First, the caveat: I've never covered a hurricane or anything like Hurricane Harvey. The sort of things I've covered have affected cities, but not metropolitan regions or 1/3 of Texas like Harvey has. But I have covered natural disasters. There were the straight-line winds that hit south Pittsburg and parts of Scammon/Weir. There was the Picher, Okla., tornado (mostly Matt Clark, honestly) and the Joplin tornado. There was the Baxter Springs tornado, too. The scale of those events were much smaller than what happened/is happening along the Gulf Coast. But I have found a few lessons/tips from covering those events that I wanted to pass along.
Focus on Stories
The most important thing to have in any disaster story is people. Numbers are fine, but they're mostly punctuation when it comes to a natural disaster. An 80 mph wind and a 110 mph wind don't make much of a difference if they both produce destruction. What's impactful and lasting are the people stories — a person who looked outside and saw the tornado coming, then ran inside and barely got to safety. Or a person who's picking up what remains of their home trying to find anything they can to salvage. When trying to describe the scale of destruction or the impact, it's best to focus on a few stories — personalize the event. A story's facts are great information, but they should be fit in around the stories.
Small Things
For a journalist, there are a number of small things that you have to troubleshoot around. With Joplin, we got there the morning after the tornado hit. This was a strategic, intentional decision not to go on Sunday night to let the emergency crews do their thing first. All the power lines were down in the Manhattan Island-sized tornado path. That doesn't really seem to explain it, though: Many of the poles themselves were down, so many of the familiar aspects of city life were on the ground or gone. But the thing I remember most about Joplin was that almost all the street signs were down or gone. GONE. A day or two after the storm, officials spray-painted road names on some of the curbs and streets for identification purposes. Without signs and power poles, it was disorienting. I got lost once in a pretty familiar part of town. In the Baxter Springs tornado, there were other problems. Without power in the town, there was no cell phone coverage — no way to contact my peers at the office on what to post online. It also meant there was no Internet, so I couldn't post anything myself — I had to physically return to the office 30 minutes away in order to get any of the news online, which was half a day after I had left (with a small staff, we only sent one person to Baxter Springs). It also meant that when we tried to coordinate about press conferences or whatever, it was hit-or-miss. But every once in a while, you luck into things. In Baxter, I got a ride from the Salvation Army truck, since I knew the director. He happened to have a map of the path of the tornado sitting on a clipboard in front of me — Great information to have, and it wasn't available to the press at the time. I snapped a pic of it with my phone, then thanked him for the ride when he dropped me off at my car.
Hard on Reporters
It's important to be prepared. For instance: Always go to disaster sites with good boots on. There will be shards of wood, metal, unexpected nails everywhere, etc., that you'll likely have to step over or around. It'll also be muddy and wet in almost every situation. The shoes need to be comfortable, because you'll do a lot of walking. Take extra batteries and cameras if possible. Take extra pens and paper. Charge your phone completely before you leave (I've made that mistake before). Take easy-to-eat food for whenever you have a chance, including water and/or energy drinks. I learned that the hard way: I distinctly remember running to the Baxter Springs Subway for a quick lunch because I was exhausted and it was only a few blocks away. But there are many things you can't prepare for. Joplin started setting up checkpoints and blockades to make sure that only authorized personnel came in. This is getting to be a more standard operating procedure, but it also means that journalists have to be a little daring in either looking for ways to get around those checkpoints (I took back roads that were unlikely to be blocked.) or having a press pass/identification handy to be waved through. After the end of the day, you'll be exhausted from all the walking, all the deadline writing, all the processing of photos or big stories that you're trying to get out. When possible, find rest and a shower. Find a way to decompress once the story starts to come down from the climax of emotion — reporters have to emotionally process what they've seen and felt, too. Nearly all of the most exhausted times I had as a reporter were during and after disaster coverage.
National Media
Avoid them, both as a reporter and as a reader. I remember one national broadcaster, whose name I won't divulge here, pulled into the St. John's Hospital parking lot in Joplin and parked their van right in front of the local media and regional media who'd been there for a day or two already. They essentially blocked the background view of the media who had already been there and been on site (The national media van later moved when given a different, but just as good view of the partly destroyed hospital). As a reporter, the national media tended to only get surface level — this is a disaster, this is how the authorities are responding to the disaster, and here are maybe two individuals who are in the worst-looking parts of the disaster. That meant that they weren't getting anything I didn't have already. Joplin was the only time I dealt with the national media, and I wasn't impressed. If you want to read what's going on after a disaster, find the local newspaper or the local TV stations. They know the city best and know the best stories to tell. I found myself frustrated with how national media felt like they swooped in, did the most shallow news stories, then swooped out a day or two later.
Press Conferences and Media Availability
This is a necessary evil for disaster coverage, but it's among the most frustrating things to handle. Remember: Phones aren't working, there's likely nowhere to charge a phone if batteries get low, and there's no Internet to speak of. So finding a trusted local authority who can keep you in the loop for visits and press conferences by notable dignitaries (mayors, governors, elected leaders) is important. When the moment comes, plan out a few questions but don't expect to ask any of them — there's usually a throng of reporters standing together, commiserating about how the situation sucks, then a few minutes of furious microphone holding and reporters trying to ask questions in a hurry while the dignitary says nothing of importance, but something that needs to be quoted anyway because of their position (Something generic like: "What I've seen today is hard to put into words. There are people who need help and they'll need help not just today, but in the weeks and months to come. There's a lot of work to do here in TOWN NAME and we are going to do everything we can to get this city back on its feet as soon as possible."). And sometimes things just don't pan out like you expect. When I covered the Baxter Springs tornado, Gov. Brownback flew in on a helicopter, landing and taking a few questions from the 3-5 reporters before hopping into an SUV to "tour the scene." I and another print reporter were told that he'd have media availability again after the tour, then he'd leave. This was the last thing we both needed before going back to the office to write the story since there was no phone or Internet service to speak of. The other reporter and I were told to wait where we were because he'd have another press conference at 1 p.m. At 1 p.m., he still wasn't back from his tour. Then we were told 2 p.m. Then 2:30 p.m. Then we were told 3 p.m., if at all. At 3:30 p.m., he skipped the press conference and went straight to his helicopter. During those 2-3 hours when the two of us print reporters were told to wait, he'd gotten out of his SUV and walked around, talking to a few people in the city (good photos, although a more cynical reporter might call it staged). Neither of us got those pictures or that angle of the story — the only quotes we had was from his few minutes of availability when he first landed, but nothing after he'd actually surveyed the damage. We both left Baxter Springs angry because we'd wasted 2-3 hours when we could have been working up photos and writing stories.
Types of Disasters
A few minor lessons on how the disasters are different. A tornado is fast. It's an event that happens quickly in a matter of minutes, then it's done. The story is about the clean-up and the devastation and the what now?, but the event itself is fast. Fires are the same way — fast. Hurricanes are slow. There are usually days of build-up before the event, then a day or two of it hitting a location (or in Houston's case, nearly a week). There are usually several days before the storm surge and flood waters recede. The scale is also different. The Joplin tornado was only the size of Manhattan Island, almost exactly. Hurricane Harvey has hit multiple counties and states. The scale is far different.
Motives and Mueller
Perhaps the most difficult thing to interpret as a political reporter is motive. It's hard to tell if a political action is done for the reasons stated or if there is an ulterior motive behind an action. The rule we're taught in J-school is "When in doubt, leave it out." You have to get someone on the record who believes there is another motive, and even then it quickly devolves into "He may have said X, but he really meant Y." And that's confusing and partisan and, frankly, boring. Without a person on the record in a position of authority, it's simply conjecture — and how do you know if you're right?
So when President Trump pardoned Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio recently, the stated reason is that Trump thought the conviction was wrong, and that Arpaio was the victim of malicious judges and/or prosecutors, from what I can tell. In short: Arpaio had done no wrong. There were a couple of pieces of speculative journalism (the worst kind) like this one and this one from otherwise reputable publications about how the Arpaio conviction was really a way of showing that Trump will take care of his friends in legal trouble. And hey, would you look at that — he's got friends being investigated by Robert Mueller! So the Arpaio pardon, they say, is more about testing the waters of his pardon powers before the Mueller investigation finishes up.
Mueller, it should be noted, has reportedly started teaming up with New York AG Eric Schneiderman, a longtime Trump opponent and prosecutor. It was Schneiderman who prosecuted the Trump University case. Moreover, if Schneiderman prosecutes someone on a state level, then Trump's pardon power, which is limited to federal crimes, would not apply. It's a countermove in case the motives in the previous paragraph are correct.
But this is all highly speculative. We don't know and can't know for sure about any of this. Maybe Trump just wanted to pardon his longtime ally in Arizona and didn't think about the ramifications for the Russia investigation. Maybe not. Maybe Mueller and Schneiderman were working on similar cases and so decided to share evidence. Maybe they truly were reacting to Trump's use of the pardon. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.
I have another example, pulled from real life: A few years ago, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback announced delays in the state's major transportation projects. In Southeast Kansas, this meant the highly desired expansion of U.S. Highway 69 to four lanes. The local Brownback-allied state senator, who was headed for a tough election fight, then lobbied the governor and was able to convince the governor to put the U.S. 69 expansion back on track, mostly. Did it happen like that? Or did Brownback, knowing his friend was in trouble, plot to make the state senator look like a hero by getting the project back on that he had never planned to stop in the first place? I don't know. I know that the state senator is now the state treasurer, but I'm not sure anyone can know for sure. But when journalists act like they know true motives outside of someone's words, that's when it's best to ignore the journalist.
Summary Judgments
Wendover Productions had an excellent video on How to Stop a Riot and, in more detail, what went wrong and right in Charlottesville. It changed my way of thinking about the riot, which he accurately describes as such. • • • Speaking of Wendover Productions, they spun off into more weekly products called Half as Interesting. The first week, he looks at the longest drivable road between two points in the world. I won't spoil it for you, but the two countries he connects would make for some interesting fusion food. • • • Great story on the Houston Chronicle's coverage of Hurricane Harvey. Fascinating. • • • We're not really talking about it, but ISIS is on its back heels. Much of this work began toward the end of Obama's tenure, but it's really starting to come to a head now under the Trump administration. ISIS is almost entirely pushed out of Iraq after Tal Afar was freed yesterday. Forces are starting to tighten the noose, so to speak, around the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Syria. • • • I ran 5 miles on Monday, but it was in the afternoon heat. I won't be doing that again. I've got about 10 days before the 10K (6.2ish miles), and I know I won't run the whole way. But I am excited to see how far I can run and to push myself physically. I'm already surprised that I'm getting up to 5 miles. • • • The kids had their 3-year checkup this week. Evie's on the growth curve and doing fine. Roland's not on the growth curve. However, he's growing at a normal rate. It's looking like he's just a tiny, tiny boy. I'm sorry, buddy, but you didn't get the height genes from either of your parents — we didn't have any to give you.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Charlottesville
Editor's Note: Again, I apologize for last week. I was quite busy with planning for the kids' birthday party, cleaning and getting ready for the start of school for Alyson. Also, Evie got sick on Thursday and I really wasn't feeling all that great on Friday and into the weekend.
The incidents in Charlottesville, Va., two weeks ago have already created so much of a stir, through angles and ideas, points and counterpoints. A story like this exposes so many raw nerves/fears/emotions that it's hard to do them all justice. It's impossible to focus on just one thread of the rope and claim that's the one we should be focusing on. So instead I'm going to break my reaction into a series of smaller points, in no particular order.
Could Be Anywhere
I don't own a winery in Charlottesville like our President does, so I can't know what the "feel" of the community is. But I can tell you that I don't believe Charlottesville is particularly unique or has any significant distinction from practically any other city in the Old South. If it wasn't Charlottesville, it would have been a different city. Charlottesville just happened to be the city that drew the short straw this time.
Riot v. rally?
Alyson and I debated this one for a while. We can't figure it out. Reports have continued to call the events in Charlottesville a "rally," but I want to know why it's not called a "riot." There was a loss of law enforcement control and people were injured. I think the choice of "riot" comes with racial connotations against people of color. Or, put simply: They only call it a riot if it's people who aren't white. Given, I've seen a few publications call Charlottesville a riot, but not the publications that you'd expect — mostly REALLY far-right publications and like, Entertainment Weekly. I'm OK with being wrong on this, but I'd like to see an editor's logic be explained about the difference.
Ready for a Fight
I think it's fair to say that the neo-Nazis and white nationalists did not go to Charlottesville expecting to protest peacefully. They came ready for a fight; they came ready to create terror; they came organized. There are report, photos and videos of these thugs wearing planned uniforms. They all clearly got the tiki torch memo. Many came with taped fists like a fighter. You can easily find photos of the riot shields many of these men (I haven't seen many photos of women, interestingly) brought. Reporters talk about seeing batons and barricades and semi-automatic weapons guarding entrances to a public park. From what I've seen, there were a few "weapons" on the counter-protestor's side, but they appear improvised, like the aerosol/lighter flamethrower that has been photographed. The important thing here, I think, is that one side (the side with Nazis and white nationalists) came ready to induce fear and to start a fight. I saw one post on Facebook that protesters should not have picked a fight with groups that "had all the guns." It was written almost to intimidate, with the seeming message of "Don't try to stand up for yourself, minorities and women." I felt sick after reading it.
Empowered and Emboldened
Racism has existed forever in our country. We can't eliminate it by fiat or law or edict, but that's not to say that "we" don't have power. Societal pressure has the side effect of shaming/quieting the most racist among us. Racism existed in the recent past, too, but this "rally" showed a level of organization and intent on behalf of neo-Nazis and white nationalists. They felt it was acceptable for them to go out and do this in public without hoods or false identities. So while racism has existed, until recently it has been shamed into the shadows. Which led me to another question: What changed to make them think they could do this in public? And in this case, I go to primary sources. I don't like to be inside the mind of a David Duke and pretend I know what they're thinking. Instead, they said it: David Duke said the groups were inspired by Donald Trump and felt it was their mission to fulfill his mission. You can search for that video on your own, but it exists. Trump can be forceful when he wants — practically all of his other enemies. Yet with these white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups, he seems to be reluctant or nonchalant about denying their support.
Dre Harris
Heather Heyer — a white woman — died when a vehicle plowed into a group of peaceful protestors. Included in that harrowing photo that has been quite public is many other victims, including several black men and women. We haven't heard their names much. We also haven't heard much about Dre Harris, 20 years old, who was beaten by a crowd of white nationalists with poles in Charlottesville. Heyer deserves the attention, because there's no more story to tell for her — it was taken from her. But Dre Harris deserves some attention, too.
Driving into Protesters
After Ferguson and other racial events, protesters often filled the streets. Sometimes, they'd block the freeway or other major artery. In response, legislators in six states introduced bills to remove civil liability if a person drove into a crowd of protesters blocking a street. In essence, they've deemed a driver's right to drive unimpeded as equal to or greater than another group's freedom of assembly. Needless to say, this was a dumb idea before Charlottesville. It's an even dumber idea now. I can't imagine any of these bills making it to the floor and becoming law now.
Laws and Law Enforcement
Let's talk about Charlottesville's response real quick. I think it's obvious to say that law enforcement didn't have a good handle on the event. They were quickly out-armed and out-manned by both the white nationalists/Nazis group and the counter protesters. In short, they couldn't protect the peace. That's a local failure. But let's also talk laws. Virginia is a fairly open carry state. Charlottesville basically allows the open carry of assault-style weapons. Imagine you're a counter protester and you see the white nationalists/Nazis carrying assault weapons. Suddenly you want a weapon, too, right? This is how escalation happens. Stronger laws and stronger law enforcement would have helped remove an agitator from the equation, I think. I don't know for sure how to deal with this issue the right way. But maybe open carry of assault weapons is not a great idea in practice.
Adventures in Protesting
It seems in America, a certain sub-set of people will never believe protesters have good intentions. If violence breaks out at a rally, then the protesters are considered to be "thugs" and without purpose. We want peaceful protests, but I don't think we, the public, understand just how hard they are to pull off. It takes a ton of organization and intent and self-policing to make peaceful protests happen. The larger a crowd gets, the harder that is to do. The most recent protests in Boston were peaceful, but they also had the numbers against their white nationalist/Nazi opposition. They didn't in Charlottesville. Protesting is hard. I think the public kind of forgot what real protesting looked like. After the 1970s, protesting as a social response kind of went out of style for a few decades. The platonic ideal of protesting is MLK or Gandhi, but that sort of organized, targeted effort was not easy to pull off.
Purpose of the Statues
The Confederate statues at the heart of the debates were not built in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. Rather, they were largely built in the 1910s and 1920s by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. They were built 50 years after the Civil War not as testaments to important things that had happened at the site. They aren't built at museums or cemeteries — possibly acceptable locations. Instead, they were built during the Jim Crow era to remind black people of who was still in charge. They were reminders of the people who were traitors to the USA whose goal it was to own people — black people.
Southern pride
A friend from college made an excellent comment about Southern pride that I loved. Being a "Southerner" often has to do with love for or respect for certain things: gentility, hospitality, a certain way of cooking, old-time religion, country music, and Southern architecture (think Savannah, Ga., or New Orleans). None of those things draw their power from the Confederacy. Or, as he put it "There's no rule that white Southerners HAVE to derive their sense of being special from a wistful connection to a treasonous war fought by long-dead chattel slavers." Southern pride and racism shouldn't be tied.
Call it By Its Name
I'm really trying to avoid getting into the President Trump wildness because you've probably had enough of that by now. But one thing that really struck me was how he had a hard time identifying white supremacy and calling it repugnant (deplorable, perhaps?). On the Monday after Charlottesville, the first of many CEOs dropped out of one of Trump's advisory councils in the wake of the President's first comments. Almost immediately, Trump commented negatively about the CEO. But at that point, he still had yet to comment negatively about the white supremacists. It took him a few hours to denounce the CEO, but days — and it's arguable that he still hasn't really — to denounce white supremacists and neo-Nazis. For a man who raised such a stink about Obama and Sec. Clinton refusing to call ISIS and Al Qaeda by the name of "radical Islamic terrorists," he sure has had a hard time calling neo-Nazis and white supremacists by their names.
Paul Ryan
For a minute there, I thought that the Charlottesville comments would start the end for Trump. I waited to hear what McConnell and Ryan — the two most important people in this situation — had to say. McConnell has been largely silent, but mostly rebuking the false equivalency Trump promoted. Then Paul Ryan had a "town hall" on TV in which he was asked about censuring the President "What good does it do to unify this country?" he said. In short, he said that a censure battle would lead to partisan bickering that doesn't heal the country. But if he, the Speaker of the House, took a stand that President Trump's own party thought he crossed the line, it wouldn't be partisan bickering — it'd be bipartisan unison. In short, it was a dodge, a cop-out, and a tacit approval that Trump can say anything and he'd never lose Paul Ryan. It means that President Trump can continue saying outlandish, insensitive things, and there will never be consequences — even something as symbolic-but-not-lasting as censure.
Polling Shows Little Change
Until you can convince Republican voters that what Donald Trump is doing is hurting America, then he'll always have 35-40 percent approval in the polls. Which he still does. In fact, a survey of Republicans found roughly 2/3 approved of his Charlottesville response. Two-thirds! There's a reason I've started calling the president Teflon Don — nothing seems to stick to him.
Steve Bannon
It took 10 minutes for the news to break about Steve Bannon leaving the White House before two different stories emerged about whether he quit or was fired. It took less than a day for him to return to Brietbart. I said back in December that I found Bannon to be "highly troubling." Years ago, he declared Breitbart to be the platform for the alt-right — the same crowd that is interconnected with the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists. Bannon is dangerous. I'm not sure putting him behind the Breitbart megaphone will help America move forward. But I'm also sure having him in the White House was equally dangerous. Instead, let me ask you a hypothetical: If you're Donald Trump, would you rather have this snake on the inside or the outside?
Summary Judgments
ESPN had a pretty funny story about a baseball "trick play" that went all sorts of terrible. It was chaos and silly and everything good sports stories should be. I loved the story. • • • The president's Afghanistan speech was largely without specifics. He framed it to make it sound like a lack of specifics was part of his plan, but I kind of think his plan was just to distract us all from Charlottesville. But for what it's worth, I thought it was a fine speech to show he can stick to subject once in a while. Then he ruined that goodwill the next day with a wild speech in Arizona that did away with all that good will. • • • I've seen both conservatives and liberals upset over ESPN's hypersensitivity about moving announcer Robert Lee (Asian descent) away from covering the Virginia basketball game. Both sides think it's dumb. Both sides think ESPN "shot itself in the dick." This isn't the partisan issue some believe it is — ESPN's just overly sensitive to the point of being obtuse. • • • Poor Elaine Chao. The Secretary of Transportation is married to Mitch McConnell and serving in the Trump administration. Her husband and boss are reportedly feuding. This feels like a dumb soap opera story. • • • I haven't run much because of how busy I've been lately and how sick I was. But I did run a 5K twice in the last week, both times under 31 minutes — under a 10:00/mile pace! My next run will be a 10K in two-ish weeks, which means this weekend I need to get up to running 5 miles at a time. A good time in a 5K is a good start. • • • I have two 3-year-olds now. Some call this age "threenagers." Roland had a rough early start to 2 years old, then settled down now. Evie's the opposite — she's very much a threenager right now. It's nearly nightly timeouts and attitude problems. And then, like 5 minutes later, she's the sweetest girl in the world. It's maddening.
The incidents in Charlottesville, Va., two weeks ago have already created so much of a stir, through angles and ideas, points and counterpoints. A story like this exposes so many raw nerves/fears/emotions that it's hard to do them all justice. It's impossible to focus on just one thread of the rope and claim that's the one we should be focusing on. So instead I'm going to break my reaction into a series of smaller points, in no particular order.
Could Be Anywhere
I don't own a winery in Charlottesville like our President does, so I can't know what the "feel" of the community is. But I can tell you that I don't believe Charlottesville is particularly unique or has any significant distinction from practically any other city in the Old South. If it wasn't Charlottesville, it would have been a different city. Charlottesville just happened to be the city that drew the short straw this time.
Riot v. rally?
Alyson and I debated this one for a while. We can't figure it out. Reports have continued to call the events in Charlottesville a "rally," but I want to know why it's not called a "riot." There was a loss of law enforcement control and people were injured. I think the choice of "riot" comes with racial connotations against people of color. Or, put simply: They only call it a riot if it's people who aren't white. Given, I've seen a few publications call Charlottesville a riot, but not the publications that you'd expect — mostly REALLY far-right publications and like, Entertainment Weekly. I'm OK with being wrong on this, but I'd like to see an editor's logic be explained about the difference.
Ready for a Fight
I think it's fair to say that the neo-Nazis and white nationalists did not go to Charlottesville expecting to protest peacefully. They came ready for a fight; they came ready to create terror; they came organized. There are report, photos and videos of these thugs wearing planned uniforms. They all clearly got the tiki torch memo. Many came with taped fists like a fighter. You can easily find photos of the riot shields many of these men (I haven't seen many photos of women, interestingly) brought. Reporters talk about seeing batons and barricades and semi-automatic weapons guarding entrances to a public park. From what I've seen, there were a few "weapons" on the counter-protestor's side, but they appear improvised, like the aerosol/lighter flamethrower that has been photographed. The important thing here, I think, is that one side (the side with Nazis and white nationalists) came ready to induce fear and to start a fight. I saw one post on Facebook that protesters should not have picked a fight with groups that "had all the guns." It was written almost to intimidate, with the seeming message of "Don't try to stand up for yourself, minorities and women." I felt sick after reading it.
Empowered and Emboldened
Racism has existed forever in our country. We can't eliminate it by fiat or law or edict, but that's not to say that "we" don't have power. Societal pressure has the side effect of shaming/quieting the most racist among us. Racism existed in the recent past, too, but this "rally" showed a level of organization and intent on behalf of neo-Nazis and white nationalists. They felt it was acceptable for them to go out and do this in public without hoods or false identities. So while racism has existed, until recently it has been shamed into the shadows. Which led me to another question: What changed to make them think they could do this in public? And in this case, I go to primary sources. I don't like to be inside the mind of a David Duke and pretend I know what they're thinking. Instead, they said it: David Duke said the groups were inspired by Donald Trump and felt it was their mission to fulfill his mission. You can search for that video on your own, but it exists. Trump can be forceful when he wants — practically all of his other enemies. Yet with these white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups, he seems to be reluctant or nonchalant about denying their support.
Dre Harris
Heather Heyer — a white woman — died when a vehicle plowed into a group of peaceful protestors. Included in that harrowing photo that has been quite public is many other victims, including several black men and women. We haven't heard their names much. We also haven't heard much about Dre Harris, 20 years old, who was beaten by a crowd of white nationalists with poles in Charlottesville. Heyer deserves the attention, because there's no more story to tell for her — it was taken from her. But Dre Harris deserves some attention, too.
Driving into Protesters
After Ferguson and other racial events, protesters often filled the streets. Sometimes, they'd block the freeway or other major artery. In response, legislators in six states introduced bills to remove civil liability if a person drove into a crowd of protesters blocking a street. In essence, they've deemed a driver's right to drive unimpeded as equal to or greater than another group's freedom of assembly. Needless to say, this was a dumb idea before Charlottesville. It's an even dumber idea now. I can't imagine any of these bills making it to the floor and becoming law now.
Laws and Law Enforcement
Let's talk about Charlottesville's response real quick. I think it's obvious to say that law enforcement didn't have a good handle on the event. They were quickly out-armed and out-manned by both the white nationalists/Nazis group and the counter protesters. In short, they couldn't protect the peace. That's a local failure. But let's also talk laws. Virginia is a fairly open carry state. Charlottesville basically allows the open carry of assault-style weapons. Imagine you're a counter protester and you see the white nationalists/Nazis carrying assault weapons. Suddenly you want a weapon, too, right? This is how escalation happens. Stronger laws and stronger law enforcement would have helped remove an agitator from the equation, I think. I don't know for sure how to deal with this issue the right way. But maybe open carry of assault weapons is not a great idea in practice.
Adventures in Protesting
It seems in America, a certain sub-set of people will never believe protesters have good intentions. If violence breaks out at a rally, then the protesters are considered to be "thugs" and without purpose. We want peaceful protests, but I don't think we, the public, understand just how hard they are to pull off. It takes a ton of organization and intent and self-policing to make peaceful protests happen. The larger a crowd gets, the harder that is to do. The most recent protests in Boston were peaceful, but they also had the numbers against their white nationalist/Nazi opposition. They didn't in Charlottesville. Protesting is hard. I think the public kind of forgot what real protesting looked like. After the 1970s, protesting as a social response kind of went out of style for a few decades. The platonic ideal of protesting is MLK or Gandhi, but that sort of organized, targeted effort was not easy to pull off.
Purpose of the Statues
The Confederate statues at the heart of the debates were not built in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. Rather, they were largely built in the 1910s and 1920s by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. They were built 50 years after the Civil War not as testaments to important things that had happened at the site. They aren't built at museums or cemeteries — possibly acceptable locations. Instead, they were built during the Jim Crow era to remind black people of who was still in charge. They were reminders of the people who were traitors to the USA whose goal it was to own people — black people.
Southern pride
A friend from college made an excellent comment about Southern pride that I loved. Being a "Southerner" often has to do with love for or respect for certain things: gentility, hospitality, a certain way of cooking, old-time religion, country music, and Southern architecture (think Savannah, Ga., or New Orleans). None of those things draw their power from the Confederacy. Or, as he put it "There's no rule that white Southerners HAVE to derive their sense of being special from a wistful connection to a treasonous war fought by long-dead chattel slavers." Southern pride and racism shouldn't be tied.
Call it By Its Name
I'm really trying to avoid getting into the President Trump wildness because you've probably had enough of that by now. But one thing that really struck me was how he had a hard time identifying white supremacy and calling it repugnant (deplorable, perhaps?). On the Monday after Charlottesville, the first of many CEOs dropped out of one of Trump's advisory councils in the wake of the President's first comments. Almost immediately, Trump commented negatively about the CEO. But at that point, he still had yet to comment negatively about the white supremacists. It took him a few hours to denounce the CEO, but days — and it's arguable that he still hasn't really — to denounce white supremacists and neo-Nazis. For a man who raised such a stink about Obama and Sec. Clinton refusing to call ISIS and Al Qaeda by the name of "radical Islamic terrorists," he sure has had a hard time calling neo-Nazis and white supremacists by their names.
Paul Ryan
For a minute there, I thought that the Charlottesville comments would start the end for Trump. I waited to hear what McConnell and Ryan — the two most important people in this situation — had to say. McConnell has been largely silent, but mostly rebuking the false equivalency Trump promoted. Then Paul Ryan had a "town hall" on TV in which he was asked about censuring the President "What good does it do to unify this country?" he said. In short, he said that a censure battle would lead to partisan bickering that doesn't heal the country. But if he, the Speaker of the House, took a stand that President Trump's own party thought he crossed the line, it wouldn't be partisan bickering — it'd be bipartisan unison. In short, it was a dodge, a cop-out, and a tacit approval that Trump can say anything and he'd never lose Paul Ryan. It means that President Trump can continue saying outlandish, insensitive things, and there will never be consequences — even something as symbolic-but-not-lasting as censure.
Polling Shows Little Change
Until you can convince Republican voters that what Donald Trump is doing is hurting America, then he'll always have 35-40 percent approval in the polls. Which he still does. In fact, a survey of Republicans found roughly 2/3 approved of his Charlottesville response. Two-thirds! There's a reason I've started calling the president Teflon Don — nothing seems to stick to him.
Steve Bannon
It took 10 minutes for the news to break about Steve Bannon leaving the White House before two different stories emerged about whether he quit or was fired. It took less than a day for him to return to Brietbart. I said back in December that I found Bannon to be "highly troubling." Years ago, he declared Breitbart to be the platform for the alt-right — the same crowd that is interconnected with the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists. Bannon is dangerous. I'm not sure putting him behind the Breitbart megaphone will help America move forward. But I'm also sure having him in the White House was equally dangerous. Instead, let me ask you a hypothetical: If you're Donald Trump, would you rather have this snake on the inside or the outside?
Summary Judgments
ESPN had a pretty funny story about a baseball "trick play" that went all sorts of terrible. It was chaos and silly and everything good sports stories should be. I loved the story. • • • The president's Afghanistan speech was largely without specifics. He framed it to make it sound like a lack of specifics was part of his plan, but I kind of think his plan was just to distract us all from Charlottesville. But for what it's worth, I thought it was a fine speech to show he can stick to subject once in a while. Then he ruined that goodwill the next day with a wild speech in Arizona that did away with all that good will. • • • I've seen both conservatives and liberals upset over ESPN's hypersensitivity about moving announcer Robert Lee (Asian descent) away from covering the Virginia basketball game. Both sides think it's dumb. Both sides think ESPN "shot itself in the dick." This isn't the partisan issue some believe it is — ESPN's just overly sensitive to the point of being obtuse. • • • Poor Elaine Chao. The Secretary of Transportation is married to Mitch McConnell and serving in the Trump administration. Her husband and boss are reportedly feuding. This feels like a dumb soap opera story. • • • I haven't run much because of how busy I've been lately and how sick I was. But I did run a 5K twice in the last week, both times under 31 minutes — under a 10:00/mile pace! My next run will be a 10K in two-ish weeks, which means this weekend I need to get up to running 5 miles at a time. A good time in a 5K is a good start. • • • I have two 3-year-olds now. Some call this age "threenagers." Roland had a rough early start to 2 years old, then settled down now. Evie's the opposite — she's very much a threenager right now. It's nearly nightly timeouts and attitude problems. And then, like 5 minutes later, she's the sweetest girl in the world. It's maddening.
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Apologies
I am sorry for not posting like regular, but it has been a particularly busy week at home and I've also dealt with some light illnesses.
I'll be back soon with thoughts on Charlottesville, Steve Bannon and more.
I'll be back soon with thoughts on Charlottesville, Steve Bannon and more.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Let's talk about North Korea
I was horrified while researching this entry to discover that Kim Jong Un is roughly a year and nine months older than I am. I thought he was 10 years older! But he's not. I do not feel old enough to be one of the nine heads of state who wield nuclear power (Macron, Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, Jianpeng, India/Pakistan leaders, May, Jong Un). It's a lot of power in a person without a ton of life experience. (Note: I do feel like I have a better temperament than at least two of those nine. (Also note: South Africa used to have nuclear weapons! They gave them up after apartheid. Which brings up an interesting question: Why did South Africa need nukes?))
At any rate, the crisis du jour is North Korea. We didn't win the Korean War, but we didn't lose it, either. You could write that sentence in reverse order if you wish for dramatic emphasis. Since as far as I can remember, North Korea has been trying to get nuclear weapons as a deterrent to U.S. aggression. That's the argument they make, and you have to believe it's a good-faith reason. It turns out the nuclear ambitions are a little more recent — the first moves were in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, the first actual nuclear test came under George W. Bush, four more nuclear tests came under Barack Obama, and missile tests have been taking place with continued frequency and success over that time period.
We now are as certain as the public can be that North Korea has a) the capacity to reach U.S. targets using intercontinental ballistic missiles which shoot into space and then back down toward the target and b) the ability to miniaturize nuclear weapons to fit into a warhead that can fit inside those missiles. Before, say, this year, we thought that a) was still a year or two out and b) was 3-5 years out. Well, that's not the case. Some estimates are that North Korea has the capacity for 7 nukes. I've seen another estimate that puts it closer to 60. Nitpicking on the number of nuclear bombs is kind of ridiculous when only one or two, launched 40 miles south of the DMZ would hit a a city of millions and destroy the South Korean government and economy.
So let's talk about both motivations of the actors in this play and the choices facing the U.S.
Japan, as the only country in history to be hit with a nuclear weapon, has a ban against nuclear weapons in their Constitution. They do not have them and presumably do not want them, though they almost certainly have the scientific know-how for it. However, as an ally of South Korea, they also want to keep North Korea from attacking either Seoul or themselves. Tokyo is a pretty attractive target, and it's not far off, either. However, President Trump has seemed to encourage South Korea and Japan to have nuclear weapons for their own security (nuclear proliferation) and to also say he doesn't want others to get nuclear weapons (non-proliferation). But given that Trump has pushed an America First policy, I would be terrified that "acceptable losses" of Japanese people is greater than the number of "acceptable losses" of Americans. Further, several American targets are in Japan: Okinawa and Iwakuni. A North Korean attack on either base would be catastrophic to the Japanese people that live nearby and would still be a direct attack on Japan. There does not seem to be much of a public appetite for brinksmanship with North Korea, and Trump's comments are kind of putting Japan in the crosshairs.
South Korea has many of the same issues as Japan, but doubly so. Consider that North Korea supposedly has a mass of many chemical weapons. They have a number of mortar launchers and short-range missiles/etc. that could launch destruction and chemical weapons across the DMZ into Seoul, which has 10 million people within its borders and 25 million as part of its metro area. Any act of aggression by North Korea would almost certainly affect South Korea directly — they are, in some ways, the hostage held by a nuclear-armed North Korea. And yet, their military is also armed and ready. While the South Korean armed forces could likely win a war against North Korea, it would come at a high cost of civilian lives on both sides of the DMZ. South Korea's new leader has publicly called for diplomacy to resolve the crisis rather than force. There is no one who wants war less than South Korea. They will go to war if North Korea attacks them, but they really, really don't want that to happen.
China is complicated. They've long liked the idea of an affiliated mini-boss nearby that keeps the U.S. at bay. As long as the U.S. is pre-occupied by North Korea, that keeps America's eyes off China in the East. North Korea also acts as a buffer state from the U.S. troops that are in South Korea — China doesn't want U.S. bases just across their own border. However, North Korea's aggressiveness has been met with increasing trade limits by China and diplomatic statements. In what was widely considered a direct message to North Korea in a Chinese editorial, China made their view clear: If North Korea attacks first, China won't back them when the U.S./allies retaliate. HOWEVER, if the U.S. attempts some sort of regime change or try to change the politics of the Korean peninsula (read: overthrow Jong Un or try to unite Korea under South Korean rule), then they'll have to step in.
The U.S. seems to be a contradiction. While military and diplomatic leaders call for diplomacy, our head of state seems to only escalate the situation with every interview. While I think there is an American appetite for winning against a brutal/dangerous regime (like Desert Storm), I don't think there is an American appetite for a prolonged, costly war (like Iraqi Freedom). Especially one with casualties in the thousands or potentially millions for an industrialized, modern ally. Especially one in which we seemed to poke the bear until the bear attacked.
I read a good story in the Atlantic recommended by a friend, although it's already a little outdated. When written, it posited that North Korea didn't have the capacity for miniaturization or the ability to hit U.S. targets. That has since changed.
It's also important to note that nothing that has been tried over the years has worked. Democrats under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have tried and failed to stop a nuclear-armed North Korea. Republicans under George W. Bush and Donald Trump have tried and failed to stop a nuclear-armed North Korea. In theory, a nuclear-armed North Korea falls on all their shoulders — none of them bears full blame, and none of them bears no blame at all. Each has also tried different tactics. Clinton tried to negotiate. That failed. George W. Bush tried to make threats. That failed. Barack Obama tried what was called "strategic patience" (Note: North Korea before Obama would be aggressive, then come to the bargaining table and get a relief from sanctions or some other reward in exchange. Obama's strategy was not to retaliate to aggression, but also not to reward North Korea at the bargaining table for their aggression. That's what "strategic patience" meant in practice.). That failed. Donald Trump is seemingly trying to bluster North Korea into submission. That's not helped so far.
What are our options? Well, the Atlantic story came up with a few, but many foreign policy experts tend to fall into acceptance: North Korea has nuclear weapons and there's nothing we can do to prevent that.
It seems to me that our president needs a new tool. When all you have is a hammer (in this case, bluster), every problem looks like a nail. But as this interesting video details, the solutions that have historically worked are not necessarily visual. Peacekeepers, treaties and diplomacy have the most recent success. The video also made a great point that the instruments of war are obvious and clear: missiles, submarines, airplanes, boats, tanks, etc. The instruments of peace are not necessarily physical. His list of "weapons of peace" comes with the comment that if any of these had prevented a catastrophe, you'd probably never know it. "If powerful, they tend to go unnoticed." For you newspaper folks out there, consider the instruments of peace to be your copy editors — if they go unnoticed, they're doing their job. That "unnoticed" aspect tends to leave people to perceive them as unimportant or ineffective. I hope that President Trump uses these instruments of peace even though they aren't as direct or as obvious as a military solution.
What About?-ism
I had never heard about this tactic until recently, but it's amazed me with its effectiveness. I've seen it used by Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Putin makes sense — it was originally a Russian propaganda tool. The idea is that any time a criticism is leveled against a country/person, they respond with "What about your problem?", citing something specific. For example, during the early days of the Cold War, American speakers frequently decried the USSR's Soviet imperialism. The Soviets would respond with "What about your race and minority problems? You've got segregation and..." so on and so on. Or think Donald Trump, when he was criticized about the Access Hollywood tapes, responding with "What about Bill Clinton?"
It's both a deflection from the original criticism and puts the criticizer in the position of being defensive. It also says "You're no better than we are."
I'm not going to get into it too much, but please note this when you see it. It's startling how strong of a weapon this can be.
Summary Judgments
I'm sorry this went up later than I planned. I wasn't in a good mental place yesterday after some non-work/non-family news. • • • I've seen a lot of interesting videos and such lately. My favorite has been one that I can't find the video right now, but this is the script it came from. It's the worst plate appearance in baseball history. Long story summarized: A pitcher who had never batted before tried to strike out but instead walked... on four straight pitches. • • • I was sick on Monday and it rained on Wednesday, so I basically took a week off on running. Then this morning I ran a 5K in about 31 minutes, which is or is close to a personal best. I'm a month away from the 10K! • • • Lots of major events at our home in the next few weeks, so posting might not be irregular for a little bit. • • • Evie wanted to go home with one of her daycare workers this week. Miss Hillary: You don't want to go home with me. Evie: Yeah! Miss Hillary: No, there are stinky boys there. My son's been at football practice. You don't want to go where the stinky boys are. Evie: Yes, I do.
At any rate, the crisis du jour is North Korea. We didn't win the Korean War, but we didn't lose it, either. You could write that sentence in reverse order if you wish for dramatic emphasis. Since as far as I can remember, North Korea has been trying to get nuclear weapons as a deterrent to U.S. aggression. That's the argument they make, and you have to believe it's a good-faith reason. It turns out the nuclear ambitions are a little more recent — the first moves were in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, the first actual nuclear test came under George W. Bush, four more nuclear tests came under Barack Obama, and missile tests have been taking place with continued frequency and success over that time period.
We now are as certain as the public can be that North Korea has a) the capacity to reach U.S. targets using intercontinental ballistic missiles which shoot into space and then back down toward the target and b) the ability to miniaturize nuclear weapons to fit into a warhead that can fit inside those missiles. Before, say, this year, we thought that a) was still a year or two out and b) was 3-5 years out. Well, that's not the case. Some estimates are that North Korea has the capacity for 7 nukes. I've seen another estimate that puts it closer to 60. Nitpicking on the number of nuclear bombs is kind of ridiculous when only one or two, launched 40 miles south of the DMZ would hit a a city of millions and destroy the South Korean government and economy.
So let's talk about both motivations of the actors in this play and the choices facing the U.S.
Japan, as the only country in history to be hit with a nuclear weapon, has a ban against nuclear weapons in their Constitution. They do not have them and presumably do not want them, though they almost certainly have the scientific know-how for it. However, as an ally of South Korea, they also want to keep North Korea from attacking either Seoul or themselves. Tokyo is a pretty attractive target, and it's not far off, either. However, President Trump has seemed to encourage South Korea and Japan to have nuclear weapons for their own security (nuclear proliferation) and to also say he doesn't want others to get nuclear weapons (non-proliferation). But given that Trump has pushed an America First policy, I would be terrified that "acceptable losses" of Japanese people is greater than the number of "acceptable losses" of Americans. Further, several American targets are in Japan: Okinawa and Iwakuni. A North Korean attack on either base would be catastrophic to the Japanese people that live nearby and would still be a direct attack on Japan. There does not seem to be much of a public appetite for brinksmanship with North Korea, and Trump's comments are kind of putting Japan in the crosshairs.
South Korea has many of the same issues as Japan, but doubly so. Consider that North Korea supposedly has a mass of many chemical weapons. They have a number of mortar launchers and short-range missiles/etc. that could launch destruction and chemical weapons across the DMZ into Seoul, which has 10 million people within its borders and 25 million as part of its metro area. Any act of aggression by North Korea would almost certainly affect South Korea directly — they are, in some ways, the hostage held by a nuclear-armed North Korea. And yet, their military is also armed and ready. While the South Korean armed forces could likely win a war against North Korea, it would come at a high cost of civilian lives on both sides of the DMZ. South Korea's new leader has publicly called for diplomacy to resolve the crisis rather than force. There is no one who wants war less than South Korea. They will go to war if North Korea attacks them, but they really, really don't want that to happen.
China is complicated. They've long liked the idea of an affiliated mini-boss nearby that keeps the U.S. at bay. As long as the U.S. is pre-occupied by North Korea, that keeps America's eyes off China in the East. North Korea also acts as a buffer state from the U.S. troops that are in South Korea — China doesn't want U.S. bases just across their own border. However, North Korea's aggressiveness has been met with increasing trade limits by China and diplomatic statements. In what was widely considered a direct message to North Korea in a Chinese editorial, China made their view clear: If North Korea attacks first, China won't back them when the U.S./allies retaliate. HOWEVER, if the U.S. attempts some sort of regime change or try to change the politics of the Korean peninsula (read: overthrow Jong Un or try to unite Korea under South Korean rule), then they'll have to step in.
The U.S. seems to be a contradiction. While military and diplomatic leaders call for diplomacy, our head of state seems to only escalate the situation with every interview. While I think there is an American appetite for winning against a brutal/dangerous regime (like Desert Storm), I don't think there is an American appetite for a prolonged, costly war (like Iraqi Freedom). Especially one with casualties in the thousands or potentially millions for an industrialized, modern ally. Especially one in which we seemed to poke the bear until the bear attacked.
I read a good story in the Atlantic recommended by a friend, although it's already a little outdated. When written, it posited that North Korea didn't have the capacity for miniaturization or the ability to hit U.S. targets. That has since changed.
It's also important to note that nothing that has been tried over the years has worked. Democrats under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have tried and failed to stop a nuclear-armed North Korea. Republicans under George W. Bush and Donald Trump have tried and failed to stop a nuclear-armed North Korea. In theory, a nuclear-armed North Korea falls on all their shoulders — none of them bears full blame, and none of them bears no blame at all. Each has also tried different tactics. Clinton tried to negotiate. That failed. George W. Bush tried to make threats. That failed. Barack Obama tried what was called "strategic patience" (Note: North Korea before Obama would be aggressive, then come to the bargaining table and get a relief from sanctions or some other reward in exchange. Obama's strategy was not to retaliate to aggression, but also not to reward North Korea at the bargaining table for their aggression. That's what "strategic patience" meant in practice.). That failed. Donald Trump is seemingly trying to bluster North Korea into submission. That's not helped so far.
What are our options? Well, the Atlantic story came up with a few, but many foreign policy experts tend to fall into acceptance: North Korea has nuclear weapons and there's nothing we can do to prevent that.
It seems to me that our president needs a new tool. When all you have is a hammer (in this case, bluster), every problem looks like a nail. But as this interesting video details, the solutions that have historically worked are not necessarily visual. Peacekeepers, treaties and diplomacy have the most recent success. The video also made a great point that the instruments of war are obvious and clear: missiles, submarines, airplanes, boats, tanks, etc. The instruments of peace are not necessarily physical. His list of "weapons of peace" comes with the comment that if any of these had prevented a catastrophe, you'd probably never know it. "If powerful, they tend to go unnoticed." For you newspaper folks out there, consider the instruments of peace to be your copy editors — if they go unnoticed, they're doing their job. That "unnoticed" aspect tends to leave people to perceive them as unimportant or ineffective. I hope that President Trump uses these instruments of peace even though they aren't as direct or as obvious as a military solution.
What About?-ism
I had never heard about this tactic until recently, but it's amazed me with its effectiveness. I've seen it used by Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Putin makes sense — it was originally a Russian propaganda tool. The idea is that any time a criticism is leveled against a country/person, they respond with "What about your problem?", citing something specific. For example, during the early days of the Cold War, American speakers frequently decried the USSR's Soviet imperialism. The Soviets would respond with "What about your race and minority problems? You've got segregation and..." so on and so on. Or think Donald Trump, when he was criticized about the Access Hollywood tapes, responding with "What about Bill Clinton?"
It's both a deflection from the original criticism and puts the criticizer in the position of being defensive. It also says "You're no better than we are."
I'm not going to get into it too much, but please note this when you see it. It's startling how strong of a weapon this can be.
Summary Judgments
I'm sorry this went up later than I planned. I wasn't in a good mental place yesterday after some non-work/non-family news. • • • I've seen a lot of interesting videos and such lately. My favorite has been one that I can't find the video right now, but this is the script it came from. It's the worst plate appearance in baseball history. Long story summarized: A pitcher who had never batted before tried to strike out but instead walked... on four straight pitches. • • • I was sick on Monday and it rained on Wednesday, so I basically took a week off on running. Then this morning I ran a 5K in about 31 minutes, which is or is close to a personal best. I'm a month away from the 10K! • • • Lots of major events at our home in the next few weeks, so posting might not be irregular for a little bit. • • • Evie wanted to go home with one of her daycare workers this week. Miss Hillary: You don't want to go home with me. Evie: Yeah! Miss Hillary: No, there are stinky boys there. My son's been at football practice. You don't want to go where the stinky boys are. Evie: Yes, I do.
Friday, August 4, 2017
9 Quick Thoughts on This Week In Washington
1) The most powerful man in Washington right now is Robert Mueller. He's got GOP and Democrat support, so firing him is basically an impeachable move. He's got the President of the United States acting scared and drawing "red lines" that are immediately crossed. The general public might look for fireworks and big moves, but I've been watching the smaller, subtler signs. Mueller has quietly put together an all-star team of prosecutors, including white-collar crime and international finance lawyers. He's expected to interview basically the entire FBI leadership team -- who can provide backup to Comey's testimony. He's already impaneling one grand jury and issuing subpoenas related to the Russia-Trump Jr. meeting. Meanwhile, the Mueller team has not been engaged in grandstanding — there haven't been comments from the team's spokesperson in reaction to this or that report. Think of Mueller's team as the San Antonio Spurs, quietly going about their business, while the Trump Administration has been garnering attention but not success: Los Angeles Lakers or New York Knicks, perhaps? Potential is power — and Mueller has the potential to bring down the most powerful man in the world.
2) Sean Spicer and Reince Preibus reportedly fought hard to keep Anthony Scaramucci out of the White House. Upon losing their battle, Spicer quit and Preibus was soon replaced. It appears they had the correct stance, as Scaramucci was ousted after less than 10 days by new Chief of Staff Ret. Gen. John Kelly. I think Kelly made the right move -- Scaramucci was a disaster. I also think Kelly will bring a discipline to many in the White House that didn't exist before. That, coupled with the timely 17-day vacation Trump will take, means that we're likely to get a ton of stories about Trump "pivoting" or trying to be less controversial/being more Presidential. Although that would be a good thing for the country as a whole, I will believe it when I see it. If Kelly can get President Trump to stop Tweeting, I'll sing Kelly's praises myself.
3) Speaking of the President, his transcripts from his January calls to the Mexican and Australian heads of state were embarrassing. Not only did he call New Hampshire a "drug-infested den" — a state he narrowly lost to Hillary Clinton and will be harder-pressed to win again with that in the pocket of future attack ads — but he also showed a lack of empathy and a self-centeredness that disgusted me. At one point, he essentially says that if Mexico keeps saying they won't pay for the wall, then he won't talk to them anymore. It was... a completely empty threat. You can read the Mexican prime minister (lower approval ratings than Trump) walk Trump out of talking about the wall, where they have no common ground. Then, with Australia's prime minister, Trump consistently talked about how bad things would make him look. Also: "I am the world's greatest person..." Yuck.
4) I don't know if this remains true or not, but when I went to Washington on a job-shadow trip while a college student (W. Bush era), I learned that there are two press conferences at the White House almost every day. The first is the morning press conference, which involves the TV cameras. The person I job shadowed said that this press conference usually contains nothing of substance, because it's almost entirely for show. It's spectacle. You saw that on display with CNN's Jim Acosta and Stephen Miller squaring off this week in an argument that made neither look particularly good. The other press conference is off-camera but on the record, and is mostly the print reporters and other reporters getting actual substance. This was usually at the 12:30/1:30 time slot. From what I can tell, those times have been switched if there are still two such press conferences. But make no mistake: TV cameras are more for sizzle than for steak.
5) The economic news lately has been a success. This should be no surprise -- the economic conditions were favorable at the end of Obama's tenure and have continued into Trump's. Further, the President actually holds relatively little power over jobs numbers. Here's my theory on the recent economic swing: Businesses expect a free-er regulatory and economic market under Trump, and are therefore acting accordingly and expanding business and pushing deals/hiring/etc. You can read that one of two ways: 1) "Big Business" feels like it can get away with more things under Trump or 2) Regulations under Obama were stifling business growth. It depends on how you view the intentions of "Business." I tend to fall in a middle category: Regulations have an important place to protect investors, the public and the country's general welfare. However, they should not be so stifling as to be impractical. I don't mind inconvenient — I mind overbearing.
6) It's easy to get caught up in the presidential approval numbers. They're historically bad for President Trump right now, with about 37 percent approval compared to about 57 percent disapproval (538.com's average). However, Vox did an informative study of the decline. What they've found is that Democrats or those in Democratic-leaning districts have moved even more against Trump, while Republican-leaning districts haven't changed at all (It's notable that heavily Republican areas have also seen a decline in Trump support, but I'd argue that those folks are not about to abandon the GOP party, even if they don't approve of Trump.). What I'm saying is that a decline in Trump support does not make a Democratic takeover of the House/Senate that much easier if the only gains for the Dems are coming in places already favorable to them. The same could be applied to the Electoral College.
7) You may have noticed that I haven't jumped on the "Fox News coordinated with the Trump campaign to spread the Seth Rich story" story. That's because I don't feel anything has been proven yet. The allegations, which are all they are at this point, are in a lawsuit. That doesn't mean any court has found them believable or that any decisive evidence has been made available. The Seth Rich story (Long story short: Fox News ran a story about a DNC staffer who was murdered in D.C. Fox blatantly said Rich had given info to Wikileaks and implied his death was caused by some nefarious scheme on the Democrats' behalf. This was demonstrably false, and Fox issued a correction on both the Wikileaks angle and the Democrats' connection — it was just a robbery gone bad.) is a black eye for Fox News as a whole. We shall see in the light of court and the public whether any damnable evidence comes out. But at this point, it's mostly just Fox News' opponents trying to pile on.
8) Bad headline watch: "J.K. Rowling sorry for Trump tweets" -- CNN. The story is not that she is sorry for ALL of her Trump tweets. Rather, she's sorry for a few of them that turned out to be false. This does not mean she's always wrong, but she's wrong about this particular subject. The headline seems to imply that she's apologizing for everything she's ever said about Trump, which is wholeheartedly not the case.
9) Let's establish what is and isn't fake news. Fake news is not news that you disagree with. Fake news is news that is false. For instance: The Mexican Navy did not make an arrival in California. The Navy SEALS were mistaken for the Mexican Navy. That is fake news. Fake news is not Mueller impaneling a grand jury in Washington. You can verify that. It's actual news. Related, I want to show you a great two-part story on when to trust unnamed sources and anonymous sources. They are great at explaining why you should trust them and which stories you can ignore. Please read them.
Summary Judgments
It sounds like the "bipartisan" effort on Obamacare fixes is mostly to shore up the marketplaces. If you ask a Democrat what the biggest flaws with the ACA are, they'll point to GOP attempts to sabotage these marketplaces. So in theory, this would be a major concession to Democrats that the ACA is sticking around and needs to be buttressed if it'll stay. I'm curious to see, though, to see what concessions the moderate GOP members ask the Democrats to make. I still don't think a bipartisan bill is likely, though. • • • Rhode Island has now joined liberal states like Oregon and New York and conservative state Tennessee in making all community college tuition and fees free for residents. I like this plan a lot. • • • I have been back on my run schedule. I ran 4.5 miles this morning, with only one short (0.1 miles) walk in there, and I did it in 47 minutes. That's a great time for me. Better yet, I didn't feel exhausted afterward. I felt good and refreshed. My two potential causes of that great run: beautiful, cool weather and finding a good music station that didn't take me out of the groove. • • • Roland, unprompted: We're being nice! Me: Are you two both being nice? Roland: Yeah! Evie, mischievously: Nooooo. Me: You're not being nice? Evie: Noooope.
2) Sean Spicer and Reince Preibus reportedly fought hard to keep Anthony Scaramucci out of the White House. Upon losing their battle, Spicer quit and Preibus was soon replaced. It appears they had the correct stance, as Scaramucci was ousted after less than 10 days by new Chief of Staff Ret. Gen. John Kelly. I think Kelly made the right move -- Scaramucci was a disaster. I also think Kelly will bring a discipline to many in the White House that didn't exist before. That, coupled with the timely 17-day vacation Trump will take, means that we're likely to get a ton of stories about Trump "pivoting" or trying to be less controversial/being more Presidential. Although that would be a good thing for the country as a whole, I will believe it when I see it. If Kelly can get President Trump to stop Tweeting, I'll sing Kelly's praises myself.
3) Speaking of the President, his transcripts from his January calls to the Mexican and Australian heads of state were embarrassing. Not only did he call New Hampshire a "drug-infested den" — a state he narrowly lost to Hillary Clinton and will be harder-pressed to win again with that in the pocket of future attack ads — but he also showed a lack of empathy and a self-centeredness that disgusted me. At one point, he essentially says that if Mexico keeps saying they won't pay for the wall, then he won't talk to them anymore. It was... a completely empty threat. You can read the Mexican prime minister (lower approval ratings than Trump) walk Trump out of talking about the wall, where they have no common ground. Then, with Australia's prime minister, Trump consistently talked about how bad things would make him look. Also: "I am the world's greatest person..." Yuck.
4) I don't know if this remains true or not, but when I went to Washington on a job-shadow trip while a college student (W. Bush era), I learned that there are two press conferences at the White House almost every day. The first is the morning press conference, which involves the TV cameras. The person I job shadowed said that this press conference usually contains nothing of substance, because it's almost entirely for show. It's spectacle. You saw that on display with CNN's Jim Acosta and Stephen Miller squaring off this week in an argument that made neither look particularly good. The other press conference is off-camera but on the record, and is mostly the print reporters and other reporters getting actual substance. This was usually at the 12:30/1:30 time slot. From what I can tell, those times have been switched if there are still two such press conferences. But make no mistake: TV cameras are more for sizzle than for steak.
5) The economic news lately has been a success. This should be no surprise -- the economic conditions were favorable at the end of Obama's tenure and have continued into Trump's. Further, the President actually holds relatively little power over jobs numbers. Here's my theory on the recent economic swing: Businesses expect a free-er regulatory and economic market under Trump, and are therefore acting accordingly and expanding business and pushing deals/hiring/etc. You can read that one of two ways: 1) "Big Business" feels like it can get away with more things under Trump or 2) Regulations under Obama were stifling business growth. It depends on how you view the intentions of "Business." I tend to fall in a middle category: Regulations have an important place to protect investors, the public and the country's general welfare. However, they should not be so stifling as to be impractical. I don't mind inconvenient — I mind overbearing.
6) It's easy to get caught up in the presidential approval numbers. They're historically bad for President Trump right now, with about 37 percent approval compared to about 57 percent disapproval (538.com's average). However, Vox did an informative study of the decline. What they've found is that Democrats or those in Democratic-leaning districts have moved even more against Trump, while Republican-leaning districts haven't changed at all (It's notable that heavily Republican areas have also seen a decline in Trump support, but I'd argue that those folks are not about to abandon the GOP party, even if they don't approve of Trump.). What I'm saying is that a decline in Trump support does not make a Democratic takeover of the House/Senate that much easier if the only gains for the Dems are coming in places already favorable to them. The same could be applied to the Electoral College.
7) You may have noticed that I haven't jumped on the "Fox News coordinated with the Trump campaign to spread the Seth Rich story" story. That's because I don't feel anything has been proven yet. The allegations, which are all they are at this point, are in a lawsuit. That doesn't mean any court has found them believable or that any decisive evidence has been made available. The Seth Rich story (Long story short: Fox News ran a story about a DNC staffer who was murdered in D.C. Fox blatantly said Rich had given info to Wikileaks and implied his death was caused by some nefarious scheme on the Democrats' behalf. This was demonstrably false, and Fox issued a correction on both the Wikileaks angle and the Democrats' connection — it was just a robbery gone bad.) is a black eye for Fox News as a whole. We shall see in the light of court and the public whether any damnable evidence comes out. But at this point, it's mostly just Fox News' opponents trying to pile on.
8) Bad headline watch: "J.K. Rowling sorry for Trump tweets" -- CNN. The story is not that she is sorry for ALL of her Trump tweets. Rather, she's sorry for a few of them that turned out to be false. This does not mean she's always wrong, but she's wrong about this particular subject. The headline seems to imply that she's apologizing for everything she's ever said about Trump, which is wholeheartedly not the case.
9) Let's establish what is and isn't fake news. Fake news is not news that you disagree with. Fake news is news that is false. For instance: The Mexican Navy did not make an arrival in California. The Navy SEALS were mistaken for the Mexican Navy. That is fake news. Fake news is not Mueller impaneling a grand jury in Washington. You can verify that. It's actual news. Related, I want to show you a great two-part story on when to trust unnamed sources and anonymous sources. They are great at explaining why you should trust them and which stories you can ignore. Please read them.
Summary Judgments
It sounds like the "bipartisan" effort on Obamacare fixes is mostly to shore up the marketplaces. If you ask a Democrat what the biggest flaws with the ACA are, they'll point to GOP attempts to sabotage these marketplaces. So in theory, this would be a major concession to Democrats that the ACA is sticking around and needs to be buttressed if it'll stay. I'm curious to see, though, to see what concessions the moderate GOP members ask the Democrats to make. I still don't think a bipartisan bill is likely, though. • • • Rhode Island has now joined liberal states like Oregon and New York and conservative state Tennessee in making all community college tuition and fees free for residents. I like this plan a lot. • • • I have been back on my run schedule. I ran 4.5 miles this morning, with only one short (0.1 miles) walk in there, and I did it in 47 minutes. That's a great time for me. Better yet, I didn't feel exhausted afterward. I felt good and refreshed. My two potential causes of that great run: beautiful, cool weather and finding a good music station that didn't take me out of the groove. • • • Roland, unprompted: We're being nice! Me: Are you two both being nice? Roland: Yeah! Evie, mischievously: Nooooo. Me: You're not being nice? Evie: Noooope.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
John McCain Is Not On Your Side, and That's OK
This week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., returned from surgery and a brain cancer diagnosis to be the key vote in allowing the Senate to pass the motion to proceed on the Obamacare repeal options (Sidenote: Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., waited until after McCain voted, because he didn't want to be the third GOP defector and thus kill the motion. It's reasonable to believe that if McCain voted no, he would also have voted no. Because McCain voted yes, Johnson also voted yes.). McCain then gave a speech calling for the Senate to get things done, to return to Senate norms and traditions, and to work across party lines once again. He also said he wouldn't vote for "the bill" right now, though which bill he was referring to was unclear.
It was McCain in a nutshell: Equal parts frustrating, inspiring and confusing. He's not the maverick he pretended he was for a decade or so, and he's not the party-line man, either. So I figured I'd talk about him for a bit.
McCain will always have my respect for two moments: Being a POW and correcting his constituents who believed Obama was an "Arab" or worse. He is a war hero and always will be. He didn't have to defend his political opponent against the accusations of his own voters, yet he did. Both of those things took courage, and I will always respect courage in difficult situations.
However, McCain's had issues since being in the Senate. Let's talk first about his early years, when he was the sole Republican among what was termed the "Keating 5," a quintet of senators accused of corruption in the late 1980s. In short, a savings and loan bank chairman had given $1.3 million to the campaigns of five senators while under federal banking investigation. The investigation was dropped. The bank failed in 1989, costing many their life savings. Three of the five accused senators were found to have illegally interfered in the investigation. Two senators, McCain and Sen./ex-astronaut John Glenn, were found to have not interfered, but were said to have used "poor judgment."
He's been a "maverick," but not really. His first decade in the Senate hewed to the typical GOP line. Starting in 1997, he was more moderate than the average GOP senator. Then, after being defeated for president and starting in 2009, he has been an average GOP senator, more or less.
This week, he called for a return to Senate norms and traditions, but it came moments after he voted to ignore Senate norms and traditions. He said he wouldn't vote for "the bill" right now, then later voted for one of the bill options (Note: Reportedly, there's an out for McCain here. The vote was a proxy vote on a procedural move rather than the bill itself. McCain is a stickler for procedure and such, so said he voted for the procedural move but would not have supported the bill.).
So who/what is John McCain? He's a stickler for Senate traditions and norms, as expected for a man who's been in that circuit for 30 years. He's hawkish on foreign agitators like Russia, North Korea and Iran, but also just seems to take those threats more seriously. He is knowledgable on foreign affairs and wants competence and strategy on those issues, even if he doesn't agree with it — so he tends to vote differently than the GOP line on foreign affairs. But he's not as knowledgable about domestic affairs, where he sticks to the party line most of the time. He's even been known to vote out of spite when he's pissed off.
John McCain is a complicated man. He does not fit into a simple box. Those from both parties who think he's "on our side" are probably lying to themselves. So when he isn't on their side, they feel betrayed. I really hate this "you're either with us or against us" thing that I've seen from both sides. The world isn't binary.
UPDATE: McCain voted against the "skinny repeal" in what was considered a shocker. You can tell it was a shock because McConnell would not have brought Pence to the Senate floor if he didn't think the "skinny repeal" would pass. McCain's "no" caught everyone by surprise, but with hindsight, maybe it shouldn't have. See above where I mention how much of a stickler for Senate norms/procedures he is? See above where McCain said he couldn't vote for "this bill" but didn't say which one? Also, he was JUST re-elected in 2016 and he probably won't run for re-election when he's 86 -- there was not a lot of political pressure that could be placed on him. There were signs, but everyone figured he'd cave. I'd argue this is the biggest "maverick" vote he's had in a decade.
But I think it's interesting to note that two fairly reliable conservatives have been the deciding vote in Obamacare continuing to exist. The most recent is John McCain, while the other is Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. I think both would tell you privately that Obamacare is flawed, as would many Democrats. But for Roberts, the bill was legal even if he disliked it. For McCain, Obamacare was better than the alternatives.
Respect among colleagues
While McCain called for more respect and working across party lines, his fellow legislators have not gotten the message.
1) Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, spoke about three of the female Republican senators opposed to many of the GOP health care bills (Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Moore Capito). He said if they were men, he might ask them "to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style." On one hand, it's sexist not to treat female senators the same as male senators. Further, think about what he's saying: "I want to shoot you, but I won't because you're a woman." It's just gross. Even if you take out the sexism issue, it's still turning someone's political stance into a cause for violence. It's toxic, no matter which side it comes from.
2) Sen. Collins, R-Maine, heard those comments. She was caught on a hot mic talking with a Democratic senator about those comments, and she said Farenthold was "so unattractive it's unbelievable" and referred to a weird picture of Farenthold in his pajamas next to a Playboy bunny. So it's not his views that are disgusting, but his looks. That wouldn't fly if the roles were reversed, so it's outside the lines. While hers was a private conversation, she ended up apologizing and Farenthold wrote her an apology, too. Both apologies were warranted and both statements crossed the line.
3) And then Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., attacks both Collins and Murkowski for voting against the GOP bills, saying that someone needs to "snatch a knot in their ass," a Southern phrase for beating someone up. It came in a conversation about Pres. Trump's direct attacks on Murkowski, so many took it as against Murkowski specifically.
Look: If our politicians don't respect each other, it sends a signal down the line that politicians are not worthy of our respect. Legislators should have our respect, and it starts with each other.
On transgender troops
I'll keep this shorter. The two stated reasons for this, per President Trump are the 1) cost and 2) disruption to the troops. I don't care what other reasons other people have stated — he's the President and these are the reasons he's claimed. They're both crap.
1) In a study funded by the Department of Defense, the estimated costs of transgender surgeries are between $2.4 million and $8.4 million. Even if you take the "most extreme" version of that range, $8.4 million, that's a drop in the federal bucket. It's 1/5 of the budget for Viagra alone, and 1/10th of the budget for all erectile dysfunction treatments the Armed Forces covers. It's four trips to Mar-A-Lago. It's nothing. If you complain about the costs of this, you expose yourself to other, similar costs. Currently, Armed Forces insurance pays for one (1) cosmetic surgery in your lifetime, including breast enlargement if you're a woman. So... wouldn't gender reassignment surgery count, too?
2) It's a disruption to the troops makes me groan. I want to first acknowledge I'm not and have never been in the Armed Forces, so I can't claim to know if there are different views inside the Armed Forces on this one. Anyway, Truman integrated the troops in what was then a disruption. The Armed Forces adjusted. Transgender troops are already in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces were adjusting. Just because something's a disruption doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Finally, I want to note something quickly. Being transgender is not a mental illness. Do not compare it to schizophrenia or a disease -- that implies something is wrong with them. A person who is transgender is not dysfunctional. (Note: There are some diagnoses related to transgenderism and therapy can often be a prescribed treatment, but the intent there is not to "reverse" whether someone is transgender but rather to let the person be comfortable as transgender. Most people who are transgender are not diagnosed with anything.) They also can't just change being transgender like losing weight or cutting their hair. It reminds me of the old X-Men line: "Have you tried not being a mutant?" That's not how it works. Transgender people are perfectly functional and just wish to live their lives. Many have already been serving in the military, and this policy change is only stoking unwarranted transphobia.
Summary Judgments
Do not listen to the "survey" that shows 26 percent stopped watching the NFL because of the kneeling during the anthem protests. But only 12 percent of the respondents said they stopped watching the NFL, which means the 26 percent was of the 12 percent of respondents... so 3 percent-ish of all respondents. It's not meaningful. • • • So far, my prediction about "skinny repeal" passing seems right on. I think it'll pass by a 50-50 vote, and go to conference committee. I don't think it's a great idea to vote yes on the hope that conference committee will solve it. I've seen a nearly identical thing happen in the Kansas Legislature. The Senate passed a bill they didn't want to see become law in the plans that it would get fixed up in conference committee. But the House instead jumped on the Senate's bill and passed it quickly. • • • The Trump-speaks-at-the-Boy-Scout-Jamboree issue was a mess, but I think it's been handled almost the right way by the BSA. They annually invite the President to speak at the National Jamboree, and Trump accepted. After that, they can't really control what he speaks about, even if it is wildly political and over-the-top in self-promotion. The BSA was right to invite him and right to apologize for the insertion of politics into an apolitical environment. As an Eagle Scout, I would have liked to see more pointed discussion of where Trump has differed from the Scout ideals (kind, helpful, friendly, obedient, etc.), but that's a quibble. • • • I'm still behind where I need to be on training for the 10K. I'm running around 4 miles with a few walk breaks, but I need to be at 4.33/4.5 miles soon. Running farther distances also means waking up earlier to run, since 4.5 miles means roughly 45-50 minutes of me. This is the hard part about training: I want to train, but it's HARD. I think about this scene from a show I don't watch a lot. • • • You may have seen Alyson post this, but the other day, Evie was low-key mouthing off to me. Me: Evie, that was sassy and I don't like it. Evie: Yeeeaah it was.
It was McCain in a nutshell: Equal parts frustrating, inspiring and confusing. He's not the maverick he pretended he was for a decade or so, and he's not the party-line man, either. So I figured I'd talk about him for a bit.
McCain will always have my respect for two moments: Being a POW and correcting his constituents who believed Obama was an "Arab" or worse. He is a war hero and always will be. He didn't have to defend his political opponent against the accusations of his own voters, yet he did. Both of those things took courage, and I will always respect courage in difficult situations.
However, McCain's had issues since being in the Senate. Let's talk first about his early years, when he was the sole Republican among what was termed the "Keating 5," a quintet of senators accused of corruption in the late 1980s. In short, a savings and loan bank chairman had given $1.3 million to the campaigns of five senators while under federal banking investigation. The investigation was dropped. The bank failed in 1989, costing many their life savings. Three of the five accused senators were found to have illegally interfered in the investigation. Two senators, McCain and Sen./ex-astronaut John Glenn, were found to have not interfered, but were said to have used "poor judgment."
He's been a "maverick," but not really. His first decade in the Senate hewed to the typical GOP line. Starting in 1997, he was more moderate than the average GOP senator. Then, after being defeated for president and starting in 2009, he has been an average GOP senator, more or less.
This week, he called for a return to Senate norms and traditions, but it came moments after he voted to ignore Senate norms and traditions. He said he wouldn't vote for "the bill" right now, then later voted for one of the bill options (Note: Reportedly, there's an out for McCain here. The vote was a proxy vote on a procedural move rather than the bill itself. McCain is a stickler for procedure and such, so said he voted for the procedural move but would not have supported the bill.).
So who/what is John McCain? He's a stickler for Senate traditions and norms, as expected for a man who's been in that circuit for 30 years. He's hawkish on foreign agitators like Russia, North Korea and Iran, but also just seems to take those threats more seriously. He is knowledgable on foreign affairs and wants competence and strategy on those issues, even if he doesn't agree with it — so he tends to vote differently than the GOP line on foreign affairs. But he's not as knowledgable about domestic affairs, where he sticks to the party line most of the time. He's even been known to vote out of spite when he's pissed off.
John McCain is a complicated man. He does not fit into a simple box. Those from both parties who think he's "on our side" are probably lying to themselves. So when he isn't on their side, they feel betrayed. I really hate this "you're either with us or against us" thing that I've seen from both sides. The world isn't binary.
UPDATE: McCain voted against the "skinny repeal" in what was considered a shocker. You can tell it was a shock because McConnell would not have brought Pence to the Senate floor if he didn't think the "skinny repeal" would pass. McCain's "no" caught everyone by surprise, but with hindsight, maybe it shouldn't have. See above where I mention how much of a stickler for Senate norms/procedures he is? See above where McCain said he couldn't vote for "this bill" but didn't say which one? Also, he was JUST re-elected in 2016 and he probably won't run for re-election when he's 86 -- there was not a lot of political pressure that could be placed on him. There were signs, but everyone figured he'd cave. I'd argue this is the biggest "maverick" vote he's had in a decade.
But I think it's interesting to note that two fairly reliable conservatives have been the deciding vote in Obamacare continuing to exist. The most recent is John McCain, while the other is Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. I think both would tell you privately that Obamacare is flawed, as would many Democrats. But for Roberts, the bill was legal even if he disliked it. For McCain, Obamacare was better than the alternatives.
Respect among colleagues
While McCain called for more respect and working across party lines, his fellow legislators have not gotten the message.
1) Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, spoke about three of the female Republican senators opposed to many of the GOP health care bills (Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Moore Capito). He said if they were men, he might ask them "to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style." On one hand, it's sexist not to treat female senators the same as male senators. Further, think about what he's saying: "I want to shoot you, but I won't because you're a woman." It's just gross. Even if you take out the sexism issue, it's still turning someone's political stance into a cause for violence. It's toxic, no matter which side it comes from.
2) Sen. Collins, R-Maine, heard those comments. She was caught on a hot mic talking with a Democratic senator about those comments, and she said Farenthold was "so unattractive it's unbelievable" and referred to a weird picture of Farenthold in his pajamas next to a Playboy bunny. So it's not his views that are disgusting, but his looks. That wouldn't fly if the roles were reversed, so it's outside the lines. While hers was a private conversation, she ended up apologizing and Farenthold wrote her an apology, too. Both apologies were warranted and both statements crossed the line.
3) And then Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., attacks both Collins and Murkowski for voting against the GOP bills, saying that someone needs to "snatch a knot in their ass," a Southern phrase for beating someone up. It came in a conversation about Pres. Trump's direct attacks on Murkowski, so many took it as against Murkowski specifically.
Look: If our politicians don't respect each other, it sends a signal down the line that politicians are not worthy of our respect. Legislators should have our respect, and it starts with each other.
On transgender troops
I'll keep this shorter. The two stated reasons for this, per President Trump are the 1) cost and 2) disruption to the troops. I don't care what other reasons other people have stated — he's the President and these are the reasons he's claimed. They're both crap.
1) In a study funded by the Department of Defense, the estimated costs of transgender surgeries are between $2.4 million and $8.4 million. Even if you take the "most extreme" version of that range, $8.4 million, that's a drop in the federal bucket. It's 1/5 of the budget for Viagra alone, and 1/10th of the budget for all erectile dysfunction treatments the Armed Forces covers. It's four trips to Mar-A-Lago. It's nothing. If you complain about the costs of this, you expose yourself to other, similar costs. Currently, Armed Forces insurance pays for one (1) cosmetic surgery in your lifetime, including breast enlargement if you're a woman. So... wouldn't gender reassignment surgery count, too?
2) It's a disruption to the troops makes me groan. I want to first acknowledge I'm not and have never been in the Armed Forces, so I can't claim to know if there are different views inside the Armed Forces on this one. Anyway, Truman integrated the troops in what was then a disruption. The Armed Forces adjusted. Transgender troops are already in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces were adjusting. Just because something's a disruption doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Finally, I want to note something quickly. Being transgender is not a mental illness. Do not compare it to schizophrenia or a disease -- that implies something is wrong with them. A person who is transgender is not dysfunctional. (Note: There are some diagnoses related to transgenderism and therapy can often be a prescribed treatment, but the intent there is not to "reverse" whether someone is transgender but rather to let the person be comfortable as transgender. Most people who are transgender are not diagnosed with anything.) They also can't just change being transgender like losing weight or cutting their hair. It reminds me of the old X-Men line: "Have you tried not being a mutant?" That's not how it works. Transgender people are perfectly functional and just wish to live their lives. Many have already been serving in the military, and this policy change is only stoking unwarranted transphobia.
Summary Judgments
Do not listen to the "survey" that shows 26 percent stopped watching the NFL because of the kneeling during the anthem protests. But only 12 percent of the respondents said they stopped watching the NFL, which means the 26 percent was of the 12 percent of respondents... so 3 percent-ish of all respondents. It's not meaningful. • • • So far, my prediction about "skinny repeal" passing seems right on. I think it'll pass by a 50-50 vote, and go to conference committee. I don't think it's a great idea to vote yes on the hope that conference committee will solve it. I've seen a nearly identical thing happen in the Kansas Legislature. The Senate passed a bill they didn't want to see become law in the plans that it would get fixed up in conference committee. But the House instead jumped on the Senate's bill and passed it quickly. • • • The Trump-speaks-at-the-Boy-Scout-Jamboree issue was a mess, but I think it's been handled almost the right way by the BSA. They annually invite the President to speak at the National Jamboree, and Trump accepted. After that, they can't really control what he speaks about, even if it is wildly political and over-the-top in self-promotion. The BSA was right to invite him and right to apologize for the insertion of politics into an apolitical environment. As an Eagle Scout, I would have liked to see more pointed discussion of where Trump has differed from the Scout ideals (kind, helpful, friendly, obedient, etc.), but that's a quibble. • • • I'm still behind where I need to be on training for the 10K. I'm running around 4 miles with a few walk breaks, but I need to be at 4.33/4.5 miles soon. Running farther distances also means waking up earlier to run, since 4.5 miles means roughly 45-50 minutes of me. This is the hard part about training: I want to train, but it's HARD. I think about this scene from a show I don't watch a lot. • • • You may have seen Alyson post this, but the other day, Evie was low-key mouthing off to me. Me: Evie, that was sassy and I don't like it. Evie: Yeeeaah it was.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Ranking the NFL Mascots, With Commentary
I'm so sick of politics right now. I need a break from talking about it. So I'm doing something silly.
We're ranking the NFL mascots, based on name, connection to the team/city name and look. It is entirely subjective. Points are awarded for unique items and taken away for being boring or scaring children.
T-32. New York Jets/Green Bay Packers/New York Giants/Washington Redskins — They don't have a mascot. Default loss.
28. Raider Rusher -- The NFL had a short-lived children's show on Nickelodeon that was... all sorts of a mess. At any rate, every team had its own "Rusher" figure. The Raiders, since they didn't have a mascot, decided to just make the Raider Rusher their actual mascot. It's just a Raider helmet with arms and legs. He looks like a Graveler.
27. Boltman -- At least it's not the NFL kids show mascot, but YIKES! I can't imagine any kid wanting to stand near this guy. Give him credit for dental hygiene and eye protection, but he's just creepy. He looks like Jim Carrey's The Mask mated with a Cheesehead.
26. Big Red -- It's just a generic cardinal. It doesn't even have a clever name. Put it in a Jewell jersey, and you'd think he works here on campus (Jewell's mascot is also the cardinals). Points given for remembering tail feathers. He looks like every other "Cardinals" mascot.
25. Who Dey -- This is the question you ask upon seeing this mascot. He's just a generic tiger. There's nothing unique about him, other than the name. He looks like the LSU Tiger's orange cousin or if Timber the Tiger from Diddy Kong Racing grew up.
24. Rampage -- Just a generic ram. You'll forget about him by the time you get to the next one. He looks like a high school mascot in a Rams jersey.
23. Roary -- Just a lion, but he looks like a nice lion. The name is both clever and groan-inducing, like good mascot names should be (MSSU liked it enough to name their lion Roary as well). He looks like a teenage lion that hasn't quite grown into his body yet, but will be a contributing member of society soon.
22. Miles -- I had a hard time placing Miles on this list. Part of that is my dislike of the Broncos. Part of that is I liked their old logo, so anything associated with the redesign has earned my ire. But I think he ranks so low because he just looks mean. He looks like if Bad Horse from Dr. Horrible had been a mascot rather than an actual horse.
21. Sir Saint/Gumbo -- Gumbo is a big, nice-looking, yet forgettable dog. He's got a nice name with the New Orleans tie-in. Sir Saint is frightening -- his head is clearly smaller than his jaw. I fear for that guy. Also, saints are not knighted, so what's with his name? Gumbo looks like the 1990s brand Big Dog wore a jersey, while Sir Saint makes you wonder if faces can have badonkadonk.
20. Captain Fear -- This was the one that rose the most after my initial rankings. He gets a few points for having an actual costume instead of the lazy "team jersey" outfit. Points for facial hair, but it's a beaded fu manchu (?) with a soul patch and overgrown eye brows. That said, he's not really well done. I'm sure there are some high schools with a better-looking "pirate" character. He looks like a rough draft of Jack Sparrow that was immediately discarded.
19. Toro -- Toro is the best baseline for comparisons. He really doesn't have much going for him — he's just a bull in a jersey. But the head has a smile and the eyes are welcoming and friendly. Anything ranked higher is just more unique, but anything below him is scary/creepy/has a major flaw. He looks like if the cattle industry had its own mascot.
18. Swoop -- A really generic eagle mascot, but I give credit for minor differences. Eastern Michigan also has a similar-looking eagle mascot named Swoop, but the Philadelphia Eagles gave their Swoop distinguishing feathers along the neck. That puts Swoop a little bit higher. He looks like a DARE mascot for patriotism.
17. Chomps -- I can not decide in the Google Images search if he looks nice or intimidating. I think it comes down to teeth. When the teeth are in, he looks creepy. When they take his teeth out, he looks like fun. Points awarded for not only wearing his team's jersey (lazy) but also wearing his team's helmet, albeit customized for his giant head. He looks like if Mega Man and Rush got combined and color-swapped.
16. Blitz -- Dropped three spots when I realized they replaced this with this. It's a downgrade. The previous version had beefy arms and looked more fun. The new version is just a tad bit more generic, less colorful and more animal-looking. On the scale of NFL mascots, though, it's still pretty good. The colors pop and the wings are neat. Points definitely taken away for his version of Baby Jay, the awful teenager-looking Boom. Blitz looks like the Windows Millennium edition of the mascot. Boom looks like Bird Poochie.
15. Blue -- At first I thought he was a unicorn before I realized it's just a white mane. He's zany/goofy like many good mascots are. He's distinguishably fat. He's also blue, which is fine -- it helps make him unique. A solid middle-of-the-pack mascot. He looks like if one of those oversized carnival toys got a professional makeover.
14. Billy Buffalo -- Short, stubby face is a different look than most animal mascots with snouts. He's got an interesting color. He's got facial hair in the form of a shaggy beard. Boring name, though: The Buffalo Bills have a mascot of Billy the Buffalo. Meh. His eyes are a little scrunched together and the eyebrows are up, which means he constantly looks surprised in a bad way. He looks like he's shocked to find out he's not a blue ogre.
13. Poe -- This is how you make a boring bird (ravens aren't particularly interesting visually) into a decent mascot. Nice, long beak. Cool wings. A version of the team jersey while not actually being the team jersey. Nicely done. Points taken away because the team retired his "brothers," Edgar and Allen. You could have had the only three-mascot team, Baltimore. Points gained for graduating from "The Institute of Poe-etry." He looks like if the Night's Watch had a mascot for befriending Wildling children.
12. T.D. -- This one was helped by the little features. On one hand, he's a pretty generic dolphin. But a dolphin is a unique mascot. He gets points for being a helmet-wearing dolphin, with a dolphin wearing a helmet on his helmet. Maybe it's himself on his own helmet. It's mascot Inception here, folks. They also remembered the dorsal fin (!) and the fact Dolphins don't have fingers -- just fins. It's attention to detail. He looks like Sea World rejected a mascot and asked if the Miami team wanted to throw their jersey on and call it a day.
11. Freddie Falcon -- I feel like they put work into him. He's got detailed tail feathers. He's got both hair and detailed feather work on the face, and it's blended nicely enough you might not notice on first glance. His eyes are big but not intimidating or dopey looking. I was most surprised by him. He looks like if Scooter from the Muppets was turned into a bird.
10. K.C. Wolf -- I bet you most people don't know why the Chiefs have a wolf mascot. I don't, and I'm a Chiefs fan. They used to (Note: USED TO) have a section of fans called the Wolfpack. They don't anymore. That said, he's friendly-looking, fat (a good quality in a mascot), zany, and has googly eyes. He also has a unibrow, for unexplained reasons. What I'm saying is that if you are going to go with a wolf mascot, make him unique. He's memorable, even if his reason for existing isn't. He looks like if the Sheriff of Nottingham had been turned into comic relief.
9. T-Rac -- Points definitely, definitely taken away for being a raccoon. The team's name is the Titans. Why is he a raccoon? Because the state animal of Tennessee is a raccoon. That seems like a social studies lesson instead of sound mascot logic. Although he looks vaguely cat-like, he's got the raccoon eyes and striped tail and just looks like no other mascot out there. He looks like the mascot for an also-ran in the Console Wars.
8. Sir Purr -- I love names that rhyme. Although a little on the generic side, they have little touches that are smart: whiskers and being fat. He also has "Sir" written on the bottom of one paw and "Purr" on the other. Awesome. He gains points for having a decent-looking Baby Jay version called.... Mini Meow. HAHAHAHA... Awesome. He's above K.C. Wolf and T-Rac because he's actually representative of the team name and he has his own unique jersey. He looks like he is as surprised as you are that he's good at this.
7. Staley Da Bear -- On one hand, he's a generic bear. I mean, he has a few nice touches, like the canine teeth jutting out from the bottom. He doesn't look exactly like every other bear out there. He looks cute and tough, which is a rare combo to pull off. But Staley's up this high almost entirely off his name. Staley is named after the team's founder, A.E. Staley, so he's got team history tied in -- a great thing for one of the few teams with a ton of history. And he's also "Da Bear" because of the great SNL skits from the 80s/90s about DAAA Bears. Great name. Average costume. He looks like the bear Teddy Ruxpin wants to be when he grows up.
6. Rowdy -- Of the "white guys with jobs" group (along with the next four on this list), he's the most goofy looking. There's a point where goofy looking crosses from "good" into "a little too much," and Rowdy is straddling the line. But I'm partial to mascots that don't try to do too much and fit with the team name. Points for the bandanna and Texas-sized hat. He looks like a mascot for the Wacky World of Tex Avery.
5. Pat Patriot -- He loses points for having his name be the first syllable of his ... last name (?). He just looks like the logo turned into a mascot, which is a positive. I like his hat and gloves. He loses a few points for the bulbousness of his face, though. He looks like Gaston with a goiter.
4. Sourdough Sam -- He's got an adjective in front of his name that is fascinating and tells a mini-story. They luckily gave him back his beard instead of making him look like a cosplaying version of the next mascot on our list. He's a ginger! He's got a pick! He's wearing overalls! He's got a silly hat! He looks like if Yosemite Sam cleaned up and found Jesus.
3. Viktor -- I didn't know Viktor before this research, but he's one of my favorites already. Start with the name: It's a pun! Then you get into the quality of his costume. The jersey is forgettable, but he's got a Viking helmet (of course) and blonde hair including a Hulk Hogan-style fu manchu and man braids (!) and Wonder Woman gauntlets (!!) and a butt chin (!!!). But the best part is his hammer, which is a football on a stick. He's friendly and fits thematically. I love Viktor. He looks like the Clash of Clans logo guy found his life's calling.
2. Steely McBeam -- Any of the ones above this point could have won on their own. e best of the "white guys with jobs" group, partly because of his name -- he has a first and last name, and it's great. He doesn't wear a jersey and instead wears the clothes of his trade -- checkered shirt, heavy overalls, gloves and a hard hat. It's as if he just got off the job and came down to the game in his spare time. I also like the 5 o'clock shadow and his own personal steel beam. He's excellent. He looks like if a Perfect Man doll had become a real man, Pinocchio-style, and got a job at the steel mill.
1. Jaxson de Ville -- This is how you do a memorable mascot for a team that's not very memorable. You name him after the city he's in, but change it up slightly enough to work as an actual name. His jersey isn't just a regular jersey, it's got shadowed paw prints on it, like his shorts. He's a jaguar, but he's goofy in the good way -- he's fat and has abnormal (but fitting the team) colors. He's got details like the whiskers and spots and even the omnipresent sunglasses. He's goofy and cool and he stands out while fitting with the team. I'd argue he's the best part of the Jacksonville Jaguars. He looks like if Spuds MacKenzie had been a cartoony Jaguar instead.
Summary Judgments
If you're going to accuse the outgoing director of the Office of Government Ethics of grandstanding, you might want to take the two seconds needed to spell his name correctly. Just a suggestion. • • • Game of Thrones is back. I love it. You have no idea how hard it was to not turn this into a Game of Thrones post. • • • I've been running again, but I'm trying to keep it to reasonable distances. I've run a 5K three times this week, but I need to double that in the next 6-7 weeks. So starting tomorrow, I'm bumping it up quickly. That's both fun and also terrifying and also time-consuming. But it feels good to be back in a groove even though it's approximately Burnt Toast degrees outside, even at 6:30 a.m. • • • The kids are doing well. Evie's turned the corner with potty training, and we think she's got it down for No. 1 and No. 2. Roland will get truly started soon, probably this weekend. Last night, Roland decided he wanted to jump over me (we were wrestling/playing on our bed). His idea of jumping over me is to land, knee-first, on my kidneys, then roll over. I feel like he learned this lesson from Evie. Last week, I needed to pick her up, and asked her to jump in my arms. She chose to go knee-first like a cannonball. That's... not all that comfortable, kid.
We're ranking the NFL mascots, based on name, connection to the team/city name and look. It is entirely subjective. Points are awarded for unique items and taken away for being boring or scaring children.
T-32. New York Jets/Green Bay Packers/New York Giants/Washington Redskins — They don't have a mascot. Default loss.
28. Raider Rusher -- The NFL had a short-lived children's show on Nickelodeon that was... all sorts of a mess. At any rate, every team had its own "Rusher" figure. The Raiders, since they didn't have a mascot, decided to just make the Raider Rusher their actual mascot. It's just a Raider helmet with arms and legs. He looks like a Graveler.
27. Boltman -- At least it's not the NFL kids show mascot, but YIKES! I can't imagine any kid wanting to stand near this guy. Give him credit for dental hygiene and eye protection, but he's just creepy. He looks like Jim Carrey's The Mask mated with a Cheesehead.
26. Big Red -- It's just a generic cardinal. It doesn't even have a clever name. Put it in a Jewell jersey, and you'd think he works here on campus (Jewell's mascot is also the cardinals). Points given for remembering tail feathers. He looks like every other "Cardinals" mascot.
25. Who Dey -- This is the question you ask upon seeing this mascot. He's just a generic tiger. There's nothing unique about him, other than the name. He looks like the LSU Tiger's orange cousin or if Timber the Tiger from Diddy Kong Racing grew up.
24. Rampage -- Just a generic ram. You'll forget about him by the time you get to the next one. He looks like a high school mascot in a Rams jersey.
23. Roary -- Just a lion, but he looks like a nice lion. The name is both clever and groan-inducing, like good mascot names should be (MSSU liked it enough to name their lion Roary as well). He looks like a teenage lion that hasn't quite grown into his body yet, but will be a contributing member of society soon.
22. Miles -- I had a hard time placing Miles on this list. Part of that is my dislike of the Broncos. Part of that is I liked their old logo, so anything associated with the redesign has earned my ire. But I think he ranks so low because he just looks mean. He looks like if Bad Horse from Dr. Horrible had been a mascot rather than an actual horse.
21. Sir Saint/Gumbo -- Gumbo is a big, nice-looking, yet forgettable dog. He's got a nice name with the New Orleans tie-in. Sir Saint is frightening -- his head is clearly smaller than his jaw. I fear for that guy. Also, saints are not knighted, so what's with his name? Gumbo looks like the 1990s brand Big Dog wore a jersey, while Sir Saint makes you wonder if faces can have badonkadonk.
20. Captain Fear -- This was the one that rose the most after my initial rankings. He gets a few points for having an actual costume instead of the lazy "team jersey" outfit. Points for facial hair, but it's a beaded fu manchu (?) with a soul patch and overgrown eye brows. That said, he's not really well done. I'm sure there are some high schools with a better-looking "pirate" character. He looks like a rough draft of Jack Sparrow that was immediately discarded.
19. Toro -- Toro is the best baseline for comparisons. He really doesn't have much going for him — he's just a bull in a jersey. But the head has a smile and the eyes are welcoming and friendly. Anything ranked higher is just more unique, but anything below him is scary/creepy/has a major flaw. He looks like if the cattle industry had its own mascot.
18. Swoop -- A really generic eagle mascot, but I give credit for minor differences. Eastern Michigan also has a similar-looking eagle mascot named Swoop, but the Philadelphia Eagles gave their Swoop distinguishing feathers along the neck. That puts Swoop a little bit higher. He looks like a DARE mascot for patriotism.
17. Chomps -- I can not decide in the Google Images search if he looks nice or intimidating. I think it comes down to teeth. When the teeth are in, he looks creepy. When they take his teeth out, he looks like fun. Points awarded for not only wearing his team's jersey (lazy) but also wearing his team's helmet, albeit customized for his giant head. He looks like if Mega Man and Rush got combined and color-swapped.
16. Blitz -- Dropped three spots when I realized they replaced this with this. It's a downgrade. The previous version had beefy arms and looked more fun. The new version is just a tad bit more generic, less colorful and more animal-looking. On the scale of NFL mascots, though, it's still pretty good. The colors pop and the wings are neat. Points definitely taken away for his version of Baby Jay, the awful teenager-looking Boom. Blitz looks like the Windows Millennium edition of the mascot. Boom looks like Bird Poochie.
15. Blue -- At first I thought he was a unicorn before I realized it's just a white mane. He's zany/goofy like many good mascots are. He's distinguishably fat. He's also blue, which is fine -- it helps make him unique. A solid middle-of-the-pack mascot. He looks like if one of those oversized carnival toys got a professional makeover.
14. Billy Buffalo -- Short, stubby face is a different look than most animal mascots with snouts. He's got an interesting color. He's got facial hair in the form of a shaggy beard. Boring name, though: The Buffalo Bills have a mascot of Billy the Buffalo. Meh. His eyes are a little scrunched together and the eyebrows are up, which means he constantly looks surprised in a bad way. He looks like he's shocked to find out he's not a blue ogre.
13. Poe -- This is how you make a boring bird (ravens aren't particularly interesting visually) into a decent mascot. Nice, long beak. Cool wings. A version of the team jersey while not actually being the team jersey. Nicely done. Points taken away because the team retired his "brothers," Edgar and Allen. You could have had the only three-mascot team, Baltimore. Points gained for graduating from "The Institute of Poe-etry." He looks like if the Night's Watch had a mascot for befriending Wildling children.
12. T.D. -- This one was helped by the little features. On one hand, he's a pretty generic dolphin. But a dolphin is a unique mascot. He gets points for being a helmet-wearing dolphin, with a dolphin wearing a helmet on his helmet. Maybe it's himself on his own helmet. It's mascot Inception here, folks. They also remembered the dorsal fin (!) and the fact Dolphins don't have fingers -- just fins. It's attention to detail. He looks like Sea World rejected a mascot and asked if the Miami team wanted to throw their jersey on and call it a day.
11. Freddie Falcon -- I feel like they put work into him. He's got detailed tail feathers. He's got both hair and detailed feather work on the face, and it's blended nicely enough you might not notice on first glance. His eyes are big but not intimidating or dopey looking. I was most surprised by him. He looks like if Scooter from the Muppets was turned into a bird.
10. K.C. Wolf -- I bet you most people don't know why the Chiefs have a wolf mascot. I don't, and I'm a Chiefs fan. They used to (Note: USED TO) have a section of fans called the Wolfpack. They don't anymore. That said, he's friendly-looking, fat (a good quality in a mascot), zany, and has googly eyes. He also has a unibrow, for unexplained reasons. What I'm saying is that if you are going to go with a wolf mascot, make him unique. He's memorable, even if his reason for existing isn't. He looks like if the Sheriff of Nottingham had been turned into comic relief.
9. T-Rac -- Points definitely, definitely taken away for being a raccoon. The team's name is the Titans. Why is he a raccoon? Because the state animal of Tennessee is a raccoon. That seems like a social studies lesson instead of sound mascot logic. Although he looks vaguely cat-like, he's got the raccoon eyes and striped tail and just looks like no other mascot out there. He looks like the mascot for an also-ran in the Console Wars.
8. Sir Purr -- I love names that rhyme. Although a little on the generic side, they have little touches that are smart: whiskers and being fat. He also has "Sir" written on the bottom of one paw and "Purr" on the other. Awesome. He gains points for having a decent-looking Baby Jay version called.... Mini Meow. HAHAHAHA... Awesome. He's above K.C. Wolf and T-Rac because he's actually representative of the team name and he has his own unique jersey. He looks like he is as surprised as you are that he's good at this.
7. Staley Da Bear -- On one hand, he's a generic bear. I mean, he has a few nice touches, like the canine teeth jutting out from the bottom. He doesn't look exactly like every other bear out there. He looks cute and tough, which is a rare combo to pull off. But Staley's up this high almost entirely off his name. Staley is named after the team's founder, A.E. Staley, so he's got team history tied in -- a great thing for one of the few teams with a ton of history. And he's also "Da Bear" because of the great SNL skits from the 80s/90s about DAAA Bears. Great name. Average costume. He looks like the bear Teddy Ruxpin wants to be when he grows up.
6. Rowdy -- Of the "white guys with jobs" group (along with the next four on this list), he's the most goofy looking. There's a point where goofy looking crosses from "good" into "a little too much," and Rowdy is straddling the line. But I'm partial to mascots that don't try to do too much and fit with the team name. Points for the bandanna and Texas-sized hat. He looks like a mascot for the Wacky World of Tex Avery.
5. Pat Patriot -- He loses points for having his name be the first syllable of his ... last name (?). He just looks like the logo turned into a mascot, which is a positive. I like his hat and gloves. He loses a few points for the bulbousness of his face, though. He looks like Gaston with a goiter.
4. Sourdough Sam -- He's got an adjective in front of his name that is fascinating and tells a mini-story. They luckily gave him back his beard instead of making him look like a cosplaying version of the next mascot on our list. He's a ginger! He's got a pick! He's wearing overalls! He's got a silly hat! He looks like if Yosemite Sam cleaned up and found Jesus.
3. Viktor -- I didn't know Viktor before this research, but he's one of my favorites already. Start with the name: It's a pun! Then you get into the quality of his costume. The jersey is forgettable, but he's got a Viking helmet (of course) and blonde hair including a Hulk Hogan-style fu manchu and man braids (!) and Wonder Woman gauntlets (!!) and a butt chin (!!!). But the best part is his hammer, which is a football on a stick. He's friendly and fits thematically. I love Viktor. He looks like the Clash of Clans logo guy found his life's calling.
2. Steely McBeam -- Any of the ones above this point could have won on their own. e best of the "white guys with jobs" group, partly because of his name -- he has a first and last name, and it's great. He doesn't wear a jersey and instead wears the clothes of his trade -- checkered shirt, heavy overalls, gloves and a hard hat. It's as if he just got off the job and came down to the game in his spare time. I also like the 5 o'clock shadow and his own personal steel beam. He's excellent. He looks like if a Perfect Man doll had become a real man, Pinocchio-style, and got a job at the steel mill.
1. Jaxson de Ville -- This is how you do a memorable mascot for a team that's not very memorable. You name him after the city he's in, but change it up slightly enough to work as an actual name. His jersey isn't just a regular jersey, it's got shadowed paw prints on it, like his shorts. He's a jaguar, but he's goofy in the good way -- he's fat and has abnormal (but fitting the team) colors. He's got details like the whiskers and spots and even the omnipresent sunglasses. He's goofy and cool and he stands out while fitting with the team. I'd argue he's the best part of the Jacksonville Jaguars. He looks like if Spuds MacKenzie had been a cartoony Jaguar instead.
Summary Judgments
If you're going to accuse the outgoing director of the Office of Government Ethics of grandstanding, you might want to take the two seconds needed to spell his name correctly. Just a suggestion. • • • Game of Thrones is back. I love it. You have no idea how hard it was to not turn this into a Game of Thrones post. • • • I've been running again, but I'm trying to keep it to reasonable distances. I've run a 5K three times this week, but I need to double that in the next 6-7 weeks. So starting tomorrow, I'm bumping it up quickly. That's both fun and also terrifying and also time-consuming. But it feels good to be back in a groove even though it's approximately Burnt Toast degrees outside, even at 6:30 a.m. • • • The kids are doing well. Evie's turned the corner with potty training, and we think she's got it down for No. 1 and No. 2. Roland will get truly started soon, probably this weekend. Last night, Roland decided he wanted to jump over me (we were wrestling/playing on our bed). His idea of jumping over me is to land, knee-first, on my kidneys, then roll over. I feel like he learned this lesson from Evie. Last week, I needed to pick her up, and asked her to jump in my arms. She chose to go knee-first like a cannonball. That's... not all that comfortable, kid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)