Democrats win Nevada, Indiana would be a moot point — they'd have control of the Senate. But if the GOP wins Nevada, the Dems would have to keep Indiana to take control of the Senate. Nevada — a 1-point GOP lead in the latest poll — is the key.
Name of the Year update
I'm feeling very good about my pick to win the Name of the Year. That's because it's in the finals, and my pick of Dr. Narwhals Mating (my pick) is in the finals against Jimbob Ghostkeeper. I'm really proud of my prognostication this year, as I picked 6 of the Elite Eight. I correctly called Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper emerging, and Miracle Crimes making a good run. I also called Makenlove Petit-Fard v. Rev. Dongo Pewee in the Fruithandler, where I also correctly picked the 14-seed upset by Obra Kernodle IV and tabbed Dr. Megha Panda to have a good charge. In the Dragonwagon, I had Quindarious Gooch making the Elite Eight and called the early exit of top seeds Ceejhay French-Love and La Royce Lobster-Gaines, but I didn't call Delicious Peters' march to the Final Four. Finally, I called Shaka Licorice's early exit and called 7 of 8 first-round matches in the Chrotchtangle. I didn't have Gandalf Hernandez going quite as far, but I did have he and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd duking it out in the Sweet 16. All in all, I'm incredibly proud of my prognostication skills, and I'll probably buy myself a Coke or something if I'm right and Dr. Narwhals Mating wins. (UPDATE: He's losing in voting... this is a travesty.) This has been "Andrew indulges in a little silliness."
Summary Judgments
In Japan, it's not Ronald McDonald, but Donald McDonald. This story explains why. • • • John Green had this quote in the excellent Vlogbrothers series that made me think: "I am attracted to information that is novel and surprising even though that kind of information is often not the most useful or accurate... Like any predator, I listen quietly to what is loud and look at what is bright, and that can make it easy to distract me or mislead me." That one hit me hard. • • • I can't read this story without feeling sympathy for Caster Semenya, whose track and field governing body is almost explicitly out to get her. • • • If you haven't read Kevin Wong's work on Peanuts, this is a great new article to start on. It's about how Lucy and Schroeder explored dysfunctional relationships. • • • This is a video of Future Roland. • • • I'm running again, but I've had a couple bad runs. I was kind of sick on Monday, so that might explain why I couldn't run hardly at all that day, but I'm simply not having the same results as I did last year. That's frustrating me. I mean, I'm up to 2.75 miles, but that's with a few walking breaks thrown in. The Warrior Dash is about a month from now, and I just don't feel like I'm where I want to be physically. :(
Saturday, April 7, 2018
On Oklahoma Teachers
I spent 8 of my 13 years of K-12 education in Oklahoma schools. So when I saw that Oklahoma teachers were striking in order to get a) better pay and b) more investment in education, I wasn't surprised. I was only surprised it took so long. My 5th grade teacher, Mrs. Alloway, was a finalist for Oklahoma Teacher of the Year. She left for Texas. Last year's Oklahoma Teacher of the Year left for better pay in Texas. One of Alyson's good friends went to school to be a teacher and taught for a few years in the Tulsa area. As a single woman at the time, she decided it made more sense for her to leave teaching and go into the business sector, because it allowed her to make enough money to survive.
Lawmakers in Oklahoma and Kansas just don't get it. Both state legislatures have made cutting education a priority, and don't seem to understand why their teachers are turning on them.
Kansas, for one, has had to have the state Supreme Court intercede not once, not twice, but three times since 1991 to force them to fund education to state constitutionally approved levels. A Kansas GOP study (read: expected be sympathetic to the GOP) found that the state needed to add $2 billion to education funding. Needless to say, the GOP-dominated Kansas legislature has responded rationally and calmly by ... just kidding, they're trying to rewrite the state constitution so that the Supreme Court can't get involved and they can just determine the funding themselves.
I don't know Oklahoma politics as well as Kansas, but I do know that before the strike, the Oklahoma legislature offered to give the teachers what they thought they wanted: a pay hike. The teachers are still on strike, however, because they saw through the ploy. The ploy was that the pay hike had no additional funding measures, so would have likely been paid for through cuts elsewhere in education. It was not just about the teachers getting a pay raise: It's about their schools and students getting the funding needed to do their jobs. We're now on a full week, when the students should be in the middle of standardized testing. The latest is the Legislature offered a school funding increase of $40 million (a pittance in state funding) and the teachers said thanks, but that's not enough. Teachers also want funding measures in place rather than promises for more money but really just a reshuffling of money. It'll be interesting to see what happens and who cracks first.
Gun Control and Vitriol
I'm usually a person slow to block people on Facebook. But I've seen the most hateful, vitriolic things from the right on the gun control issue and done just that. It's largely either baseless or downright awful things that are said about the Parkland teens. Let me remind you: These teens are asking/demanding gun control provisions stronger than what we have now. They want to prevent what happened to them and their friends from happening again. I haven't seen incidents of them being particularly nasty or vile toward anyone to earn ire — their presence, publicity and pressure has been an irritant, I guess. They have not called for repealing the Second Amendment in its entirety that I've seen, nor have they attacked anyone who hasn't attacked them first.
Much of this has been directed at two teens (both under 18, mind you) David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez. I've seen people say that David Hogg keeps tampons in his backpack (HE'S A GIRL! HAHAHA WHAT AN EMBARRASSMENT! DURHURHUR SO FUNNY!). I've seen people say they want to literally barbecue David Hogg. I've seen people wish he were knifed. Then there's this story. I've seen the thoroughly debunked PhotoShop image of Emma Gonzalez tearing up the Constitution, though the original was a target.
I've also seen numerous people say that the Parkland shooter did it because he was bullied, including one meme that included Emma Gonzalez by name and picture as his bully. This is ridiculous for several reasons: 1) We have no evidence that the Parkland shooter was bullied 2) We have no evidence that Emma Gonzalez bullied him. In fact, we have evidence of the opposite: Emma Gonzalez spoke about his classmates having concern about him, and another classmate/peer counselor saying that no amount of befriending Nikolas Cruz mattered. Let's get past this silly idea that if only his classmates had tried harder to be Cruz's friend, that he would not have attacked his school. It's baseless and distracts from better arguments.
In short, I've been incredibly disappointed in many of my right-leaning friends on this issue. There are a few who use logic and actual arguments in their stances, and I learn a great deal from them. However, the vast majority have been categorized as hateful and angry. If anything has happened in the last 2 months since the shooting, we've only seen looser gun regulations in red states and tougher gun regulations in blue states. Teachers can now be armed in more schools than before. Surely we can do better as a society.
Summary Judgments
My mom sent me this article that talks about how our rush to teach kids earlier and earlier is missing a lot of brain development in their heads. It feels like we, as parents, are expected to have our children reading, counting money, doing advanced calculus, and interpreting the works of Nietzsche by the time they enter kindergarten. It's a lot of pressure on parents, but that just trickles down to the kids. Maybe it's time to reconsider our pressure to educate earlier and earlier and let kids be kids a little. • • • Please don't suck. The Dark Tower movie sucked. This is one of the few books/comic series I truly care about not sucking. • • • I've run up to 2.25 miles lately, and should be on track to be running 5Ks by the time of my first/only current race, the Warrior Dash in early April. I want to be running a 5K by the time of vacation in mid May, so I can pick up where I left off after we get back. I also need to start working much harder, because I'm far heftier than this time last year. • • • The Kansas City Star did a tournament to determine who has the best burnt ends in Kansas City. Zarda's BBQ won. I grew up in Blue Springs and I've been trying to get to every BBQ place in a town known for its BBQ (I'm going to write up our rankings here some day soon). So with that all said, let me state this unequivocally: Zarda's is trash BBQ. Their burnt ends are nothing special, and at least four places off the top of my head do them better. Hell, Zarda's isn't even the best burnt ends in Blue Springs -- that's Plowboys. I could honestly rant for hours about this. Zarda's is garbage barbecue, and they didn't deserve to win. • • • I just learned the term Milkshake Duck, so now that's something I'm sharing with you. • • • Evie gets in trouble a lot at day care because she's... let's put it at "often emotional." I don't want to get into it. But the other day, Roland got into trouble at day care, and when the director came in to check on him in time out, Evie was sitting at the table smiling. This happens at our house, too. When Roland is in trouble, she'll be particularly helpful, reminding us often that "I'm good! I'm not being bad!" For now, kid. For now.
Lawmakers in Oklahoma and Kansas just don't get it. Both state legislatures have made cutting education a priority, and don't seem to understand why their teachers are turning on them.
Kansas, for one, has had to have the state Supreme Court intercede not once, not twice, but three times since 1991 to force them to fund education to state constitutionally approved levels. A Kansas GOP study (read: expected be sympathetic to the GOP) found that the state needed to add $2 billion to education funding. Needless to say, the GOP-dominated Kansas legislature has responded rationally and calmly by ... just kidding, they're trying to rewrite the state constitution so that the Supreme Court can't get involved and they can just determine the funding themselves.
I don't know Oklahoma politics as well as Kansas, but I do know that before the strike, the Oklahoma legislature offered to give the teachers what they thought they wanted: a pay hike. The teachers are still on strike, however, because they saw through the ploy. The ploy was that the pay hike had no additional funding measures, so would have likely been paid for through cuts elsewhere in education. It was not just about the teachers getting a pay raise: It's about their schools and students getting the funding needed to do their jobs. We're now on a full week, when the students should be in the middle of standardized testing. The latest is the Legislature offered a school funding increase of $40 million (a pittance in state funding) and the teachers said thanks, but that's not enough. Teachers also want funding measures in place rather than promises for more money but really just a reshuffling of money. It'll be interesting to see what happens and who cracks first.
Gun Control and Vitriol
I'm usually a person slow to block people on Facebook. But I've seen the most hateful, vitriolic things from the right on the gun control issue and done just that. It's largely either baseless or downright awful things that are said about the Parkland teens. Let me remind you: These teens are asking/demanding gun control provisions stronger than what we have now. They want to prevent what happened to them and their friends from happening again. I haven't seen incidents of them being particularly nasty or vile toward anyone to earn ire — their presence, publicity and pressure has been an irritant, I guess. They have not called for repealing the Second Amendment in its entirety that I've seen, nor have they attacked anyone who hasn't attacked them first.
Much of this has been directed at two teens (both under 18, mind you) David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez. I've seen people say that David Hogg keeps tampons in his backpack (HE'S A GIRL! HAHAHA WHAT AN EMBARRASSMENT! DURHURHUR SO FUNNY!). I've seen people say they want to literally barbecue David Hogg. I've seen people wish he were knifed. Then there's this story. I've seen the thoroughly debunked PhotoShop image of Emma Gonzalez tearing up the Constitution, though the original was a target.
I've also seen numerous people say that the Parkland shooter did it because he was bullied, including one meme that included Emma Gonzalez by name and picture as his bully. This is ridiculous for several reasons: 1) We have no evidence that the Parkland shooter was bullied 2) We have no evidence that Emma Gonzalez bullied him. In fact, we have evidence of the opposite: Emma Gonzalez spoke about his classmates having concern about him, and another classmate/peer counselor saying that no amount of befriending Nikolas Cruz mattered. Let's get past this silly idea that if only his classmates had tried harder to be Cruz's friend, that he would not have attacked his school. It's baseless and distracts from better arguments.
In short, I've been incredibly disappointed in many of my right-leaning friends on this issue. There are a few who use logic and actual arguments in their stances, and I learn a great deal from them. However, the vast majority have been categorized as hateful and angry. If anything has happened in the last 2 months since the shooting, we've only seen looser gun regulations in red states and tougher gun regulations in blue states. Teachers can now be armed in more schools than before. Surely we can do better as a society.
Summary Judgments
My mom sent me this article that talks about how our rush to teach kids earlier and earlier is missing a lot of brain development in their heads. It feels like we, as parents, are expected to have our children reading, counting money, doing advanced calculus, and interpreting the works of Nietzsche by the time they enter kindergarten. It's a lot of pressure on parents, but that just trickles down to the kids. Maybe it's time to reconsider our pressure to educate earlier and earlier and let kids be kids a little. • • • Please don't suck. The Dark Tower movie sucked. This is one of the few books/comic series I truly care about not sucking. • • • I've run up to 2.25 miles lately, and should be on track to be running 5Ks by the time of my first/only current race, the Warrior Dash in early April. I want to be running a 5K by the time of vacation in mid May, so I can pick up where I left off after we get back. I also need to start working much harder, because I'm far heftier than this time last year. • • • The Kansas City Star did a tournament to determine who has the best burnt ends in Kansas City. Zarda's BBQ won. I grew up in Blue Springs and I've been trying to get to every BBQ place in a town known for its BBQ (I'm going to write up our rankings here some day soon). So with that all said, let me state this unequivocally: Zarda's is trash BBQ. Their burnt ends are nothing special, and at least four places off the top of my head do them better. Hell, Zarda's isn't even the best burnt ends in Blue Springs -- that's Plowboys. I could honestly rant for hours about this. Zarda's is garbage barbecue, and they didn't deserve to win. • • • I just learned the term Milkshake Duck, so now that's something I'm sharing with you. • • • Evie gets in trouble a lot at day care because she's... let's put it at "often emotional." I don't want to get into it. But the other day, Roland got into trouble at day care, and when the director came in to check on him in time out, Evie was sitting at the table smiling. This happens at our house, too. When Roland is in trouble, she'll be particularly helpful, reminding us often that "I'm good! I'm not being bad!" For now, kid. For now.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
The Third Annual Name of the Year Bracket Breakdown
For a minute there, I started to think this year would go by without a Name of the Year bracket. The Committee kept making promises, and the bracket didn't show. The actual March Madness bracket was nearly decided before the Name of the Year bracket (link to this year's bracket) came out. But it has, and it *inhales deeply* is worth the wait.
I am, as far as I know, the only person to attempt analysis of the bracket in the world. This is my third year. Last year saw the meteoric rise of Boats Botes, who won the people's votes. Kobe Buffalomeat won the Committee's vote. I had both in the Final Four.
Last year's bracket was very top-heavy. This year's bracket has a number of duds like any year, but my feeling is that it has stronger depth than last year. There are a few favorites, but none that I feel instantly will have deep runs. In short: A better bracket means it's harder to pick winners. But that's what I'm here for. As a reminder, names that tend to do better in the bracket are names that a) have funny first and last names, b) have good name synergy, like Miracle Crimes this year and c) have some added bonus, like Dr./Rev. or Jr./III/IV or diacriticals.
Bulltron Regional
(For those new to the site, the regionals are named after winners in the early 1990s. This regional is named after Assumption Bulltron, 1992 Name of the Year winner and Name of the Decade. The others are named after Crescent Dragonwagon, '93 winner; Doby Chrotchtangle, '91 winner; and... I'll get to the other one soon.)
This is one of the two strongest regionals. Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper should continue the hot streak of 1 and 2 seeds. Mosthigh Thankgod has an easy matchup, too. 10-seed Jamez Brickhouse is only funny because of one letter, so I think Dr. Dimple Royalty crushes him. The 8-9 matchup is weak, so I'll pick Zeus de la Paz as the winner. My first upset pick is Miracle Crimes over 4-seed Early Charlemagne. Miracle Crimes was severely underseeded. Tuna Altuna is a beautiful example of why I love this tournament, and she (he?) should advance. Finally, Habbakkuk Baldonado has two names that clash beautifully, which should lead it to victory over one-name Armageddon Draughn. Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper should coast into the Sweet 16, and Miracle Crimes continues the Cinderella story. The lovely symmetry of Tuna Altuna should be enough against Mosthigh Thanked. Unfortunately, this region is really about two names: Jimbob Ghostkeeper in the bottom half and Salami Blessing in the upper half. I think they move on, with Salami Blessing as the region's winner.
Fruithandler Memorial Regional
The Committee has not yet explained their reasons for renaming this regional. It used to be the Sithole Regional, named after '85 winner Godfrey Sithole. But the regional has been renamed after Jerome Fruithandler, '04 winner. I await their reasoning.
This regional has great depth, top-to-bottom. 16-seed Dr. Pitt Derryberry would be a mid seed any other year. This year, he faces the wondrous Makenlove Petit-Fard in the first round, who should win. Other easy picks in the first round include Corky Boozé and 12-seed Dr. Megha Panda. Rev. Dongo Pewee checks all of my boxes, too. I've got Sir'Zion Dance and Sparkle Hayter moving on, but those are guesses — neither those names nor their competitors really stand out. The toughest calls come between Dr. Birchann Paffenbarger-Covadonga del Busto Naval and Blossom Albuquerque-Obra Kernodle IV. Honestly, I think the Committee should have swapped the seeds in the latter match, because 14-seed Obra Kernodle IV is winning that one. I'm going with my gut on Covadonga del Busto Naval in the other, but it's a tough call. Rev. Dongo Pewee and Makenlove Petit-Fard will waltz into the Sweet 16 without trouble, and I've got Obra Kernodle IV moving on, too. Dr. Megha Panda-Corky Boozé is a tough matchup. One name has a Ph.D., the other has a diacritical. I've got Dr. Megha Panda winning, but losing in the next round to Makenlove Petit-Fard. Obra Kernodle IV-Rev. Dongo Pewee is a matchup you could imagine in the finals of a week year. Usually I can get a sense of zeitgeist by reading the comments section, so I'm letting Rev. Dongo Pewee not only win this round, but move on to the Final Four. (Though Makenlove Petit-Fard is my personal favorite.)
Dragonwagon Regional
This is the weak regional this year. Someone will have to win it, but they're not winning the tournament. 1-seed La Royce Lobster-Gaines should have no problem reaching the Sweet 16, beating Darthvader Williamson, but there are better names out there in the regional. I like 10-seed Adele Gorrilla in the first round, as well as the underrated Chardonnay Beaver and Lola Honeybone. Ceejhay French-Love is probably OK against Yo'Heinz Tyler, but I wouldn't be surprised about an upset. I smell an upset by Forbes Thor Kiddoo against Crystal Patriarche. The comments section leads me to believe Mike Diaper has a chance, but Quindarious Gooch is 10 times more fun to say. It has two good names to Mike Diaper's one. I like Quindarious Gooch against Forbes Thor Kiddoo. Ceejhay French-Love... I guess makes it, but neither they nor Adele Gorrilla will last long. Finally, I think the Lola Honeybone-Chardonnay Beaver winner ends up winning the regional against Quindarious Gooch. But which one is a hard call. My instant reaction was Chardonnay Beaver, but after more deliberation, I think Lola Honeybone takes it to the Final Four.
Chrotchtangle Regional
This regional is stacked with the best names. Even its worse names, like Bucky Worboys and Bramble Klipple, are still pretty good. So let's get on with it. Dr. Narwhals Mating is a deserving 1-seed. Mahogany Loggins has great flow to it and will win the 8-9 matchup. I've got an easy win for 11-seed Hallelujah Lulie and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd. Rev. Hobbit Forrest should have no trouble in the first round, and I also like Beau Titsworth against Palestine Ace. As much as I like Lukas Chalupa, I love the clash of styles of Gandalf Hernandez. Finally, if I'm going to pick an upset, it'll be Tuesday DerMargosian over 2-seed Shaka Licorish. Either way, Licorish goes down in early rounds. Dr. Narwhals Mating should cut down the delectably named Mahogany Loggins with no problem, and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd has too much for a game Hallelujah Lulie. I've got Gandalf Hernandez moving on to the Sweet 16. Finally, the Rev. Hobbit Forrest-Beau Titsworth is why I do this analysis. At the end of the day, Beau Titsworth really only has one funny name, body humor as it is. Rev. Hobbit Forrest moves on. I think Dr. Taekwondo Byrd has the easier matchup to reach the Elite Eight, while Dr. Narwhals Mating-Rev. Hobbit Forrest is a game for the ages. In the end, Dr. Narwhals Mating wins to set up the Ph.D. regional finals: Dr. Taekwondo Byrd-Dr. Narwhals Mating. Which is funnier? I think Dr. Taekwondo Byrd is kind of cool, whereas you'd be a little embarrassed to be named Dr. Narwhals Mating, so he moves on.
Final Four
Dr. Narwhals Mating will beat whoever comes out of the Dragonwagon, in this case Lola Honeybone. Salami Blessing-Rev. Dongo Pewee should be worth the price of admission (free). Both have a subtext genitalia joke. Both have good name synergy. As much as I love the ordination of Dongo Pewee, I think Salami Blessing's name synergy is a little better, making it more popular. In the finals, Dr. Narwhals Mating is your winner. He has a Ph.D., after all.
Summary Judgments
Fascinating read about a rare disease and what it's like to live with it. Haunting and in-depth, this is worth a read. • • • I am a big Royals fan. Let it be hereby noted that I have no idea what their plan is this year. They don't have the talent to make the playoffs; heck, they don't even have enough talent to be decent this year. They also have a terribly depleted farm system and aren't playing young guys at the major-league level. It's going to be a long season, I think. • • • This has been the first week where I truly feel back in the swing of running. I'm running 2 miles without walking pretty consistently. If I keep improving at this rate, I should be running a 5K by the end of April. • • • In case you missed it, we have a new dog. His name is Wheeler. Anyway, I got home with the kids before Alyson got home yesterday, and the kids and I took Wheeler outside to do his business. The kids run out into the middle of the yard, and I warn them there are a few poops in the yard. Roland stops, does this comical arms-out stance: "Where are the poops?" I then had to walk them back to the entry, because they believed the yard was booby-trapped with poops. There are only like, 3 poops out there (We usually pick them up), and he's walking across a minefield in his mind.
I am, as far as I know, the only person to attempt analysis of the bracket in the world. This is my third year. Last year saw the meteoric rise of Boats Botes, who won the people's votes. Kobe Buffalomeat won the Committee's vote. I had both in the Final Four.
Last year's bracket was very top-heavy. This year's bracket has a number of duds like any year, but my feeling is that it has stronger depth than last year. There are a few favorites, but none that I feel instantly will have deep runs. In short: A better bracket means it's harder to pick winners. But that's what I'm here for. As a reminder, names that tend to do better in the bracket are names that a) have funny first and last names, b) have good name synergy, like Miracle Crimes this year and c) have some added bonus, like Dr./Rev. or Jr./III/IV or diacriticals.
Bulltron Regional
(For those new to the site, the regionals are named after winners in the early 1990s. This regional is named after Assumption Bulltron, 1992 Name of the Year winner and Name of the Decade. The others are named after Crescent Dragonwagon, '93 winner; Doby Chrotchtangle, '91 winner; and... I'll get to the other one soon.)
This is one of the two strongest regionals. Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper should continue the hot streak of 1 and 2 seeds. Mosthigh Thankgod has an easy matchup, too. 10-seed Jamez Brickhouse is only funny because of one letter, so I think Dr. Dimple Royalty crushes him. The 8-9 matchup is weak, so I'll pick Zeus de la Paz as the winner. My first upset pick is Miracle Crimes over 4-seed Early Charlemagne. Miracle Crimes was severely underseeded. Tuna Altuna is a beautiful example of why I love this tournament, and she (he?) should advance. Finally, Habbakkuk Baldonado has two names that clash beautifully, which should lead it to victory over one-name Armageddon Draughn. Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper should coast into the Sweet 16, and Miracle Crimes continues the Cinderella story. The lovely symmetry of Tuna Altuna should be enough against Mosthigh Thanked. Unfortunately, this region is really about two names: Jimbob Ghostkeeper in the bottom half and Salami Blessing in the upper half. I think they move on, with Salami Blessing as the region's winner.
Fruithandler Memorial Regional
The Committee has not yet explained their reasons for renaming this regional. It used to be the Sithole Regional, named after '85 winner Godfrey Sithole. But the regional has been renamed after Jerome Fruithandler, '04 winner. I await their reasoning.
This regional has great depth, top-to-bottom. 16-seed Dr. Pitt Derryberry would be a mid seed any other year. This year, he faces the wondrous Makenlove Petit-Fard in the first round, who should win. Other easy picks in the first round include Corky Boozé and 12-seed Dr. Megha Panda. Rev. Dongo Pewee checks all of my boxes, too. I've got Sir'Zion Dance and Sparkle Hayter moving on, but those are guesses — neither those names nor their competitors really stand out. The toughest calls come between Dr. Birchann Paffenbarger-Covadonga del Busto Naval and Blossom Albuquerque-Obra Kernodle IV. Honestly, I think the Committee should have swapped the seeds in the latter match, because 14-seed Obra Kernodle IV is winning that one. I'm going with my gut on Covadonga del Busto Naval in the other, but it's a tough call. Rev. Dongo Pewee and Makenlove Petit-Fard will waltz into the Sweet 16 without trouble, and I've got Obra Kernodle IV moving on, too. Dr. Megha Panda-Corky Boozé is a tough matchup. One name has a Ph.D., the other has a diacritical. I've got Dr. Megha Panda winning, but losing in the next round to Makenlove Petit-Fard. Obra Kernodle IV-Rev. Dongo Pewee is a matchup you could imagine in the finals of a week year. Usually I can get a sense of zeitgeist by reading the comments section, so I'm letting Rev. Dongo Pewee not only win this round, but move on to the Final Four. (Though Makenlove Petit-Fard is my personal favorite.)
Dragonwagon Regional
This is the weak regional this year. Someone will have to win it, but they're not winning the tournament. 1-seed La Royce Lobster-Gaines should have no problem reaching the Sweet 16, beating Darthvader Williamson, but there are better names out there in the regional. I like 10-seed Adele Gorrilla in the first round, as well as the underrated Chardonnay Beaver and Lola Honeybone. Ceejhay French-Love is probably OK against Yo'Heinz Tyler, but I wouldn't be surprised about an upset. I smell an upset by Forbes Thor Kiddoo against Crystal Patriarche. The comments section leads me to believe Mike Diaper has a chance, but Quindarious Gooch is 10 times more fun to say. It has two good names to Mike Diaper's one. I like Quindarious Gooch against Forbes Thor Kiddoo. Ceejhay French-Love... I guess makes it, but neither they nor Adele Gorrilla will last long. Finally, I think the Lola Honeybone-Chardonnay Beaver winner ends up winning the regional against Quindarious Gooch. But which one is a hard call. My instant reaction was Chardonnay Beaver, but after more deliberation, I think Lola Honeybone takes it to the Final Four.
Chrotchtangle Regional
This regional is stacked with the best names. Even its worse names, like Bucky Worboys and Bramble Klipple, are still pretty good. So let's get on with it. Dr. Narwhals Mating is a deserving 1-seed. Mahogany Loggins has great flow to it and will win the 8-9 matchup. I've got an easy win for 11-seed Hallelujah Lulie and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd. Rev. Hobbit Forrest should have no trouble in the first round, and I also like Beau Titsworth against Palestine Ace. As much as I like Lukas Chalupa, I love the clash of styles of Gandalf Hernandez. Finally, if I'm going to pick an upset, it'll be Tuesday DerMargosian over 2-seed Shaka Licorish. Either way, Licorish goes down in early rounds. Dr. Narwhals Mating should cut down the delectably named Mahogany Loggins with no problem, and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd has too much for a game Hallelujah Lulie. I've got Gandalf Hernandez moving on to the Sweet 16. Finally, the Rev. Hobbit Forrest-Beau Titsworth is why I do this analysis. At the end of the day, Beau Titsworth really only has one funny name, body humor as it is. Rev. Hobbit Forrest moves on. I think Dr. Taekwondo Byrd has the easier matchup to reach the Elite Eight, while Dr. Narwhals Mating-Rev. Hobbit Forrest is a game for the ages. In the end, Dr. Narwhals Mating wins to set up the Ph.D. regional finals: Dr. Taekwondo Byrd-Dr. Narwhals Mating. Which is funnier? I think Dr. Taekwondo Byrd is kind of cool, whereas you'd be a little embarrassed to be named Dr. Narwhals Mating, so he moves on.
Final Four
Dr. Narwhals Mating will beat whoever comes out of the Dragonwagon, in this case Lola Honeybone. Salami Blessing-Rev. Dongo Pewee should be worth the price of admission (free). Both have a subtext genitalia joke. Both have good name synergy. As much as I love the ordination of Dongo Pewee, I think Salami Blessing's name synergy is a little better, making it more popular. In the finals, Dr. Narwhals Mating is your winner. He has a Ph.D., after all.
Summary Judgments
Fascinating read about a rare disease and what it's like to live with it. Haunting and in-depth, this is worth a read. • • • I am a big Royals fan. Let it be hereby noted that I have no idea what their plan is this year. They don't have the talent to make the playoffs; heck, they don't even have enough talent to be decent this year. They also have a terribly depleted farm system and aren't playing young guys at the major-league level. It's going to be a long season, I think. • • • This has been the first week where I truly feel back in the swing of running. I'm running 2 miles without walking pretty consistently. If I keep improving at this rate, I should be running a 5K by the end of April. • • • In case you missed it, we have a new dog. His name is Wheeler. Anyway, I got home with the kids before Alyson got home yesterday, and the kids and I took Wheeler outside to do his business. The kids run out into the middle of the yard, and I warn them there are a few poops in the yard. Roland stops, does this comical arms-out stance: "Where are the poops?" I then had to walk them back to the entry, because they believed the yard was booby-trapped with poops. There are only like, 3 poops out there (We usually pick them up), and he's walking across a minefield in his mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)