The Game of the Name

You'll see breakdowns of the NCAA Tournament anywhere; I haven't followed college basketball much. But I do follow the Name of the Year bracket and I do have opinions. Is it silly? Yes. Do I care? No. So, without further ado, let's breakdown the Name of the Year  bracket — the only such known analysis in the world.

Bulltron Regional
Tillmann Buttersack should waltz to the second round easily, as 1 seeds should. Meanwhile, the underrated (9 seed? Really?) Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant should move on, too. While Duffy McSwiggin is a great name on St. Patrick's Day, Burm Snart is one of those one-syllable names that stand out. Neither's a word, and both are funny. Brodarious Hamm and Onno Hoes should make quick work of their first-round opponents. While Tchaikovsky Cantalicio has a delicious Russian-Italian mix, I don't think it's enough for the alliterative-sounding last name of Charol Shakeshaft. The surprise in this part of the bracket will be the splendid Furious Carney in an upset. The story behind Sicnarf Loopstok (read the name backwards) should be enough to advance over the best 15-seed, Chizu Shimizu Buckalew. In round 2, I think Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant will pull off the upset, while Brodarious Hamm moves on as well. I see Charol Shakeshaft moving on while Furious Carney is one of those names whose last name builds on the first. I've got them moving on, then beating Shakeshaft to make the Elite 8. Brodarious Hamm has two good names, but Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant has three. In a rare 9-seed v. 10-seed matchup, I have Furious Carney winning the Bullhorn.

Sithole Regional
This is easily the weakest regional. 1-seed Pope McCorkle III should advance, as will 8-seed Oozi Cats. Dr. Kim Nazi will walk past Saint Schwing into the second round. Snookie Catholique will prove no match for the happy-to-be-here Boy Waterman, while Cosmo Bjorkenheim will jet into the next round, too. Scholastique Koolimo should advance with the double-weird name over Zulaika Mook. The simple hilarity of Dick Tips will win out to meet 2-seed Attila Freska, a round one winner. In the Round of 32, Pope McCorkle III will use a Catholic-Irish combination to advance, while Dr. Kim Nazi will use her doctorate edge to move on. Cosmo Bjorkenheim's astral-Swedish combination will boost him (her? I don't know) on to face Dick Tips, who will pull off a minor upset. Pope McCorkle III has both a funny first and last name, giving them the edge over Dr. Kim Nazi (not a funny first name). While Dick Tips puts in a valiant effort, genitalia jokes usually only last so far. Therefore, Cosmo Bjorkenheim will advance. I expect Pope McCorkle III to prove worthy of a 1 seed in a weak regional, using generational power to win.

Dragonwagon Regional
Whereas the Sithole was weak, the Dragonwagon is stacked. Joylord Gumbie should be enough as a one-seed for the first round, and Taco Pope should win out, getting a victory over JoJo Victory. Lt. Charlene Sprinkle-Huff will pull out the 12-5 upset, while Dr. Shark Bird proves no match for Rusty Justice. Howdy Goudey should dominate the first round, as should Oscar-sounding DiCaprio Bootle. The Ransom Barefoot-IV Seacat matchup is a coin toss, but I give the edge to Barefoot. Finally, Inta Mulch will move on as a 2-seed. Taco Pope should upset Gumbie in round 2, while Dr. Shark Bird will be too much for Sprinkle-Huff, who really only has one great name. The rhyme of Goudey will prove too much for DiCaprio Bootle. I've also got Inta Mulch moving on in the bottom of the regional. The Taco Pope-Dr. Shark Bird matchup will prove beautiful to any Name of the Year purists out there should it happen. As much as I like the idea of Mexican-flavored vestments, I give the edge to the mental imagery of Dr. Shark Bird. I've also got Howdy Goudey coming out of the bottom of the bracket, despite the 1-2 punch of Inta Mulch. The rhyming Howdy Goudey will be no match for the deadly wings of Dr. Shark Bird.

Crotchtangle Regional
A mix of great names and weak names in the Crotchtangle, but the top seeds should dominate. Shuntavyious Primes-Willes is a great 1-seed, and will advance to face Tre McKitty, who will win his first-round matchup. Divine Deablo will dominate the first round, while Jorja Pound Turnipseed should pull off a first-round upset over Jasmine Squirrel (only one good name, and the two names aren't really good together). Muna Tuna-Langstaff Dickerson is a great first-round pairing, but I give the edge to Dickerson. Sweet Orefice is underrated as a 3 seed, and should easily beat Peola Smith-Smith. I've also got Mighty Fine and Bevis Mugabi winning to round out the first round. Shuntavyious Primes-Willes looks to have enough to make the Sweet 16 against a weak Tre McKitty, while Divine Deablo should make easy work, too. Sweet Orefice has great name synergy, compared to Langstaff Dickerson. Bevis Mugabi has enough '90s-themed names to advance past Mighty Fine. I've got the oxymoronic Divine Deablo (5-seed) and Sweet Orefice (3-seed) pulling off upsets in the Sweet Sixteen over the regional's top seeds. But while genitalia jokes are usually short-lived, Sweet Orefice will prove the exception.

Final Four
There are no losers here. Furious Carney has perfect, hilarious name synergy. But that's all it's got going for him. Pope McCorkle III is my last one-seed standing, and he earns a trip to the finals with not only individually funny names, but the fact that two other people named their son Pope McCorkle. Remember what I said about genitalia jokes? This is where that comes into play. Sweet Orefice is no match for Dr. Shark Bird. A finals of Dr. Shark Bird v. Pope McCorkle III is the match we've been waiting for all year. On one hand, beautiful mental imagery of a shark with wings wearing a stethoscope. On the other, an Irishman wearing an askew pope hat, with his dad and grandpa standing behind him. In the end, I've got to go with Dr. Shark Bird, because I think a doctor-educated Shark Bird would beat a third-generational Irish pope in a fight.

SCOTUS' Honor

The battle to nominate and approve a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia continues to rage. Well, that's not exactly true. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for Supreme Court Justice on Wednesday. Now comes the question of Senate approval, which appears dead in the water at this point.

Garland is as an olive branch offering for a President who didn't have to make one. And the GOP is burning the branch. There are two reasons Garland is an olive branch: 1) He's old for a Supreme Court nominee at age 63. He's the eighth-oldest nominee ever, which would limit his time on the bench if approved. 2) He's a non-minority moderate, limiting embarrassment for the GOP.

The GOP has put themselves in an unlikely-to-win scenario:
1) Democrat wins Presidency, Democrats take over Senate. Clinton or Sanders likely to nominate someone even more liberal, knowing they can get the person approved. Court tips 5-4 to moderate/liberals.
2) Democrat wins Presidency, GOP hangs onto Senate. Clinton or Sanders likely to nominate someone more liberal but also qualified (Srinivasan? Watford?). GOP can't prevent a moderate nominee for four years. Court tips 5-4 to moderate/liberals.
3) Trump or Cruz wins the Presidency, Democrats take over Senate. This is an incredibly unlikely scenario. I will rule this one out.
4) GOP wins the Presidency, keeps control of Senate. Conservative judge nominated. This is the only scenario in which things work out for the GOP. But it also means putting faith in Donald Trump. God help us all.

Summary Judgments

Ever wondered what would happen if you were pulled over for speeding on the way to a bathroom? If you guessed "Peeing and pooping in a police car," you guessed right.   •   •   •   Remember all that freaking out we did about the stock market at the beginning of the year? Well, the stock market bounced back, pretty under the radar.   •   •   •   Recently, we had a case where the defendant married the main witness to prevent her from testifying against him. That's small potatoes for what's going on in Brazil.   •   •   •   I'm really excited to find out what's in King Tut's Chamber of Secrets.    •   •   •  The kids had surgery to get tubes in their ears on Wednesday. Roland freaked out before the surgery, and Evie was calm. After the surgery, he was cool as a cucumber while she screamed and writhed around. They're total opposites.

Sanders Surprise

Some weeks you have things planned out, and then something totally unexpected sneaks up on you. That's what happened to me with Michigan.

Hillary was leading in polls by roughly 20 percent on average. And she lost. Surprises like this — and this is a historic surprise — do happen, and it causes the political science world to get excited. "Maybe we don't have this thing figured out, huh?" they (we?) say to themselves. It's a smaller-scale equivalent of a major astrological discovery, like proof of gravitational waves. Surprises are fun and interesting, and cause discussion. It's why people study these things. I don't want to downplay the size of this upset.

BUT. Aw, there had to be a but, right? This doesn't mean that political science should be completely discounted, and it's not as big of a win for Sanders as you think.

On the first point, sometimes the unlikely happens. That's partly math — outliers and unlikely events do have some probabilistic chance of occurring — and partly logic. So just because this series of polls were way off doesn't mean all polls should be ignored. They're a predictive tool, but they're not perfect.

And on the second issue: Sanders won Michigan, but by a little bit (2%). Meanwhile, Clinton won Mississippi by a huge margin (83-17%). Delegates are awarded proportionally. So although Sanders won Michigan, Clinton not only won more delegates, she increased the size of her lead in the delegate count.

The speculation will run rampant for only one week. There are a huge number of delegates on Tuesday: Illinois, Ohio, Florida, Missouri and North Carolina. In my opinion, that will be the day that decides the Democratic nomination.

As for the GOP... either stop Trump on Tuesday in Ohio/Florida or prepare for Trump to be your candidate. He is unlikely to beat either Democrat, but a President Trump is more likely than it was.

Commercial Madness

A commercial on the radio here cracks me up. It uses the tagline "Think you're fat? You may just be bloated!" It goes on to say that a pill you take will cause your belly to unbloat, I guess.

There's a lot to unpack here. Let's start with the thought process they want people to have:

Commercial: "Think you're fat?"
Audience: *looks down, sighs sadly but knowingly.* Yes, probably.
Commercial: "You may just be bloated!"
Audience: Oh, thank God! I'm not really fat!
Commercial: "Take this pill, and you can cause your bloating to go away!"
Audience: You mean I can lose weight with the minimum of effort? I'll do it!

Or how about applying their message to any number of other issues:
• Think you're ugly? You may just have bad skin! Try this ointment!
• Think you're diabetic? You may just have a bad pancreas! Try chia granola to improve pancreas health!
• Think you're bald? You may just have weak follicles! Take this pill to improve follicular fortitude!
• Think you're white? You may just have a melanin deficiency!

Color Clashes

Sports teams are always trying to reinvent the wheel as far as jerseys are concerned, but I've seen a rising trend that needs to stop: Dark jerseys v. dark jerseys. The NFL experimented with both teams using a head-to-toe color approach with the "Color Rush" series this year. Here's a picture of the Buffalo Bills and the New York Jets:

Another incident recently was my beloved Oklahoma City Thunder playing in dark orange against the really dark green Milwaukee Bucks.

I'm colorblind. Mostly red-green. I honestly cannot tell the Jets and Bills apart without staring at it for 10 seconds. The Thunder game was another where my colorblindness caused too much pause. I kept thinking about what would happen if I played for either team, and I'd probably have to sit out of the game, because I couldn't tell the jerseys apart (Also, I am short and fat, but follow me on the fantasy.).

Jersey designers, I'm not the only colorblind person. Please choose one team to be "light" and one to be "dark." One team can be white and the other a dark color. Or choose one to be a powder blue or yellow or a pastel color, and the other to be a bold color. If you can't make this work, you're a bad jersey designer.

Summary Judgments

So West Virginia passes a law allowing unpasteurized milk. Lawmakers celebrate by drinking raw milk. Do you think any of them got sick? Of course they did.   •   •   •   I've seen several news reports, like this one, that suggest President Obama is giving the cold shoulder to Nancy Reagan's funeral. It leaves out historical context: Sitting presidents have only attended the funerals of two former First Ladies: Jackie Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt. Both were symbols of something greater. Now, sitting First Ladies (as Michelle Obama is doing) do attend the funerals of former First Ladies, but not sitting Presidents. Nancy Reagan was important, but I wouldn't put her on Jackie O or Eleanor Roosevelt level.  •   •   •    At one point today, the top eight stories on cnn.com were related to Trump. The top eight! And people wonder why he has so much power...

Apologies and Possibilities

I warned last week that I likely wouldn't be able to post on time, and that ended up being correct. We moved to Liberty, and so the process of moving has kept me unable to write until now. This will be your catch-up post, and then I'll have a regular post on Thursday.

State of the Races

On the Democrat side, it's all over but the details. Sanders wins either 1) states with a small delegate count or 2) barely wins. And margin is important, as the Democratic party decides pledged delegates proportionally. Saturday was the race in miniature: Sanders won Kansas and Nebraska. But Clinton won more delegates because she won the biggest prize, Louisiana, by a huge margin. Clinton leads the next six states by HUGE margins — and five of the six are states with more than 100 delegates (Michigan, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Illinois). In fact, only one poll taken since February has shown Sanders to be within 10 points of Clinton (!). Sanders is close or winning a few states yet to come, like Wisconsin and Utah, but they're small potatoes.

On the GOP side, there's something that's been missed by nearly every outlet about Trump's "Rise to Power." No Republican candidate has won 50 percent in any state. Again, because it's significant: No Republican has won 50 percent yet anywhere. That includes Trump. The fact is that Trump is winning a plurality, but not a majority. He's winning because his opposition is splitting its vote.

And at this point, it's important to each of his three opponents that they all stay in. No one other than Kasich can beat Trump in Ohio — and he just might. No one other than Cruz can beat Trump in the Midwest and states with a high evangelical population. Rubio won Minnesota and Puerto Rico. Only by Cruz/Kasich/Rubio staying in and winning enough delegates each can they prevent Trump from winning the nomination. If so, each of the three will have a chance come the lottery ticket that is a contested convention.

But there is a word of warning, particularly that Cruz should have learned. I heard from many conservative friends that Cruz won the Battle for Iowa but lost the War for the Nomination. His tactics against Carson and Rubio turned many against him. Likewise, if Rubio/Cruz/Kasich prompt a contested convention, that's good for each of them individually. But it may cause a split in the Republican party if the guy who won the most votes (Trump, theoretically), is not the guy who wins the nomination. I could easily see Trump going independent if the GOP doesn't pick him at the convention.

Quick Hits on Moving

• Having two kids around does not help with getting rid of clutter. My parents watched the kids until Saturday, and that was when our progress in unpacking ended abruptly.
• We've given the kids their own room. So far, so good, but I will admit to using one room as "kid jail," on Sunday morning. I blocked them in with a gate, and let them play while I went around the house doing stuff. This was less successful than I'd hoped, but the idea has potential.
• Our house is still full of boxes and disarray. We hired movers to move all the things to our house, which was a great idea. But we're still not able to find nearly anything. Where are the needle-nose pliers/soap/kids? I know we have at least two... I just had them a minute ago... I saw them and said, "Oh, that's where they are.. I'll need to remember that for later."

Summary Judgments

For some of the day on Monday, nbcnews.com was linking to their 2014 election results page. I was very confused why I the midterm elections from two years ago were suddenly top news.   •   •   •   Michael Bloomberg is not running for President. He spoke at my OU graduation, and I thought he was phenomenal. However, I think he would have split votes with Hillary, which is something he didn't want to do. Also, this race already has one too many billionaires.   •   •   •   I'm a longtime fan of the Chiefs. Therefore, I couldn't be more excited that Peyton Manning is retiring. I'm so sick of him being so good.   •   •   •   Lately, thinking ahead has scared me. The next Leap Day will be when the kids are either in school or ready for school. HOLY CRAP. It's only nine years until your mortgage payment goes down. UGH WHY? I will be 60 when we pay off the mortgage. I'LL BASICALLY BE DEAD. I'd rather think about things that are less scary, like what's for dinner on Friday. Pulled pork sounds great and I won't be aging. Food is my worry blocker.

Taking the High Road

Two Emory University researchers found that: "A growing number of Americans have been voting against the opposing party rather than for their own party." Hate is easy; understanding is hard. That's why I'm going to say a few good things about the remaining seven candidates for President, starting with the most likely to win. (NOTE: This is based on poll numbers, Electoral College delegate counts and such... NOT my personal beliefs)

Thinking Positive

Hillary Clinton: Clinton is one of the most experienced candidates in the race. She's fought battles with opponents both inside and outside her party and does not get rattled by tough questions/debates. She has, easily, the most foreign policy knowledge of any candidate on either side.

Donald Trump: Trump has run an incredibly smart campaign in regard to communication. He knows no fear, will take on any subject or person, and speaks with a confidence that is unprecedented. His "outsider" credentials are backed up by his ability to finance his own campaign.

Marco Rubio: Rubio is a strong speaker who has been tabbed by his party before as their spokesman. He can appeal to both the moderate and conservative wings of his party in a way that others cannot. Has proven willing to work with political opponents without sacrificing his principles.

Bernie Sanders: Bernie is appealing and energizing. His views on Wall Street are attractive for a generation that saw relatively few changes from the Great Recession. He is not just a one-issue candidate, but has nuanced views on issues and has offered ways to pay for them.

Ted Cruz: Cruz is an intelligent debater that can connect to his audience. He is willing to make a tough decision or take an unpopular stance even if it's not the easy thing to do. He is a man who knows his own principles, and he has the strength to defend and hold to those principles.

John Kasich: Kasich has a good record of economic success not only in Ohio, but in past positions in the government. He has not fallen into the trap of negative politics and has remained positive. He is the type of candidate that would have been a front-runner even 10 years ago.

Dr. Ben Carson: Dr. Carson inspires a lot of hope in people who believe in his personal story. He speaks with a quiet tone that is rarely found on the campaign trail. Comes at issues from a different angle than most lifelong politicians.

More on the Court 

GOP leaders continue to promise to not even have a hearing on an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court. I want to hit one more point: The GOP has seized on lines by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and then-Sen. Joe Biden in years past about delaying confirmation hearings until after elections. They're wrong for four reasons: 1) Those statements were made in the summer before the election, not February. 2) Those statements were theoretical and not actual opposition. The one chance Biden or Schumer had to hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year came in 1988 — when Schumer approved current Justice Anthony Kennedy (Biden ran for president and didn't vote). 3) In that same speech, Biden decries the politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process. He said he'd vote for a moderate candidate and hoped, if it came to that, that then-President Bush would work with the Senate. 4) Most importantly, I think Biden and Schumer were both wrong with their statements, however out of context they were. The GOP called those statements obstructionist back then. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's the right thing to do?

Short version: There's a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. But obstructionism is obstructionism. The Constitution set a process in place. The GOP doesn't have to approve the nominee — there's plenty of precedent for that. You can vote no if you want. But to not even have a hearing is disrespectful and disingenuous.

Original Senator

I heard an interview on NPR this week with Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo. He was upset about President Obama's Guantanamo Bay closure plan. He gave three terrible reasons to dislike the plan. 1) The plan was too short! It's only eight pages, and surely this should be longer, right? But when the Affordable Care Act came out, many complained it was too long. Regulations are also too long, they say. Can Obama opponents just tell everyone what page count they're OK with? 2) Obama is only bringing this up because it was a campaign promise. He's just trying to fulfill campaign goals before the end of his term. I honestly don't know how this is a complaint, because shouldn't all politicians try to fulfill campaign promises? Is the message here that politicians should not try to do what they said during an election? 3) When talking about this issue, Obama only delivers speeches or appears on NPR to talk about it. Which is a thing that Sen. Gardner said. On NPR. That's like complaining to your Starbucks barista that your friend only goes to Starbucks.

There are many reasons to be opposed to Obama. There are legitimate, honest arguments to make about his policies or his actions. Other GOP members have made strong, compelling arguments about this issue in particular. But if these are your three best arguments, you've already lost the battle.

Summary Judgments

Having a Chick-fil-A on campus does not mean you support their CEO's views on homosexuality any more than having a Burger King supports a monarchy.  •  •  •  Oh, Trump campaign... Oaklahoma? Really?  •  •  •  It's a long read, but this Jezebel story on a conspiracy theory cruise hilariously called the Conspira Sea is worth your time.  •  •  •  NPR did a story on the 30th anniversary of the Challenger explosion, and talked about the guilt from one engineer who said the shuttle shouldn't have flown that morning. The follow-up is incredibly touching and helped the engineer come to terms with that guilt.  •  •  •  Next week's post may be delayed; it's the day we move into our new home in Liberty and the night is a big event for work. We're closing on Tuesday, moving Thursday/Friday/weekend. Meanwhile, 3/4 of our family is sick right now (I'm the only one not sick.). Next week is going to be pretty crazy.

Courting Disaster

In shocking news, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away. This week's post is all about how to replace a Supreme Court Justice. It's a little longer than usual.

My favorite story has been the friendship Scalia had with his judicial colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The two used to vacation together, and (while her husband was alive) would share New Year's Eve together. On the court, the two could not be any more perfect foils: One a brash, outspoken conservative and the other a frail-looking, diminutive liberal. I also liked the story that Scalia recommended Elana Kagan to President Obama, saying that he didn't have any illusions that Obama would select a conservative, but if he's going to pick a liberal judge, the pick should at least be someone smart. What a sentiment: If we're going to do battle, let's at least have a good fight.

Take Your Chances

Hours after Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced plans to delay a confirmation of Scalia's replacement until after the election. He said the people need to have their say. GOP Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has announced he would filibuster any nominee, no matter who it is.

McConnell and Cruz are both gambling. They're hoping that if they delay long enough, the GOP might win the Presidency and hold on to its Senate majority.

Best-case scenario for them, the Supreme Court keeps four conservatives, four liberals and a swing voter (Kennedy). But looking at electoral college numbers and the number of GOP Senate seats up for election this year, the odds are just as good of the worst-case scenario: Hillary wins election, and Democrats take over or close the gap in the Senate. In that case, she'd probably select an even more liberal nominee. That's more likely if it's the polarizing Trump or Cruz who win the GOP nomination (I believe those two would have a difficult time in the general election).

Lastly, McConnell et al are also gambling that their move won't backfire. That is, that Americans will be upset by their blatant obstructionism and say "enough." Seeing the GOP leadership refuse to even hear a nominee is off-putting in an election year. And there is an election coming up soon...

Precedent for the President

The short version is there is no precedent for an 11-month delay to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. There's not any recent precedent for filling one — it's a situation that frankly hasn't come up much.

On Tuesday morning, I heard an NPR interview with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, saying that Obama and the Senate Democrats should expect this type of delay since they did it to Robert Bork in 1987. First: Obama was not in the Senate. Neither were most of the current Democratic senators. In fact, only nine senators remain in office since 1987: six Republicans and three Democrats. That includes Hatch, McConnell, John McCain, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (all GOP), and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Dem). You should not hold people responsible for moves they did not make.

Second, there are major differences between Bork and the current situation. 1) Bork actually had a hearing in the Senate. 2) The Senate did vote on Bork. They rejected him on ideological grounds, but at least had a vote. 3) Anthony Kennedy, Reagan's third choice, was confirmed 97-0 by a Democratic Senate (!). 4) Kennedy was nominated in November and confirmed in February — three or four months. A Democratic Senate overwhelmingly confirmed a Republican nominee, but it took some give-and-take.

The only other pre-WWII example came in June 1968, when Chief Justice Earl Warren offered to resign "at the President's leisure." Note: four months later than our present issue. LBJ picked a sitting Justice, Abe Fortas, to move up to Chief, but ethical issues for Fortas popped up during confirmation that caused the Senate to look unlikely to approve Fortas' promotion, and LBJ pulled the pick. He didn't bother making a new one.

Thurmond rule

Finally, the "Thurmond rule" came out of the Fortas fight. You'll hear politicians reference this, but it's a bastardization of a terrible person's ideas to say that's a rule worth keeping. Thurmond was a notable racist, running for President in 1948 on a platform of segregation and fighting the Civil Rights Act tooth and nail. Further, the "Thurmond rule" was that no lifetime appointment should be considered in the last six months of a lame-duck president's term. That's cool if you want to stick with a segregationist's stupid rule, but Obama has 11 months left. The rule doesn't even apply.

The Replacements

I've read a lot of good stories on who Obama could/should nominate. Let's leave aside the idea that the Senate will not hear the nomination. I expect the nominee to be a minority.

Paul Watford, Sri Srinavasan and Loretta Lynch are probably your leading candidates. Here are your quick bios: Watford is a 49-year-old black judge of the Ninth Circuit. He is considered a moderate and was confirmed 61-34 in 2012. Srinavasan (grew up in Kansas!) is a 48-year-old Indian-American judge on the DC Circuit Court who was confirmed 97-0 in 2013. He's also considered more moderate. Finally, current Attorney General Loretta Lynch, 56, is a black female (double minority). She's a former prosecutor who was recently confirmed 56-43 by the Senate. Watford and Srinivasan's confirmations were filibuster-proof. Lynch's was not. However, she's a well-qualified woman, and if the GOP is perceived to "gang up on her," that could galvanize both the black vote and the female vote in favor of the Democrats in this fall's election.

Summary Judgments

Well-written article by Howard Kurtz at Fox News. I swear I wrote much of the above before I read that.  •  •  •  I loved seeing the Alabama Shakes win a Grammy for Best Rock Performance on Monday. Alyson and I saw them live for my birthday three years ago, and they were awesome.  •  •  • Roland's got another ear infection, so we've finally hit the magic number! He can get tubes in his ears now! I shouldn't be so excited about that, but I kind of am.

It's not You, It's Media

We closed on our house in Pittsburg this week. It's been a long, frustrating, head-scratching, expensive and annoying process. It feels inadequate to say it is be a relief to be done with that. I'll miss Pittsburg a lot. We're also under contract on a house in Liberty later this month and have already purchased a new sofa/couch/mattress/frame/fridge. Things will be very different in our family come March.

Blurred Lines

A good way to turn an issue into a non-issue is to confuse people. If it sounds like a he-said, he-said, then often people call it a tie and move on from the issue. Better yet, "the media" makes a nice scapegoat to move things into the he-said, he-said realm. Often, "the media" is afraid to push back on accusations by campaigns, even when what they say is downright stupid. Often, the issue isn't a he-said, he-said, but really just someone lying.

Take, for instance, Ted Cruz, who was accused by the Ben Carson campaign of lying just minutes before the Iowa caucus. The Cruz campaign sent out an email that Ben Carson was going home to Florida after the caucus (true) and was planning a big announcement next week (not true). The truth is that Carson flew home Tuesday, then went back to the campaign Wednesday. The original CNN report only said he wasn't flying straight to New Hampshire or South Carolina. In fact, the original report said that Carson was staying in the race.

Even in his apology, Cruz continued to misinterpret the very CNN report his campaign used, claiming that CNN said Carson wasn't going to resume his campaign in either New Hampshire or South Carolina (not true). Further, Cruz said they should have THEN spread the news that Carson was going to remain in the race once it broke that Carson would remain in the campaign. He said that "CNN got it correct" while blaming them for confusion. CNN did get it right. But Cruz's campaign didn't. He said his campaign passed on news that was relevant, "true and accurate." That's wrong. Cruz was caught in a lie that he is attempting to blame on CNN.

But CNN isn't totally innocent. Thursday morning, the headline at the top of their website was "Cruz: 'CNN got it correct'". Yes, CNN got it right, but it's not until three paragraphs into that article that there's a link to a story that Cruz's claims about CNN are false. Effectively, CNN gave high-profile position to Cruz's incorrect claims, but low-profile position to a fact-check of those claims.

I paid attention to see when CNN would change their positioning. Late Friday and over the weekend, CNN changed headlines and positioning to highlight that Cruz was lying and wrong. But why did it take a day and a half? Cruz had a whole news cycle before he got called out on it.

What's the Matter with Kansas? 

I had something else written here, but the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling on school finance was too important to forget. In short, they ruled the Kansas Legislature isn't funding small schools fairly compared to big schools. They also gave the Legislature until June 30 to fix it, or else. And the "or else" has teeth: Schools would not be able to open in the fall. What most of the stories coming out on this issue will miss is that school finance rulings are on two issues: equity (is it fair to the small districts?) and adequacy (is it constitutionally enough?). Today's ruling is ONLY on equity, the smaller of the two issues. It's a $50 million fix. The bigger issue is adequacy, and hasn't been decided yet. That's a hundreds of millions of dollars fix. The schools won today, which is important, but it's only the tip of the iceberg to what's really at stake.

Poll Weasels

This headline and story by Fox News is curious. You can see the work being put in to make things look worse for Hillary Clinton. The story says that according to two national polls, Bernie Sanders is closing the gap with Clinton. The first nine paragraphs are all about these two polls and how bad they are for Clinton. However, the 10th paragraph amounts to this: A third poll shows she's still got a huge lead, but we won't talk about that. Then it goes back to talking about the first two polls. There are two interpretations of this. 1) Fox News doesn't trust the Rasmussen poll or 2) "She's losing her lead!" is the narrative they wanted to tell. If 1) were true, a responsible journalism operation would explain why the Rasmussen poll is ignored. Since they didn't, that leaves option 2. Writing a story around a narrative is bad journalism. The story should be your guide.

Summary Judgments

Donald Trump  has tweeted and said insults about people in the vein of "I refuse to say these terrible things... even though I'm verbalizing them." Donald, I refuse to say you're a vacuous, narcissistic chauvinist who can't discuss real policy without staring at your notes. Instead, I'll just say you're an awful person. See? I didn't say those other things!   •   •   •  Oh, Meryl Streep. We're not all Africans, really. Maybe we were a long, long time ago... but I think enough time has passed that we can move on.   •   •   •   We haven't been getting much uninterrupted sleep lately because the kids are getting their canine teeth. Evie's is funny, however, because she hasn't got her top incisors yet. So she's got two teeth on her bottom gums, and then her two top canines. She's practically getting fangs, the poor thing.

Second Step is Easier than the First

Thanks to all of you who have read and shared this blog. I'm eager to hear from people about what they think. You can contact me on Facebook, email, old-fashioned hand-written letters, smoke signals or Braille. I may not understand smoke signals or Braille, but at least I'll know you read the previous sentence.

Friday, I'm in trouble

When is the best time to release bad news? There's an easy answer: Friday afternoons. This is for several reasons:

1) There's very little time to interview news sources before the end of the M-F work week, so lazier reporters will tend to publish the press release without further investigation.
2) The weekend (starting Friday night) is typically family time. It's not a time when most people are paying the most attention to politics, so it's easier to sweep bad news under the rug.
3) Do you like cable 24-hour news? Well, they don't have their "A" teams on the weekends unless something is incredibly major. They save the A-team for M-F. It's one thing to have the Chris Wallaces and Anderson Coopers hosting a major news event. But it's rare on the weekends, when they've typically got people who get paid a fraction of those men and women. It signals to a viewer that "this news isn't as important, because if it were, they'd have been in the Situation Room."
4) Because of the above reasons, the hope is that serious inquiries won't take place until Monday, at least two full days later. Perhaps by then, something else will have happened to push the bad news deeper.

Need an example? Last Friday afternoon, at 4:42 p.m. EST, CNN published a story that the State Department will not release 22 of Hillary Clinton's emails because they are "top secret." To summarize why this is important: This is the first time the Obama administration has admitted that Clinton's personal server had "top secret" information on it. Because of the timing of this story's release, it made me recognize that this was news that was only begrudgingly being released.

Expect Yourself

Iowa is about expectations. The Daily Show had a good clip about how the media reported that Clinton lost even though she won, Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders won even though they lost, and Jeb Bush didn't win or lose, so he lost. In truth, politics is often about expectations. Sanders and Rubio both outperformed what most media expected, so they were "winners," even though they haven't won anything yet. Likewise, both Trump and Clinton performed worse than expected, so they lost, even though they finished second and first respectively. Going into New Hampshire, I expect Sanders and Trump to win. Long-term, Clinton will win the nomination easily on the Dem side, while the GOP is too early to call.

Summary Judgments

One thing I love is to laugh at silly names of people. Luckily, high school athlete Signing Day provides plenty of fodder. Here's this year's list of the best names from the 2016 recruiting class. My favorites include Priest Bluitt, Divine Deablo, Brodarious Hamm and, of course, DiCaprio Bootle.    •   •   •   While covering politics, I've seen the sort of "Voting Violation" mailers that Ted Cruz's campaign sent out before the Iowa Caucus that listed people and their neighbors' "voting scores." It's a terrible tactic that seems to be legal. Cruz said he'd apologize to no one for using every tool he could to encourage Iowans to vote. It's ironic, then, that the candidate who uses shame tactics has no shame himself.    •   •   •    RIP to the Presidential campaigns of Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and Martin O'Malley. More candidates will drop out after New Hampshire. Jim Gilmore, who received 12 votes (!!) in Iowa, somehow thinks he still has a chance.    •   •   •   Kevin Durant plays for the Thunder. He'll be a free agent after this season. Yet there have been reports recently that IF he decides to sign with another team, then the Lakers are the frontrunner. Or maybe the Warriors. Speculative journalism is the worst journalism, because it's reliant on an if. IF Durant stays, the frontrunner for biggest foot in mouth are these two reporters.    •   •   •    Column-ending story about the kids: Roland and Evie were giggling and happy, running through the living room yesterday. What they didn't realize is they were running right at each other. I watched as they collided, like two trains barreling into each other. Luckily, they got up right away. Good: Because if they were hurt, I would have had a hard time consoling them while I laughed.