It's now nearly a month after President Trump took office, and the planned "repeal and replace" of Obamacare/the Affordable Care Act has not yet taken shape or place. We're no closer to knowing what the Republican plan is, although they have had six years to settle on an opposing plan. There are currently multiple Republican health care plans, and no consensus unifying theme.
Instead of diving into the weeds of which plans are likely, what changes are happening, etc., I wanted to examine exactly why it is that the Republicans are having such a hard time uniting. It was easy to say Obamacare was terrible. It was harder to build something of their own.
There are Republican plans out there. Paul Ryan has "A Better Way." Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price (while he was a U.S. Representative) put out his own plan, the Empowering Patients First Act. Sen. Orrin Hatch and friends released the Patient CARE Act. Sen. Ted Cruz has the Health Care Choice Act. President Trump's health care plan is... incomplete and a few paragraphs long. It kind of lists a few Republican ideas, but little concrete. There are also a couple conservative think tank plans out there that are far more thought out.
But the question isn't "Do the Republicans have a plan?" but "Why can't they agree on what to do?"
Part of that comes from philosophical differences, part of it comes from the sticky position that the ACA left them in, and part of it comes from problems of their own making. Let's tackle some of those issues.
First, there's the question of how much to repeal. Hard-right conservatives wish to throw out the whole kit and caboodle. They're growing increasingly angry that they haven't been able to fulfill their promise to repeal Obamacare yet. But the ACA is a vast and tricky thing. If you throw out all of it, you're taking away 10-20 million people's health insurance, you're taking away protections for consumers (read: no denial for pre-existing conditions, children can stay on parents' plans until age 26, etc.) and more. Those of a more moderate bent know that some of those provisions are highly favored by the general public. They're reluctant to throw all of the ACA out, because then the GOP is the bad guy that "took away my health care."
Second, there's the question of whose costs need to be lowered. Fiscal conservatives take issue with how expensive the ACA is on the government. Others, like occasionally President Trump, have argued that the ACA is too expensive for individual people, through premiums and deductibles. The problem is you can't fix one problem without hurting the other. Let's say the fiscal conservatives win out — premiums and deductibles will rise for some group or coverage will be cut as a result. If Trump's side wins, the government spending on health care rises more. There is no way to bridge that gap.
Third, there's the question of who should have coverage. Some argue that the goal of health care should be universal health care coverage, "even those who can't pay for it." Others believe that GOP should make it clear: "We don't believe it's the federal government's job to make sure everyone has health insurance."
Fourth, there's the question of how to pay for a new health care plan. This one's a biggie. The ACA raised its nearly $100 billion a year through taxes on the rich and some new revenue streams. The GOP hates those taxes. Get rid of them! But then the question is how to make up for that, and... there's the catch. According to leaked audio from a Republican gathering last month, there are talks to start taxing some or all of the employer-paid health plans most of us get. Those are currently exempt from taxes. That would be bad politically, and other Republicans pushed back in that very meeting.
Fifth, there's the question of Medicaid expansion. About 20 of the 52 GOP senators have said they wouldn't vote for any ACA fix that didn't keep the largely popular Medicaid expansion that their state chose to do. But other Republicans from states that chose not to expand Medicaid want to know that their principled stands were not in vain. They want to know that they did the right thing, and to see those states that caved admit they were wrong to expand Medicaid.
Sixth, there's the question of who will bear the brunt of the changes. Several of the GOP plans call for a change in the ratio of costs. In essence, the ACA limited the cost health care plans for older people to no more than 3:1 of the health care plans for younger people. The Ryan and Hatch plans both call to make this 5:1 instead. One of the conservative think tanks called for it to be 6:1. In short, one writer found the GOP plans would shift costs to older, sicker patients rather than the ACA's younger, healthier patients.
Seventh, and related, there's the question of how to determine subsidies. Right now, subsidies are based on income -- the less money you have, the more government help you get in return. Some of these plans call for either getting rid of all subsidies or changing subsidies to an age-based system.
There are more issues at hand, but these give you some of the basic problems the GOP is fighting right now. In that leaked audio, one Republican said that they've got to get the Obamacare fix right, because if they don't, it'll be called "Trumpcare" and they'll all have that as an albatross around their necks. Personally, I'd be more worried about doing what's right for the country and for your constituents than what would be most embarrassing.
Where the Power Lies
For a minute there, I thought that the Flynn/Russia thing was going to have legs. I thought that maybe this — this? — would be the thing that brought President Trump down. A few Republicans in the House and Senate, including our own Sen. Roy Blunt, started to call for an independent investigation of Russian ties to President Trump and his campaign. And then... nothing.
Meanwhile, I heard an interesting perspective from liberal comedian Samantha Bee, talking about how the real power in Congress is Paul Ryan. Notably, that he's the man to watch for reactions to the President. Right now, Ryan is probably content to ride Trump as long as he can — the same voters that elected Trump also elected the representatives that gave Ryan power. But Ryan, as Speaker of the House, is the man tasked with writing articles of impeachment, should that ever have to come to pass.
So that's the tentative alliance here: fiscal conservative, traditional Republican Paul Ryan with brash, hard-to-pin-down, nontraditional Republican Donald Trump. It's in the best interests of both to work nicely with the other. I'll be watching to see which side burns the bridge first. The one that burns the bridge first will be the one that thinks they have the moral superiority.
Good News from Gates Report (Vlogbrothers)
The Vlogbrothers pointed this out, but Bill and Melinda Gates issue a letter each year, and this time it was to Warren Buffett. It talks about the good their organization has done. There's a lot of good that's been done, so let's hit the high notes, because this reminds you that life is making major strides:
• The number of childhood deaths per year has dropped in half since 1990. The trend line has been revised downward twice.
• The number of children worldwide receiving vaccines is at its highest point in history -- 86 percent. The gap between rich countries (96 percent) and poor countries (80 percent) is the smallest it's ever been.
• It took decades to get 200 million women on modern contraceptives. It took another 13 years to get to 300 million women on contraceptives.
• Extreme poverty has been cut in half since 1990.
• There were only 37 new cases of polio last year. Not in the U.S. Not in North America. IN THE WORLD.
In a world in which there isn't a lot of hope, These things remind me of the good being done in our world.
News Judgments
Although there are good news stories, I bring you an interesting perspective from my friend and former OU colleague Adam Croom. He still works at OU in an interesting role, but he ended up meeting with the first African-American to own a home in Norman. After Adam told him thank you... for everything, Dr. George Henderson said, "I would have never believed that in 2017, we would be starting the battle all over again." Powerful story. Read it here. • • • A friend of mine (Hi, Allie!) asked my thoughts on a newspaper in Colorado being called "fake news" by a lawmaker and threatening to sue the lawmaker for libel. After talking about it with Alyson, I have a few observations. 1) It's a relatively untapped legal field -- a newspaper not as the defendant of a libel suit, but a plaintiff. I think they have an argument that they were defamed, but whether it was legal or not is a different question. 2) That's because a newspaper will probably fall under the higher burden of proof for libel of a "public figure." It means the paper would have to prove "actual malice" -- that the lawmaker had deliberately bad intentions when he made his remarks. It's a higher burden of proof, which means the case is tougher. 3) I didn't say they didn't have a case. If they sue and win, maybe this emboldens other organizations in more high-profile situations to make a similar stance? • • • I've been sick or the kids have been sick a lot this week, so my running has been rather disjointed. I have run up to 2.5 miles, so that's good, with a month until I run a 4-miler. But it's getting warmer and we're all hopefully getting healthier, so I hope that changes soon. • • • Some of the better Evie-Roland stories have already been on Facebook, but there's one that hadn't been. The kids were pretty sick last weekend, and at one point, we heard an unpleasant noise come from the kitchen. "What was that noise?" I asked to the kids. "Evie," she admitted. "Was it a butt noise?" "Yeah." So now the go-to phrase for farts or poops is "butt noises."
Friday, February 17, 2017
Friday, February 10, 2017
Why Don't We Have Term Limits?
I had a hard time coming up with a good topic this week, which usually isn't a problem for me. So I went back to December, when I asked for topics from my friends and family who read this blog.
A friend of mine, Pat Payne, asked that I look into campaign finance reform and term limits. So let me do a deep dive into one of those (term limits) today. But in order to analyze the subjects properly, I want to set up some structure to the analysis.
1) What do people on either side say/What are the historical roots?
2) Which of those arguments do I find persuasive?
3) Is there a compromise that can be made/what do I propose?
4) How easily could this be done?
Term limits
I find this issue easier to talk about because there aren't a lot of legal issues around it — mainly just an issue of philosophy. I'm referring specifically to Congressional term limits. The Presidency already has term limits and the judicial branch is intended not to have them. That may be a discussion for another time, but I'm OK with no term limits on the Supreme Court.
Pros and Cons
On the side of term limits are those that say politics is too corrupt/easily influenced. The arguments for term limits come from a variety of sources, but it amounts to a few issues:
1) Fresh faces in Congress keep new ideas flowing.
2) Term limits push members of Congress to get more things actually done rather than continuously push things off.
3) Term limits reduce the potential for corruption and the power of influential sources of campaign donors.
4) New faces in Congress keep them accountable to their constituents rather than the ... ahem.... trappings of Washington.
5) It prevents career politicians by limiting the time they are in power.
In essence, it's a push to limit the power of incumbency, which is a severe advantage already. incumbent representatives and senators are re-elected about 90 percent of the time.
On the other hand, there are some decent arguments on the other side. They amount to "the will of the people" and "term limits won't be that effective."
1) If the people vote for a person repeatedly, that's their prerogative. It's undemocratic to put limits on what the people want.
2) It punishes experience. It takes time to figure out any new role, and term limits — especially relatively short ones — would reduce the power of experience.
3) A corollary to the above issue: It turns Washington into a revolving door rather than have stalwarts.
4) There's no incentive for an elected official to pay attention to what his district wants when they are a lame duck after their final election.
Which Arguments Are Convincing
Starting with the pro side, it's fair to say that our modern politicians are too entrenched. A 90 percent incumbency rate is crazy high. And term limits would be the most obvious tool to take care of that. However, I'm not convinced that money would no longer have an influence and Congress would actually get things done. Rather, they may just say "not my problem" and punt until after their terms. Or money would go to the party to be trickled down rather than the candidate. Effectively, it'd make parties far more powerful than they even are now. But there is something to say about how term limits would prompt change and reduce — though not eliminate — corruption.
And the cons side is correct about their first two points: It's undemocratic and experience does matter. Experience can help guide through tricky issues. It can help people come together because they have a shared history rather than being fresh faces. The other two arguments are less convincing.
My proposal
So in the spirit of trying to build something and find compromises, I have a proposal: Candidates may spend 22 years combined in the House and Senate, with no more than 16 years (lifetime) in the House or 12 years in the Senate (lifetime).
Some calls for term limits are as little as 8 years or 12 years. I find those a little unconvincing -- if desired, a state or district should be able to elect a Congressperson for more than the length of a presidency. This is for balance and for long-term goal setting — the experience issue. However, 20 years in either chamber is too much, so I put a cap on those.
And if the idea of term limits is to prevent career politicians, a reasonable limit should be set. Because of the size of the House, I have a longer potential term in the House, because experience can matter when there are hundreds of new faces each year. But maxing your time there would limit you to one Senate term. The Senate, supposedly the more deliberate chamber, would have a lower term limit to emphasize the gravity of that chamber, but I would be open to 18 years there, too, for the sake of experience and long-term coalition building. *Note: The Senate has to be a multiple of six to prevent the staggered election years from getting too crowded. Right now, 33 Senate seats are up every two years.
Could it be done?
Here's the rub.
I don't think it could be done through Congress in our current climate, unless one side or the other did it while they were in the majority. And there's no incentive for a group in the majority to put limits on the potential amount of time they can serve. Let's say you're Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell. Why would you call for term limits if you're in power? With the high incumbency rate, you could stay in power a long, long time. You'd be essentially saying "We admit our chamber — of which we're the most powerful people — are too corrupt to be trusted." That's a dumb move.
So the only option left is a constitutional amendment. That would require 38 states saying they want federal term limits. And it doesn't appear that's likely. One key test is how many states have term limits on their state legislatures. And the answer will surprise you: Only 15 do. (Locally, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska have term limits in their state legislatures.) There were another 6 term limits that have been overturned either by state legislatures or courts. I did pick up on a trend: Almost every Western state has either had or has term limits, except for Alaska, Hawaii and New Mexico. Also, all of the state term limits have been put into place in either the 1990s or 2000s. So it appears there is a rising force for term limits, but it hasn't really made its way eastward. One other cynical view why federal term limits are unlikely is that the state politicians will likely run for federal office in the future, so they'd be limiting their own future power.
Perhaps in 20-30 years, there may be an appetite for a constitutional amendment, but it does not appear to be the case now and the only methods to bring it about seem unlikely.
Summary Judgments
Last week, I shared on Facebook a story in the Los Angeles Times about a Muslim man who takes care of foster children who have terminal diseases. It was by a former colleague of mine at OU (She has won a Pulitzer.). There is an update: Readers have donated more than $100,000 to the man after seeing the story. What an incredible impact that journalism can have. • • • Twitter has its uses. For instance, live events and direct access to fans/citizens. However, I find myself becoming more curmudgeonly about it, like the opening rant by Drew Magary here. • • • I ran 2 1/4 miles at one point this week, but I'm missing a day or two of running while taking care of a sick boy and trying not to get the disease myself. I'm probably not going to make it to 4 miles in my training by this time next month (March 11 is my first 4-mile race), but that's OK. My biggest problem is that every time I decide to run, the temperature drops to the 20s or 30s that day. It's a terrible trend that makes me feel like a bad runner, since I don't run as well in the cold as I do when it's respectably warm outside. • • • Roland was sick yesterday and today, but he's feeling OK. He's got a virus that kind of looks like pink eye or conjunctivitis, but isn't. The doctor: "Good news: It's not pink eye or conjunctivitis. Bad news: He's got a different virus." Me, a few minutes later: "Is it as contagious as those other diseases?" Him, not missing a beat: "Oh, yeah. Maybe worse." The good news was very fleeting in that doctor's visit.
Pros and Cons
On the side of term limits are those that say politics is too corrupt/easily influenced. The arguments for term limits come from a variety of sources, but it amounts to a few issues:
1) Fresh faces in Congress keep new ideas flowing.
2) Term limits push members of Congress to get more things actually done rather than continuously push things off.
3) Term limits reduce the potential for corruption and the power of influential sources of campaign donors.
4) New faces in Congress keep them accountable to their constituents rather than the ... ahem.... trappings of Washington.
5) It prevents career politicians by limiting the time they are in power.
In essence, it's a push to limit the power of incumbency, which is a severe advantage already. incumbent representatives and senators are re-elected about 90 percent of the time.
On the other hand, there are some decent arguments on the other side. They amount to "the will of the people" and "term limits won't be that effective."
1) If the people vote for a person repeatedly, that's their prerogative. It's undemocratic to put limits on what the people want.
2) It punishes experience. It takes time to figure out any new role, and term limits — especially relatively short ones — would reduce the power of experience.
3) A corollary to the above issue: It turns Washington into a revolving door rather than have stalwarts.
4) There's no incentive for an elected official to pay attention to what his district wants when they are a lame duck after their final election.
Which Arguments Are Convincing
Starting with the pro side, it's fair to say that our modern politicians are too entrenched. A 90 percent incumbency rate is crazy high. And term limits would be the most obvious tool to take care of that. However, I'm not convinced that money would no longer have an influence and Congress would actually get things done. Rather, they may just say "not my problem" and punt until after their terms. Or money would go to the party to be trickled down rather than the candidate. Effectively, it'd make parties far more powerful than they even are now. But there is something to say about how term limits would prompt change and reduce — though not eliminate — corruption.
And the cons side is correct about their first two points: It's undemocratic and experience does matter. Experience can help guide through tricky issues. It can help people come together because they have a shared history rather than being fresh faces. The other two arguments are less convincing.
My proposal
So in the spirit of trying to build something and find compromises, I have a proposal: Candidates may spend 22 years combined in the House and Senate, with no more than 16 years (lifetime) in the House or 12 years in the Senate (lifetime).
Some calls for term limits are as little as 8 years or 12 years. I find those a little unconvincing -- if desired, a state or district should be able to elect a Congressperson for more than the length of a presidency. This is for balance and for long-term goal setting — the experience issue. However, 20 years in either chamber is too much, so I put a cap on those.
And if the idea of term limits is to prevent career politicians, a reasonable limit should be set. Because of the size of the House, I have a longer potential term in the House, because experience can matter when there are hundreds of new faces each year. But maxing your time there would limit you to one Senate term. The Senate, supposedly the more deliberate chamber, would have a lower term limit to emphasize the gravity of that chamber, but I would be open to 18 years there, too, for the sake of experience and long-term coalition building. *Note: The Senate has to be a multiple of six to prevent the staggered election years from getting too crowded. Right now, 33 Senate seats are up every two years.
Could it be done?
Here's the rub.
I don't think it could be done through Congress in our current climate, unless one side or the other did it while they were in the majority. And there's no incentive for a group in the majority to put limits on the potential amount of time they can serve. Let's say you're Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell. Why would you call for term limits if you're in power? With the high incumbency rate, you could stay in power a long, long time. You'd be essentially saying "We admit our chamber — of which we're the most powerful people — are too corrupt to be trusted." That's a dumb move.
So the only option left is a constitutional amendment. That would require 38 states saying they want federal term limits. And it doesn't appear that's likely. One key test is how many states have term limits on their state legislatures. And the answer will surprise you: Only 15 do. (Locally, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska have term limits in their state legislatures.) There were another 6 term limits that have been overturned either by state legislatures or courts. I did pick up on a trend: Almost every Western state has either had or has term limits, except for Alaska, Hawaii and New Mexico. Also, all of the state term limits have been put into place in either the 1990s or 2000s. So it appears there is a rising force for term limits, but it hasn't really made its way eastward. One other cynical view why federal term limits are unlikely is that the state politicians will likely run for federal office in the future, so they'd be limiting their own future power.
Perhaps in 20-30 years, there may be an appetite for a constitutional amendment, but it does not appear to be the case now and the only methods to bring it about seem unlikely.
Summary Judgments
Last week, I shared on Facebook a story in the Los Angeles Times about a Muslim man who takes care of foster children who have terminal diseases. It was by a former colleague of mine at OU (She has won a Pulitzer.). There is an update: Readers have donated more than $100,000 to the man after seeing the story. What an incredible impact that journalism can have. • • • Twitter has its uses. For instance, live events and direct access to fans/citizens. However, I find myself becoming more curmudgeonly about it, like the opening rant by Drew Magary here. • • • I ran 2 1/4 miles at one point this week, but I'm missing a day or two of running while taking care of a sick boy and trying not to get the disease myself. I'm probably not going to make it to 4 miles in my training by this time next month (March 11 is my first 4-mile race), but that's OK. My biggest problem is that every time I decide to run, the temperature drops to the 20s or 30s that day. It's a terrible trend that makes me feel like a bad runner, since I don't run as well in the cold as I do when it's respectably warm outside. • • • Roland was sick yesterday and today, but he's feeling OK. He's got a virus that kind of looks like pink eye or conjunctivitis, but isn't. The doctor: "Good news: It's not pink eye or conjunctivitis. Bad news: He's got a different virus." Me, a few minutes later: "Is it as contagious as those other diseases?" Him, not missing a beat: "Oh, yeah. Maybe worse." The good news was very fleeting in that doctor's visit.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
A Possible Trend, with Possible Outcomes
While increased polarization is nothing new, I'm detecting a seeming trend in political discourse. But first, a short trip into recent history.
In 2009, Barack Obama had been inaugurated as President for roughly one month (Pretty similar timing to now). A CNBC reporter named Rick Santelli said from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange that a tea party was needed. That prompted a conference call of 50 conservative activists who vowed to fight Obama's policies and to schedule protests. It was a mix of populism, libertarianism and conservativism. They were not just active, but visibly active — involved in politics and willing to make themselves heard. They were a reaction, I believe, to the liberal politics that had just won the national election. They felt their voices weren't being heard, so they were going to have to speak louder and more often.
It's fair to say the Tea Party has had a lasting impact despite a little decline in its size. Their push to power in both state and national government has been successful. In Kansas, the governor and its two houses were for a time majority Tea Party/far-right conservatives rather than the more moderate conservatives that had ruled the state. On a national stage, although no one person speaks for the Tea Party, its politicians continue to grace the stage and airwaves. Ted Cruz, Jason Chaffetz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio all have either claimed Tea Party lineage or have benefited from Tea Party fundraising efforts.
Here's my first big argument, although I'll freely admit to not having much direct evidence: I don't believe Donald Trump wins the Presidency without the rise of the Tea Party. The Tea Party focused on smaller government, global isolationism (whether through force or through avoidance), originalist Supreme Court justices in the Scalia mold, anti-tax, anti-trade, etc. These are all positions which Trump voiced, and some of them are breaks from traditional GOP positions, like an anti-trade stance. The movement energized and excited Republicans into a more vocal and politically involved bunch. While it's become something a minor political move in the last 2-4 years to not actually say you're actually with the Tea Party, I think it's fair to say that Trump is a result of that movement.
On the other hand, while Democrats were in power, they kind of got thumped by the Tea Party, slowly losing seats and houses of Congress to GOP and Tea Party-backed candidates. Their constituents were not as energized nor were they all that politically involved. Sure, there were pockets of activism, but there wasn't anything lasting.
Here's the trend I'm picking up on: I believe we're seeing a reaction from the left for a liberal Tea Party. I may be wrong, and it may never coalesce into a brand the way "Tea Party" did, but I do see parallels. The Tea Party felt it was not being heard by Washington and so do the current protesters. In fact, each has had their own March on Washington. The Tea Party became energized and politically involved in a way that the GOP constituency largely hadn't been at the time. The liberal wing is becoming energized and politically involved through marches, a more organized system of calling politicians, and not being afraid to speak out. They learned their lesson from the Tea Party, who did the same thing from a different political position just 8 years ago.
I see a few possible outcomes:
1) The liberal protesters end up disillusioned by the lack of political influence of their protests and give up. They feel defeated and beaten down after losing more seats in the 2018 midterms. Their voice grows quieter and quieter until the 2020 election rolls around. When that happens, the politician that most gives them hope of turning things around will gain their support, whether Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand or some other national figure. The character of that person will determine their success or failure in 2020.
2) The liberal protesters organize enough into their own version of the Tea Party. While remaining disorganized, the group pushes Congress to move to the left, or at least more moderate than the far-right push that has been taking place. Their protests, energy and political involvement annoy those on the right yet excite those on the left. The 2018 midterms end in a stalemate (I've talked about how the geography/math isn't good for Democrats that term) or with minor Democrat gains. Democrats find their voice and footing in opposition to an ever more unpopular Donald Trump and elect a liberal politician as president in 2020. The GOP begins moving away from Trump, but can't extricate itself enough, becoming associated with Trump's worst tendencies.
3) A liberal protest movement annoys politicians on the right, further calcifying their position despite evidence that the nation is pretty closely divided. Liberals, still feeling their voices aren't heard, decide to up the ante, so to speak, and get even more loud. At some point, a liberal protest turns truly violent into a full-scale riot. This further divides the country. Politics becomes even worse. Moderates are passed aside in the name of "pure" politicians on the left or right. The chasm between the parties only deepens.
I hope that the third option doesn't happen and that moderate heads can prevail. But I fear it will. I don't think we would know a moderate anymore if they stared us in the face.
SCOTUS pick and the "nuclear option"
This may surprise you, but I don't have strong feelings about Neil Gorsuch. Moreover, I'm sad about the process that may be used to confirm him and how we got here.
For generations, there has been a rule that judicial confirmations were subject to the filibuster. They required 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and move to an up-down vote. Until recently, the only question for Supreme Court justices was whether they were qualified and if any major red flags came up. Between Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton, justices were easily confirmed with very little opposition. Only two faced major challenges: Clarence Thomas (because of Anita Hill) and Robert Bork. Everyone else, whether liberal or conservative, passed with ease. There's a small shift in the George W. Bush years. John Roberts — who was eminently qualified, but conservative — passed easily with 78 votes. Samuel Alito avoided the filibuster and passed with just 58. I believe the Alito confirmation was a special case — he was a staunch conservative replacing a middle-of-the-road justice in Sandra Day O'Connor. His pick reduced the "swing" justices to just Anthony Kennedy. But Alito's selection made Supreme Court nominations an issue not of qualifications, but of viewpoints. Obama's picks, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, passed with more than 60 votes — avoiding the filibuster — but there was plenty of opposition.
What has changed was the "nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is a move by the majority power to remove the minority party's ability to filibuster a nominee and have a straight up-and-down vote. It kills the minority party's power, essentially. It makes the climax of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington meaningless.
This phrase's history dates to the Clinton Administration, when some of his judge picks and presidential appointments were filibustered by the Republicans. There wasn't much reason for it, and one judge waited four years before finally getting a vote. In effect, Republicans (in the majority) refused to even have hearings and sat on 60 other appointments out of spite. Republicans "won."
Fast forward to 2005, and Democrats return the favor. They're in the minority, but they hold up votes on 10 Bush judicial appointees because they found them too far out of the mainstream. This created a giant mess that was eventually solved by 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans, called the Gang of 14, who agreed not to use the nuclear option if the Democrats wouldn't use the filibuster except for "extreme circumstances." Republicans "won," because they convinced the Democrats not to use the filibuster and got their appointees in.
When Democrats took back the Senate in 2011, they were frustrated and sought to hamper the Republicans' ability to be obstructionist. There were negotiations and the filibuster was used by the Republicans on 78 (!) Obama appointees. The Republicans filibustered major Court of Appeals appointments by Obama for sketchy reasons. Finally, Democrats voted 52-48 (all Republicans and 3 Democrats voting against) to eliminate the use of the filibuster for all executive and judicial appointments OTHER than the Supreme Court. Think of this move as going semi-nuclear. Everything was nuked by the Democrats except the Supreme Court. Democrats "won."
Republicans sat on the nomination of Merrick Garland (a moderate pick) simply because it was an Obama pick. They waited a full year, which was beyond unprecedented. Republicans "won." And now we're here. Gorsuch is not a mainstream option, but he is highly qualified. In a less partisan era, he may have passed easily. But we're no longer in a less partisan era. Democrats were (rightfully) upset by that action, and have vowed to filibuster the pick. The Trump administration has called for the nuclear option on the Supreme Court. I expect it to be used.
I'm saddened because the filibuster used to be a tool that would force the majority party to compromise or to moderate. It was a legislative method to bring the two sides together. It was a method to move to the center. And now, through Republican obstructionism and Democrats desire for action, the filibuster is likely to die. Republicans, as shown in this history, have been successful with their obstructionist tactics. Democrats went semi-nuclear in response. Republicans seem ready to go fully nuclear. Mourn the death of the moderates.
Executive Orders
I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae of Trump's Muslim ban. I probably did that too much on Facebook itself, and I don't know if it helps the conversation any. It's so hard to care so much about an issue and feel like saying something doesn't help, and saying nothing doesn't either. It makes one feel powerless and dismissed.
But the one thing I wanted to bring up in this space was that the executive orders were very poorly handled in communication to the respective departments. I think it's safe to say objectively that the order's meaning and effects were not well understood. In short, it was bungled. Here are some heartbreaking examples that you can read on your own time.
The morality of such an act is up for debate. You know where I stand, and I won't retread that ground here. But the implementation of his acts are also worth consideration.
Summary Judgments
If I'm going to be critical, I also want to give praise: I was impressed by Donald Trump unexpectedly and quietly flying to the "homecoming" of the first military soldier death under his tenure. It wasn't something he had to do, but it was a good move. I was pleased with this action. The more I read about the raid on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) that led to his death, the more I am saddened. Here are stories on the raid by Reuters and the New York Times. • • • Separation of church and state is important, lest we become a theocracy — something we claim to hate in other countries. This is dangerous stuff. • • • I signed up for the Sweet 16: a series of four 4-mile runs. I ran 2 miles straight on Wednesday, so I'm feeling pretty good about it. I'll be much happier once it starts warming up. Running when it's 20-35 degrees outside is no fun. • • • Evie and Roland are in separate day care rooms right now. There was an opening in the 2 1/2-3 room, so Evie moved up. That means Roland's by himself in the 2-2 1/2 room. I think he might be having a hard time with it, because the kid has been a bear lately. He's been whining and throwing fits far more often. We find ourselves working around his moods a lot lately. It's meant we've paid less attention to Evie, and she's had some behavioral issues, but on a lesser scale. I don't know if this is Terrible Twos or just them being difficult. Advice would be nice!
In 2009, Barack Obama had been inaugurated as President for roughly one month (Pretty similar timing to now). A CNBC reporter named Rick Santelli said from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange that a tea party was needed. That prompted a conference call of 50 conservative activists who vowed to fight Obama's policies and to schedule protests. It was a mix of populism, libertarianism and conservativism. They were not just active, but visibly active — involved in politics and willing to make themselves heard. They were a reaction, I believe, to the liberal politics that had just won the national election. They felt their voices weren't being heard, so they were going to have to speak louder and more often.
It's fair to say the Tea Party has had a lasting impact despite a little decline in its size. Their push to power in both state and national government has been successful. In Kansas, the governor and its two houses were for a time majority Tea Party/far-right conservatives rather than the more moderate conservatives that had ruled the state. On a national stage, although no one person speaks for the Tea Party, its politicians continue to grace the stage and airwaves. Ted Cruz, Jason Chaffetz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio all have either claimed Tea Party lineage or have benefited from Tea Party fundraising efforts.
Here's my first big argument, although I'll freely admit to not having much direct evidence: I don't believe Donald Trump wins the Presidency without the rise of the Tea Party. The Tea Party focused on smaller government, global isolationism (whether through force or through avoidance), originalist Supreme Court justices in the Scalia mold, anti-tax, anti-trade, etc. These are all positions which Trump voiced, and some of them are breaks from traditional GOP positions, like an anti-trade stance. The movement energized and excited Republicans into a more vocal and politically involved bunch. While it's become something a minor political move in the last 2-4 years to not actually say you're actually with the Tea Party, I think it's fair to say that Trump is a result of that movement.
On the other hand, while Democrats were in power, they kind of got thumped by the Tea Party, slowly losing seats and houses of Congress to GOP and Tea Party-backed candidates. Their constituents were not as energized nor were they all that politically involved. Sure, there were pockets of activism, but there wasn't anything lasting.
Here's the trend I'm picking up on: I believe we're seeing a reaction from the left for a liberal Tea Party. I may be wrong, and it may never coalesce into a brand the way "Tea Party" did, but I do see parallels. The Tea Party felt it was not being heard by Washington and so do the current protesters. In fact, each has had their own March on Washington. The Tea Party became energized and politically involved in a way that the GOP constituency largely hadn't been at the time. The liberal wing is becoming energized and politically involved through marches, a more organized system of calling politicians, and not being afraid to speak out. They learned their lesson from the Tea Party, who did the same thing from a different political position just 8 years ago.
I see a few possible outcomes:
1) The liberal protesters end up disillusioned by the lack of political influence of their protests and give up. They feel defeated and beaten down after losing more seats in the 2018 midterms. Their voice grows quieter and quieter until the 2020 election rolls around. When that happens, the politician that most gives them hope of turning things around will gain their support, whether Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand or some other national figure. The character of that person will determine their success or failure in 2020.
2) The liberal protesters organize enough into their own version of the Tea Party. While remaining disorganized, the group pushes Congress to move to the left, or at least more moderate than the far-right push that has been taking place. Their protests, energy and political involvement annoy those on the right yet excite those on the left. The 2018 midterms end in a stalemate (I've talked about how the geography/math isn't good for Democrats that term) or with minor Democrat gains. Democrats find their voice and footing in opposition to an ever more unpopular Donald Trump and elect a liberal politician as president in 2020. The GOP begins moving away from Trump, but can't extricate itself enough, becoming associated with Trump's worst tendencies.
3) A liberal protest movement annoys politicians on the right, further calcifying their position despite evidence that the nation is pretty closely divided. Liberals, still feeling their voices aren't heard, decide to up the ante, so to speak, and get even more loud. At some point, a liberal protest turns truly violent into a full-scale riot. This further divides the country. Politics becomes even worse. Moderates are passed aside in the name of "pure" politicians on the left or right. The chasm between the parties only deepens.
I hope that the third option doesn't happen and that moderate heads can prevail. But I fear it will. I don't think we would know a moderate anymore if they stared us in the face.
SCOTUS pick and the "nuclear option"
This may surprise you, but I don't have strong feelings about Neil Gorsuch. Moreover, I'm sad about the process that may be used to confirm him and how we got here.
For generations, there has been a rule that judicial confirmations were subject to the filibuster. They required 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and move to an up-down vote. Until recently, the only question for Supreme Court justices was whether they were qualified and if any major red flags came up. Between Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton, justices were easily confirmed with very little opposition. Only two faced major challenges: Clarence Thomas (because of Anita Hill) and Robert Bork. Everyone else, whether liberal or conservative, passed with ease. There's a small shift in the George W. Bush years. John Roberts — who was eminently qualified, but conservative — passed easily with 78 votes. Samuel Alito avoided the filibuster and passed with just 58. I believe the Alito confirmation was a special case — he was a staunch conservative replacing a middle-of-the-road justice in Sandra Day O'Connor. His pick reduced the "swing" justices to just Anthony Kennedy. But Alito's selection made Supreme Court nominations an issue not of qualifications, but of viewpoints. Obama's picks, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, passed with more than 60 votes — avoiding the filibuster — but there was plenty of opposition.
What has changed was the "nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is a move by the majority power to remove the minority party's ability to filibuster a nominee and have a straight up-and-down vote. It kills the minority party's power, essentially. It makes the climax of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington meaningless.
This phrase's history dates to the Clinton Administration, when some of his judge picks and presidential appointments were filibustered by the Republicans. There wasn't much reason for it, and one judge waited four years before finally getting a vote. In effect, Republicans (in the majority) refused to even have hearings and sat on 60 other appointments out of spite. Republicans "won."
Fast forward to 2005, and Democrats return the favor. They're in the minority, but they hold up votes on 10 Bush judicial appointees because they found them too far out of the mainstream. This created a giant mess that was eventually solved by 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans, called the Gang of 14, who agreed not to use the nuclear option if the Democrats wouldn't use the filibuster except for "extreme circumstances." Republicans "won," because they convinced the Democrats not to use the filibuster and got their appointees in.
When Democrats took back the Senate in 2011, they were frustrated and sought to hamper the Republicans' ability to be obstructionist. There were negotiations and the filibuster was used by the Republicans on 78 (!) Obama appointees. The Republicans filibustered major Court of Appeals appointments by Obama for sketchy reasons. Finally, Democrats voted 52-48 (all Republicans and 3 Democrats voting against) to eliminate the use of the filibuster for all executive and judicial appointments OTHER than the Supreme Court. Think of this move as going semi-nuclear. Everything was nuked by the Democrats except the Supreme Court. Democrats "won."
Republicans sat on the nomination of Merrick Garland (a moderate pick) simply because it was an Obama pick. They waited a full year, which was beyond unprecedented. Republicans "won." And now we're here. Gorsuch is not a mainstream option, but he is highly qualified. In a less partisan era, he may have passed easily. But we're no longer in a less partisan era. Democrats were (rightfully) upset by that action, and have vowed to filibuster the pick. The Trump administration has called for the nuclear option on the Supreme Court. I expect it to be used.
I'm saddened because the filibuster used to be a tool that would force the majority party to compromise or to moderate. It was a legislative method to bring the two sides together. It was a method to move to the center. And now, through Republican obstructionism and Democrats desire for action, the filibuster is likely to die. Republicans, as shown in this history, have been successful with their obstructionist tactics. Democrats went semi-nuclear in response. Republicans seem ready to go fully nuclear. Mourn the death of the moderates.
Executive Orders
I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae of Trump's Muslim ban. I probably did that too much on Facebook itself, and I don't know if it helps the conversation any. It's so hard to care so much about an issue and feel like saying something doesn't help, and saying nothing doesn't either. It makes one feel powerless and dismissed.
But the one thing I wanted to bring up in this space was that the executive orders were very poorly handled in communication to the respective departments. I think it's safe to say objectively that the order's meaning and effects were not well understood. In short, it was bungled. Here are some heartbreaking examples that you can read on your own time.
The morality of such an act is up for debate. You know where I stand, and I won't retread that ground here. But the implementation of his acts are also worth consideration.
Summary Judgments
If I'm going to be critical, I also want to give praise: I was impressed by Donald Trump unexpectedly and quietly flying to the "homecoming" of the first military soldier death under his tenure. It wasn't something he had to do, but it was a good move. I was pleased with this action. The more I read about the raid on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) that led to his death, the more I am saddened. Here are stories on the raid by Reuters and the New York Times. • • • Separation of church and state is important, lest we become a theocracy — something we claim to hate in other countries. This is dangerous stuff. • • • I signed up for the Sweet 16: a series of four 4-mile runs. I ran 2 miles straight on Wednesday, so I'm feeling pretty good about it. I'll be much happier once it starts warming up. Running when it's 20-35 degrees outside is no fun. • • • Evie and Roland are in separate day care rooms right now. There was an opening in the 2 1/2-3 room, so Evie moved up. That means Roland's by himself in the 2-2 1/2 room. I think he might be having a hard time with it, because the kid has been a bear lately. He's been whining and throwing fits far more often. We find ourselves working around his moods a lot lately. It's meant we've paid less attention to Evie, and she's had some behavioral issues, but on a lesser scale. I don't know if this is Terrible Twos or just them being difficult. Advice would be nice!
Friday, January 27, 2017
"An Army of Amazons"
Note: Sorry I forgot to post this Thursday. It was almost ready, too. I simply forgot. My bad.
The Women's March that took place worldwide (even in Antarctica) on Saturday was a true testament to its strength. The size of the crowds was enormous. It dwarfed the inauguration crowd and made President Trump angry. I probably had three dozen or more Facebook friends take place in a march, either in their home city or in Washington. That's the most I've seen for any political event. I want to tackle three criticisms of the Women's March real quick — two I don't buy and one I do — before making a historical comparison.
Criticism 1) I don't even know what it was about -- it didn't seem like any one thing!
This one bugs me the most. I had about a half-dozen conservative female friends decide that because they personally didn't understand the Women's March, that it was pointless. If they didn't know what it was about, the causes are pretty easy to find. These complainers are right that it wasn't one cohesive, single issue. But it didn't have to be. There are numerous women's issues that need to be addressed, and leaving any one of them in the dust would have limited the scope and depth of the march. Issues included women's health treated the same as men's health, equal pay for equal work, the underrepresentation of women in Washington (though this has gotten incrementally better), pro-choice issues, the lack of justice for sexual assault victims, the fact a man who brags about sexual assault is sitting in the White House, and so on. It wasn't merely Trump-bashing, but there was some of that, too. It's a big tent. This is ignorant.
Criticism 2) They went too far! They don't speak for me!
First, as I understand these people, protests must be super polite, not obstruct traffic, not trample grass, must not have any one member do/say anything stupid, and not include idiots. That simply cannot be the case for marches consisting of 3 million people worldwide. However, as protests go, this was remarkably calm. Not a single arrest in Washington — remarkable. But I saw videos of celebrities delivering speeches passed around as "Can you believe the women's march stands for this?" Madonna and Ashley Judd come to mind. But characterizing a march this large about the actions of two celebrities is asinine. The thousands of marchers in Kansas City didn't hear Ashley Judd speak when they marched. Neither did almost all of the marchers elsewhere. And even if those celebrities or those marchers don't speak for you, they spoke for themselves. It was obvious that they didn't speak for you, since you weren't there. This is dismissive.
Criticism 3) This is an example of the partisan divide. Most of the rallies were in democratic-leaning cities and not in the Midwest; this is why Trump won.
I wondered if this were true on Saturday, but the numbers bear it out. There were roughly 400-500K marchers in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. There were 400K marchers in NYC. Boston, Chicago and Seattle each had more than 110K people. St. Paul, MN, had nearly 100K people. Every one of those cities and states voted blue in November. The first state that voted red with a large march population was Madison, Wisc., which had about 87,500 marchers and was a narrow win for Trump. After that, it's Atlanta at 60,000 and then Austin, Texas, at 45,000. FiveThirtyEight pointed out that 80 percent of the marchers came in cities that voted for Clinton. Nothing about these marches seems to indicate that the electoral college would be any different. This is... true to an extent.
The historical comparison that came to mind first was one from my old Pittsburg days and a fascinating piece of history. On Dec. 11, 1921, 500 women, including mothers, grandmothers, daughters and sisters, crowded into the Franklin Miners Hall. Many of their male family members were miners, as the area produced nearly 1/3 of the country's coal at one point. They were upset over unfair labor practices, including unsafe working conditions, poor pay, long hours and discrimination. (Their men were already on strike.) They would organize a march of 3,000-6,000 women on the mines the next three mornings, armed with the American flag in front and no weapons (though they did carry red pepper to throw in the face of those undercutting the union). The marches gained national attention, with the New York Times calling the "An Army of Amazons." My old paper, right in the thick of it, called them "Militant Women," but noted there was little violence. (Note: The East Coast was very mad about the protests, and the Pittsburg area was among the most socialist in the country. Times have changed.) The governor sent in the state militia, who supposedly shot at the women's feet. They'd arrest 49 women and hold them on a four-times-higher-than-normal $750 bond for unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace and assault. The protesters wanted eight-hour work days (!), child labor laws, etc. Most of those things didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until 1938 that the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, enshrining most of the worker protections we know now (40-hour work week, minimum wage, ending child labor, and overtime rules). So although the Amazon Army didn't see a ton of immediate change, they were one of the first national sparks that led to a fire of reform a decade or so later.
The last surviving member of the marches, Eva Gartner, who had been carried as a baby by her mother near the front of the march, died roughly two years ago at age 93. She took part in a recreation of the march two years before her death. One other historical note: The leader of the Amazon Army was Slovenian-born Mary Skubitz, who spoke five languages (very important for the melting pot of immigrants involved). Her son, Joe Skubitz, who was 14 when the marches took place and learned to make bread the mornings she marched, would go on to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives for 16 years. He played a big part in passing most of our Black Lung laws and Mine Safety legislation. He died in 2000.
So what does this all teach me? First, protests are rarely celebrated in their own time. The term "Amazon Army" was not meant kindly. Second, even if nothing happens immediately, organizing is the first step to making change. Third, change takes time — years, if not decades. Saturday's Women's March is a good start, but it would be a shame if nothing comes of it. Fourth, 3 million people is nothing to sneeze at, but it seems there's a disconnect between the left-leaning bastions and their more rural sisters. That'll need to be addressed before national change becomes impossible to stop.
Humana/Aetna
This is probably the biggest story you haven't heard of, and I really want to give it proper space and time. I heard a bit of it on NPR and tried to find it on NBC News — no story, not even in the health section. I looked on CNN and couldn't find anything, not even in their health section. It's not on Fox News. It's on the New York Times and Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times — yet another reason to subscribe to a newspaper, since broadcast news isn't covering it..
Here's the recap: Health insurance company Aetna wanted to buy fellow health insurance company Humana. The Obama administration, already dealing with another, larger health insurance merger between Cigna and Anthem, made moves to block the Aetna-Humana merger on antitrust grounds. This is where it gets bad: Aetna made it clear to the Obama administration that they would pull out of the Obamacare exchanges if the deal were not approved — not because of costs. When the administration said no, they pulled out anyway, claiming the costs were too much in this story just five months ago. Aetna pulling out of Obamacare's exchanges has been a major Republican talking point ever since. However, they pulled out of many profitable states and counties just to thumb their nose at the Obama Administration.
Even shorter: Aetna pulled out of the Obamacare exchanges because of spite — not cost — because the Obama administration fought them on a huge merger. Or, as U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said: "Aetna tried to leverage its participation in the exchanges for favorable treatment from DOJ regarding the proposed merger." He also found that Aetna tried to hide this decision-making process by using phone calls (no paper records of what was said) instead of emails, and abusing attorney-client privilege (not public) bordering on "malfeasance."
Judge Bates has blocked the $37 billion acquisition of Humana by Aetna on antitrust grounds, but the Obamacare blackmail was a key part in his decision making. Truly despicable actions by Aetna.
Alternative Facts
Much has been said already about the start of the Trump Administration, but it's off to a rocky start with the press. First, Trump's Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that "That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period." It was demonstrably false by anyone who covers these things, including my former OU colleague (now Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the LA Times) Hailey Branson-Potts here here here and here. It's been mocked all over, including Saturday Night Live, who noted that when you have to add "period" to the end of a sentence, it usually means you're lying (Example: "I'm a doctor, period."). On Monday, he'd add: "Our intention is never to lie to you."
Perhaps the audacity of that claim and its easy-to-disprove nature left Trump Advisor Kellyanne Conway on the defensive, but she doubled down on the claim on Sunday morning in an interview with Chuck Todd, claiming that Spicer was presenting "Alternative facts." To his credit, Chuck Todd immediately called her on that, saying "Alternative facts aren't facts; they're falsehoods." It was a powerful moment of journalism, I thought, of a journalist refusing to just go along with the answers. The "alternative facts" has found its way into the last few days of pop culture. Several sports teams have started presenting outrageous "alternative facts" about their teams as a joke. NBA TV even did an "alternative stats" of the Lakers-Mavericks game showing the Lakers winning with a team of their all-time all-stars instead of the real stats of losing by a record margin.
But what's not had the same amount of attention was the rest of Conway's response. Later in the interview, Todd returned to the question of why Spicer felt he had to lie about crowd size. Conway's answer spoke volumes about this administration's squelching of journalism: "Your job is not to call things ridiculous that are said by our press secretary and our president. That's not your job." After further being pressed by Todd, she said to "...think about what you just said to your viewers. That's why we felt compelled to go out and clear the air and put alternative facts out there." Conway is trying to get Todd to just go along with what the president/press secretary say. To her, journalism's job is to be the administration's mouthpiece/puppets.
Summary Judgments
The federal government just paid $24 million to 100 black Secret Service agents as a settlement. Why? They were routinely passed over for promotion in favor of less-qualified white Secret Service agents. While a settlement usually includes no admission of guilt, it also is a "I don't want to take this to the courts to prove I'm innocent." It's the purest example of "make this story go away please." • • • I have seen as many of my liberal friends upset over comments by an NBC writer about Barron Trump as conservative friends. It's not a one-sided issue, even though my conservative friends seem to think so. Kids are off limits, unless they bring attention to themselves. Barron did no such thing. But all this hoopla over it? It was dealt with quickly and properly on the next business day and everyone was equally upset. Where's the fire? • • • Scary stuff from Minnesota, where the governor collapsed while delivering the State of the State. He's OK and this has happened before, but scary nonetheless. One thing I found interesting about the journalism in that linked story: There's no mention of his party affiliation. That's because party affiliation isn't important when it comes to health. • • • An oral history of an Internet cartoon I spent a lot of time watching when I was younger? Yes, please. More about Homestar Runner and Strong Bad. More Teen Girl Squad (which matches up surprisingly well with the Bennet daughters in Pride and Prejudice). • • • I ran three times last week before taking a few days off for having a cold/it being cold reasons. I at least have a head light now, so I won't fall anymore. I'm still sore! • • • We've been playing a lot of hide and seek lately, which amounts to me hiding and the kids counting to 10 (educational!) before going to look for me. When they find me, Evie usually says "I scared you," which is usually right if you reverse the pronouns. But it always amuses us when Evie wants to hide. She always picks the same spot (by the front door) and giggles when we get to 10. One time, we said "Let's go look for Evie!" And she responded, "That's me!" giving away her location. It's adorable and I love it.
The Women's March that took place worldwide (even in Antarctica) on Saturday was a true testament to its strength. The size of the crowds was enormous. It dwarfed the inauguration crowd and made President Trump angry. I probably had three dozen or more Facebook friends take place in a march, either in their home city or in Washington. That's the most I've seen for any political event. I want to tackle three criticisms of the Women's March real quick — two I don't buy and one I do — before making a historical comparison.
Criticism 1) I don't even know what it was about -- it didn't seem like any one thing!
This one bugs me the most. I had about a half-dozen conservative female friends decide that because they personally didn't understand the Women's March, that it was pointless. If they didn't know what it was about, the causes are pretty easy to find. These complainers are right that it wasn't one cohesive, single issue. But it didn't have to be. There are numerous women's issues that need to be addressed, and leaving any one of them in the dust would have limited the scope and depth of the march. Issues included women's health treated the same as men's health, equal pay for equal work, the underrepresentation of women in Washington (though this has gotten incrementally better), pro-choice issues, the lack of justice for sexual assault victims, the fact a man who brags about sexual assault is sitting in the White House, and so on. It wasn't merely Trump-bashing, but there was some of that, too. It's a big tent. This is ignorant.
Criticism 2) They went too far! They don't speak for me!
First, as I understand these people, protests must be super polite, not obstruct traffic, not trample grass, must not have any one member do/say anything stupid, and not include idiots. That simply cannot be the case for marches consisting of 3 million people worldwide. However, as protests go, this was remarkably calm. Not a single arrest in Washington — remarkable. But I saw videos of celebrities delivering speeches passed around as "Can you believe the women's march stands for this?" Madonna and Ashley Judd come to mind. But characterizing a march this large about the actions of two celebrities is asinine. The thousands of marchers in Kansas City didn't hear Ashley Judd speak when they marched. Neither did almost all of the marchers elsewhere. And even if those celebrities or those marchers don't speak for you, they spoke for themselves. It was obvious that they didn't speak for you, since you weren't there. This is dismissive.
Criticism 3) This is an example of the partisan divide. Most of the rallies were in democratic-leaning cities and not in the Midwest; this is why Trump won.
I wondered if this were true on Saturday, but the numbers bear it out. There were roughly 400-500K marchers in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. There were 400K marchers in NYC. Boston, Chicago and Seattle each had more than 110K people. St. Paul, MN, had nearly 100K people. Every one of those cities and states voted blue in November. The first state that voted red with a large march population was Madison, Wisc., which had about 87,500 marchers and was a narrow win for Trump. After that, it's Atlanta at 60,000 and then Austin, Texas, at 45,000. FiveThirtyEight pointed out that 80 percent of the marchers came in cities that voted for Clinton. Nothing about these marches seems to indicate that the electoral college would be any different. This is... true to an extent.
The historical comparison that came to mind first was one from my old Pittsburg days and a fascinating piece of history. On Dec. 11, 1921, 500 women, including mothers, grandmothers, daughters and sisters, crowded into the Franklin Miners Hall. Many of their male family members were miners, as the area produced nearly 1/3 of the country's coal at one point. They were upset over unfair labor practices, including unsafe working conditions, poor pay, long hours and discrimination. (Their men were already on strike.) They would organize a march of 3,000-6,000 women on the mines the next three mornings, armed with the American flag in front and no weapons (though they did carry red pepper to throw in the face of those undercutting the union). The marches gained national attention, with the New York Times calling the "An Army of Amazons." My old paper, right in the thick of it, called them "Militant Women," but noted there was little violence. (Note: The East Coast was very mad about the protests, and the Pittsburg area was among the most socialist in the country. Times have changed.) The governor sent in the state militia, who supposedly shot at the women's feet. They'd arrest 49 women and hold them on a four-times-higher-than-normal $750 bond for unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace and assault. The protesters wanted eight-hour work days (!), child labor laws, etc. Most of those things didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until 1938 that the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, enshrining most of the worker protections we know now (40-hour work week, minimum wage, ending child labor, and overtime rules). So although the Amazon Army didn't see a ton of immediate change, they were one of the first national sparks that led to a fire of reform a decade or so later.
The last surviving member of the marches, Eva Gartner, who had been carried as a baby by her mother near the front of the march, died roughly two years ago at age 93. She took part in a recreation of the march two years before her death. One other historical note: The leader of the Amazon Army was Slovenian-born Mary Skubitz, who spoke five languages (very important for the melting pot of immigrants involved). Her son, Joe Skubitz, who was 14 when the marches took place and learned to make bread the mornings she marched, would go on to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives for 16 years. He played a big part in passing most of our Black Lung laws and Mine Safety legislation. He died in 2000.
So what does this all teach me? First, protests are rarely celebrated in their own time. The term "Amazon Army" was not meant kindly. Second, even if nothing happens immediately, organizing is the first step to making change. Third, change takes time — years, if not decades. Saturday's Women's March is a good start, but it would be a shame if nothing comes of it. Fourth, 3 million people is nothing to sneeze at, but it seems there's a disconnect between the left-leaning bastions and their more rural sisters. That'll need to be addressed before national change becomes impossible to stop.
Humana/Aetna
This is probably the biggest story you haven't heard of, and I really want to give it proper space and time. I heard a bit of it on NPR and tried to find it on NBC News — no story, not even in the health section. I looked on CNN and couldn't find anything, not even in their health section. It's not on Fox News. It's on the New York Times and Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times — yet another reason to subscribe to a newspaper, since broadcast news isn't covering it..
Here's the recap: Health insurance company Aetna wanted to buy fellow health insurance company Humana. The Obama administration, already dealing with another, larger health insurance merger between Cigna and Anthem, made moves to block the Aetna-Humana merger on antitrust grounds. This is where it gets bad: Aetna made it clear to the Obama administration that they would pull out of the Obamacare exchanges if the deal were not approved — not because of costs. When the administration said no, they pulled out anyway, claiming the costs were too much in this story just five months ago. Aetna pulling out of Obamacare's exchanges has been a major Republican talking point ever since. However, they pulled out of many profitable states and counties just to thumb their nose at the Obama Administration.
Even shorter: Aetna pulled out of the Obamacare exchanges because of spite — not cost — because the Obama administration fought them on a huge merger. Or, as U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said: "Aetna tried to leverage its participation in the exchanges for favorable treatment from DOJ regarding the proposed merger." He also found that Aetna tried to hide this decision-making process by using phone calls (no paper records of what was said) instead of emails, and abusing attorney-client privilege (not public) bordering on "malfeasance."
Judge Bates has blocked the $37 billion acquisition of Humana by Aetna on antitrust grounds, but the Obamacare blackmail was a key part in his decision making. Truly despicable actions by Aetna.
Alternative Facts
Much has been said already about the start of the Trump Administration, but it's off to a rocky start with the press. First, Trump's Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that "That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period." It was demonstrably false by anyone who covers these things, including my former OU colleague (now Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the LA Times) Hailey Branson-Potts here here here and here. It's been mocked all over, including Saturday Night Live, who noted that when you have to add "period" to the end of a sentence, it usually means you're lying (Example: "I'm a doctor, period."). On Monday, he'd add: "Our intention is never to lie to you."
Perhaps the audacity of that claim and its easy-to-disprove nature left Trump Advisor Kellyanne Conway on the defensive, but she doubled down on the claim on Sunday morning in an interview with Chuck Todd, claiming that Spicer was presenting "Alternative facts." To his credit, Chuck Todd immediately called her on that, saying "Alternative facts aren't facts; they're falsehoods." It was a powerful moment of journalism, I thought, of a journalist refusing to just go along with the answers. The "alternative facts" has found its way into the last few days of pop culture. Several sports teams have started presenting outrageous "alternative facts" about their teams as a joke. NBA TV even did an "alternative stats" of the Lakers-Mavericks game showing the Lakers winning with a team of their all-time all-stars instead of the real stats of losing by a record margin.
But what's not had the same amount of attention was the rest of Conway's response. Later in the interview, Todd returned to the question of why Spicer felt he had to lie about crowd size. Conway's answer spoke volumes about this administration's squelching of journalism: "Your job is not to call things ridiculous that are said by our press secretary and our president. That's not your job." After further being pressed by Todd, she said to "...think about what you just said to your viewers. That's why we felt compelled to go out and clear the air and put alternative facts out there." Conway is trying to get Todd to just go along with what the president/press secretary say. To her, journalism's job is to be the administration's mouthpiece/puppets.
Summary Judgments
The federal government just paid $24 million to 100 black Secret Service agents as a settlement. Why? They were routinely passed over for promotion in favor of less-qualified white Secret Service agents. While a settlement usually includes no admission of guilt, it also is a "I don't want to take this to the courts to prove I'm innocent." It's the purest example of "make this story go away please." • • • I have seen as many of my liberal friends upset over comments by an NBC writer about Barron Trump as conservative friends. It's not a one-sided issue, even though my conservative friends seem to think so. Kids are off limits, unless they bring attention to themselves. Barron did no such thing. But all this hoopla over it? It was dealt with quickly and properly on the next business day and everyone was equally upset. Where's the fire? • • • Scary stuff from Minnesota, where the governor collapsed while delivering the State of the State. He's OK and this has happened before, but scary nonetheless. One thing I found interesting about the journalism in that linked story: There's no mention of his party affiliation. That's because party affiliation isn't important when it comes to health. • • • An oral history of an Internet cartoon I spent a lot of time watching when I was younger? Yes, please. More about Homestar Runner and Strong Bad. More Teen Girl Squad (which matches up surprisingly well with the Bennet daughters in Pride and Prejudice). • • • I ran three times last week before taking a few days off for having a cold/it being cold reasons. I at least have a head light now, so I won't fall anymore. I'm still sore! • • • We've been playing a lot of hide and seek lately, which amounts to me hiding and the kids counting to 10 (educational!) before going to look for me. When they find me, Evie usually says "I scared you," which is usually right if you reverse the pronouns. But it always amuses us when Evie wants to hide. She always picks the same spot (by the front door) and giggles when we get to 10. One time, we said "Let's go look for Evie!" And she responded, "That's me!" giving away her location. It's adorable and I love it.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Reaching an NFL Plateau
I don't think the National Football League will ever fade out of the public eye for good, nor will it truly wane. But I think its years of growth are over. *Note: I'm not the first to take this stance, but I'm pulling some things from the last few days.
First of all, it's too expensive to go to a game. It's roughly $60-$80 for the cheapest seats available at Arrowhead Stadium for a Chiefs game, plus $20-$40 for parking, plus another $20-50 for food once you're there. That's not sustainable because it's not accessible. Granted, there are maybe 7-10 home games a year, but that's still not accessible. Further, it's not as non-stop action in person as you'd think. The first NFL game I went to was in Dallas as a kid, and I remember being struck by how much down time there was because of TV breaks. And with the development of HD televisions and not having to deal with rowdy, drunk fans, home is a better — and cheaper! — alternative on Sundays.
Second, it's starting to become uncomfortable to watch because of potential head injuries. The threat of chronic head trauma means that every time a player gets hit in the head or there's a particularly violent tackle, it means years of a life being shaved off. During the final Chiefs game of the season, Chris Conley took a vicious hit to the head. He looked dazed immediately. When it happened live, I said, "Oh, yay! Oh no!" because I was happy the Chiefs were getting closer to the end zone, but frightened for Conley. It didn't look good on the replay. TV went to a commercial, and when it came back, he was walking off with help. He was back on the field a play later. But the whole time, I felt uncomfortable about what I'd just seen. Am I watching a player who's going to need assistance by the time he's 50? One of the most dynamic athletes of all time, Bo Jackson, has said that he would never have played football if he'd known what it does to a player's brain. That's troubling about the long-term future of the sport.
Third, there are three clear examples that the NFL does not care about its fans all that much. Two teams have left their decades-long homes for the greener pastures of Los Angeles: the Rams and the Chargers. The Rams franchise has a long history of being back and forth, but they'd found a home in St. Louis. They'd also put the price tag for their stadium onto the backs of Missouri taxpayers. The Rams told the state that they'd leave for Los Angeles without a new billion-dollar stadium, and the state (and St. Louis) said no. Now that the Rams are in Los Angeles (which didn't really want them), the state is still on the hot seat: Missouri will be paying $12 million a year until 2022 for the Edward Jones Dome, built in 1995. The Chargers also made a similar blackmail threat, thinking that Los Angeles wanted them, too. The Chargers had been in San Diego since the 1970s. But voters (wisely) rejected paying hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of an NFL franchise. So Chargers owner Dean Spanos is now paying $650 million to move the team to L.A., which doesn't appear to want them. Why he couldn't have used that money to keep the team in San Diego is beyond the point. Finally, the Oakland Raiders will soon drop "Oakland" to become the "Las Vegas Raiders." The teams don't care about the cities they live in. We're just profits to them.
Finally, I think the NFL has overdone it a little in its zeal to control the game. You can't celebrate touchdowns anymore without either a fine or a flag. It's something out of a Key and Peele sketch made real. Further, there aren't a lot of surprises right now. Either Tom Brady, Peyton Manning or Ben Roethlisberger has represented the AFC for all but one of the last 14 years. Finally, some Pro Bowl changes were overdue, but changing the location from Hawaii to Orlando and putting it the week before the Super Bowl (and therefore losing the players in the Super Bowl).
Details Matter
When the intelligence community said that they think Russia interfered in our election, they mean two things: 1) Russian intelligence used propaganda elements to discourage Clinton voters and encourage Trump voters. 2) Russia's hacking and subsequent release of DNC emails possibly changed the outcome of the election. They do not mean that Russia hacked the election itself, but that they influenced the election.
I think this is important to note. When we say Russia hacked the election, it's that they influenced people, not votes. It's not the overt vote-rigging that I think some imagine when we say Russia hacked the election. So when people say that Donald Trump won the election, they're right. He still won the votes in the right places. But when people say that Russia didn't affect the election, they're wrong.
We don't know how much it affected the outcome. Did it convince enough people in enough swing states to make a difference? Who can say definitively?
But one thing else I want people to note: Donald Trump ended up nearly 3 million votes behind Hillary Clinton. Yet he won because he won all the swing states and had enough of an edge in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan to pull it out. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin hadn't gone Republican since before I was 10, yet they went Republican, because people change. There's nothing that says they won't change their minds again in four years.
Summary Judgments
According to this Jezebel piece and this Cracked piece, Trump is a prosperity gospel believer. Of course he is. In short, prosperity gospel believes that God blesses people financially, etc., as reward for their faith. It's also the opposite: People are rich because of their faith. It ignores things that Jesus said. I agree with the title of that piece that it's "Distorted Gospel." It explains a lot about Donald Trump, actually. • • • I went for my first run of the season on Wednesday. It was still dark outside, and it was foggy, and actually freezing fog, so the roads were a bit slick. That's all legitimate justification for tripping on some debris and biting it pretty hard. I had stigmata on my left hand for a few minutes, and my shoulder's been sore ever since. It wasn't that running was hard or that I was embarrassed. The feeling that came to mind immediately was that I was old. I hope to fix that feeling as I run more often. • • • I thought this was a good breakdown of the election by FiveThirtyEight genius Nate Silver. They were the least wrong about the election, and I think he's been far more middle-of-the-road about it than people give him credit for. • • • I don't have a great story about the kids this week. Sorry! Nothing stands out right now. I'm sure we'll make up for it soon.
First of all, it's too expensive to go to a game. It's roughly $60-$80 for the cheapest seats available at Arrowhead Stadium for a Chiefs game, plus $20-$40 for parking, plus another $20-50 for food once you're there. That's not sustainable because it's not accessible. Granted, there are maybe 7-10 home games a year, but that's still not accessible. Further, it's not as non-stop action in person as you'd think. The first NFL game I went to was in Dallas as a kid, and I remember being struck by how much down time there was because of TV breaks. And with the development of HD televisions and not having to deal with rowdy, drunk fans, home is a better — and cheaper! — alternative on Sundays.
Second, it's starting to become uncomfortable to watch because of potential head injuries. The threat of chronic head trauma means that every time a player gets hit in the head or there's a particularly violent tackle, it means years of a life being shaved off. During the final Chiefs game of the season, Chris Conley took a vicious hit to the head. He looked dazed immediately. When it happened live, I said, "Oh, yay! Oh no!" because I was happy the Chiefs were getting closer to the end zone, but frightened for Conley. It didn't look good on the replay. TV went to a commercial, and when it came back, he was walking off with help. He was back on the field a play later. But the whole time, I felt uncomfortable about what I'd just seen. Am I watching a player who's going to need assistance by the time he's 50? One of the most dynamic athletes of all time, Bo Jackson, has said that he would never have played football if he'd known what it does to a player's brain. That's troubling about the long-term future of the sport.
Third, there are three clear examples that the NFL does not care about its fans all that much. Two teams have left their decades-long homes for the greener pastures of Los Angeles: the Rams and the Chargers. The Rams franchise has a long history of being back and forth, but they'd found a home in St. Louis. They'd also put the price tag for their stadium onto the backs of Missouri taxpayers. The Rams told the state that they'd leave for Los Angeles without a new billion-dollar stadium, and the state (and St. Louis) said no. Now that the Rams are in Los Angeles (which didn't really want them), the state is still on the hot seat: Missouri will be paying $12 million a year until 2022 for the Edward Jones Dome, built in 1995. The Chargers also made a similar blackmail threat, thinking that Los Angeles wanted them, too. The Chargers had been in San Diego since the 1970s. But voters (wisely) rejected paying hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of an NFL franchise. So Chargers owner Dean Spanos is now paying $650 million to move the team to L.A., which doesn't appear to want them. Why he couldn't have used that money to keep the team in San Diego is beyond the point. Finally, the Oakland Raiders will soon drop "Oakland" to become the "Las Vegas Raiders." The teams don't care about the cities they live in. We're just profits to them.
Finally, I think the NFL has overdone it a little in its zeal to control the game. You can't celebrate touchdowns anymore without either a fine or a flag. It's something out of a Key and Peele sketch made real. Further, there aren't a lot of surprises right now. Either Tom Brady, Peyton Manning or Ben Roethlisberger has represented the AFC for all but one of the last 14 years. Finally, some Pro Bowl changes were overdue, but changing the location from Hawaii to Orlando and putting it the week before the Super Bowl (and therefore losing the players in the Super Bowl).
Details Matter
When the intelligence community said that they think Russia interfered in our election, they mean two things: 1) Russian intelligence used propaganda elements to discourage Clinton voters and encourage Trump voters. 2) Russia's hacking and subsequent release of DNC emails possibly changed the outcome of the election. They do not mean that Russia hacked the election itself, but that they influenced the election.
I think this is important to note. When we say Russia hacked the election, it's that they influenced people, not votes. It's not the overt vote-rigging that I think some imagine when we say Russia hacked the election. So when people say that Donald Trump won the election, they're right. He still won the votes in the right places. But when people say that Russia didn't affect the election, they're wrong.
We don't know how much it affected the outcome. Did it convince enough people in enough swing states to make a difference? Who can say definitively?
But one thing else I want people to note: Donald Trump ended up nearly 3 million votes behind Hillary Clinton. Yet he won because he won all the swing states and had enough of an edge in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan to pull it out. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin hadn't gone Republican since before I was 10, yet they went Republican, because people change. There's nothing that says they won't change their minds again in four years.
Summary Judgments
According to this Jezebel piece and this Cracked piece, Trump is a prosperity gospel believer. Of course he is. In short, prosperity gospel believes that God blesses people financially, etc., as reward for their faith. It's also the opposite: People are rich because of their faith. It ignores things that Jesus said. I agree with the title of that piece that it's "Distorted Gospel." It explains a lot about Donald Trump, actually. • • • I went for my first run of the season on Wednesday. It was still dark outside, and it was foggy, and actually freezing fog, so the roads were a bit slick. That's all legitimate justification for tripping on some debris and biting it pretty hard. I had stigmata on my left hand for a few minutes, and my shoulder's been sore ever since. It wasn't that running was hard or that I was embarrassed. The feeling that came to mind immediately was that I was old. I hope to fix that feeling as I run more often. • • • I thought this was a good breakdown of the election by FiveThirtyEight genius Nate Silver. They were the least wrong about the election, and I think he's been far more middle-of-the-road about it than people give him credit for. • • • I don't have a great story about the kids this week. Sorry! Nothing stands out right now. I'm sure we'll make up for it soon.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Obama's Legacy
I'm still having trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that Donald Trump will sit in the Oval Office, but such is life. With the last weeks of President Obama, it's time to take a look back at eight years and see what he did well, what he did poorly, and some of the odd things about his presidency.
Good
One of the biggest successes of the Obama Presidency is the turnaround in the economy. When the Great Recession hit in 2008/2009, the country was in a dire place. And Obama — once he got settled in — made some clear strides to correct that. The ARRA (aka the "stimulus") was actually a large success, bringing jobs, improved infrastructure and more that wouldn't have been possible without it. In an example of what can happen when the two parties aren't at odds, George W. Bush passed the auto bailout, but left it to the incoming administration to distribute and manage. It's to both presidency's credit that the auto industry was triaged, saving what could. Chrysler and GM were eventually saved and the auto industry is doing well again. Unemployment is half of what it was (depending on your choice of measure) and Wall Street is booming. Job growth has been good. We are in a better financial place now than when he took office. You could argue that there's nowhere to go but down; You could also argue that any president would have done something. But we didn't have any president, we had Obama. And he deserves credit for taking action and having success.
I think the Iran nuclear agreement will be seen as a success, too. America has a lot of problems with Iran. Many of those are legitimate. We see them as an agitator in the Middle East. They probably are. This deal, however, agrees to limit the nuclear weapons capability of a country that could have pursued it if they wanted. We have monitoring, we have an agreement in place, and we have parameters. That's better than the nothing that we would have had. Is it perfect? No. But it takes compromise to get a deal.
American troops are no longer in Iraq and Afghanistan to the same extent as they were. We're practically out of Iraq already, and there are some troops still in Afghanistan. However, they are fractions of what they were. There were about 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan when Obama took over. Even after the surge (which reached nearly 100,000 troops), the number of troops is closer to 10,000, with plans in place to drop to 5,500 by the end of the year.
Osama Bin Laden is dead. There are reports that the previous administration moved away from targeting him. However, Obama made the decision to target him and also made the decision to do a stunning raid to take him out. This is arguably the best moment of his presidency. Further, al Qaeda is crippled both for reasons Obama can take credit for and those he cannot (See below, re: ISIS).
I go back and forth on this subject, but I think taking immigration seriously as a subject also includes being tough on those that break the law. While Obama had some major changes with DACA/DAPA (See below), it would have been hard for him to speak with authority if he didn't take the deportation of foreign criminals seriously. And he did, deporting 24 percent more people than George W. Bush and leading some to call him the Deporter-in-Chief. The more you look at his record, the more you can tell he has been very tough on those attempting to cross the Mexican border or those who commit crimes once already here. But for non-criminals and those who were already in America, he has been more lenient.
Climate change is real, and it is happening. And Obama was part of an international delegation that reached an agreement about it, called the Paris Climate Agreement. It's significant enough that climate change is being taken seriously. It's more significant that the U.S. did not stick its nose in the sand while other countries addressed the problem — we were an active participant. Again, the agreement isn't perfect, but building something is always harder than tearing down.
Obama's most significant change in rhetoric came in the area of LGBT rights. He did not start out in favor of it, but has come around to it. On a national scale, he's made moves to make LGBT discrimination illegal. While he didn't directly do it, the Supreme Court codified gay marriage into law during his tenure. The societal ills of passing gay marriage have not come to pass.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act is not the panacea to wage discrimination that it's declared to be. But it's a major step. It was one of his first major proposals to address the wage gap between men and women in the workforce.
The most significant thing about Barack Obama is something he could not control, but is probably what lifted him to the Oval Office — symbology. In the photo at left, 5-year-old Jacob Philadelphia touches Obama's hair back in 2012. "I want to know if my hair is just like yours," the boy said. And the President bent over to let him discover for himself. It makes me tear up every time, because it's so powerful, and the President didn't say a word. On the right is a picture that shows 106-year-old Virginia McLaurin dancing with Barack and Michelle Obama. She's now 107 and still dancing. She was born in segregated South Carolina, and picked cotton in her youth. She saw and met the first black President. That's worth waiting for.
Bad
Barack Obama's biggest failure is in the Middle East. In removing the Armed Forces and much of the muscle from the region, that left a power vacuum that was not filled by the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government has largely turned out to be unhelpful, but they seemed to stoke sectarian violence. Into that breach came more radical sectarian groups, first called Al Qaeda in Iraq (in the Bush years) and operating in war-torn Syria before seizing land and declaring itself ISIS. The rise of the brutal and violent ISIS has been the biggest fault. On one hand, it's understandable — we just got out of land wars in Asia, and it doesn't usually turn out well. On the other, ISIS was given plenty of space and time, and it grew to dangerous levels. They were not dealt with, and it metastasized into an international threat. There are ISIS-inspired attacks in our country, there are ISIS attacks internationally, and ISIS seems to be planting seed groups in many hotspots. Barack Obama did not want to get us into another war. But it found him anyway.
Another example of his reticence to take military action was in Syria. Specifically, I remember his "red line" about the use of chemical weapons by Assad. Then Assad used chemical weapons. And we got to the brink of doing something. Then Secretary of State John Kerry was asked what could Assad do to prevent a U.S. attack, he offhandedly said Assad could admit to having chemical weapons and give them all up peacefully. There wasn't the honest expectation that it could be done. Almost immediately, Russia forced Syria to do just that. America stayed out. Syria remains in Civil War, and Russia looks like a major player in the Middle East. The good news is that we got chemical weapons out of Syria (and therefore removed a threat to Israel and other allies in the region). The bad news is that Syria's still a mess, and we looked weak.
Guantanamo Bay is still open. This was a big campaign promise, and he never could do it. The number of prisoners is down (from nearly 250 to roughly 60), but this is still a black mark on the nation.
The economy didn't come back better than ever. GDP growth has been close to 2 percent. It "should" be at 3-4 percent. So it's growing, just not as fast as we want. The labor force is falling (though much of this can be attributed to Baby Boomers retiring and people deciding to pursue college degrees). The number of Americans in poverty has risen. The number of Americans on food stamps rose dramatically. Net household wealth has been relatively stagnant until late. Manufacturing took a lot of hits, and they weren't fully replaced. The gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of us has only continued to grow. We haven't fixed the structural issues of our economy.
One other issue is racial relations. Tension has boiled over several times, and while Obama's rhetoric wasn't always as divisive as it was painted to be, I don't think it always helped. Sometimes it's OK to sit back and let justice be done. Other times, like the investigation into Ferguson, deeper issues were revealed. I would say that we haven't done anything to address racial relations in America. We like to ignore it. When it does rise up, it becomes this question of Who do you Support?, pitting cops v. people of color. And that's a false dichotomy. Finally, while the trends are still down, there has been a spike in murders in the last year in big cities. Gun violence has not been addressed at all.
Somewhere In The Middle
You've said it; I've said it; even Barack Obama's said it: I still don't know why he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy has been both successful and found to be constitutional. Effectively, it's a policy of not prosecuting children who are brought to America illegally as minors. It also makes them eligible for work permits. This is good. Its sister program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) extended that policy to parents of American-born citizens. It has been blocked by federal judges until its constitutionality can be determined, but it's likely to be a moot point with Trump coming in.
His signature health plan, Obamacare, is listed here. I think there is no doubt that it was better than what we had before. It offers many protections and possibilities that were not available. I also think it's fair to say it didn't live up to hype. It's better than you think because you forget what it was like before it and it has legitimately saved the lives of many people. It's also worse than you think because many of its provisions were gutted by Republican opponents, it was tasked by the public with solving a problem it wasn't meant to address (health care costs), and it's been dramatically misinterpreted by even those who have stood to benefit from it. I give him credit for putting his neck on the line for such a big piece of legislation. I also take credit away because he always felt defensive about it. Life is better with Obamacare existing, but its lack of total embrace nationally has left it with a bumpy future.
Drone strikes are a necessary evil, I think. I don't like them and think it makes the decision to act in war seem like a video game — there's no personal stakes if you can kill from a computer desk on a different continent. But I also understand that they prevent human deaths.
Probably the biggest mixed bag has been that he couldn't find any common ground with Republicans. They were obstructive to a fault. Whose fault is it? Your answer may vary, but I certainly think fault lies on both sides. There were some battles that didn't need to be fought (debt ceiling, for one) and others that were fought vindictively. Not one Republican vote for Obamacare. I personally find that the GOP made things difficult from Day One for him, but I also think he made some enemies before he should have.
Gang of Eight
Since this blog originally started out to critique the news organizations, it's time I got back to that a little bit. In a recent CNN story about the troubling intelligence that was given to our nation's top leaders about Russia possibly blackmailing our President-Elect into supporting their positions (It's messy and I'm not sure how much I believe it, but it's troubling that the allegations exist at all), CNN referred to the "Gang of Eight" as the top four Congressional leaders and the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate/House intelligence committees.
The positive news is that they explained what they meant by "Gang of Eight." Unfortunately, this was potentially confusing. The term most famously referred to the bipartisan group of eight senators that pushed a 2013 immigration bill (that ultimately failed). Members of that group include Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Jeff Flake. What a diverse group!
It turns out that "Gang of Eight" originated with its intelligence use — the one CNN used most recently. It was particularly in use in the late Bush 43 years, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez repeatedly used the phrase in hearings on the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance/domestic spying program.
To make matters more confusing, there was another "Gang of Eight" that formed to avoid the Fiscal Cliff issue. There's also a Canadian "Gang of Eight" and an attempted coup of Mikhail Gorbachev in the USSR by a "Gang of Eight." There was also a 1962 Mexican-Spanish movie called.... "Gang of Eight."
In short, there are several uses of "Gang of Eight." The first two (immigration and intelligence) are fairly regular terms in Washington. To avoid confusion, I propose that the immigration "Gang of Eight" be renamed. It's not exactly a term that rolls off the tongue anyway, and there's no reason "gang" needs to be there. Since I'm rolling over a new leaf this year and proposing solutions instead of just complaining, I propose the immigration group goes by "Banda de los Ocho." It's Spanish for Gang of Eight, and it's at least a tie to the Spanish-speaking immigrants that they're trying to help.
Summary Judgments
I've barely stepped foot in California in my entire life. But going there to explore Yosemite and the Sequoia trees are on my bucket list. After heavy rains and a long life, the famous "drive-thru tree" or "tunnel tree" at Calaveras Big Trees State Park will no longer be an option. I'm saddened. • • • Charlie Brotman has been the Inauguration Announcer for every President since 1957. He was unceremoniously dumped by our incoming President to make way for a campaign supporter. Was this necessary? It doesn't take any effort to be kind, and this was the smallest possible act of kindness the President-Elect could have made. • • • I'm both an OU fan and a Chiefs fan. This story by ESPN's Mina Kimes about the struggle to be a fan of players who have domestic violence backgrounds like Joe Mixon and Tyreek Hill hit the nail on the head. Also, Sports Illustrated beat ESPN to a similar story. I want to cheer these players on the field, but knowing what they've done off the field makes me question that. Although they're saying and doing the right things now, do you permanently paint them by their sins or, by forgiving them, are you tacitly forgetting the heinous things in their past? It's a question without an answer, I'm afraid. • • • I think I want to see this Russian version of X-Men/The Avengers? • • • Running starts up next week, or as soon as this weekend's expected ice storm melts enough. I'm planning to sign up for four runs, each 4 miles long, with the first on St. Patty's Day. I'm also going to do a 5K obstacle course in April and probably run two other races (the same ones I did this year. My goal is 32 miles at age 32. I just want it to warm up a bit so I can get on that. • • • Roland's definitely more talkative than Evie, but he's also WAY more opinionated, bordering on rude. I'm usually the first up with the kids in the morning before I take my shower after Alyson wakes up. But when Alyson wakes up first or early? "No, Mommy. Go back to bed. No talking!"
Good
One of the biggest successes of the Obama Presidency is the turnaround in the economy. When the Great Recession hit in 2008/2009, the country was in a dire place. And Obama — once he got settled in — made some clear strides to correct that. The ARRA (aka the "stimulus") was actually a large success, bringing jobs, improved infrastructure and more that wouldn't have been possible without it. In an example of what can happen when the two parties aren't at odds, George W. Bush passed the auto bailout, but left it to the incoming administration to distribute and manage. It's to both presidency's credit that the auto industry was triaged, saving what could. Chrysler and GM were eventually saved and the auto industry is doing well again. Unemployment is half of what it was (depending on your choice of measure) and Wall Street is booming. Job growth has been good. We are in a better financial place now than when he took office. You could argue that there's nowhere to go but down; You could also argue that any president would have done something. But we didn't have any president, we had Obama. And he deserves credit for taking action and having success.
I think the Iran nuclear agreement will be seen as a success, too. America has a lot of problems with Iran. Many of those are legitimate. We see them as an agitator in the Middle East. They probably are. This deal, however, agrees to limit the nuclear weapons capability of a country that could have pursued it if they wanted. We have monitoring, we have an agreement in place, and we have parameters. That's better than the nothing that we would have had. Is it perfect? No. But it takes compromise to get a deal.
American troops are no longer in Iraq and Afghanistan to the same extent as they were. We're practically out of Iraq already, and there are some troops still in Afghanistan. However, they are fractions of what they were. There were about 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan when Obama took over. Even after the surge (which reached nearly 100,000 troops), the number of troops is closer to 10,000, with plans in place to drop to 5,500 by the end of the year.
Osama Bin Laden is dead. There are reports that the previous administration moved away from targeting him. However, Obama made the decision to target him and also made the decision to do a stunning raid to take him out. This is arguably the best moment of his presidency. Further, al Qaeda is crippled both for reasons Obama can take credit for and those he cannot (See below, re: ISIS).
I go back and forth on this subject, but I think taking immigration seriously as a subject also includes being tough on those that break the law. While Obama had some major changes with DACA/DAPA (See below), it would have been hard for him to speak with authority if he didn't take the deportation of foreign criminals seriously. And he did, deporting 24 percent more people than George W. Bush and leading some to call him the Deporter-in-Chief. The more you look at his record, the more you can tell he has been very tough on those attempting to cross the Mexican border or those who commit crimes once already here. But for non-criminals and those who were already in America, he has been more lenient.
Climate change is real, and it is happening. And Obama was part of an international delegation that reached an agreement about it, called the Paris Climate Agreement. It's significant enough that climate change is being taken seriously. It's more significant that the U.S. did not stick its nose in the sand while other countries addressed the problem — we were an active participant. Again, the agreement isn't perfect, but building something is always harder than tearing down.
Obama's most significant change in rhetoric came in the area of LGBT rights. He did not start out in favor of it, but has come around to it. On a national scale, he's made moves to make LGBT discrimination illegal. While he didn't directly do it, the Supreme Court codified gay marriage into law during his tenure. The societal ills of passing gay marriage have not come to pass.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act is not the panacea to wage discrimination that it's declared to be. But it's a major step. It was one of his first major proposals to address the wage gap between men and women in the workforce.
The most significant thing about Barack Obama is something he could not control, but is probably what lifted him to the Oval Office — symbology. In the photo at left, 5-year-old Jacob Philadelphia touches Obama's hair back in 2012. "I want to know if my hair is just like yours," the boy said. And the President bent over to let him discover for himself. It makes me tear up every time, because it's so powerful, and the President didn't say a word. On the right is a picture that shows 106-year-old Virginia McLaurin dancing with Barack and Michelle Obama. She's now 107 and still dancing. She was born in segregated South Carolina, and picked cotton in her youth. She saw and met the first black President. That's worth waiting for.
Bad
Barack Obama's biggest failure is in the Middle East. In removing the Armed Forces and much of the muscle from the region, that left a power vacuum that was not filled by the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government has largely turned out to be unhelpful, but they seemed to stoke sectarian violence. Into that breach came more radical sectarian groups, first called Al Qaeda in Iraq (in the Bush years) and operating in war-torn Syria before seizing land and declaring itself ISIS. The rise of the brutal and violent ISIS has been the biggest fault. On one hand, it's understandable — we just got out of land wars in Asia, and it doesn't usually turn out well. On the other, ISIS was given plenty of space and time, and it grew to dangerous levels. They were not dealt with, and it metastasized into an international threat. There are ISIS-inspired attacks in our country, there are ISIS attacks internationally, and ISIS seems to be planting seed groups in many hotspots. Barack Obama did not want to get us into another war. But it found him anyway.
Another example of his reticence to take military action was in Syria. Specifically, I remember his "red line" about the use of chemical weapons by Assad. Then Assad used chemical weapons. And we got to the brink of doing something. Then Secretary of State John Kerry was asked what could Assad do to prevent a U.S. attack, he offhandedly said Assad could admit to having chemical weapons and give them all up peacefully. There wasn't the honest expectation that it could be done. Almost immediately, Russia forced Syria to do just that. America stayed out. Syria remains in Civil War, and Russia looks like a major player in the Middle East. The good news is that we got chemical weapons out of Syria (and therefore removed a threat to Israel and other allies in the region). The bad news is that Syria's still a mess, and we looked weak.
Guantanamo Bay is still open. This was a big campaign promise, and he never could do it. The number of prisoners is down (from nearly 250 to roughly 60), but this is still a black mark on the nation.
The economy didn't come back better than ever. GDP growth has been close to 2 percent. It "should" be at 3-4 percent. So it's growing, just not as fast as we want. The labor force is falling (though much of this can be attributed to Baby Boomers retiring and people deciding to pursue college degrees). The number of Americans in poverty has risen. The number of Americans on food stamps rose dramatically. Net household wealth has been relatively stagnant until late. Manufacturing took a lot of hits, and they weren't fully replaced. The gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of us has only continued to grow. We haven't fixed the structural issues of our economy.
One other issue is racial relations. Tension has boiled over several times, and while Obama's rhetoric wasn't always as divisive as it was painted to be, I don't think it always helped. Sometimes it's OK to sit back and let justice be done. Other times, like the investigation into Ferguson, deeper issues were revealed. I would say that we haven't done anything to address racial relations in America. We like to ignore it. When it does rise up, it becomes this question of Who do you Support?, pitting cops v. people of color. And that's a false dichotomy. Finally, while the trends are still down, there has been a spike in murders in the last year in big cities. Gun violence has not been addressed at all.
Somewhere In The Middle
You've said it; I've said it; even Barack Obama's said it: I still don't know why he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy has been both successful and found to be constitutional. Effectively, it's a policy of not prosecuting children who are brought to America illegally as minors. It also makes them eligible for work permits. This is good. Its sister program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) extended that policy to parents of American-born citizens. It has been blocked by federal judges until its constitutionality can be determined, but it's likely to be a moot point with Trump coming in.
His signature health plan, Obamacare, is listed here. I think there is no doubt that it was better than what we had before. It offers many protections and possibilities that were not available. I also think it's fair to say it didn't live up to hype. It's better than you think because you forget what it was like before it and it has legitimately saved the lives of many people. It's also worse than you think because many of its provisions were gutted by Republican opponents, it was tasked by the public with solving a problem it wasn't meant to address (health care costs), and it's been dramatically misinterpreted by even those who have stood to benefit from it. I give him credit for putting his neck on the line for such a big piece of legislation. I also take credit away because he always felt defensive about it. Life is better with Obamacare existing, but its lack of total embrace nationally has left it with a bumpy future.
Drone strikes are a necessary evil, I think. I don't like them and think it makes the decision to act in war seem like a video game — there's no personal stakes if you can kill from a computer desk on a different continent. But I also understand that they prevent human deaths.
Probably the biggest mixed bag has been that he couldn't find any common ground with Republicans. They were obstructive to a fault. Whose fault is it? Your answer may vary, but I certainly think fault lies on both sides. There were some battles that didn't need to be fought (debt ceiling, for one) and others that were fought vindictively. Not one Republican vote for Obamacare. I personally find that the GOP made things difficult from Day One for him, but I also think he made some enemies before he should have.
Gang of Eight
Since this blog originally started out to critique the news organizations, it's time I got back to that a little bit. In a recent CNN story about the troubling intelligence that was given to our nation's top leaders about Russia possibly blackmailing our President-Elect into supporting their positions (It's messy and I'm not sure how much I believe it, but it's troubling that the allegations exist at all), CNN referred to the "Gang of Eight" as the top four Congressional leaders and the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate/House intelligence committees.
The positive news is that they explained what they meant by "Gang of Eight." Unfortunately, this was potentially confusing. The term most famously referred to the bipartisan group of eight senators that pushed a 2013 immigration bill (that ultimately failed). Members of that group include Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Jeff Flake. What a diverse group!
It turns out that "Gang of Eight" originated with its intelligence use — the one CNN used most recently. It was particularly in use in the late Bush 43 years, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez repeatedly used the phrase in hearings on the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance/domestic spying program.
To make matters more confusing, there was another "Gang of Eight" that formed to avoid the Fiscal Cliff issue. There's also a Canadian "Gang of Eight" and an attempted coup of Mikhail Gorbachev in the USSR by a "Gang of Eight." There was also a 1962 Mexican-Spanish movie called.... "Gang of Eight."
In short, there are several uses of "Gang of Eight." The first two (immigration and intelligence) are fairly regular terms in Washington. To avoid confusion, I propose that the immigration "Gang of Eight" be renamed. It's not exactly a term that rolls off the tongue anyway, and there's no reason "gang" needs to be there. Since I'm rolling over a new leaf this year and proposing solutions instead of just complaining, I propose the immigration group goes by "Banda de los Ocho." It's Spanish for Gang of Eight, and it's at least a tie to the Spanish-speaking immigrants that they're trying to help.
Summary Judgments
I've barely stepped foot in California in my entire life. But going there to explore Yosemite and the Sequoia trees are on my bucket list. After heavy rains and a long life, the famous "drive-thru tree" or "tunnel tree" at Calaveras Big Trees State Park will no longer be an option. I'm saddened. • • • Charlie Brotman has been the Inauguration Announcer for every President since 1957. He was unceremoniously dumped by our incoming President to make way for a campaign supporter. Was this necessary? It doesn't take any effort to be kind, and this was the smallest possible act of kindness the President-Elect could have made. • • • I'm both an OU fan and a Chiefs fan. This story by ESPN's Mina Kimes about the struggle to be a fan of players who have domestic violence backgrounds like Joe Mixon and Tyreek Hill hit the nail on the head. Also, Sports Illustrated beat ESPN to a similar story. I want to cheer these players on the field, but knowing what they've done off the field makes me question that. Although they're saying and doing the right things now, do you permanently paint them by their sins or, by forgiving them, are you tacitly forgetting the heinous things in their past? It's a question without an answer, I'm afraid. • • • I think I want to see this Russian version of X-Men/The Avengers? • • • Running starts up next week, or as soon as this weekend's expected ice storm melts enough. I'm planning to sign up for four runs, each 4 miles long, with the first on St. Patty's Day. I'm also going to do a 5K obstacle course in April and probably run two other races (the same ones I did this year. My goal is 32 miles at age 32. I just want it to warm up a bit so I can get on that. • • • Roland's definitely more talkative than Evie, but he's also WAY more opinionated, bordering on rude. I'm usually the first up with the kids in the morning before I take my shower after Alyson wakes up. But when Alyson wakes up first or early? "No, Mommy. Go back to bed. No talking!"
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Alliterative QBs and the Magic School Bus
With the end of the NFL's regular season, there were a number of quarterback injuries. Since this is the most important position in the game, you'd think teams would be ready for that. But they weren't.
Instead, we had the slate of backup quarterbacks starting. In Oakland, Matt McGloin replaced the injured Derek Carr until he was injured and replaced by Connor Cook. The Dolphins had an injured Ryan Tannehill and went to Matt Moore as backup. In Buffalo, Tyrod Taylor did not get the start because either the team wants to quietly get rid of him or he's injured .... long story. The same could be true in Jacksonville, as the Jaguars may be looking to move on from the Blake Bortles era.
All told, these names stood out to me, because people with alliterative names are not all that common, and yet here are five quarterbacks who are alliterative, and they're all backup QB-level in quality. Maybe it's just my memories, but it feels like alliterative quarterbacks are always backup-level or just not good. So I did some research to see if I was right. Follow me down the rabbit hole, will you?
Best alliterative QB: Kerry Collins
I was surprised to find someone I remembered watching be this high, but that's the case. Collins reached the Pro Bowl twice and played for six teams in 16 years in the NFL. I was shocked to learn that he passed for the 16th-most yards in NFL history. In 17th place is the legendary Joe Montana. He's also kind of the perfect proof of my thesis on alliterative QBs: He also sucked. His career record was 81-99 and he threw only 12 more touchdowns than interceptions.
Second-best: Chris Chandler, 53rd all-time passing yards, eight teams, 67-85 record, 2 Pro Bowls
Most Forgettable Career: Jeff George
This was one of the first alliterative-sounding QBs I thought of for this post. He's further proof of the alliterative-QBs-are-bad conjecture. Jeff George (also a member of the two-first-names club) played for five teams in 11 years. He only made the playoffs twice. He never made the Pro Bowl. His record as a starter is 46-78. He led the league in passing once, in 1997! But his team went 4-12. He led the league in sacks taken twice. His best season by yards/completion was 1999, when his Minnesota Vikings lost to the eventual Super Bowl-winning Rams in the playoffs. That team included young Randy Moss and veteran Chris Carter in his heyday. Jeff George was replaced by Daunte Culpepper the next season and he never started more than 5 games in a season again.
Best Deadpool: Wade Wilson
The character Deadpool, who's the basis of the recent Ryan Reynolds movie, has the real name of Wade Wilson. But there was a QB in the 1980s/1990s with the same name. The comic book character is better. The QB Wade Wilson had a long career of 17 seasons, including 10 with the Vikings and some halfway decent years in the late 1980s, including one Pro Bowl in 1988. I remember him more for being the Dallas Cowboys backup QB for Troy Aikman during the Cowboys' heyday, though he only started four games in that role. In some ways, he never left: He's still the Dallas Quarterbacks Coach, and that team has two good QBs right now in Dak Prescott and Tony Romo. He's the 125th-best passer of all time.
Best Full Name: Bubby Brister
This is a bit of a cheat, since it's not his birth name, but here's another person I instantly thought of for this post. He was never very good, but he started for the Steelers around the late 1980s/early 1990s. My memory told me he played for the Oilers, but I my memory was wrong: He never did. In his best season, he led the Steelers to a 9-7 record, but they missed the playoffs. Oh, and his full name is Walter Andrew Brister III. "Bubby" was a nickname.
Modern Name I Hadn't Considered For This List, But Is A Good Fit Now That I Think About It: Colin Kaepernick
He's probably not going to be a starting QB anymore, but it's not because of his national anthem stance. It's because he's not very good.
Most Promising Youngster Who Could Avoid The Curse: Kirk Cousins
"You Like That?" he was once caught saying after a surprising win. Kirk Cousins, now in his fifth season with the Redskins, doesn't suck. He might be good. He didn't make a Pro Bowl or anything, but he threw for more than 4,000 yards twice in a row known nearly broke the 5,000-yard mark this year with 4,916 yards, the best single season by an alliterative QB in history. The Redskins are stuck in no-man's-land with him: They can keep him, and they probably will, but they're also not sure if he's worth the $20 million+ payday (and status among the league's highest-paid QBs).
Others of Note:
Tommy Thompson, Eagles QB in the 1940s..... Mark Malone, Steelers QB in the 1980s, who Bubby Brister took over for toward the end of the decade.... Bob Berry, Vikings/Falcons QB in the 1960s.... Marcus Mariota, current QB of the Tennessee Titans.
Back on the Magic School Bus
One of the fun things about being a parent is the constant question: "Where did the kids get that from?" Recently, Roland has been begging to watch Magic School Bus. I don't know what caused him to know what it was or why he should like it, but he does. It's really scratching a nostalgia itch for me. Beyond the obvious questions, like "How is a teacher only teaching 8 kids?" and "Does the principal just constantly look the other way" and "Does the history teacher have a time machine?", the show is educational and just plain fun. Supposedly it's making a comeback sometime this year.
I'm also a little sick of it, because we have not stopped watching it lately. I never paid attention much to the actors/trivia from the show, but it's kind of amazing:
• Lily Tomlin does the voice of Miss Frizzle, of course. She won a Daytime Emmy for the role in 1996 for Outstanding Performer In an Animated Program. Ms. Frizzle's full name is Valerie Felicity Frizzle.
• Little Richard did the theme song. Once I saw that, I thought, "Why didn't I know that?"
• Arnold, the kid with glasses who wishes he'd stayed home, was/is voiced by Danny Tambarelli, who you may know as the younger of the lead characters from The Adventures of Pete and Pete. This fact blew my mind.
• The girl who voices Wanda, the Asian student, voiced one of the main characters on the kids' show Babar.
• The girl who voices Keesha, the black girl student, was one of the leads on Shining Time Station, a show I barely remember involving George Carlin and Ringo Starr. But to modern audiences, she's the voice for Sapphire on Steven Universe, a show I love.
• Malcolm-Jamal Warner voiced a character, the producer. (Sidenote: He was the long-term boyfriend of actress Michelle Thomas, who portrayed his girlfriend on The Cosby Show and later was Steve Urkel's girlfriend Myra on Family Matters. Malcolm-Jamal Warner was at her side when she died of a rare form of cancer in 1998, the same year Family Matters was canceled. One more note: She was the daughter of one of the members of Kool and the Gang.)
• The guy who voiced Ralph, Stuart Stone, is a rapper/podcast host/comedian. He's apparently somewhat famous, I guess, in his native of Canada.
• "According to my research," .... Dorothy Ann has never been given a last name in either the show or the books. It might just be "Ann."
• In the books, Ms. Frizzle has 19 kids instead of 8.
• Dorothy Ann's mom is voiced by Tony and Emmy winner Swoosie Kurtz.
• Tyne Daly voiced Ralphie's Mom! I watched that episode and didn't recognize the voice, but saw her name in the credits.
• Edward James Olmos voiced Carlos' Dad!
• Keesha's Grandma was voiced by Eartha Kitt!
• Trapper John from MASH was Arnold's Dad!
• Others providing voices: Carol Channing, Dolly Parton, Dan Marino, Wynonna Judd, Sherman Hemsley, Malcolm McDowell, Ed Asner, Rita Moreno, Dom DeLouise, Tony Randall, and Ed Begley Jr.
Summary Judgments
I'm going to give credit where it is due: I don't think the House GOP abandons its plan to gut an independent ethics group unless Donald Trump pressures them about it the next day. Of course, it was heavy handed and done haphazardly, but he got to the right result. • • • Some media notes: Greta Van Susteren of Fox News is now Greta Van Susteren of MSNBC. And NBC has also hired away Megyn Kelly from Fox News. It seems the top women (don't forget Gretchen Carlson) are leaving Fox News, even after Roger Ailes has left. Interesting to watch. • • • Chris Berman is largely retiring from ESPN. The older I got, the less I enjoyed him. But he had longevity at ESPN over nearly 30 years. • • • Sears is selling the Black and Decker brand to Craftsman. I don't think Sears is going to be around much longer, friends. • • • Evie was at daycare during the Christmas break, and one of the workers brought their husband and showed them around. Evie sees the husband (all the daycare workers happen to be females), points, and says, "It's a Boy! It's a Boy!" repeatedly.
Instead, we had the slate of backup quarterbacks starting. In Oakland, Matt McGloin replaced the injured Derek Carr until he was injured and replaced by Connor Cook. The Dolphins had an injured Ryan Tannehill and went to Matt Moore as backup. In Buffalo, Tyrod Taylor did not get the start because either the team wants to quietly get rid of him or he's injured .... long story. The same could be true in Jacksonville, as the Jaguars may be looking to move on from the Blake Bortles era.
All told, these names stood out to me, because people with alliterative names are not all that common, and yet here are five quarterbacks who are alliterative, and they're all backup QB-level in quality. Maybe it's just my memories, but it feels like alliterative quarterbacks are always backup-level or just not good. So I did some research to see if I was right. Follow me down the rabbit hole, will you?
Best alliterative QB: Kerry Collins
I was surprised to find someone I remembered watching be this high, but that's the case. Collins reached the Pro Bowl twice and played for six teams in 16 years in the NFL. I was shocked to learn that he passed for the 16th-most yards in NFL history. In 17th place is the legendary Joe Montana. He's also kind of the perfect proof of my thesis on alliterative QBs: He also sucked. His career record was 81-99 and he threw only 12 more touchdowns than interceptions.
Second-best: Chris Chandler, 53rd all-time passing yards, eight teams, 67-85 record, 2 Pro Bowls
Most Forgettable Career: Jeff George
This was one of the first alliterative-sounding QBs I thought of for this post. He's further proof of the alliterative-QBs-are-bad conjecture. Jeff George (also a member of the two-first-names club) played for five teams in 11 years. He only made the playoffs twice. He never made the Pro Bowl. His record as a starter is 46-78. He led the league in passing once, in 1997! But his team went 4-12. He led the league in sacks taken twice. His best season by yards/completion was 1999, when his Minnesota Vikings lost to the eventual Super Bowl-winning Rams in the playoffs. That team included young Randy Moss and veteran Chris Carter in his heyday. Jeff George was replaced by Daunte Culpepper the next season and he never started more than 5 games in a season again.
Best Deadpool: Wade Wilson
The character Deadpool, who's the basis of the recent Ryan Reynolds movie, has the real name of Wade Wilson. But there was a QB in the 1980s/1990s with the same name. The comic book character is better. The QB Wade Wilson had a long career of 17 seasons, including 10 with the Vikings and some halfway decent years in the late 1980s, including one Pro Bowl in 1988. I remember him more for being the Dallas Cowboys backup QB for Troy Aikman during the Cowboys' heyday, though he only started four games in that role. In some ways, he never left: He's still the Dallas Quarterbacks Coach, and that team has two good QBs right now in Dak Prescott and Tony Romo. He's the 125th-best passer of all time.
Best Full Name: Bubby Brister
This is a bit of a cheat, since it's not his birth name, but here's another person I instantly thought of for this post. He was never very good, but he started for the Steelers around the late 1980s/early 1990s. My memory told me he played for the Oilers, but I my memory was wrong: He never did. In his best season, he led the Steelers to a 9-7 record, but they missed the playoffs. Oh, and his full name is Walter Andrew Brister III. "Bubby" was a nickname.
Modern Name I Hadn't Considered For This List, But Is A Good Fit Now That I Think About It: Colin Kaepernick
He's probably not going to be a starting QB anymore, but it's not because of his national anthem stance. It's because he's not very good.
Most Promising Youngster Who Could Avoid The Curse: Kirk Cousins
"You Like That?" he was once caught saying after a surprising win. Kirk Cousins, now in his fifth season with the Redskins, doesn't suck. He might be good. He didn't make a Pro Bowl or anything, but he threw for more than 4,000 yards twice in a row known nearly broke the 5,000-yard mark this year with 4,916 yards, the best single season by an alliterative QB in history. The Redskins are stuck in no-man's-land with him: They can keep him, and they probably will, but they're also not sure if he's worth the $20 million+ payday (and status among the league's highest-paid QBs).
Others of Note:
Tommy Thompson, Eagles QB in the 1940s..... Mark Malone, Steelers QB in the 1980s, who Bubby Brister took over for toward the end of the decade.... Bob Berry, Vikings/Falcons QB in the 1960s.... Marcus Mariota, current QB of the Tennessee Titans.
Back on the Magic School Bus
One of the fun things about being a parent is the constant question: "Where did the kids get that from?" Recently, Roland has been begging to watch Magic School Bus. I don't know what caused him to know what it was or why he should like it, but he does. It's really scratching a nostalgia itch for me. Beyond the obvious questions, like "How is a teacher only teaching 8 kids?" and "Does the principal just constantly look the other way" and "Does the history teacher have a time machine?", the show is educational and just plain fun. Supposedly it's making a comeback sometime this year.
I'm also a little sick of it, because we have not stopped watching it lately. I never paid attention much to the actors/trivia from the show, but it's kind of amazing:
• Lily Tomlin does the voice of Miss Frizzle, of course. She won a Daytime Emmy for the role in 1996 for Outstanding Performer In an Animated Program. Ms. Frizzle's full name is Valerie Felicity Frizzle.
• Little Richard did the theme song. Once I saw that, I thought, "Why didn't I know that?"
• Arnold, the kid with glasses who wishes he'd stayed home, was/is voiced by Danny Tambarelli, who you may know as the younger of the lead characters from The Adventures of Pete and Pete. This fact blew my mind.
• The girl who voices Wanda, the Asian student, voiced one of the main characters on the kids' show Babar.
• The girl who voices Keesha, the black girl student, was one of the leads on Shining Time Station, a show I barely remember involving George Carlin and Ringo Starr. But to modern audiences, she's the voice for Sapphire on Steven Universe, a show I love.
• Malcolm-Jamal Warner voiced a character, the producer. (Sidenote: He was the long-term boyfriend of actress Michelle Thomas, who portrayed his girlfriend on The Cosby Show and later was Steve Urkel's girlfriend Myra on Family Matters. Malcolm-Jamal Warner was at her side when she died of a rare form of cancer in 1998, the same year Family Matters was canceled. One more note: She was the daughter of one of the members of Kool and the Gang.)
• The guy who voiced Ralph, Stuart Stone, is a rapper/podcast host/comedian. He's apparently somewhat famous, I guess, in his native of Canada.
• "According to my research," .... Dorothy Ann has never been given a last name in either the show or the books. It might just be "Ann."
• In the books, Ms. Frizzle has 19 kids instead of 8.
• Dorothy Ann's mom is voiced by Tony and Emmy winner Swoosie Kurtz.
• Tyne Daly voiced Ralphie's Mom! I watched that episode and didn't recognize the voice, but saw her name in the credits.
• Edward James Olmos voiced Carlos' Dad!
• Keesha's Grandma was voiced by Eartha Kitt!
• Trapper John from MASH was Arnold's Dad!
• Others providing voices: Carol Channing, Dolly Parton, Dan Marino, Wynonna Judd, Sherman Hemsley, Malcolm McDowell, Ed Asner, Rita Moreno, Dom DeLouise, Tony Randall, and Ed Begley Jr.
Summary Judgments
I'm going to give credit where it is due: I don't think the House GOP abandons its plan to gut an independent ethics group unless Donald Trump pressures them about it the next day. Of course, it was heavy handed and done haphazardly, but he got to the right result. • • • Some media notes: Greta Van Susteren of Fox News is now Greta Van Susteren of MSNBC. And NBC has also hired away Megyn Kelly from Fox News. It seems the top women (don't forget Gretchen Carlson) are leaving Fox News, even after Roger Ailes has left. Interesting to watch. • • • Chris Berman is largely retiring from ESPN. The older I got, the less I enjoyed him. But he had longevity at ESPN over nearly 30 years. • • • Sears is selling the Black and Decker brand to Craftsman. I don't think Sears is going to be around much longer, friends. • • • Evie was at daycare during the Christmas break, and one of the workers brought their husband and showed them around. Evie sees the husband (all the daycare workers happen to be females), points, and says, "It's a Boy! It's a Boy!" repeatedly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)