An Early Look at the 2018 Midterm Playing Field

It's getting close to primary season, which means we'll have some real data to look at in regard to the American political temperature soon. To broadly categorize, Democrats are facing competitive primaries in many districts to run against Republicans, who are doing a better job of staying out of their own primary battles. That may sound like a negative, but it's actually fairly typical of a party that is not in power. The GOP did the same thing before the Obama-era midterms.

But the midterms will be important. If the Democrats flip both chambers, I expect they'll push impeachment. If they flip just one chamber, they'll force major changes in governance and make President Trump an effective lame duck until 2020. If they flip only the House, they may write articles of impeachment that ultimately go nowhere in the Senate. That's all to be decided by this year's midterm elections.

Before I get into some of the major changes and news, I want to make one key point: I will guarantee that, barring a major terrorist attack or some earth-shattering news, that Democrats will pick up seats in the House. It's only a matter of how many. This is because in the midterms, the president's party almost always loses seats. I said almost always, because the GOP actually won seats following the 9/11 attacks. There are a few other exceptions like that. But in modern American history, there has traditionally been an opposite-party push during the midterms of some size. Alright. With that out of the way, let's talk midterms.

Senate Unlikely to Flip
Mitch McConnell is more likely to keep his seat than Paul Ryan. Seats in the House are up every two years, and seats in the Senate are up every six. Thanks to the seemingly random way it's happened, the 34 seats up this year include roughly 26 that caucus with the Democrats. Simply, this year's midterms are being held on Democratic ground, and there are vulnerable Democrats in many locations. That's not to say it's impossible for Democrats to flip the Senate. Roy Moore lost an Alabama Senate race to Doug Jones to make the current balance 51-49. But if you look at which seats are in play, it's just incredibly unlikely barring a Democratic wave.

To be specific: In order to flip the Senate, Democrats need to win two more races than they lose. There aren't a lot of opportunities. According to a couple smart political sites (Larry Sabato and Cook Political Report), there are 2-3 vulnerable Republicans: Jeff Flake in Arizona, Dean Heller in Nevada and maaaaaaaybe Bob Corker's empty seat in Tennessee. After that, it's a stretch to Ted Cruz in Texas. The other five GOP seats are safe. But overlooked in that is that Democrats would have to hold onto all of their contested Senate seats. And there are 4-6 in jeopardy: Claire McCaskill here in Missouri (real trouble), Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota (just got a serious GOP challenger), Indiana's Joe Donnelly, West Virginia's Joe Manchin (real trouble), Tina Smith in Al Franken's old seat in Minnesota (I think this is safer than projected), and Bill Nelson in Florida (on the safer side).

All told, it means the Democrats would have to get really lucky in some unlikely places to win control of the Senate.

House is up for grabs
I've read about five different sites talking about the House. Almost everyone says the House flipping is either a coin flip or barely edged in one way or another. Democrats need to flip +24 seats (Meaning they need to flip 24 more than they lose). That's in the range of a normal midterm flip. If results from other special elections (which show a sizable Democratic swing) hold up, then that may be within striking distance. But there's another thing working against them: Republicans were in control of redistricting efforts across the country in 2010, meaning they largely gave themselves advantages in states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It's possible for Democrats, but it's also an uphill battle. Winning the coin flip is possible, but it's also a weighted coin.

Pennsylvania redistricting analysis
It didn't get a lot of press coverage, but the GOP gerrymandering in Pennsylvania was overturned and a new map, drawn up by the state Supreme Court, makes major changes. I've seen some reporting that it helps Democrats, and while that is true, that's the opposite tack that the reporters should have taken. The GOP had created an unconstitutional advantage in their gerrymandering, and that advantage was taken away. The new map gets rid of the weird shapes for a much prettier map.

Anyway, the point is that there were a few changes. Two open seats that were already targets for Democrats became more Democrat-leaning after the redistricting. Another seat that leaned GOP now leans Democrat. So that's three seats that are FAR likely to switch parties. Two more seats went from safe GOP seats to just leaning GOP. Let's be conservative and say the Democrats win three seats from Pennsylvania. That's 1/8 of what they need to flip the House. Maybe they get four or five, which would give the Democrats a little breathing space in their race to 24.

The Race for the Rest
Using Sabato's Crystal Ball, there is a pathway to Democrats getting to 24 (they use 25, because they expect a GOP pick-up in Minnesota). Let's take a look at how I view their breakdown, with my short analysis in italics:

1) Pick up four open seats (AZ-2, CA-49, FL-27 and NJ-2) in Democrat-leaning areas. Book it. Three were in Clinton-won districts, and the fourth is in New Jersey. Conservative: 3 seats Educated guess: 4 Optimistic: 4

2) Win three of four open seats (CA-39, MI-11, NJ-11 and WA-8) that are considered toss-ups. Reasonable. Two are Clinton-won districts, and the other two includes a close race with a strong Democratic candidate. Conservative: 2 seats Educated guess: 3 Optimistic: 4

3) Win three seats from Pennsylvania. I covered this above, except there is one more seat that didn't change in redistricting that will probably be a close race. Conservative: 3 seats Educated guess: 4 Optimistic: 5

4) Beat three of five vulnerable incumbents in Clinton-won districts in California. Pretty self-explanatory. Two were really close last time. A third includes the most pro-Russia representative in the country — not a great fit for a Dem-leaning district. Conservative: 3 seats Educated guess: 3 (I'm skeptical of beating five incumbents, no matter the demographics) Optimistic: 5

5) Beat three of six vulnerable incumbents in Clinton-won districts (CO-6, FL-26, IL-6, MN-3, TX-23 and VA-10). Looking at the partisan leans for those districts, this is a real coin-flip category. The most vulnerable is the Florida seat. Conservative: 1 seat. Educated guess: 3 Optimistic: 4

6) Beat one of three incumbents in Clinton-won but historically Republican districts (NJ-7, TX-7 and TX-32). Ehh.... we're getting into dicey territory here. It's hard to beat incumbents. One of those has won every election by a sizable margin, and that's the one in New Jersey. The most vulnerable is TX-7, which is a GOP-leaning district usually. Conservative: 0 seats. Educated guess: 0 Optimistic: 1 seat.

7) Beat one of two Trump-district freshmen who narrowly won narrow districts (NE-2 and MN-2). Right now, it looks like both races will be rematches from the last election. I don't expect any changes, but it's not impossible. Conservative: 0 seats. Educated guess: 0 Optimistic: 1 seat

8) Win two seats from "Trump York." There are seven seats in discussion here, and it's reasonable, even on the conservative side. All the vulnerable seats are currently held by the GOP. Two are considered toss-ups with strong Democratic challengers. Another district was won by Clinton. Another couple districts are getting strong Democratic challengers in a traditionally blue state. Conservative: 2 seats. Educated guess: 3 Optimistic: 4

9) Win two of four Trump seats with down ballot Democratic DNA (IL-12, KY-6, ME-2 and UT-4). A deeper dive is optimistic for Democrats here. Three of the four have decent Dem candidates, but they're fighting uphill. Conservative: 0 seats. Educated guess: 1 Optimistic: 2

10) Win a seat in Iowa (IA-1 and IA-3). My gut is that Iowa has swung red, where it used to be purple. I'll be happy to be surprised, but I don't expect it. Conservative: 0 Educated guess: 0 Optimistic: 1

11) Win a seat in Kansas (KS-2 and KS-3). Now these districts I know. And though you might be skeptical of Democrat chances in deep red Kansas, you're overlooking it. A Democrat held KS-2 before Lynn Jenkins did, but Jenkins is retiring. The most famous name in the race is former Democratic governor candidate Paul Davis, who actually won the district in his governor race against Brownback. The most recognizable GOP candidates for the empty seat are a couple of state senators, including Caryn Tyson, who I know well (She's very nice, but far-right for a district that tends centrist. She's a lovely person, but her legislative track record has done her few favors.). KS-2 includes some Democratic strongholds, including Topeka and Lawrence, and to a lesser extent the toss-up area of Pittsburg. Davis is likable enough and a well-established name in a weak field of GOP candidates. Don't count it out. As for KS-3, it actually went for Clinton over Trump in 2016. Yoder is vulnerable if he gets the right candidate (a Paul Davis-type), but I don't think any of these candidates are strong enough to do so. Conservative: 0 Educated guess: 1 Optimistic: 1

12) Win one of these eight seats in Trump-won districts in Ohio, North Carolina or Virginia (OH-1, OH-12, NC-2, NC-9, NC-13, VA-2, VA-5 and VA-7). North Carolina is similar to Pennsylvania, in that courts have demanded redistricting. But it's looking unlikely that will be completed by the midterms thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it had, you could expect 1-2 seat flips just in the GOP losing its advantage. As it is, I think VA-2 is in play (it's already a swing district), NC-13 (strong self-funded Democratic challenger) and OH-1 might be. But these are not easy wins. Conservative: 0 Educated guess: 1 Optimistic: 2

In case you're wondering, I added them all up for you, barring no Democrat losses outside of MN-1. Remember, 24 to flip the House.
Conservative: 14 seats
Educated guess: 23 seats (See why the House is considered a coin flip? The N.C. redistricting may matter, too.)
Optimistic: 34 seats

Thoughts on Billy Graham

I read an incredible story yesterday about how the current wave of NBA All-Stars didn't grow up watching Michael Jordan. They knew he was important and watched old clips. They might have watched VHS tapes or known some of the mystique, but they couldn't quite understand what the older generation had seen in him. They said the right things, but they were parroting what they heard rather than having experienced it themselves. They grew up with different heroes (Kobe, Iverson, Vince Carter).

I think the same is true for me and Billy Graham. He's always been past his prime during my lifetime. I know he's important, because of what people tell me, and so I kind of get it, but I didn't grow up with it or experience it myself. He's a legend, and I say that, but I don't quite understand — I grew up with different heroes.

Summary Judgments

I have no idea what President Trump actually wants on guns. He's been all over the place with what he wants and doesn't appear to have a cohesive plan that would pass Congress. He's winging it, to be blunt. One thing: If this has the support of the NRA and gun owners, then it's no longer a question of whether gun regulation/control is a thing that can be done, but rather how much.  •  •  •  Here's a live look at NRA-backed politicians considering action after the Parkland shooting:

•  •  •  I didn't run much this week because weather has been terrible. I've also decided to treat March 1 as my start date on truly focusing on running and eating better. Lord help me.  •  •  •  A rare story by a child who is not my child: One of the kids' friends at day care is Emrie, whose Mom we ran into tonight. At one point recently, Emrie asked her mom if all dads have no hair (her dad is bald). Before her mom could say that no, some dads have hair, Emrie said "Evie and Roland's dad has hair." Given that my dad is bald, this makes me incredibly happy.

Politically Depressed

I'm sorry I haven't written on my normal schedule lately, but all the political news and current events just have me feeling depressed. It's just that solutions seem so tantalizingly close or obvious, but no politician is willing to stick their neck out for it. Or maybe it's the fact that we as a country seem to be doing the same things year after year with little change.

We had a worse school shooting on Wednesday than Columbine, which is now shorthand for "school shooting." But if you believe Republican sources, there is nothing we can do about it. We can't have background checks universal and close gun show loopholes. We can't prohibit domestic abusers from having guns. We can't require gun owners to have insurance for their weapon like it was a car. We can't bar gun sales to violent criminals. We can't bar gun sales to convicted stalkers or (if it IS a mental health problem) expand our mental health services in the country. We can't even make bump stocks (like in the Las Vegas shooting) illegal. We can't. We can't. We can't. But other countries have. And it's been successful. But we can't. Canada doesn't have these types of shootings. They have guns. Germany doesn't have these types of shootings. They have guns. The UK and Australia had mass shootings that prompted incredibly strict rules on guns. The UK had 26 gun-related homicides in 2015-2016, the equivalent of 130 if it were the size of the USA. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since. Take this chart of what Americans support and what experts believe will work. (Also, please peruse this graphic by 538 about gun deaths in America. Nearly 2/3 are suicides, and more than half of all gun deaths are suicides by men. Nearly half are suicides by white men. Fascinating information, and research tells us if there isn't a gun around, the suicide rate would drop dramatically.). We aren't going to do any of them. We can't. We won't.

If you dislike abortions (many pro-choice folks also wish to see their decline), then take a look at both Colorado and the Netherlands. Colorado made birth control widely available to women, especially teenagers. Guess what? The abortion rate dropped, as did the teen pregnancy rate. If you dislike abortion, follow Colorado's lead. The Netherlands has liberal abortion laws, but wide access to public health programs and facilities. Their abortion rate is half that of the United States. Ireland is the same way, but with an even lower abortion rate. Put simply: If you think abortion is an issue that politicians must address, then an investment in access to and costs of health care is a proven solution. But we aren't going to do that. We can't. We won't.

We continue to see Republicans and Democrats tussle over immigration laws, specifically DACA. However, DACA has never been a partisan issue until Donald Trump. Two-thirds of Republicans believe DACA recipients should receive citizenship status. This should be a non-starter. Americans by a nearly 2:1 margin are opposed to Donald Trump's wall on the southern border. There are ways to combat illegal immigration — Barack Obama's administration deported more criminals than any other president before him. However, let's draw a line between violent illegal immigrants and nonviolent illegal immigrants. Syed Jamal, a Kansas chemistry instructor who overstayed a student visa, is not violent. He has been in this country for decades and volunteered in schools. He has, by all accounts, been an active and contributing member of society. Yet he was arrested in front of his children and nearly deported to Bangladesh. If you want to get rid of the "bad hombres," that's one thing. But Jamal has been an angel. We aren't going to focus on the people deserving of deportation. We can't. We won't.

I could keep going with things that have proven solutions yet we stand here stone-faced as though there are no possible solutions. We could fix our country's infrastructure if we wanted to, or actually help Puerto Rico or not be racist to other countries ("S***hole") or give tax cuts to people who need it instead of the rich or address global warming on a national scale or have meaningful conversations about gender, sex and #MeToo. But we aren't going to do that. We can't. We won't.

Maybe some day our country can move past its ugly present and be progressive, be visionary, and be forward-thinking. Maybe that'll happen with Democrats in charge. Maybe they won't get elected. I just know that I'm tired of seeing worse and worse news come out of Washington. It's not just one party or the other.

I want to see politicians debating issues on their merits. I want to see politicians using facts and data to drive their decisions. I want to see politicians actually giving a crap rather than scoring political points without action. I want real, meaningful progress. I want fairness and justice and bipartisanship. I want to believe that the Mueller report will spur the GOP to act, but I don't think so after seeing their push for and reaction to the Nunes memo. I want to believe the Democrats are already pushing for obstruction of justice charges, but instead they're waiting a year and a half for Mueller to issue a report telling them what they already know. I want a president who is more interested in governing than picking fights with perceived enemies. I want an administration that won't drag its feet in denouncing domestic abusers.

But we aren't going to do that. We can't. We won't. And that's why I'm politically depressed.

Using Numbers Correctly and Researching Data

I find myself caught in between two people groups, and I am satisfied by neither's stance. On one hand, my left friends have been passing around the number of "18 school shootings this year." On the other hand, my right friends have been passing around stories detailing that those numbers are inflated.

My right friends are correct in fact: There were not 18 school shootings. Those numbers include a suicide in a high school parking lot at 2 a.m., an accidental shooting from a holstered gun of an officer in a school gym (a third grade student grabbed it), and several other incidents where no one was injured or targeted. Scary yes, but certainly not what anyone would categorize as a "school shooting," a la Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, etc., etc., etc.

But my left friends are correct in function: There are too many school shootings. By even the strictest definition, there have been 3 school shootings this year: At least Italy, Texas, one in Kentucky, and Parkland, Fla., with some wiggle room on others. It's not even two months into the year! That's too many.

My right friends are right on the figure, but are missing the point: How many deaths/school shootings are we willing to accept? The left is strenuously shouting ZERO!, which should be the only correct answer. These problems don't happen in other countries, and by arguing over the details of this figure, it's an effective hand-wave of the problem. In essence, they're saying "It's overblown, so what's the big deal?" It's missing the forest for the trees.

My left friends are wrong on the figure, but right on the point: That's a problem, too. We, the public,  need to be able to use common definitions for problems, and use well-supported data. If we're just spouting numbers without knowing what's behind it, that's a lack of critical thinking and a poor basis for governance. The number of 18 school shootings is wrong. The left is not absolved of its sin of poorly backed data just because it gets the big picture view right.

So here I am stuck in the middle, both agreeing with and upset at my left and right friends. (Note: The conversation we need to have about guns is not a racial one. I can point to data that shows that white male suicides are nearly half the gun deaths in America — that's an unaddressed problem! — and also point to data showing that more than twice as many black Americans are killed in homicides than white Americans (same link) — that's an equally unaddressed problem.) I want to use good numbers to back up my assertions. I want to be able to support my arguments. If you're going to go into battle, know what you're fighting for and have the best gear.

My Favorite Kids' Movies

(Editor's Note: I'm including this again because I didn't share the last edition and I really liked this section. I wanted to include it to share my thoughts.)

I recently explained my kids' movies theory to some friends. Specifically, it's why I prefer Moana and Zootopia to most other films. These are practically the only two kids movies with a) female protagonists b) with two supportive and alive parents (though they can and do have flaws) c) they pursue career/societal/personal goals d) that are not about getting a man and/or they don't have a love interest.

That's not to say that I only like movies with female protagonists or that love stories aren't good. It's also not to fall into the trap of saying movies are PROBLEMATIC when they don't meet my version of the Bechdel Test. But there is such a depth and breadth to stories told about men, and stories about women are almost always reduced to "her life isn't complete without a man." Men don't get the same treatment.

Before these two movies, the closest Disney movie you had that fit the bill was Mulan. However, the romantic subplot with Shang seemed to undermine the message that she was an independent woman with the ability to pursue her own goals. Heck, the whole "Montage of Protagonist Discovering Their Focus And Abilities" is set to the song "Be A Man," which also undermines the message a bit. It's the closest Disney had come, but it doesn't quite meet my standard because of Shang.

There has been a little more emphasis in recent years to meet these checks. Finding Dory and Inside Out arguably meet all four, but at least meet three. I haven't seen Brave. Frozen does not pass the test. Tangled doesn't. Even ones from my era, like Pocahontas and The Little Mermaid don't. Going back even further doesn't do Disney/Pixar any more favors. But that's what's so interesting about this list: In the history of Disney films, they might have only 2-4 that meet these simple tests.

Summary Judgments

I thought this was an interesting perspective from a person on the ground in South Korea on the medal ceremonies.  •  •  •  Yet another reason why I feel hopeless about our media situation in America. The more you read in that story, the ickier you should feel.  •  •  •  This is really amazing, and I have to give credit to the FDA for this: There's a new blood test for concussions! There are two proteins that show up 97 percent of the time with CT-diagnosed concussions. The blood test can identify it within 12 hours. It's one of the first medical tests/medicines approved by the Breakthrough Devices Program, which is kind of a "fast lane" for awesome medicine (passed by Congress in December 2016).  •  •  •  Ready Player One looks like crap, though maybe that's just because I hated the book. I have lots of thoughts on that one that I'll share closer to the movie coming out. Black Panther, on the other hand, looks amazing.  •  •  •  It's been too cold to run until this week. And I've been under the weather, health-wise. So I couldn't take advantage of it. I did sign up for the Warrior Dash in June and am thinking about the Tough Mudder.  •  •  •  The kids have each had their grumpy moments. We think there's been a minor bug going around giving us all stomach aches and general malaise. But Roland's the latest (and last) to get it, so he's been incredibly grumpy lately. This morning, he woke up, went to the bathroom and then came into our room and got in our bed. "Mommy, I'm mad at you!" "Why? You just woke up." "I'm very mad at you!" "You can go back to your room until you're nicer." "BAAAH!" /Goes to his room. Alyson and I just looked at each other like "What just happened?"

Shutdown and Out

I'm sorry for not writing more lately, but it's just been hard. Not that I can't find the time or a topic, but that I just haven't cared much about politics lately. That's not exactly it. I just can't find reason to care when no one looks good. It's politics at its worst. Trump is awful. The GOP is enabling him. The Democrats are either a) too spineless to really stand up to him or b) running for president so much so that they are trying to out-liberal each other. It's just a terribly toxic political environment right now. Heck, I didn't even watch the State of the Union for the first time in forever.

But let's recap the government shutdown. If the worst thing that happened was that government employees got a three-day weekend, then it wasn't too bad. It wasn't a two-week shutdown like the last one. But there are a few things that should be noted.

Right-Wing Threat
There's a part of me that believes the conservative members of the GOP who have taken such a hard line on immigration, DACA and the like are doing it for political reasons. Specifically, that they're afraid. They're afraid that immigrants gaining citizenship will vote Democratic. So taking a hard stance against immigration is also an act of self-preservation. Instead of being for a principle, it's for a political gain. The anti-immigration movement of the last 5 years or so is startling to me.

Deja Vu All Over Again
During the last shutdown, the party out of power decided to use the budget process to show their base that they were serious about being confrontational over issues that were important. During this shutdown, the party out of power decided to use the budget process to show their base that they were serious about being confrontational over issues that were important. The Democrats learned it from watching you, GOP. They learned it from watching you.

Democratic Rift
One of the biggest things this shutdown revealed was the difference in Democrats. There are Democrats who are thinking about surviving 2018 (like Claire McCaskill, locally and most notably) or who aren't going to run for president in 2020 who want to show that they are serious about solving problems and not creating them. McCaskill, for example, was noted for being a major part of negotiations. These Democrats are worried about NOW and are trying to prevent the shutdown and be more moderate. On the other hand, Democrats who are not up for re-election in 2018 and have an eye on a White House run (Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders) are trying to show that they are the standard bearer of the progressive movement. They're trying to show to liberals that they are willing to fight to the end over progressive ideals in the same way Republicans have shown resolve and fight over their issues during the Obama years.

Trump Not Helping
At one point, a deal was reached between the Senate Republicans and Democrats on the immigration issue. At the 11th hour, President Trump, who had said he'd support whatever was sent to his desk, rejected the deal. Democrats have been trying to ask him what he wants in an immigration deal (and therefore what is up for negotiation). Sen. Chuck Schumer accurately said trying to figure out his position is like trying to nail down Jell-O. Trump could help this whole process, but he has been out of the negotiations and also part of the reason for negotiations falling apart. It was only at Tuesday's State of the Union that he laid out what he wants, though it's a "I'll give you DACA if you give me three things you hate" sort of deal. Schumer isn't biting.

Moderates Succeeded? Sort of?
In theory, moderates "won" the day by ending the shutdown early. Lindsey Graham and Claire McCaskill and Susan Collins and Jeff Flake were at the center of reaching a deal. They made sure this shutdown didn't last as long as the Ted Cruz shutdown. That said, it's still a bad look. I know a lot of people who were upset that immigration somehow got brought into a budget battle. Further, we just delayed the process. Next week, we'll be having these same battles and same debates that we were a few weeks ago. It was a three-week delay that didn't address any of the underlying issues.

Nothing Won, Though
Just like Ted Cruz's shutdown, this was largely fruitless. While yes, CHIP was included in the passed bill, the gist of the deal was this: Democrats approved of a three-week budget in response for a promise by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that he really intends to address immigration by then. He promises. Pinky swear. In case that doesn't sound very concrete, it's not. It's a pretty vague response. Even if McConnell allows a vote that passes, the House could still vote it down or he president could veto, and McConnell would still be keeping his word. The Democrats won nothing.

So What Does It Mean? 
Great question. I don't have a great answer for you. It was ultimately an unnecessary, largely pointless government shutdown that will likely have very little political consequence in the midterms. By the time the midterms come around, we'll have forgotten about the shutdown altogether. Maybe Trump will have said something that pulls all the GOP down. Or maybe he does something that lifts their tides. Point is: This is a short-term bad mark for the Democrats that probably won't last long in the national psyche. Or, to quote the Bard: Much Ado About Nothing. Both sides are trying to put Band-Aids on it rather than do the hard work of negotiating a compromise.

My Favorite Kids' Movies
I recently explained my kids' movies theory to some friends. Specifically, it's why I prefer Moana and Zootopia to most other films. These are practically the only two kids movies with a) female protagonists b) with two supportive and alive parents (though they can and do have flaws) c) they pursue career/societal/personal goals d) that are not about getting a man and/or they don't have a love interest.

That's not to say that I only like movies with female protagonists or that love stories aren't good. It's also not to fall into the trap of saying movies are PROBLEMATIC when they don't meet my version of the Bechdel Test. But there is such a depth and breadth to stories told about men, and stories about women are almost always reduced to "her life isn't complete without a man." Men don't get the same treatment.

Before these two movies, the closest Disney movie you had that fit the bill was Mulan. However, the romantic subplot with Shang seemed to undermine the message that she was an independent woman with the ability to pursue her own goals. Heck, the whole "Montage of Protagonist Discovering Their Focus And Abilities" is set to the song "Be A Man," which also undermines the message a bit. It's the closest Disney had come, but it doesn't quite meet my standard because of Shang.

There has been a little more emphasis in recent years to meet these checks. Finding Dory and Inside Out arguably meet all four, but at least meet three. I haven't seen Brave. Frozen does not pass the test. Tangled doesn't. Even ones from my era, like Pocahontas and The Little Mermaid don't. Going back even further doesn't do Disney/Pixar any more favors. But that's what's so interesting about this list: In the history of Disney films, they might have only 2-4 that meet these simple tests.

Summary Judgments

Say what you will about Colin Kaepernick, but he's put his money where his mouth is. I respect his efforts.  •  •  •  As the Trump administration has pulled back from international relations, it has opened a door for other countries. Turkey, a longtime ally of the U.S., is being wooed by both Iran and Russia — not in our country's best interests. I'd also add that heavy investment into Africa, the Middle East and Latin America is being made by China — as the U.S. pulls back, it's clear that other powers are ready and willing to step into the void.  •  •  •  This is the year of music for Alyson and I. We're going to Foo Fighters, Jack White, Jimmy Eat World, and Franz Ferdinand. That's pretty much our concert bucket list.  •  •  •  I started running again. I've done 2 miles a couple of times. I'm horribly out of shape, but it's encouraging I can get back in the swing of it quickly. I still haven't finalized my plans for what races to run, though. I hate being cold when I run, and the temperature has not been kind this winter in KC.  •  •  •  We've been watching Planet Earth II on Netflix with the kids. The other day, Roland wanted me to pretend to be a monster. "You're a Jabbler!" he said. I had no idea what a Jabbler was, but it was a pretty cool name. He keeps calling me a Jabbler and saying I'm going to eat him. I finally figured out he was saying mispronouncing "jaguar", which had been in Planet Earth II earlier in the week. So, high school friends: We are all Blue Springs South Jabblers from now on.