As far as I know, I remain the only person to do an actual analysis/prediction of the Name of the Year bracket. It is dumb. It is silly. It is my personal joy. Everyone has their own thing that they think "I'm going to do this even if no one else likes it." This is my Hill to Die On.
Luckily, this is a good year to die on this particular hill. There is a quality of depth that is far above two years ago (a top-heavy year) and a little better than last year's. Last year's winner, it turned out, was Jimbob Ghostkeeper, an excellent choice. The High Committee chose Salami Blessing, an equally worthy choice from the same regional.
As a reminder, names that tend to do better in the bracket are names that a) have funny first AND last names, b) have good name synergy, like Syncere Friends this year and c) have some added bonus, like Dr./Rev. or Jr./III/IV or diacriticals. The High Committee has returned to its traditional convention of naming the regionals after Hall of Name entrants: Assumption Bulltron, Crescent Dragonwagon, Godfrey Sithole and Doby Chrotchtangle.
Bulltron Regional
The Bulltron had both winners from last year. This year, it's the weakest regional. 1-seed Dr. Trentington Outhouse should waltz into the Sweet 16, past Dijonnaise Norman in the second round, too. Apollokreed Gardner, Manchester United MacGyver and 2-seed Pretzel Monteclaro should also have no problem in the first round. I've got Vinay Pimplé coming out of the first round. The toughest match-ups in this round are Tushna Commissariat-Syncere Friends and Truman Peyote-Storm Duck. I've got the underdogs (underducks?) pulling off the upsets, with Storm Duck winning to make the Sweet 16. Pretzel Monteclaro has a clear path to the Sweet 16 and I think Manchester United MacGyver makes it, too. I believe Manchester United MacGyver can cook Pretzel and make the Elite Eight. Dr. Trentington Outhouse is the better name, but I can see the voters getting behind the simple but brilliant Storm Duck. When in doubt, go with added bonus: Outhouse moves on not only to the Elite Eight, but also into the Final Four.
Sithole Regional
This regional has three great names and a bunch of forgettable ones. 1-seed Surender Nada faces a feisty 16 in Johnny Anomaly, but should still coast, even past 8-9 winner Dr. Trent Artichoker. Sharky Laguana and Deicide Huxtable should also skate past the first round. I've also got Konstantine Sepsis moving on. The three great names should also win their first round match-ups: Precious Orji, Pope Thrower and Alpha Omega Nickelberry III. Alpha Omega Nickelberry III should also make the Sweet 16 and in an upset, I think Sharky Laguana beats Deicide Huxtable. The winner of Pope Thrower-Precious Orji should go to the Final Four. They both have name synergy. Precious Orji is my winner, beating Sharky Laguana to make the regional finals and Surender Nada (who beat Alpha Omega Nickelberry III) in the finals.
Dragonwagon Regional
The cream of the crop this year is the Dragonwagon. 1-seed Jizyah Shorts is properly rated, and will make short work of the first two rounds, beating Cory Phast Lane in the second round. Tupac Isme has great name synergy and is punchier than the well-named Charleszetta Waddles, so he should advance. General Booty may be a 13-seed, but the upset will happen. There truly are no bad names in this regional, but expect Cletorious Aretha Fry and Corno Pronk to make the second round. Normally I'd like C'Bo Flemister in an upset against Pixie Fuhrmeister, but I think he falls because he doesn't go by his given name: C'Borius. My biggest first-round upset is Bubba Buckaloo over Happy Kampire. If Jimbob Ghostkeeper taught us nothing, it's that Southern-sounding names are funny. An alliterative funny Southern name that sounds like a drunk cowboy? Perfect. Cletorious Aretha Fry should sail into the Sweet 16. Tupac Isme-General Booty is a fantastic match and neither should be a loser. But thanks to tales of Tupac still being alive, I give Tupac Isme the edge despite my heart wanting to go the other way. Corno Pronk-Bubba Buckaloo is a delightful morsel, too, and I've got the Buckaloo moving on, even making the regional finals after beating Cletorious Aretha Fry. As much as I love Tupac Isme, Jizyah Shorts is not being beaten. Not in the Sweet 16 and not even in the regional finals against Bubba Buckaloo.
Chrotchtangle Regional
A real contender for best regional, led by 3-seed Rev. Pix Butt. 1-seed Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington will make it out of the first round, but no farther — expect an upset by Chastity Gooch-Fant in the second round. Steele Fortress should win the first round, only to fall to Rev. Butt in the next round. I've got Geor'quarius Spivey moving on in the first round to face Tellsport Putsavage. I've got Paisley Boney IV barely (bearly?) holding off Bear Spiker in the first round and Dermot Smurfit in a first-round upset. Paisley Boney IV should hold off Dermot Smurfit to reach the Sweet 16 against Chastity Gooch-Fant. I don't think the winner of Putsavage-Spivey matters (Putsavage, I think), because Rev. Pix Butt will move on to the regional finals. I've read enough from the comments to know there's a zeitgeist behind Chastity Gooch-Fant moving her on. But Rev. Pix Butt is the obvious winner here.
Final Four
Two 1-seeds and two 3-seeds. Not bad. Precious Orji has name synergy that should take down Dr. Trentington Outhouse, despite his earned degree. Rev. Pix Butt v. Jizyah Shorts is the type of fun match-up I live for. But this is the year of the name synergy, and Jizyah Shorts is a name that cannot be beat. Jizyah Shorts-Precious Orji is the finals. Sometimes, the best name is the most obvious. 1-seed Jizyah Shorts is your winner.
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Monday, March 25, 2019
What the Mueller Report Did and Didn't Do
We're still in the early fallout of the Mueller Report, and there are basically two camps of reaction: those who have been following the news and those who haven't. Both of those camps are, of course, split into partisan groups, but the point is there's a difference between the headline and the article.
The headline from the Barr Summary (public) of the Mueller Report (not public yet) is that the Trump campaign is cleared of collusion with Russia and that no further charges like obstruction of justice are coming. Case closed. End of story. Move on with your lives.
The article is deeper than that. For a "witch hunt," this investigation certainly found a lot of witches in Trump's inner circle. There was a lot of smoke, even if there was no smoking arsonist. The Barr Summary quotes the Mueller Report as having essentially shrugged its shoulders at the issue of obstruction of justice: You decide, because it could go either way. The investigations into Trump circles in New York will continue, and legal experts have long pointed to those as perhaps the most damning or potentially worrisome for the President.
It's also important to note that this was not an effort in futility or a waste of expenses. Clearing someone is just as important as the opposite, and this was certainly a case that required an investigation to prove or disprove connections. Just because no fire was found does not mean the firefighters shouldn't have checked out the alarm.
Let's break down what we know a different way.
GOP: Witch hunt! Waste of money! Complete exoneration!
Why they're right: On the biggest questions of the Mueller Report, the President was cleared. There was no damning proof of Russian collusion and he will not have to continue with the Sword of Mueller hanging over his head. Those are all big deals. The question of "legitimacy" about this president has been resolved, and it was answered the way the GOP would like. The GOP is far less likely to work with Democrats on investigations, far more likely to decry further inquiries as politically motivated, and far more likely to appear to a skeptical public as correct. It's a big win for them.
Why they're wrong: Somehow in all of this the GOP has not bothered to do anything about Russian interference in our elections. That did happen, even if Trump wasn't involved in it. The investigation found several admitted criminals in Manafort, Gates, Flynn, and (not admitted, facing trial later) Stone. Also, Mueller was quoted in the Barr Summary as saying this was not an exoneration of Trump on the obstruction accusation, but we don't know enough details on what Mueller said about that issue and nuance/follow-up is not a thing American News does well.
Democrats: Investigations will continue! Barr was not a fair arbiter! What does Mueller actually say?
Why they're right: There are legitimate courses of investigation for the wider Trump circle that haven't been investigated in the two years of GOP control of both House and Senate — both essentially abdicated their oversight role, and only now is the House doing any real Congressional inquiries. We still don't know what the Mueller Report says — we're relying on someone Trump appointed after Jeff Sessions wouldn't put his thumb on the scale as Trump wanted (widely reported).
Why they're wrong: While there are still a lot of unanswered questions about links between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals, that's a dead end politically. At this point, it appears to be desperate and grasping at straws. Barr was probably fair enough in that he wouldn't dramatically twist Mueller's words in a way that could be easily disproven if the real report ever leaked. The President isn't going anywhere, and now he has a "I won" sticker from the Mueller Report.
On the Impeachment Issue
I've done a lot of studying and reading about the issue of impeachment. There are two "courts," essentially: Legal courts and impeachment. You can be acquitted and still be impeached. You can be in legal trouble and not be impeached. Impeachment was not designed to be a court drama — it was designed to be a congressional one.
However, I think the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton taught both sides a lot of lessons. The biggest lesson can be summed by this quote from The Wire, a show I have never actually watched: "When you come at the king, you best not miss." Essentially, if you're gunning for the biggest fish, you only get one shot. Starr had one shot at Bill Clinton, and he blew it. The GOP lost big-time politically and the same was true for Starr (who didn't have the best track record afterward as a college president at Baylor University during their major scandal).
Another lesson from the Bill Clinton impeachment is that the standard for presidential impeachment has become equated with the legal standard. Impeachment now has a much higher standard than it was intended to have. It's hard to make the argument that presidents should be removed from office unless you meet a high bar. And the general public understands court proceedings (thanks, daytime and primetime television!) more than they understand the intent behind impeachment. Maybe that's not exactly it, either, but the point is that these days a smoking gun or clear, undeniable evidence is needed. Remember: Nixon wasn't impeached; he resigned before either side could make the actual case.
Finally, there's one more lesson from the Clinton impeachment. Parties in control of Congress matters. In 1998, the GOP had control of the House and Senate — opposite party control. Nixon during the end of his presidency was dealing with opposite party control. Trump has had same party control for the first two years of his presidency and only now has lost the House. The Democrats never had enough power to push impeachment hard and still don't with only one chamber.
If Democrats wanted to make an impeachment case, they needed a damning Mueller Report. They didn't get it. If they still wanted to make an impeachment argument, hell, there's a lot of meat on the bone with the emoluments clause, the behavior and actions of a sitting president, the Southern District of New York cases, the campaign finance violations through Michael Cohen, the paying off of porn actresses for affairs he committed, putting children in cages, siding with white supremacists in the aftermath of Charlottesville, used religion as a determining factor in immigration, and many others. There are plenty of impeachable offenses — "high crimes and misdemeanors" — that, if the parties were switched, the GOP would make great hay out of. But without GOP cooperation, that's not going to happen. And the Mueller results essentially put the kibosh on GOP cooperation ever. If you come at the king, you best not miss. And what we know of the Mueller Report is that the Democrats probably would miss, so they'll have to back off the king for now.
Other Thoughts
• In writing this piece, I was inspired to go back and read what I'd written in past years. My favorite line, from September 2017: "A cynical version of me would expect the Mueller investigation to wrap up in December 2018, one month after the midterms." I was so close. Just a few months off. Good guess, past me!
• I still don't understand why certain plea agreements were made if bigger fish were not to be fried. Flynn, in particular, doesn't make sense without higher aims. Manafort's plea agreement (which he broke by continuing to communicate with Trump officials), too. Hopefully the actual Mueller Report will shed light on this.
• I still want to know more about the Trump Tower meeting.
• Avoid television news for a week on the Mueller issue, folks. Do yourself a favor and skip the spin. Go for a hike! It's nice outside!
Television News and the Lost Gatekeeper
When people think of the news media, the first thing that often comes to mind is television news. The mental image is Anderson Cooper standing in front of a government building or natural disaster, maybe one of the Wallaces sitting down with a newsmaker, or an ever-growing number of panelists each proclaiming their Two Minutes Hate. Television news has lost its way. They've all forgotten the basics of news.
Recently, Empire actor Jussie Smollett said he was assaulted by a MAGA hat-wearing duo that used racial slurs and more. CNN and others were all over it, giving plenty of attention to the fourth-highest billed actor on a moderately watched show making unproven claims. A smart media source would wait it out — report that he said he was attacked, but don't go all-in until verification from the police or an outside source. Instead, morning shows and 24-hour news were all too happy to grant Smollett a national audience and a sympathetic ear. They didn't play it safe, and the result was they got burned.
On the same day Smollett's story unraveled, these stations were ignoring major news taking place. Namely, that a U.S. House race almost assuredly was won through rampant, admitted, unabashed election fraud. The man who would be North Carolina's 9th district representative paid for a campaign official who used absentee ballots in a scheme to install Republicans in office. The first major public hearing on this issue was taking place, and CNN and MSNBC and FOX News were nowhere to be found. In fact, at 11 p.m. on the same day as that public hearing, there is no mention of the North Carolina election fraud on any of those three websites. CNN had it as their top story for a few hours in mid-afternoon, but it quickly came off. NBC News had it on their site at 11 p.m., but it was the 10th-highest ranked story on the page.
An early lesson in journalism school is to identify what makes a story newsworthy. Although the exact number depends on the journalism book, there are eight common "news criteria" or factors of news judgment. These often include timeliness (how recent news is), impact/importance, prominence (also called celebrity), proximity (how close news is), conflict (I've written before about how this might be the most problematic), unusual/human interest, currency (zeitgeist/what's cool in the moment) and necessity (what needs to be told).
In chasing conflict and minor celebrity, television news media ignored actual election fraud that affected an actual election — and a seat in the House of Representatives.
One of the principle roles of journalism is to be a gatekeeper — a proper editor/editorial board decides what is most newsworthy. NPR did a lengthy segment on the North Carolina election fraud story with reporters on the scene. Good gatekeeping can be done, but it takes effort, experience and wisdom. Television news, too often, is taking the easy way out and abdicating its gatekeeper role.
Clarence Thomas and Libel Law
One of the stalwart cases of mass communication law is under attack, and it's mostly gone unnoticed. When President Trump spouted repeatedly over the last few years that libel law should be changed, no one noticed because... he spouts repeatedly about a lot of things that never happen. But that all changed this week when Justice Clarence Thomas joined in on Trump's side.
The case in question is New York Times v. Sullivan, which was decided more than 50 years ago. The short version of the decision is that public figures have a higher burden for proving libel than non-public figures.
For example, if the New York Times writes that "John Doe, a steelworker in Pittsburgh, Pa., is a drug addict," that's a libel case in favor of John Doe (A local radio station lost a libel case when they mistakenly called a private citizen a porn star — the person in question wasn't a public figure). But if they write "Senator John Doe is committing insider trading," it's a different case — Sen. Doe would have to prove a) that it's false and b) essentially that the Times was targeting him and knew that the story was false or that they were reckless with regard to the truth.
I'm concerned about a chilling effect if public figures are given more leeway to allege media discrimination in court. Imagine what a politician with deep pocketbooks (Trump, Bloomberg, etc.) would do if they didn't have to prove actual malice. I can — they'd sue over any story/publication that makes them look bad. Media companies are not built to win repeated, costly legal wars. I can tell you that by experience: My paper was sued one time frivolously and even the cost to dismiss that baseless lawsuit was nearly the cost of one of my employees' salaries for a year.
I am, perhaps, relieved by the fact that Clarence Thomas is the most far right member of the Supreme Court — he made Justice Scalia look liberal by comparison. So one Justice of nine is not necessarily the bursting of the dam on this issue. However, the Supreme Court now leans right. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito are positioned close to Thomas. Justice Gorsuch is not far off. The "swing" vote would be right-leaning Chief Justice Roberts. It's not unfathomable to imagine, which is frightening.
Summary Judgments
This was a really well-written story about what happens when video game personalities turn out to be predators. • • • And from their sister site, there's another well-written story that reveals sexual assault allegations against a prominent voice actor. I particularly liked the "missing stair" analogy — Everyone who knows about it tells people they know, but those who are new or don't have connections will trip on it every time. Such was the case with the voice actor in question. • • • Another devastating story: a personal account of what it is like to make the decision to have a late abortion. Late abortions are exceedingly rare and almost always have a devastating diagnosis attached. I don't know any of my readers' views on the thorny subject. Articles like this are important to read despite how difficult they are to choose to read. • • • I mentioned the gatekeeper aspect of journalism earlier, and I was really surprised and impressed by the near-universal decision not to name the New Zealand mosque attacker. His name is out there and easy to find if you want, but I didn't see any news site publish it (especially you, CNN and FOX News). I honestly thought maybe news media had developed an ability to make better news decisions. Then, literally the entire next week of news was "Trump picks fight with Ghost of John McCain." SIGH. • • • I haven't gone for a run or a walk since the half marathon. I told my mom that it's like when you eat so much of one thing that you can't eat it again for a while. I reached my limit and beyond with the half marathon and have lost my motivation for the time being. • • • Not a kid story, but Alyson and I were talking about those Facebook posts where people are all "If you deny Jesus, he'll deny you! Share this post or you're going to burn in hell because you didn't share a meme!" I made the comment that if that were true, "God is love, but he isn't above pettiness." We both cracked up.
The headline from the Barr Summary (public) of the Mueller Report (not public yet) is that the Trump campaign is cleared of collusion with Russia and that no further charges like obstruction of justice are coming. Case closed. End of story. Move on with your lives.
The article is deeper than that. For a "witch hunt," this investigation certainly found a lot of witches in Trump's inner circle. There was a lot of smoke, even if there was no smoking arsonist. The Barr Summary quotes the Mueller Report as having essentially shrugged its shoulders at the issue of obstruction of justice: You decide, because it could go either way. The investigations into Trump circles in New York will continue, and legal experts have long pointed to those as perhaps the most damning or potentially worrisome for the President.
It's also important to note that this was not an effort in futility or a waste of expenses. Clearing someone is just as important as the opposite, and this was certainly a case that required an investigation to prove or disprove connections. Just because no fire was found does not mean the firefighters shouldn't have checked out the alarm.
Let's break down what we know a different way.
GOP: Witch hunt! Waste of money! Complete exoneration!
Why they're right: On the biggest questions of the Mueller Report, the President was cleared. There was no damning proof of Russian collusion and he will not have to continue with the Sword of Mueller hanging over his head. Those are all big deals. The question of "legitimacy" about this president has been resolved, and it was answered the way the GOP would like. The GOP is far less likely to work with Democrats on investigations, far more likely to decry further inquiries as politically motivated, and far more likely to appear to a skeptical public as correct. It's a big win for them.
Why they're wrong: Somehow in all of this the GOP has not bothered to do anything about Russian interference in our elections. That did happen, even if Trump wasn't involved in it. The investigation found several admitted criminals in Manafort, Gates, Flynn, and (not admitted, facing trial later) Stone. Also, Mueller was quoted in the Barr Summary as saying this was not an exoneration of Trump on the obstruction accusation, but we don't know enough details on what Mueller said about that issue and nuance/follow-up is not a thing American News does well.
Democrats: Investigations will continue! Barr was not a fair arbiter! What does Mueller actually say?
Why they're right: There are legitimate courses of investigation for the wider Trump circle that haven't been investigated in the two years of GOP control of both House and Senate — both essentially abdicated their oversight role, and only now is the House doing any real Congressional inquiries. We still don't know what the Mueller Report says — we're relying on someone Trump appointed after Jeff Sessions wouldn't put his thumb on the scale as Trump wanted (widely reported).
Why they're wrong: While there are still a lot of unanswered questions about links between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals, that's a dead end politically. At this point, it appears to be desperate and grasping at straws. Barr was probably fair enough in that he wouldn't dramatically twist Mueller's words in a way that could be easily disproven if the real report ever leaked. The President isn't going anywhere, and now he has a "I won" sticker from the Mueller Report.
On the Impeachment Issue
I've done a lot of studying and reading about the issue of impeachment. There are two "courts," essentially: Legal courts and impeachment. You can be acquitted and still be impeached. You can be in legal trouble and not be impeached. Impeachment was not designed to be a court drama — it was designed to be a congressional one.
However, I think the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton taught both sides a lot of lessons. The biggest lesson can be summed by this quote from The Wire, a show I have never actually watched: "When you come at the king, you best not miss." Essentially, if you're gunning for the biggest fish, you only get one shot. Starr had one shot at Bill Clinton, and he blew it. The GOP lost big-time politically and the same was true for Starr (who didn't have the best track record afterward as a college president at Baylor University during their major scandal).
Another lesson from the Bill Clinton impeachment is that the standard for presidential impeachment has become equated with the legal standard. Impeachment now has a much higher standard than it was intended to have. It's hard to make the argument that presidents should be removed from office unless you meet a high bar. And the general public understands court proceedings (thanks, daytime and primetime television!) more than they understand the intent behind impeachment. Maybe that's not exactly it, either, but the point is that these days a smoking gun or clear, undeniable evidence is needed. Remember: Nixon wasn't impeached; he resigned before either side could make the actual case.
Finally, there's one more lesson from the Clinton impeachment. Parties in control of Congress matters. In 1998, the GOP had control of the House and Senate — opposite party control. Nixon during the end of his presidency was dealing with opposite party control. Trump has had same party control for the first two years of his presidency and only now has lost the House. The Democrats never had enough power to push impeachment hard and still don't with only one chamber.
If Democrats wanted to make an impeachment case, they needed a damning Mueller Report. They didn't get it. If they still wanted to make an impeachment argument, hell, there's a lot of meat on the bone with the emoluments clause, the behavior and actions of a sitting president, the Southern District of New York cases, the campaign finance violations through Michael Cohen, the paying off of porn actresses for affairs he committed, putting children in cages, siding with white supremacists in the aftermath of Charlottesville, used religion as a determining factor in immigration, and many others. There are plenty of impeachable offenses — "high crimes and misdemeanors" — that, if the parties were switched, the GOP would make great hay out of. But without GOP cooperation, that's not going to happen. And the Mueller results essentially put the kibosh on GOP cooperation ever. If you come at the king, you best not miss. And what we know of the Mueller Report is that the Democrats probably would miss, so they'll have to back off the king for now.
Other Thoughts
• In writing this piece, I was inspired to go back and read what I'd written in past years. My favorite line, from September 2017: "A cynical version of me would expect the Mueller investigation to wrap up in December 2018, one month after the midterms." I was so close. Just a few months off. Good guess, past me!
• I still don't understand why certain plea agreements were made if bigger fish were not to be fried. Flynn, in particular, doesn't make sense without higher aims. Manafort's plea agreement (which he broke by continuing to communicate with Trump officials), too. Hopefully the actual Mueller Report will shed light on this.
• I still want to know more about the Trump Tower meeting.
• Avoid television news for a week on the Mueller issue, folks. Do yourself a favor and skip the spin. Go for a hike! It's nice outside!
Television News and the Lost Gatekeeper
When people think of the news media, the first thing that often comes to mind is television news. The mental image is Anderson Cooper standing in front of a government building or natural disaster, maybe one of the Wallaces sitting down with a newsmaker, or an ever-growing number of panelists each proclaiming their Two Minutes Hate. Television news has lost its way. They've all forgotten the basics of news.
Recently, Empire actor Jussie Smollett said he was assaulted by a MAGA hat-wearing duo that used racial slurs and more. CNN and others were all over it, giving plenty of attention to the fourth-highest billed actor on a moderately watched show making unproven claims. A smart media source would wait it out — report that he said he was attacked, but don't go all-in until verification from the police or an outside source. Instead, morning shows and 24-hour news were all too happy to grant Smollett a national audience and a sympathetic ear. They didn't play it safe, and the result was they got burned.
On the same day Smollett's story unraveled, these stations were ignoring major news taking place. Namely, that a U.S. House race almost assuredly was won through rampant, admitted, unabashed election fraud. The man who would be North Carolina's 9th district representative paid for a campaign official who used absentee ballots in a scheme to install Republicans in office. The first major public hearing on this issue was taking place, and CNN and MSNBC and FOX News were nowhere to be found. In fact, at 11 p.m. on the same day as that public hearing, there is no mention of the North Carolina election fraud on any of those three websites. CNN had it as their top story for a few hours in mid-afternoon, but it quickly came off. NBC News had it on their site at 11 p.m., but it was the 10th-highest ranked story on the page.
An early lesson in journalism school is to identify what makes a story newsworthy. Although the exact number depends on the journalism book, there are eight common "news criteria" or factors of news judgment. These often include timeliness (how recent news is), impact/importance, prominence (also called celebrity), proximity (how close news is), conflict (I've written before about how this might be the most problematic), unusual/human interest, currency (zeitgeist/what's cool in the moment) and necessity (what needs to be told).
In chasing conflict and minor celebrity, television news media ignored actual election fraud that affected an actual election — and a seat in the House of Representatives.
One of the principle roles of journalism is to be a gatekeeper — a proper editor/editorial board decides what is most newsworthy. NPR did a lengthy segment on the North Carolina election fraud story with reporters on the scene. Good gatekeeping can be done, but it takes effort, experience and wisdom. Television news, too often, is taking the easy way out and abdicating its gatekeeper role.
Clarence Thomas and Libel Law
One of the stalwart cases of mass communication law is under attack, and it's mostly gone unnoticed. When President Trump spouted repeatedly over the last few years that libel law should be changed, no one noticed because... he spouts repeatedly about a lot of things that never happen. But that all changed this week when Justice Clarence Thomas joined in on Trump's side.
The case in question is New York Times v. Sullivan, which was decided more than 50 years ago. The short version of the decision is that public figures have a higher burden for proving libel than non-public figures.
For example, if the New York Times writes that "John Doe, a steelworker in Pittsburgh, Pa., is a drug addict," that's a libel case in favor of John Doe (A local radio station lost a libel case when they mistakenly called a private citizen a porn star — the person in question wasn't a public figure). But if they write "Senator John Doe is committing insider trading," it's a different case — Sen. Doe would have to prove a) that it's false and b) essentially that the Times was targeting him and knew that the story was false or that they were reckless with regard to the truth.
I'm concerned about a chilling effect if public figures are given more leeway to allege media discrimination in court. Imagine what a politician with deep pocketbooks (Trump, Bloomberg, etc.) would do if they didn't have to prove actual malice. I can — they'd sue over any story/publication that makes them look bad. Media companies are not built to win repeated, costly legal wars. I can tell you that by experience: My paper was sued one time frivolously and even the cost to dismiss that baseless lawsuit was nearly the cost of one of my employees' salaries for a year.
I am, perhaps, relieved by the fact that Clarence Thomas is the most far right member of the Supreme Court — he made Justice Scalia look liberal by comparison. So one Justice of nine is not necessarily the bursting of the dam on this issue. However, the Supreme Court now leans right. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito are positioned close to Thomas. Justice Gorsuch is not far off. The "swing" vote would be right-leaning Chief Justice Roberts. It's not unfathomable to imagine, which is frightening.
Summary Judgments
This was a really well-written story about what happens when video game personalities turn out to be predators. • • • And from their sister site, there's another well-written story that reveals sexual assault allegations against a prominent voice actor. I particularly liked the "missing stair" analogy — Everyone who knows about it tells people they know, but those who are new or don't have connections will trip on it every time. Such was the case with the voice actor in question. • • • Another devastating story: a personal account of what it is like to make the decision to have a late abortion. Late abortions are exceedingly rare and almost always have a devastating diagnosis attached. I don't know any of my readers' views on the thorny subject. Articles like this are important to read despite how difficult they are to choose to read. • • • I mentioned the gatekeeper aspect of journalism earlier, and I was really surprised and impressed by the near-universal decision not to name the New Zealand mosque attacker. His name is out there and easy to find if you want, but I didn't see any news site publish it (especially you, CNN and FOX News). I honestly thought maybe news media had developed an ability to make better news decisions. Then, literally the entire next week of news was "Trump picks fight with Ghost of John McCain." SIGH. • • • I haven't gone for a run or a walk since the half marathon. I told my mom that it's like when you eat so much of one thing that you can't eat it again for a while. I reached my limit and beyond with the half marathon and have lost my motivation for the time being. • • • Not a kid story, but Alyson and I were talking about those Facebook posts where people are all "If you deny Jesus, he'll deny you! Share this post or you're going to burn in hell because you didn't share a meme!" I made the comment that if that were true, "God is love, but he isn't above pettiness." We both cracked up.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
And They're Off!
It seems too early for talk of the 2020 presidential election. Election day is more than 20 months away. But it's really not. Three years ago in the second or third entry on this blog, I wrote about the primary candidates for each party. They'd already had several debates by then and the first primary was coming up. In fact, the first primary debate for 2020 will be this summer. So consider the January time period as the launch cycle. Let's look at timing, who's running and what to watch.
Schedule
As is tradition, Iowa and New Hampshire get the first say. The Iowa caucuses are about a year from today, on Feb. 3, 2020. The New Hampshire primary is the week after. What is notable about these two states are their make-up. Iowa is "Midwestern" — small minority population, popular candidates or well-run campaigns can make a difference here. New Hampshire is New England — white, East Coast-y with an independent streak. The common denominator is that both are heavily white. In fact, both are more than 90 percent white/Caucasian. These two are kind of gate-keepers in that many poor candidates or people that put a lot of their eggs in Iowa/NH baskets will drop out with disappointing performances.
Later in February comes Nevada (about 1/3 minority mostly Hispanic, plus a strong union representation that can swing elections) and South Carolina (about 1/3 minority mostly black, and especially in the Democratic primary).
Then comes "Super Tuesday" on March 3, and it's probably going to determine the candidate or who the final 2-3 will be. It's a nice mix of states, both populous and small, red states and blue states, those with minority populations and those very very white. States include California, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Vermont, Virginia and Tennessee. What's notable is this includes at least 2-4 home states for candidates. If they can't win their home state, they won't stand a chance in the remaining states.
This schedule can be advantageous or not. Elizabeth Warren is focusing on New Hampshire to build momentum for later. Kamala Harris is hoping for a good enough showing in Iowa and New Hampshire until she can get to calmer waters in South Carolina and Super Tuesday. Biden and Bernie (if they run) are hoping their name recognition can get them a plurality in the early states and ride others dropping out into a majority (see: Trump, successfully).
The Candidates
I'm just going to give short thoughts here. I loved this piece by FiveThirtyEight that shows the coalition-building aspect of running for president. I like that they've changed their approach from the last election to show strengths more like an RPG and less as a five-ring circus. I'm going to include only declared candidates or major candidates who are expected to run (Biden, Bernie, Booker, and Beto). I've also included Amy Klobuchar. We'll talk more about this list as the candidates get more refined, but let's take an early look.
Joe Biden
Name recognition is high. "Uncle Joe" is already a familiar face and associated with a popular past president. He's gaffe-prone but still better in that respect than President Trump. Knows how to win elections, knows how to talk to people, may possibly draw in non-college educated whites. An old white guy who is a known entity. There's something to be said for stability, but he's not among the first five names that inspire excitement.
Bernie Sanders
Another known quantity, another old white guy with name recognition. There is a segment of Democratic voters that are Bernie lifers. He has populism credibility. But I am bearish on Bernie. If he couldn't beat Hillary Clinton (largely because he couldn't get minorities to believe in him), then how will he be able to beat More Likeable Hillary (Gillibrand) or Bernie's Nerdy Protege (Warren)?
Kirsten Gillibrand
I called her More Likeable Hillary above, and that's not far off. She performs well in public interviews. She is a New York senator, just like Hillary was. She's anti-Trump, which is fine. I don't think her past stances on issues matter a whole lot. She's one of a large crop of female candidates, which is notable. She was one of the first Democrats to call for Al Franken's resignation, which was a brave decision that I applaud but I'm not sure has done her much favors with Democratic donors. I like her, but I think she's a few years too early: If you're going to run for president, you really get only one shot and the timing has to be perfect. I don't think the timing is perfect for her, but I understand the decision to run.
Kamala Harris
I'm bullish on Kamala Harris, the California senator. She's half-black, half-Indian. She's a woman who's relatively young (20 years younger than Bernie/Biden/Warren). She's a former prosecutor, which I think shows she's not easy on crime, which will be a good counter to her anti-death penalty stance. I've seen her performances on national interviews and I think she comes off pretty natural. She is tough as nails and can obviously raise money and compete broadly if she can win the enormously diverse, enormously expensive California senate race. I think she's positioned well, and will be the favorite if she can pull off a surprise win in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Elizabeth Warren
I loved Elizabeth Warren. I thought she was a Smarter Bernie. I thought she was a Nerdier Hillary. She has some Oklahoma cred. She's got Trump outsmarted in one of his strongest categories (economics... though law/order would be his other strength). I think she is stronger now than Bernie is. I think she may just win New Hampshire, one of the two key early states. That said, I think she blew her chance a few months ago with the DNA test. In an attempt to take a weakness (Trump's Pocahontas line) off the board, all she did was call attention to it in a ham-handed way. She played Trump's game. Democrats want a candidate who will fight, but fight on their own terms and not on his. Warren is playing the same game Hillary did, and look where it got Hillary.
Beto O'Rourke
I thought he was Hispanic. He's not, surprisingly. He is from El Paso, so he knows how to appeal to Hispanics. He is savvy at the type of one-liners, Twitter-friendly, youth-oriented media culture. He's handsome, likable, smart and a great fundraiser. In Texas, of all states, he only lost to Ted Cruz by less than 3 points (!). Personally, I think he'd be a great vice presidential candidate pick or future Cabinet member. But I don't think he's strong enough to beat Donald Trump. I won't throw "experience" out there as a negative since Trump has proven that's not necessary.
Cory Booker
He's young, single (though maybe dating movie star Rosario Dawson?!?!?) , handsome and black. (Note: I mention race as a factor because I think Democratic voters want someone who can appeal to minorities, not that it means a person is a shoo-in for those segments.) He's a good, natural speaker when a guest on national shows. He's a good candidate... in any year but this one. I think he's a guy who wants to be president so hard. However, I'm bearish on Cory Booker. What does he do well or which sectors does he succeed in that Kamala Harris doesn't do better? He's also a bit tied to Wall Street, which can be an anchor for some candidates.
Amy Klobuchar
I'm intrigued by Klobuchar. She's a woman candidate from the Rust Belt, which is a positive thing: Any Democrat who wins MN/WI/PA/MI will be the President. She's moderate, which in this case means "not as scary to the left as some of those other candidates." I see her name bandied about a lot by various sites, but I just don't think she has either the name recognition like Biden/Bernie or the popular support like Beto to make a deep run in the primaries. That could change with a successful debate appearance, though.
Julian Castro
Former HUD Secretary. Former San Antonio Mayor. He's the candidate with legit Hispanic credibility. He's a good speaker and he's tied to the Obama administration, both positives for the Democratic field, but I just think he's outclassed by Beto, who is also a Hispanic-appealing Texan, but more popular and more media savvy. I just don't think anyone was clamoring for Julian Castro, and he's even less likely to gain traction as this goes on.
Pete Buttigieg
He's the mayor of South Bend, Ind., so there's a bit of a Midwestern angle. He's openly gay (minority!). He's a great speaker and is a rising star among millennials/the left's media outlets. Already some of my friends on the far left have said they like him and support him. But South Bend is a far reach from the presidency. I really think this is about becoming more well-known for a future, more successful run somewhere down the road. He could make a splash with a good debate performance, but probably not much more than that.
John Delaney
He's been running since July 2017! Do you know who he is? I don't, and I even follow politics. He's a representative from Maryland. He and I have the same percentage chance of winning the presidency in 2020 — and I'll only be eligible to run by a few months!
Tulsi Gabbard
Congresswoman from Hawaii. War veteran. Hindu. Samoan-American. Her stances are all over the place and she's got not a chance in hell.
Richard Ojeda
Now we're to the bottom of the barrel. Richard Ojeda is a former West Virginia state senator and a veteran. He did pretty well in a House race in West Virginia, only losing by 12 points to a Republican. He will not win.
Andrew Yang
I have at least heard of the other candidates. Asian-American entrepreneur. He's a one-issue candidate, which is a thing that you forget happens every four years. His one thing is universal basic income, a concept that is unlikely in the current American political climate.
Seeing Red
I'm sick of red. That's no dig to my alma maters (either of them), nor to my employer, all of whom use red as a main color.
Rather, it's a dig at news sites and networks that use red as a primary color or have moved to it. There are numerous psychological studies about the color red and its effects on the brain. Red is the passion color. That's good — passion can be warmth and comfort. But it's also bad — think a red cape waving in front of a bull (Note: it's not the red that a bull hates, it's the waving cape, but I digress.). Red is a color of alert and danger and emotion. These are fine in the appropriate context.
However, I am worried about sites like CNN (red all over, including a primary color) and FOX News (red in prominent places, though it appears they have moved more to a dark blue as a primary color). One of the major television stations in Kansas City has also moved from a lovely blue (calming, typically) to a red as a primary color.
I'm not saying all of these networks should move to a teal or sunny yellow. What I'm saying is that frequent use of red psychologically sends warning signals to viewers. Red should be used sparingly so as not to make a Chicken Little situation. There is a ton of news, but if all of it gets a heavy red, then everything is a danger, everyone is in danger and there is no relief.
Some of that seems to be a product of our times. The government has been partially shut down for two weeks, the president is under investigation for multiple reasons, and the president's party got thumped in the midterms. Those are all major news events! However, not everything deserves the red letter treatment. But to use the color red on every little news event — BREAKING NEWS! PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TWEETED! — has put too much emphasis on every story. The sense of scale is something we never knew we were losing.
It's OK to not Care
I have not watched the video of the MAGA hat teen and the Native American.
Consider what you expect to get/learn from things like this. To me, it was a person I don't know and a person I don't know, with at least one person being a jerk. It's a "confrontation" that only serves to rile people up. It's a "confrontation" that I've seen in other locations with other people multiple times. I don't need to see it again.
Summary Judgments
Nice little ESPN story about one of my favorite players on my favorite NBA team. • • • Way to go, low-level German soccer coach: This is how you respond to sexist questions with grace and humor. • • • "No collusion!" became "Collusion is not a crime!" became "I never said there was no collusion." Does anyone else see these things? What is even happening? How is the political world just moving along as if this weren't taking place? • • • Can we place a moratorium on reporting things that may happen more than a year in the future? A report came out about Patrick Mahomes signing a $200 million extension to stay with the Chiefs. That's great and all, but that isn't even a possibility until after the 2020 season — two more seasons. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it. • • • I am running a half-marathon in about five weeks. I have only run 8.5 miles at the most. I'll be up to 10 miles before the race. We'll see how it goes. It's way too cold/snowy/icy/dark to run outside right now, so I've been running on a treadmill, which I hate. I may consider another half marathon later in the year so I can run more when it's warmer (and maybe I'm about 10 lbs. lighter.) • • • For the kids' birthday, we got them new beds. We brought Alyson's old bunk bed up for Evie, so she could sleep on the top and then underneath there's a little sitting area with books and sitting space. A couple weeks ago, she was throwing up, and we didn't want her to mess up the upper bunk and make it hard to clean up. So we set up a little mattress below. Of course, she has slept there ever since because she likes it. Now what's the point of having the bunk bed?
Schedule
As is tradition, Iowa and New Hampshire get the first say. The Iowa caucuses are about a year from today, on Feb. 3, 2020. The New Hampshire primary is the week after. What is notable about these two states are their make-up. Iowa is "Midwestern" — small minority population, popular candidates or well-run campaigns can make a difference here. New Hampshire is New England — white, East Coast-y with an independent streak. The common denominator is that both are heavily white. In fact, both are more than 90 percent white/Caucasian. These two are kind of gate-keepers in that many poor candidates or people that put a lot of their eggs in Iowa/NH baskets will drop out with disappointing performances.
Later in February comes Nevada (about 1/3 minority mostly Hispanic, plus a strong union representation that can swing elections) and South Carolina (about 1/3 minority mostly black, and especially in the Democratic primary).
Then comes "Super Tuesday" on March 3, and it's probably going to determine the candidate or who the final 2-3 will be. It's a nice mix of states, both populous and small, red states and blue states, those with minority populations and those very very white. States include California, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Vermont, Virginia and Tennessee. What's notable is this includes at least 2-4 home states for candidates. If they can't win their home state, they won't stand a chance in the remaining states.
This schedule can be advantageous or not. Elizabeth Warren is focusing on New Hampshire to build momentum for later. Kamala Harris is hoping for a good enough showing in Iowa and New Hampshire until she can get to calmer waters in South Carolina and Super Tuesday. Biden and Bernie (if they run) are hoping their name recognition can get them a plurality in the early states and ride others dropping out into a majority (see: Trump, successfully).
The Candidates
I'm just going to give short thoughts here. I loved this piece by FiveThirtyEight that shows the coalition-building aspect of running for president. I like that they've changed their approach from the last election to show strengths more like an RPG and less as a five-ring circus. I'm going to include only declared candidates or major candidates who are expected to run (Biden, Bernie, Booker, and Beto). I've also included Amy Klobuchar. We'll talk more about this list as the candidates get more refined, but let's take an early look.
Joe Biden
Name recognition is high. "Uncle Joe" is already a familiar face and associated with a popular past president. He's gaffe-prone but still better in that respect than President Trump. Knows how to win elections, knows how to talk to people, may possibly draw in non-college educated whites. An old white guy who is a known entity. There's something to be said for stability, but he's not among the first five names that inspire excitement.
Bernie Sanders
Another known quantity, another old white guy with name recognition. There is a segment of Democratic voters that are Bernie lifers. He has populism credibility. But I am bearish on Bernie. If he couldn't beat Hillary Clinton (largely because he couldn't get minorities to believe in him), then how will he be able to beat More Likeable Hillary (Gillibrand) or Bernie's Nerdy Protege (Warren)?
Kirsten Gillibrand
I called her More Likeable Hillary above, and that's not far off. She performs well in public interviews. She is a New York senator, just like Hillary was. She's anti-Trump, which is fine. I don't think her past stances on issues matter a whole lot. She's one of a large crop of female candidates, which is notable. She was one of the first Democrats to call for Al Franken's resignation, which was a brave decision that I applaud but I'm not sure has done her much favors with Democratic donors. I like her, but I think she's a few years too early: If you're going to run for president, you really get only one shot and the timing has to be perfect. I don't think the timing is perfect for her, but I understand the decision to run.
Kamala Harris
I'm bullish on Kamala Harris, the California senator. She's half-black, half-Indian. She's a woman who's relatively young (20 years younger than Bernie/Biden/Warren). She's a former prosecutor, which I think shows she's not easy on crime, which will be a good counter to her anti-death penalty stance. I've seen her performances on national interviews and I think she comes off pretty natural. She is tough as nails and can obviously raise money and compete broadly if she can win the enormously diverse, enormously expensive California senate race. I think she's positioned well, and will be the favorite if she can pull off a surprise win in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Elizabeth Warren
I loved Elizabeth Warren. I thought she was a Smarter Bernie. I thought she was a Nerdier Hillary. She has some Oklahoma cred. She's got Trump outsmarted in one of his strongest categories (economics... though law/order would be his other strength). I think she is stronger now than Bernie is. I think she may just win New Hampshire, one of the two key early states. That said, I think she blew her chance a few months ago with the DNA test. In an attempt to take a weakness (Trump's Pocahontas line) off the board, all she did was call attention to it in a ham-handed way. She played Trump's game. Democrats want a candidate who will fight, but fight on their own terms and not on his. Warren is playing the same game Hillary did, and look where it got Hillary.
Beto O'Rourke
I thought he was Hispanic. He's not, surprisingly. He is from El Paso, so he knows how to appeal to Hispanics. He is savvy at the type of one-liners, Twitter-friendly, youth-oriented media culture. He's handsome, likable, smart and a great fundraiser. In Texas, of all states, he only lost to Ted Cruz by less than 3 points (!). Personally, I think he'd be a great vice presidential candidate pick or future Cabinet member. But I don't think he's strong enough to beat Donald Trump. I won't throw "experience" out there as a negative since Trump has proven that's not necessary.
Cory Booker
He's young, single (though maybe dating movie star Rosario Dawson?!?!?) , handsome and black. (Note: I mention race as a factor because I think Democratic voters want someone who can appeal to minorities, not that it means a person is a shoo-in for those segments.) He's a good, natural speaker when a guest on national shows. He's a good candidate... in any year but this one. I think he's a guy who wants to be president so hard. However, I'm bearish on Cory Booker. What does he do well or which sectors does he succeed in that Kamala Harris doesn't do better? He's also a bit tied to Wall Street, which can be an anchor for some candidates.
Amy Klobuchar
I'm intrigued by Klobuchar. She's a woman candidate from the Rust Belt, which is a positive thing: Any Democrat who wins MN/WI/PA/MI will be the President. She's moderate, which in this case means "not as scary to the left as some of those other candidates." I see her name bandied about a lot by various sites, but I just don't think she has either the name recognition like Biden/Bernie or the popular support like Beto to make a deep run in the primaries. That could change with a successful debate appearance, though.
Julian Castro
Former HUD Secretary. Former San Antonio Mayor. He's the candidate with legit Hispanic credibility. He's a good speaker and he's tied to the Obama administration, both positives for the Democratic field, but I just think he's outclassed by Beto, who is also a Hispanic-appealing Texan, but more popular and more media savvy. I just don't think anyone was clamoring for Julian Castro, and he's even less likely to gain traction as this goes on.
Pete Buttigieg
He's the mayor of South Bend, Ind., so there's a bit of a Midwestern angle. He's openly gay (minority!). He's a great speaker and is a rising star among millennials/the left's media outlets. Already some of my friends on the far left have said they like him and support him. But South Bend is a far reach from the presidency. I really think this is about becoming more well-known for a future, more successful run somewhere down the road. He could make a splash with a good debate performance, but probably not much more than that.
John Delaney
He's been running since July 2017! Do you know who he is? I don't, and I even follow politics. He's a representative from Maryland. He and I have the same percentage chance of winning the presidency in 2020 — and I'll only be eligible to run by a few months!
Tulsi Gabbard
Congresswoman from Hawaii. War veteran. Hindu. Samoan-American. Her stances are all over the place and she's got not a chance in hell.
Richard Ojeda
Now we're to the bottom of the barrel. Richard Ojeda is a former West Virginia state senator and a veteran. He did pretty well in a House race in West Virginia, only losing by 12 points to a Republican. He will not win.
Andrew Yang
I have at least heard of the other candidates. Asian-American entrepreneur. He's a one-issue candidate, which is a thing that you forget happens every four years. His one thing is universal basic income, a concept that is unlikely in the current American political climate.
Seeing Red
I'm sick of red. That's no dig to my alma maters (either of them), nor to my employer, all of whom use red as a main color.
Rather, it's a dig at news sites and networks that use red as a primary color or have moved to it. There are numerous psychological studies about the color red and its effects on the brain. Red is the passion color. That's good — passion can be warmth and comfort. But it's also bad — think a red cape waving in front of a bull (Note: it's not the red that a bull hates, it's the waving cape, but I digress.). Red is a color of alert and danger and emotion. These are fine in the appropriate context.
However, I am worried about sites like CNN (red all over, including a primary color) and FOX News (red in prominent places, though it appears they have moved more to a dark blue as a primary color). One of the major television stations in Kansas City has also moved from a lovely blue (calming, typically) to a red as a primary color.
I'm not saying all of these networks should move to a teal or sunny yellow. What I'm saying is that frequent use of red psychologically sends warning signals to viewers. Red should be used sparingly so as not to make a Chicken Little situation. There is a ton of news, but if all of it gets a heavy red, then everything is a danger, everyone is in danger and there is no relief.
Some of that seems to be a product of our times. The government has been partially shut down for two weeks, the president is under investigation for multiple reasons, and the president's party got thumped in the midterms. Those are all major news events! However, not everything deserves the red letter treatment. But to use the color red on every little news event — BREAKING NEWS! PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TWEETED! — has put too much emphasis on every story. The sense of scale is something we never knew we were losing.
It's OK to not Care
I have not watched the video of the MAGA hat teen and the Native American.
Consider what you expect to get/learn from things like this. To me, it was a person I don't know and a person I don't know, with at least one person being a jerk. It's a "confrontation" that only serves to rile people up. It's a "confrontation" that I've seen in other locations with other people multiple times. I don't need to see it again.
Summary Judgments
Nice little ESPN story about one of my favorite players on my favorite NBA team. • • • Way to go, low-level German soccer coach: This is how you respond to sexist questions with grace and humor. • • • "No collusion!" became "Collusion is not a crime!" became "I never said there was no collusion." Does anyone else see these things? What is even happening? How is the political world just moving along as if this weren't taking place? • • • Can we place a moratorium on reporting things that may happen more than a year in the future? A report came out about Patrick Mahomes signing a $200 million extension to stay with the Chiefs. That's great and all, but that isn't even a possibility until after the 2020 season — two more seasons. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it. • • • I am running a half-marathon in about five weeks. I have only run 8.5 miles at the most. I'll be up to 10 miles before the race. We'll see how it goes. It's way too cold/snowy/icy/dark to run outside right now, so I've been running on a treadmill, which I hate. I may consider another half marathon later in the year so I can run more when it's warmer (and maybe I'm about 10 lbs. lighter.) • • • For the kids' birthday, we got them new beds. We brought Alyson's old bunk bed up for Evie, so she could sleep on the top and then underneath there's a little sitting area with books and sitting space. A couple weeks ago, she was throwing up, and we didn't want her to mess up the upper bunk and make it hard to clean up. So we set up a little mattress below. Of course, she has slept there ever since because she likes it. Now what's the point of having the bunk bed?
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Kavanaugh Thoughts, Emotions on Writing, Politics Update and More
Sorry I haven't written in a while. It's not that I haven't had thoughts about political events, but rather that I'm not sure what I'm adding to the discourse. Nothing I have written (and left unpublished) jumped out to me as something the world needed. I didn't know why I was writing beyond the desire to hear my own thoughts shouted into the ether.
Recently, Jewell hosted a good author, Tom Nichols, who wrote "The Death of Expertise." It was a fantastic lecture, and I encourage everyone to read his book. But one thing he said stuck out to me: Everyone needs an editor. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Unless I had an editor reining in my worst tendencies, this blog will cease to have reason, purpose and cohesion. So although it is, in itself, a tightrope, I'm trying to step back a bit and be my own editor, perilous as that may be. If I'm going to write something, it better be worth reading.
Thoughts on Justice Kavanaugh
I've written this portion probably a half-dozen times in the last two months. Yet while the event has passed, it is worth re-examining in the light of it now being a news cycle firmly rooted in the past.
Imagine a world in which Dr. Ford had been belligerent with questioners, agitated at the process, openly arguing partisan politics and refusing an FBI investigation. I have no doubt she would have been seen as overly emotional and her story would have been dismissed. Imagine Judge Kavanaugh had been the one who was calm, deliberate and open to an FBI investigation. I have no doubt he would have been seen as having the temperament for the highest court. And yet... he was approved anyway. His temperament and testimony and her temperament and testimony had little impact on the outcome.
For a while, I chalked this up to gender politics. The hearing was the first time I truly understood how deep the climb is for women in politics. An educated woman gave a powerful testimony about an event that happened to her. She said she was 100 percent confident. It was fine, even though it was decidedly the opposite of that. She sat in front of a committee that has never (!) had a female Republican among its ranks. Its Republican members were so worried about the optics of 11 male senators asking questions of a female victim that they brought in a special female prosecutor to ask her questions. This showed that the GOP committee members understood Dr. Ford's claims were serious, but did not trust themselves enough to show it. A hearing turned into a trial with the appearance of a prosecutor. Then, when Judge Kavanaugh arrived, they trusted themselves again. Along with Kavanaugh himself, they blasted partisan acts and pounded the metaphoric table. They turned a trial back into a hearing.
The most common refrain from the right is not over whether Ford was assaulted — that seems to be largely conceded. The argument was that yes, we believe she was assaulted, but we don't believe it was Kavanaugh. Which is a tremendous misinterpretation of her testimony. It says Dr. Ford was believable enough that she was assaulted, yet her statement that she was 100 percent sure that it was Kavanaugh was the bridge too far. And because we don't know for sure, we can do only one thing: grant Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. Her pain is secondary to his rise to greater power.
We've already lost the woman whose claims are at the basis of the hearing. Dr. Ford is now a footnote to history, only to surface again when the next confirmation sexual assault case happens, much like Anita Hill before her.
It didn't have to be this way. Judge Kavanaugh did not have to be nominated. Amy Coney Barrett is a conservative female judge in the mold of Neil Gorsuch (and female). Heck, Gorsuch was opposed on partisan grounds, yes, but not because of his sexual assault past. Raymond Kethledge is as conservative as Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. We could have had an in-depth FBI investigation if the facts were truly important. And yet we didn't.
A long time ago, I read Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine." It was a look at the nine members of the Supreme Court as of that writing. Nearly half the court has turned over, but one thought from the book has stuck out to me ever since: If the GOP couldn't change the results of the Supreme Court, they could change the courts. That's what we're seeing with judicial appointments on the federal, state and local level. The GOP was in win-at-all-costs mode to make this happen. Be careful what you buy at the cost of your souls.
Emotions on Writing
For the last year and a half, I've been working on our church's 175th anniversary book. I say "I," but it's really been a team of about a half-dozen people. The book comes out in 10 days; it's done and at the printer, as far as I know. And... I thought I'd be happier. That's a weird thing to write or admit to myself, but it's true.
In the last year, I've written more than 90 pages of church history, combining two different eras of books (the 125th book and the 150th book, both written by college professors) into a thematic narrative rather than a chronological one. I've researched and delved into rabbit holes and dug deep into corners of church history that have fascinated and excited me. I've been exceedingly proud of the work I cheerily and willingly put into this project for free. Luckily, I am not the only person working on this project, because I am a newbie to our church. I've only been at this church for about 2-3 years. The team's input has been amazing and added depth and recent history that I could not possibly know or find. I know that what they had put in has made the book better.
Yet when I consider the most recent copy I had in my hands, I was frustrated. And I've had a hard time figuring out why. Maybe I'm mourning the loss of control of the copy. "My" writing became less recognizable by the end of the editing process. That ego-driven part is one that I am constantly having to put in check. But I think the bigger factor is that I can see all the decisions along the way. I can see the arguments over style, the chapters that have been worked and reworked, the editing and the rewrites. I can see only the struggle and the emotions from every step in the process and the scars and warts in the end copy. No one else knows those fights. The audience won't see it. They won't know. But I do. And that's hard to deal with.
Senate/House/Local Races
I'm convinced that the House is going to flip to the Democrats. I'll be shocked if it doesn't. That's a blue wave, mostly thanks to the suburbs. I'm also convinced the Senate won't flip. I think Arizona and North Dakota's flipped seats will cancel each other out. I also think 1-2 of these states will flip to the GOP: Florida, Missouri (my bet) or Indiana. Nevada miiiiight switch to the Democrats, but I don't think so right now. My gut is the GOP gains a seat or two, which isn't a terrible outcome for either side, considering. (LATE UPDATE: I think Nevada will flip, but I think Missouri will flip too. My ultimate call for Senate is 51-49, just as it is now.)
As for local races, Missouri's so gerrymandered that it's not interesting outside of the Senate race. Josh Hawley, I think, will win by 1-2 percent over incumbent Claire McCaskill. I wouldn't be surprised if the medical marijuana bill passes, the minimum wage passes and the political finance reform passes.
The more interesting races are in Kansas. We will see if being a Republican in Kansas is enough to carry them to a victory. I think Sharice Davids beats incumbent Kevin Yoder in Kansas House District 3. Ads against her have only made her look awesome (definitely winning a UFC-type fight), and that already was a district that voted against Trump in the last election. I also think Paul Davis is the favorite for Kansas House District 2. He beat Brownback in that district when he ran for governor. Watkins has not been a particularly inspiring candidate. I have met Paul Davis in my old office and found him to be smart and thoughtful, though I warned him that losing to Brownback would be a bigger loss than he understood. Losing to Watkins would be less damaging to the state, but it would show that a smart, moderate Democrat can't win in Kansas even in a pro-Democrat environment.
I hope that Laura Kelly can win the governorship over Kris Kobach. She is endorsed by all former governors but Brownback, including all the other GOP governors. If she can't win, then no Democrat will ever win in Kansas again, and the GOP can get away with murder in that state.
Summary Judgments
Elizabeth Warren revealed the results of a DNA test "showing" she is, actually part Native American. I understand why she did it, although I think it was a mistake to do so. She played Donald Trump's game. Anyone who is going to beat him in 2020 will not play his game. She was my odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but this was a case of winning the battle but losing the war. I now think she's not the favorite. Biden and Kamala Harris are probably the leading contenders at this juncture. • • • I have done something silly. I signed up for a half marathon. The Liberty Half Marathon, on March 2, 2019, has a route that goes from William Jewell through downtown Liberty, around Liberty Hospital, up near the kids' future elementary school, down through the local park, up the street next to ours and then back to downtown and Jewell. I'm already training, and I'm up to a 7-mile run. This is the longest I've ever run, and the half marathon will be the longest I've ever run. • • • Roland was Owlette and Evie was Pinkie Pie for Halloween. Roland has already told Alyson about his plans for next year's Halloween costume. normally, I wouldn't expect that to hold up, but he decided on Owlette in like, April. So if he's the Greatest Showman next year, he called it already.
Recently, Jewell hosted a good author, Tom Nichols, who wrote "The Death of Expertise." It was a fantastic lecture, and I encourage everyone to read his book. But one thing he said stuck out to me: Everyone needs an editor. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Unless I had an editor reining in my worst tendencies, this blog will cease to have reason, purpose and cohesion. So although it is, in itself, a tightrope, I'm trying to step back a bit and be my own editor, perilous as that may be. If I'm going to write something, it better be worth reading.
Thoughts on Justice Kavanaugh
I've written this portion probably a half-dozen times in the last two months. Yet while the event has passed, it is worth re-examining in the light of it now being a news cycle firmly rooted in the past.
Imagine a world in which Dr. Ford had been belligerent with questioners, agitated at the process, openly arguing partisan politics and refusing an FBI investigation. I have no doubt she would have been seen as overly emotional and her story would have been dismissed. Imagine Judge Kavanaugh had been the one who was calm, deliberate and open to an FBI investigation. I have no doubt he would have been seen as having the temperament for the highest court. And yet... he was approved anyway. His temperament and testimony and her temperament and testimony had little impact on the outcome.
For a while, I chalked this up to gender politics. The hearing was the first time I truly understood how deep the climb is for women in politics. An educated woman gave a powerful testimony about an event that happened to her. She said she was 100 percent confident. It was fine, even though it was decidedly the opposite of that. She sat in front of a committee that has never (!) had a female Republican among its ranks. Its Republican members were so worried about the optics of 11 male senators asking questions of a female victim that they brought in a special female prosecutor to ask her questions. This showed that the GOP committee members understood Dr. Ford's claims were serious, but did not trust themselves enough to show it. A hearing turned into a trial with the appearance of a prosecutor. Then, when Judge Kavanaugh arrived, they trusted themselves again. Along with Kavanaugh himself, they blasted partisan acts and pounded the metaphoric table. They turned a trial back into a hearing.
The most common refrain from the right is not over whether Ford was assaulted — that seems to be largely conceded. The argument was that yes, we believe she was assaulted, but we don't believe it was Kavanaugh. Which is a tremendous misinterpretation of her testimony. It says Dr. Ford was believable enough that she was assaulted, yet her statement that she was 100 percent sure that it was Kavanaugh was the bridge too far. And because we don't know for sure, we can do only one thing: grant Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. Her pain is secondary to his rise to greater power.
We've already lost the woman whose claims are at the basis of the hearing. Dr. Ford is now a footnote to history, only to surface again when the next confirmation sexual assault case happens, much like Anita Hill before her.
It didn't have to be this way. Judge Kavanaugh did not have to be nominated. Amy Coney Barrett is a conservative female judge in the mold of Neil Gorsuch (and female). Heck, Gorsuch was opposed on partisan grounds, yes, but not because of his sexual assault past. Raymond Kethledge is as conservative as Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. We could have had an in-depth FBI investigation if the facts were truly important. And yet we didn't.
A long time ago, I read Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine." It was a look at the nine members of the Supreme Court as of that writing. Nearly half the court has turned over, but one thought from the book has stuck out to me ever since: If the GOP couldn't change the results of the Supreme Court, they could change the courts. That's what we're seeing with judicial appointments on the federal, state and local level. The GOP was in win-at-all-costs mode to make this happen. Be careful what you buy at the cost of your souls.
Emotions on Writing
For the last year and a half, I've been working on our church's 175th anniversary book. I say "I," but it's really been a team of about a half-dozen people. The book comes out in 10 days; it's done and at the printer, as far as I know. And... I thought I'd be happier. That's a weird thing to write or admit to myself, but it's true.
In the last year, I've written more than 90 pages of church history, combining two different eras of books (the 125th book and the 150th book, both written by college professors) into a thematic narrative rather than a chronological one. I've researched and delved into rabbit holes and dug deep into corners of church history that have fascinated and excited me. I've been exceedingly proud of the work I cheerily and willingly put into this project for free. Luckily, I am not the only person working on this project, because I am a newbie to our church. I've only been at this church for about 2-3 years. The team's input has been amazing and added depth and recent history that I could not possibly know or find. I know that what they had put in has made the book better.
Yet when I consider the most recent copy I had in my hands, I was frustrated. And I've had a hard time figuring out why. Maybe I'm mourning the loss of control of the copy. "My" writing became less recognizable by the end of the editing process. That ego-driven part is one that I am constantly having to put in check. But I think the bigger factor is that I can see all the decisions along the way. I can see the arguments over style, the chapters that have been worked and reworked, the editing and the rewrites. I can see only the struggle and the emotions from every step in the process and the scars and warts in the end copy. No one else knows those fights. The audience won't see it. They won't know. But I do. And that's hard to deal with.
Senate/House/Local Races
I'm convinced that the House is going to flip to the Democrats. I'll be shocked if it doesn't. That's a blue wave, mostly thanks to the suburbs. I'm also convinced the Senate won't flip. I think Arizona and North Dakota's flipped seats will cancel each other out. I also think 1-2 of these states will flip to the GOP: Florida, Missouri (my bet) or Indiana. Nevada miiiiight switch to the Democrats, but I don't think so right now. My gut is the GOP gains a seat or two, which isn't a terrible outcome for either side, considering. (LATE UPDATE: I think Nevada will flip, but I think Missouri will flip too. My ultimate call for Senate is 51-49, just as it is now.)
As for local races, Missouri's so gerrymandered that it's not interesting outside of the Senate race. Josh Hawley, I think, will win by 1-2 percent over incumbent Claire McCaskill. I wouldn't be surprised if the medical marijuana bill passes, the minimum wage passes and the political finance reform passes.
The more interesting races are in Kansas. We will see if being a Republican in Kansas is enough to carry them to a victory. I think Sharice Davids beats incumbent Kevin Yoder in Kansas House District 3. Ads against her have only made her look awesome (definitely winning a UFC-type fight), and that already was a district that voted against Trump in the last election. I also think Paul Davis is the favorite for Kansas House District 2. He beat Brownback in that district when he ran for governor. Watkins has not been a particularly inspiring candidate. I have met Paul Davis in my old office and found him to be smart and thoughtful, though I warned him that losing to Brownback would be a bigger loss than he understood. Losing to Watkins would be less damaging to the state, but it would show that a smart, moderate Democrat can't win in Kansas even in a pro-Democrat environment.
I hope that Laura Kelly can win the governorship over Kris Kobach. She is endorsed by all former governors but Brownback, including all the other GOP governors. If she can't win, then no Democrat will ever win in Kansas again, and the GOP can get away with murder in that state.
Summary Judgments
Elizabeth Warren revealed the results of a DNA test "showing" she is, actually part Native American. I understand why she did it, although I think it was a mistake to do so. She played Donald Trump's game. Anyone who is going to beat him in 2020 will not play his game. She was my odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but this was a case of winning the battle but losing the war. I now think she's not the favorite. Biden and Kamala Harris are probably the leading contenders at this juncture. • • • I have done something silly. I signed up for a half marathon. The Liberty Half Marathon, on March 2, 2019, has a route that goes from William Jewell through downtown Liberty, around Liberty Hospital, up near the kids' future elementary school, down through the local park, up the street next to ours and then back to downtown and Jewell. I'm already training, and I'm up to a 7-mile run. This is the longest I've ever run, and the half marathon will be the longest I've ever run. • • • Roland was Owlette and Evie was Pinkie Pie for Halloween. Roland has already told Alyson about his plans for next year's Halloween costume. normally, I wouldn't expect that to hold up, but he decided on Owlette in like, April. So if he's the Greatest Showman next year, he called it already.
Friday, August 31, 2018
Monday, July 30, 2018
Rudy Giuliani is Full of Crap
Remember when Kellyanne Conway became so ridiculously full of obvious lies (See: alternative facts) that news media stopped putting her on the air? It's about time they did the same with once-respectable Rudy Giuliani. He's deliberately obtuse about the Mueller investigation.
To be fair, that's his job. His client is in hot water, and Giuliani is trying to play to the jury. In this case, the jury is the American public, who are able to affect their respective elected representatives and senators one way or another. Giuliani doesn't have to win in an actual courtroom — he has to win in Congress.
But looking at what he's saying with any critical eye at all is... weird at the least and likely troubling. For instance, he's gone after Michael Cohen in recent days. "I don't see how you can believe Michael Cohen" and calling Cohen a "pathological liar." This came after it was revealed that Cohen had (at least... don't forget that's a minimum number right now) 12 tapes of he and President Trump. Then one of those tapes was leaked to CNN.
What I wish a smart journalist would do is ask Giuliani when Cohen became a pathological liar. Because as of May, Giuliani was calling Cohen an "honest, honorable lawyer." As of Saturday, Giuliani told the same source that he didn't know Cohen that well when he made that first statement. Guess what that makes you, Mr. Giuliani? A liar. Anyway, the obvious answer to anyone paying attention is that Giuliani changed his mind when Cohen had evidence and/or turned on President Trump.
Then we had the most recent forehead-slapping defense by Giuliani: "Four months, they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians. You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime... the President didn't hack." Let's take that quote apart, Fire Joe Morgan style:
Four months...
He's talking about how long Paul Manafort was campaign manager for President Trump, implying that it wasn't enough time to collude with Russia. There's no way that Manafort had time to hear about and attend a meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton in the office/building that Trump owned and lived in. Four months is so short! It's not like he was campaign manager during the Republican National Convention, Trump saying that Russia should hack Hillary Clinton's emails and the start of Russian hacking attempts on the DNC.
...they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians.
First of all, that's a pretty definitive first statement about a hypothetical Trump campaign. I wish we had a real-world Trump campaign that we could compare it to...
Second, you don't know if it's a crime? You're a former prosecutor of the mafia in New York. At the very least, you're the main public lawyer for the President of the United States, who is under investigation for.... collusion. Either you're being obtuse or you're a bad lawyer.
Third, collusion itself is not explicitly a crime. No one has claimed it is. The word you're looking for is "conspiracy." That IS a crime. Further, the issue isn't really whether he's guilty of the theoretical crime of collusion. If it's proved that the President's campaign knowingly worked with Russians to hack political opponents and release their information at damaging times to his political opponents, then that's a) conspiracy and b) cause for immediate impeachment for subverting our democracy with the aid of a foreign rival. Impeachment is not criminal action, it's "you've embarrassed our country so much you don't get to keep your job."
You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime... the President didn't hack.
No s*** he didn't hack. I would pay $100 to see the President try to attempt two lines of code. I would pay $50 to see President Trump attempt to connect to a password-protected wifi. Hell, I would pay $250 to watch him try to create an Excel spreadsheet.
But apply Giuliani's argument to Watergate: You start analyzing the crime — the breaking into a rival political party's office is the crime... the President didn't break into the opposing party's office. I guess we got Watergate all wrong! Case solved, Det. Giuliani!
Elections Update
I'm going to do quick updates on my view of the Senate, the House, and the current Electoral College outlook.
Electoral College
Wisconsin and Michigan hate Trump now, by double digits in recent polling. If you consider them blue (I believe midterm elections will back me up), then there are four states that will be true battlegrounds: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. If [insert Democratic nominee] can flip any one of those four, in addition to Wisconsin and Michigan, then they will win the Presidency. That's not crazy to think of in Pennsylvania, Florida or North Carolina. One last kink in the works: Arizona went less for Trump than it did for Romney. It was only a 4 percent difference, and Trump did not break the 50 percent mark and had not announced policies targeting Hispanics. Arizona is a likely Senate seat to flip, and not by a slim margin. If Arizona flips and none of the aforementioned battleground states flip, then we have... a tie! 269-269 electoral votes (provided MI and WI flip, and if no other votes like those in Maine or Nebraska change)! That would send the election to the House of Representatives. Wow. Still way too early, but the MI/WI changes are significant.
Senate
I still have this as either staying as it is (51-49, Republicans) or maybe the Democrats picking up just one seat to make it 50-50, with VP Pence as the tiebreaker. I've got McCaskill holding on in Missouri, AZ/NV/TN flipping to Democrats (normally a good sign in a nearly impossible map, which I've talked about a lot) and Dems keeping their seats in WV, OH and the rest of the Rust Belt. However, I also see Florida, Indiana and North Dakota as real problems for Democrat incumbents. Best-case scenario for the GOP: 54-46 lead in the Senate. Best-case scenario for the Democrats: 52-48 lead in Senate. My guess: 51-49 GOP retains. In short, I agree with this guy. Also, quick note on the 2020 map: Unless Democrats become real popular or the GOP tanks, it looks like really only two clear opportunities for Dems to flip seats: CO and NC. It's a better map than this year, but not an easy map.
House
Sabato's Crystal Ball, one of the best in the analysis world, has the Democrats as slight favorites to flip the House. Cook's Political Report has the Democrats as "substantial favorites" to win the House. I think Sabato is closer to reality. To keep this short, I'll just say that I think a blue wave is likely, but 20+ seats should still be considered a blue wave. The GOP currently holds a 43 seat lead in the House, so even the Democrats flipping 20 seats would not be enough to win the House, barely. But what if they pick up 23? Or 24? Then the Democrats would be able to flip the House and win control of one house of Congress. Either way, I think this will come down to a few votes either way. Paul Ryan won't be there to keep the Freedom Caucus from running amok if the GOP wins -- governing would be harder than it is now.
Summary Judgments
This is terrifying to think about, but there are some solid points. The long and short of it is: Russia tried hacking our election systems. They breached seven states. Changing votes was something they could easily do. And yet some of those states insist nothing happened. Georgia, in particular, could be hacked by a 16-year-old. Hmmm.... I don't know if it's true, but I don't know that it's not, either. • • • This whole thing infuriates me. The CNN reporter was asking normal questions that any reporter would. Then they were banned, but I guess not using the word "ban" makes it not a ban? The attacks on the press are demoralizing. • • • Speaking of, wasn't there a giant conflict of interest with a Fox News host dating Donald Trump Jr.? I think that should have been brought up every time she was on TV. Her name is Kimberly Guilfoyle, and she was one of the more prominent female hosts on the channel. She left recently to take a job with a Trump PAC. (There's also some reports of abuse, but I'm ignoring those for now.) I would call that bias that should have been excised long ago. • • • I've been running 2.5 miles twice a week and then doing a bigger, 3-4 mile run on the weekend. I'm signing up for a 10K in September. It's going OK right now. I don't feel at ease about my long runs right now, but I am finishing them, so...? • • • Roland was having a rare bad day at day care the other day. The type that leads to the whole facility hearing him scream his head off and he had to be sent up front. One of the day care leaders talked to him and said, "This isn't you. The Roland I don't know doesn't act like this. Are you ready to calm down and go back in?" Almost immediately, he said, "Ok" and stopped crying and went back as if nothing happened. He can flick that switch instantly.
To be fair, that's his job. His client is in hot water, and Giuliani is trying to play to the jury. In this case, the jury is the American public, who are able to affect their respective elected representatives and senators one way or another. Giuliani doesn't have to win in an actual courtroom — he has to win in Congress.
But looking at what he's saying with any critical eye at all is... weird at the least and likely troubling. For instance, he's gone after Michael Cohen in recent days. "I don't see how you can believe Michael Cohen" and calling Cohen a "pathological liar." This came after it was revealed that Cohen had (at least... don't forget that's a minimum number right now) 12 tapes of he and President Trump. Then one of those tapes was leaked to CNN.
What I wish a smart journalist would do is ask Giuliani when Cohen became a pathological liar. Because as of May, Giuliani was calling Cohen an "honest, honorable lawyer." As of Saturday, Giuliani told the same source that he didn't know Cohen that well when he made that first statement. Guess what that makes you, Mr. Giuliani? A liar. Anyway, the obvious answer to anyone paying attention is that Giuliani changed his mind when Cohen had evidence and/or turned on President Trump.
Then we had the most recent forehead-slapping defense by Giuliani: "Four months, they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians. You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime... the President didn't hack." Let's take that quote apart, Fire Joe Morgan style:
Four months...
He's talking about how long Paul Manafort was campaign manager for President Trump, implying that it wasn't enough time to collude with Russia. There's no way that Manafort had time to hear about and attend a meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton in the office/building that Trump owned and lived in. Four months is so short! It's not like he was campaign manager during the Republican National Convention, Trump saying that Russia should hack Hillary Clinton's emails and the start of Russian hacking attempts on the DNC.
...they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians.
First of all, that's a pretty definitive first statement about a hypothetical Trump campaign. I wish we had a real-world Trump campaign that we could compare it to...
Second, you don't know if it's a crime? You're a former prosecutor of the mafia in New York. At the very least, you're the main public lawyer for the President of the United States, who is under investigation for.... collusion. Either you're being obtuse or you're a bad lawyer.
Third, collusion itself is not explicitly a crime. No one has claimed it is. The word you're looking for is "conspiracy." That IS a crime. Further, the issue isn't really whether he's guilty of the theoretical crime of collusion. If it's proved that the President's campaign knowingly worked with Russians to hack political opponents and release their information at damaging times to his political opponents, then that's a) conspiracy and b) cause for immediate impeachment for subverting our democracy with the aid of a foreign rival. Impeachment is not criminal action, it's "you've embarrassed our country so much you don't get to keep your job."
You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime... the President didn't hack.
No s*** he didn't hack. I would pay $100 to see the President try to attempt two lines of code. I would pay $50 to see President Trump attempt to connect to a password-protected wifi. Hell, I would pay $250 to watch him try to create an Excel spreadsheet.
But apply Giuliani's argument to Watergate: You start analyzing the crime — the breaking into a rival political party's office is the crime... the President didn't break into the opposing party's office. I guess we got Watergate all wrong! Case solved, Det. Giuliani!
Elections Update
I'm going to do quick updates on my view of the Senate, the House, and the current Electoral College outlook.
Electoral College
Wisconsin and Michigan hate Trump now, by double digits in recent polling. If you consider them blue (I believe midterm elections will back me up), then there are four states that will be true battlegrounds: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. If [insert Democratic nominee] can flip any one of those four, in addition to Wisconsin and Michigan, then they will win the Presidency. That's not crazy to think of in Pennsylvania, Florida or North Carolina. One last kink in the works: Arizona went less for Trump than it did for Romney. It was only a 4 percent difference, and Trump did not break the 50 percent mark and had not announced policies targeting Hispanics. Arizona is a likely Senate seat to flip, and not by a slim margin. If Arizona flips and none of the aforementioned battleground states flip, then we have... a tie! 269-269 electoral votes (provided MI and WI flip, and if no other votes like those in Maine or Nebraska change)! That would send the election to the House of Representatives. Wow. Still way too early, but the MI/WI changes are significant.
Senate
I still have this as either staying as it is (51-49, Republicans) or maybe the Democrats picking up just one seat to make it 50-50, with VP Pence as the tiebreaker. I've got McCaskill holding on in Missouri, AZ/NV/TN flipping to Democrats (normally a good sign in a nearly impossible map, which I've talked about a lot) and Dems keeping their seats in WV, OH and the rest of the Rust Belt. However, I also see Florida, Indiana and North Dakota as real problems for Democrat incumbents. Best-case scenario for the GOP: 54-46 lead in the Senate. Best-case scenario for the Democrats: 52-48 lead in Senate. My guess: 51-49 GOP retains. In short, I agree with this guy. Also, quick note on the 2020 map: Unless Democrats become real popular or the GOP tanks, it looks like really only two clear opportunities for Dems to flip seats: CO and NC. It's a better map than this year, but not an easy map.
House
Sabato's Crystal Ball, one of the best in the analysis world, has the Democrats as slight favorites to flip the House. Cook's Political Report has the Democrats as "substantial favorites" to win the House. I think Sabato is closer to reality. To keep this short, I'll just say that I think a blue wave is likely, but 20+ seats should still be considered a blue wave. The GOP currently holds a 43 seat lead in the House, so even the Democrats flipping 20 seats would not be enough to win the House, barely. But what if they pick up 23? Or 24? Then the Democrats would be able to flip the House and win control of one house of Congress. Either way, I think this will come down to a few votes either way. Paul Ryan won't be there to keep the Freedom Caucus from running amok if the GOP wins -- governing would be harder than it is now.
Summary Judgments
This is terrifying to think about, but there are some solid points. The long and short of it is: Russia tried hacking our election systems. They breached seven states. Changing votes was something they could easily do. And yet some of those states insist nothing happened. Georgia, in particular, could be hacked by a 16-year-old. Hmmm.... I don't know if it's true, but I don't know that it's not, either. • • • This whole thing infuriates me. The CNN reporter was asking normal questions that any reporter would. Then they were banned, but I guess not using the word "ban" makes it not a ban? The attacks on the press are demoralizing. • • • Speaking of, wasn't there a giant conflict of interest with a Fox News host dating Donald Trump Jr.? I think that should have been brought up every time she was on TV. Her name is Kimberly Guilfoyle, and she was one of the more prominent female hosts on the channel. She left recently to take a job with a Trump PAC. (There's also some reports of abuse, but I'm ignoring those for now.) I would call that bias that should have been excised long ago. • • • I've been running 2.5 miles twice a week and then doing a bigger, 3-4 mile run on the weekend. I'm signing up for a 10K in September. It's going OK right now. I don't feel at ease about my long runs right now, but I am finishing them, so...? • • • Roland was having a rare bad day at day care the other day. The type that leads to the whole facility hearing him scream his head off and he had to be sent up front. One of the day care leaders talked to him and said, "This isn't you. The Roland I don't know doesn't act like this. Are you ready to calm down and go back in?" Almost immediately, he said, "Ok" and stopped crying and went back as if nothing happened. He can flick that switch instantly.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
When I Was Scared to be a Journalist
There was only one time I was ever scared to be a journalist.
I was yards away from a big fire at a fireworks warehouse, and I was never scared. I was in a courtroom with a convicted child rapist, and I was never scared. I was in multiple tornado destruction paths with live wires and buildings in splinters, and I was never scared. I received a deluge of calls from Ron Paul supporters calling me vile, terrible names, and I was never scared.
There was only one time I was ever scared to be a journalist.
When we made errors — and we did — we worked to correct them. When others made errors, we called them out for it. When we saw injustice or corruption, we investigated. When poverty was the elephant in the room, we spent a year covering it in-depth. My stated goal, repeated ad nauseam to those who would listen to me pontificate, was to be a mirror to the community, both the good and the bad.
There was only one time I was ever scared to be a journalist.
It must have been 2012 or 2013 when a man came to the office asking for the editor (me). He demanded to know why we printed his name in the arrest records. He argued with me over where I got my information, and I calmly told him his quarrel was with the Crawford County Sheriff's Department, who supplied us with the list. He was about my height, maybe a couple inches shorter, with a lean grandpa-type build. His eyes were wide open and rarely blinking. He shook with agitation — or perhaps a drug addict's inability to keep still. In the midst of that heated, pitched conversation, I realized I was scared, because this man was dangerous. I was not worried about a gun, but I was worried about a physical attack or a possible knife. Our secretaries were behind the desk nearby, and I made sure to make eye contact with them so they were watching, too, in case something happened. I took a step back from the man and widened my stance so that in case he swung at me, I could not only dodge it, but could swing a right hook in response. I hoped that if I had to, I would hit hard and strong, but I was fearful, since I am no fighter. I was scared to be a journalist because there was a real threat in front of me.
James D. Russian left the office angry. I went back to my office and watched to make sure he got in his truck. Not long after that, he would sue our paper, the Crawford County Sheriff's Department and the judge for — of all things — copyright infringement for using his name in the arrest reports. Although it was a one-sided court case in our favor, it cost our paper nearly a full reporter's salary in legal fees. He was later convicted on federal firearms and drug charges and is now in prison for many years.
That was the only time I was ever scared to be a journalist. Until today.
Five employees of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Md., were killed by a gunman today. Most of those were newsroom employees. I can see myself in their faces. I can see my name in their names. I cried a little bit when I knew no one was looking. I mourn for these journalists, and for journalism in general. This assault came in the atmosphere of a President who has said that the greatest enemy of the American people is the press. This comes in the atmosphere of a far-right firebrand who said two days ago that he "can't wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight." It reminded me of a recent episode of "The Handmaid's Tale" in which the protagonist, on the run from a fascist patriarchal government, takes temporary shelter inside an abandoned Boston Globe only to discover that journalists had been massacred there.
Journalism is not an easy job. There's a joke that journalism is terrible hours and terrible pay, but on the bright side, no one likes you. There is a truth to that joke, but also a stubborn pride in it. Journalism is not a job for fragile people. It's not a job for the easily intimidated. The Capital Gazette will be "putting out a damn paper tomorrow." When the Joplin tornado hit, there were many Joplin Globe employees without a house who still went to work. It's what journalists do. It's their job.
Maybe tomorrow I'll be OK. Maybe I'll look back on this moment in the same way I was later able to talk with the judge and the Sheriff's Department and laugh about James D. Russian's wild antics. Maybe one day I won't feel anxiety over where journalism is going and how it's perceived in the world. Maybe one day I'll even go back to journalism, my first love. Maybe. But today? There is another real threat in front of me, and I was scared for the second time.
I was yards away from a big fire at a fireworks warehouse, and I was never scared. I was in a courtroom with a convicted child rapist, and I was never scared. I was in multiple tornado destruction paths with live wires and buildings in splinters, and I was never scared. I received a deluge of calls from Ron Paul supporters calling me vile, terrible names, and I was never scared.
There was only one time I was ever scared to be a journalist.
When we made errors — and we did — we worked to correct them. When others made errors, we called them out for it. When we saw injustice or corruption, we investigated. When poverty was the elephant in the room, we spent a year covering it in-depth. My stated goal, repeated ad nauseam to those who would listen to me pontificate, was to be a mirror to the community, both the good and the bad.
There was only one time I was ever scared to be a journalist.
It must have been 2012 or 2013 when a man came to the office asking for the editor (me). He demanded to know why we printed his name in the arrest records. He argued with me over where I got my information, and I calmly told him his quarrel was with the Crawford County Sheriff's Department, who supplied us with the list. He was about my height, maybe a couple inches shorter, with a lean grandpa-type build. His eyes were wide open and rarely blinking. He shook with agitation — or perhaps a drug addict's inability to keep still. In the midst of that heated, pitched conversation, I realized I was scared, because this man was dangerous. I was not worried about a gun, but I was worried about a physical attack or a possible knife. Our secretaries were behind the desk nearby, and I made sure to make eye contact with them so they were watching, too, in case something happened. I took a step back from the man and widened my stance so that in case he swung at me, I could not only dodge it, but could swing a right hook in response. I hoped that if I had to, I would hit hard and strong, but I was fearful, since I am no fighter. I was scared to be a journalist because there was a real threat in front of me.
James D. Russian left the office angry. I went back to my office and watched to make sure he got in his truck. Not long after that, he would sue our paper, the Crawford County Sheriff's Department and the judge for — of all things — copyright infringement for using his name in the arrest reports. Although it was a one-sided court case in our favor, it cost our paper nearly a full reporter's salary in legal fees. He was later convicted on federal firearms and drug charges and is now in prison for many years.
That was the only time I was ever scared to be a journalist. Until today.
Five employees of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Md., were killed by a gunman today. Most of those were newsroom employees. I can see myself in their faces. I can see my name in their names. I cried a little bit when I knew no one was looking. I mourn for these journalists, and for journalism in general. This assault came in the atmosphere of a President who has said that the greatest enemy of the American people is the press. This comes in the atmosphere of a far-right firebrand who said two days ago that he "can't wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight." It reminded me of a recent episode of "The Handmaid's Tale" in which the protagonist, on the run from a fascist patriarchal government, takes temporary shelter inside an abandoned Boston Globe only to discover that journalists had been massacred there.
Journalism is not an easy job. There's a joke that journalism is terrible hours and terrible pay, but on the bright side, no one likes you. There is a truth to that joke, but also a stubborn pride in it. Journalism is not a job for fragile people. It's not a job for the easily intimidated. The Capital Gazette will be "putting out a damn paper tomorrow." When the Joplin tornado hit, there were many Joplin Globe employees without a house who still went to work. It's what journalists do. It's their job.
Maybe tomorrow I'll be OK. Maybe I'll look back on this moment in the same way I was later able to talk with the judge and the Sheriff's Department and laugh about James D. Russian's wild antics. Maybe one day I won't feel anxiety over where journalism is going and how it's perceived in the world. Maybe one day I'll even go back to journalism, my first love. Maybe. But today? There is another real threat in front of me, and I was scared for the second time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)