What Happened With the Syrian Air Strikes

Foxtrot Alpha underlined some of these same points, but let's do this Q-and-A style:

What was our goal, and did we accomplish it?
Our goal was probably twofold a) to cripple the Syrian government's ability to use chemical weapons against their own people and b) to retaliate for their use of chemical weapons. We certainly accomplished b), but I don't think we did a) very well at all.

But we hit the air strip and did a lot of damage! Why wouldn't you say this will stop chemical weapons use by the Syrian government?
We hit the airstrip that was used in the chemical weapons attack, but we didn't hit the things you'd want to destroy in a precision attack. We destroyed four (4) airplanes but left two unharmed. We hit mostly outbuildings, fuel storage and Syrian radar/air defense systems. A bunch of other airplanes are at other bases, and we didn't hit those. The U.S. believes sarin was stored at the base, but did not hit it with a strike. (Though I could see an argument that there's a fear it could be spread in the air, but I haven't researched whether this is possible with sarin gas.) Perhaps most importantly, we didn't destroy the runways. The air strip was operating just fine the next day.

Why didn't we take out the runways?
Here's where Foxtrot Alpha helped me out: Tomahawk cruise missiles are good at blowing things up. But how do you blow up a flat, paved piece of road? If you hit it with a missile, a bulldozer can fix that up in a few hours. Heck, Trump understands that, tweeting: "The reason you don't generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!" But what he didn't say is that you can destroy runways, but what you need are special types of bombs, and those can only be dropped from aircraft — not missiles. Those force you to get close.

So why didn't we?
The short answer is Russia. Russia's got a much more sophisticated/modern air defense system than the Syrians, and they've also got much better aircraft than the Syrians. Russia is camped out in the area and we'd have to get past them to get to the air strip in question. We only have 20 of the types of B-2 bombers (hi, nearby Whiteman Air Force Base!) that could do the job, and we're not exactly sure they're as stealthy as we pretend they are. So sending an aircraft in would be a provocation of Russia, it would be expensive, and it would risk American lives in the crew of the airplane.

What is our relationship with Russia?
Well, we called them to warn them we were going to strike with the missiles.

Why? 
Partly because of an air agreement we made a while ago, partly because of international norms, and partly to tell them to get their troops out of the way. They may have/probably told the Syrians stationed there to get away from likely targets.

Who gets to call this a win?
Just about everyone except Syrian rebels. The U.S. has given the appearance (temporarily, and in the short-term) of strength, as though we won't tolerate chemical weapons attacks. We look like we actually did something, even if that something is "heightened tensions with Russia." That's the easy, lazy first read that most will take away. Russia can spin it their own way: look at how not-in-cahoots with America we are! Also, the America's attacks didn't even hit correctly (see coverage by the government-run network Russia Today), so we're much smarter/better at war then they are! It also gives Russia a pretext for ignoring that air agreement I mentioned in the last paragraph. The Syrian government gets to pretend this is an attack on their sovereignty while continuing with very little disruption to their side of the civil war.

So did we do the right thing or not? 
Color me unimpressed, but accepting. I would have felt this way no matter who called for the strike. Surely if we cared at all about what was happening in Syria, we should have had a "response" to the chemical weapon use. I feel that a missile strike was probably our only option of looking authoritative without poking a Russian Bear into something more serious. But I'm also convinced that it's just appearances. I agree with Foxtrot Alpha, who said that this was not a military decision; it was a political one.

Maybe we should have used bigger bombs?
Well, we just used the biggest non-nuclear one we've got on Afghanistan.

Who did we drop it on? 
It's a cave system near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that's believed to be controlled by ISIS in Afghanistan (ISIS-K). If the blast didn't kill them, the removal of oxygen probably did. That said, it's not like we have people on the ground telling us how many are dead, nor do we have ISIS-K reporting any number. If they were hit, they're underground and not talking much.

Good, right? 
Yeah, but here's a trend I've noticed with the (goodness, we're still in the first 100 days...) Trump administration. Syria is being aggressive, so we react aggressively, but ineffectively. North Korea is being aggressive, so we react by sending an aircraft carrier to the region (aggressively, but ineffectively). ISIS-K exists, so we react aggressively, but its effectiveness has yet to be seen. I don't know what our long-term strategy is in any of these conflicts. Are we going to continue to engage in Syria? Are we going to keep pushing North Korea? Are we ramping up our fight against ISIS or ISIS-K? It hasn't been said. All I know is that any aggression is countered by more aggression on the United States' part, and I wonder what sort of message we're sending. Right now, our military message might best be described as "posturing."

North Korea is feeling the pressure

Speaking of North Korea, it didn't get a lot of attention, but North Korea's aggression has already caused a reaction from their closest ally. China turned away ships full of North Korean coal this week, effectively rejecting all North Korean coal imports for the rest of the year. This is a bigger deal than you might think. Coal makes up 18 percent of all North Korean exports. And China is North Korea's biggest trade partner, too, roughly 42 percent of all North Korean exports. So, if you do some rough math/estimates, China's decision cuts the North Korea exports by about 7.5-8 percent. But another estimate was that coal shipments to China accounted for 40 percent of all exports.

But what's curious is that China's been slowly pulling away from North Korea even before the most recent activity. While China turned away the ships just this week, their announcement about rejecting North Korean coal until 2018 came in February. Further, China closed the account of North Korea's main foreign exchange bank in 2013. They've also ended financial support of North Korea as of last February. While China may be North Korea's only world friend, they're also not really as friendly with Pyongyang as they used to be.

Summary Judgments

I am stretching myself the Sunday after my birthday to run a 10K in the Plaza area of Kansas City. This is the dumbest running thing I'll ever do (I'm scaling back on races the next couple years). It's not the dumbest running thing ANYONE will ever do: That's the Barkley Marathons. It's called the anti-race, and amounts to about 100-130 miles over 60 hours, over rugged terrain, with checkpoints and ridges and creeks and thorns and... just read this story. •  •  •  Incredible story by David Von Drehle here about the little-noted 100th anniversary of the U.S.'s entry into WWI. It's about how overlooked the National WWI Museum is (here in K.C. at Liberty Memorial) and WWI is in general. Also, Von Drehle spoke at William Jewell's Achievement Day last year, and I thought he was fantastic.  •  •  •  I am changing my running route so I cross one less major intersection, and it's messing with my time/ability. Sometimes, you get so used to a route that when it's changed, it messes with everything.  •  •  •  Roland has been waking up at night with bad dreams lately. I think it's because he's really into this book called "When I'm Feeling Scared." Anyway, when he wakes up, he's pretty loud and half-asleep, which makes it harder to get him back to bed. A couple of nights ago, he woke up two or three times in the night, and twice he was mad because Evie stole his cup. Evie sleeps in a different room. And that's how we knew he was having bad dreams. 

Are We Headed For War?

"War, huh. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing." -- Edwin Starr

During the run-up to the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton attempted to paint Donald Trump as someone untrustworthy with foreign policy. Can you imagine him with his hands on our nuclear arsenal? she asked. Yet here we are, merely months into Donald Trump's presidency, and in the distance are the drumbeats of war.

For a president who ran so often on an isolationist foreign policy standpoint, there are at least three hotspots that seem to indicate war may not be so far off in the distance. Whether you believe or don't the Twitter feed of Rogue POTUS Staff (I believe them, for now), they indicate the president is leading us down a path of war. Let's review the conflicts, discuss the latest information and talk about possibilities.

North Korea
History: There's no question North Korea has nuclear capabilities. The question is whether they have the capabilities to hit Japan or the U.S. For decades, North Korea has been saber-rattling at the West. They've tested missiles. They've intermittently worked with and against South Korea. After Kim Jong Il died, his son, Kim Jong Un has ramped up missile tests and (presumably) nuclear tests.

Recent news: The Trump administration has been both hardline and seemingly dismissive. Generally, Trump has indicated a hard stance toward the Hermit Kingdom. On the campaign trail, he said he could solve it over a burger meal. He's since suggested that he'd like China's help, but that he would solve the North Korea issue on his own if need be.

Possibilities: It depends on what Chinese President Xi Jinping does. The meeting taking place today could have long-term implications (See more below). I can't see China suddenly giving the U.S. a green light for provoking or attacking North Korea. I also can't see the U.S. sending an assassination force or a missile strike, or even a series of missile strikes targeting nuclear facilities. That could just add more chaos to the mix or instigate matters further. South Korea and portions of Japan would be put in harm's way, as well as U.S. soldiers stationed there. Instead, I see more of the same: Tough talk from the U.S. about North Korea, North Korea continuing to build its missile/nuclear capabilities, and the tension continuing to rise.

Syria
History: Syria's been in a civil war for years, including President Bashar Al-Assad ignoring a "red line" that President Obama drew in the sand and then... did nothing about. As opposition groups stepped up to Al-Assad, the power vacuum allowed ISIS to step in in the eastern/northern portion of the country. Russia stepped in, saying their goal was to stop ISIS, but really helping Assad fight the opposition groups. ISIS is on the retreat, but the citizens of Syria and the opposition groups are all pretty much wiped out.

Recent news: Assad used a chemical attack on his own people. Russia's kind of ignoring it, and pretending it was the rebels, but it wasn't. It's heinous; the sort of red line that he's already crossed, but needs to be addressed. Sec. of Defense "Mad Dog" Mattis (who is beloved by Dems and the GOP) is briefing the President on options today. Trump told reporters today that "something should happen," the sort of completely vague answer that means nothing.

Possibilities: This is the one with likely action, in my opinion. I expect we first do missile strikes against the chemical weapons locations in Syria, then once that's settled, we send in additional troops, maybe 1-2,000. Do I think that'll do much? No, but it would help us finish off ISIS from another angle while pretending like we're actually doing something about Assad. Syria's a mess. I don't know what to do about Syria, either. But I'm not sure getting into a land war in the Middle East is the best option, either.

China
History: We've never been at war with China! They're communist, but not. They're either our biggest trading partner or our second biggest trading partner, depending on you refer to the European Union as a single entity. But that trade balance is one-sided. We import roughly four times as much from China as we do export to them. They make up about half of our global trade imbalance. But as far as exports go, they're not our biggest country to export to. They're third, behind Canada and Mexico.

Recent news: Now that Trump has decided his whole "Maybe NOT One China policy? Oops, never mind" issue, there's also the tricky issue of all those things he said about China on the campaign trail. They're raping us in trade. They're the source of the global warming hoax. They're the boogeyman to him. But more importantly than trade is another issue: Chinese islands. Thirty percent of the world's shipping trade flows through the South China Sea. Just about every country in the region has a claim on the waters as their sovereign territory: China, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia (Brunei's claim is limited, since it's so small). The Spratly Islands are a bunch of (up until recently) uninhabited islands in the middle that no country really claimed. But China took some and started building them/expanding them into mini-bases with residents, so Vietnam did the same and the Philippines did a bit too. But China's the dominant military, navy and air force in the region. They've started flexing their muscles. They lost in international court to the Philippines sovereignty claim and kind of just ignored it. It's like when a big kid slowly starts inching toward another little kid on a park bench. Eventually they're practically on top of the little kid, right? That's what China's doing.

Possibilities: Maybe we send an aircraft carrier over there or something? We don't have a lot of power, and we really don't want to get in a war over a bunch of tiny islands that no one really lives on. Saying "knock it off" doesn't do anything without the power to back it up, and China knows we're not about to do anything of real importance. I'm going to say this again: WE DO NOT WANT WAR WITH CHINA.

No Winners in Gorsuch Confirmation

I'm a big Supreme Court fan. I love reading about it. I love learning about who are secretly friends (RBG and Scalia! <3!). I love learning the ins and outs. But... I am so sick of the Gorsuch confirmation. There are no heroes. There are no winners. There are only varying levels of losers, and I want it to be over with.

I've already talked about this path of Garland/Gorsuch/nuclear option back in this post, and it's a pretty interesting read if you've missed it.

The Senate has now passed the nuclear option, and Gorsuch will be confirmed with, say, 52-55 votes. But what have we (preemptively) learned from this battle? I've learned two things: 1) The Democrats have a problem with messaging. Their best bet in this fight was not that Gorsuch was unqualified (he isn't), but that he's out of the mainstream. That's a much better argument to make to the American people. Instead, even the new DNC chair said he was unqualified. Some senators, like my state's own Sen. Claire McCaskill, said that Gorsuch's ideology was too rigid, and that was why she was voting no. Side note: Missouri Republicans leaked a speech she gave on the subject at a fundraiser about her struggles over the vote. I found it to be honest, difficult and well-reasoned rather than some big exposé. 2) A friendly Senate is gone. Republicans abused "the rules" by filibustering 138 (!) judges and appointees while in the Senate minority under Clinton and Obama, and Democrats mostly played by the rules (only 10 such filibusters in the Bush years). But the Democrats got tired of Republican obstructionism — If you're not going to play by the rules, we'll change some of them. When the Democrats lost power in the Senate, that meant they also had to play by the rules that they had changed. Republicans see no use in hanging onto rules that aren't really being used anymore anyway, and are prepared to toss "the rules" entirely. Mourn the moderates of each party, because their allegiance is being tested by the nuclear option.

Summary Judgments

Muppets + Rappers = Thing I didn't know I was going to laugh at.  •  •  •  I thought this little history of the deepest hole ever made was kind of fascinating. In particular: at a certain depth, the immensely pressurized/heated rock stops acting rock-like and starts acting like plastic.  •  •  •  This week's continuing adventures of the Schrodinger's Truth of Obama wiretapping Trump: There's no truth to the Susan Rice accusation. I could go into more detail, but that's it. Let's move on.  •  •  •  I'm so proud of my friend Emily Smith and her kids at Pittsburg High School. They're rightfully gaining national attention after investigating the background of their incoming principal and finding her qualifications... lacking.  •  •  •  I'm rarely surprised by much in politics, but the news that Devin Nunes was stepping out of the Trump-Russia investigation surprised me. It's not that I don't think he should have, but that I didn't think he would, given a lack of Republican pressure. Media note: He stepped down on a day the Senate was enacting the "nuclear option" — meaning his move wouldn't be the day's top story. Smart tactic.  •  •  •  For those of you not in the KC area, it's been rainy. It rained 13 straight days until today. Because of that, I didn't run earlier this week. That said, I did lose another pound of weight, so yay!  •  •  •  The other night, Evie was upset and, in trying to calm her down, mewled like a cat. So now she's decided the best game is to ask me to be a cat. So I mew and cuddle, but ... that's not how she wants me to play cat. I'm still trying to figure it out. So far, I know that "scratching" at her is part of it, but she still doesn't seem happy. Do I need to ignore her like a real cat? Do I need to use a litter box? I have no idea.

A Definitive Ranking of the National Burrito Chains

I love burrito chains. Maybe it's because I like Mexican food, and a burrito is rice + beans + tortilla + cheese + meat, which is the essence of Mexican food. It can have multiple flavors, with a tweak to the rice or the meat or the salsa changing so much. Guacamole can be a benefit or a filler. Sour cream can be the same way. While there is no such thing as a bad chip, there IS such thing as bad salsa, and there are definitely good salsas out there. There are really only five national chains that are burrito-centric: Moe's, Qdoba, Chipotle, Freebird's and Baja Fresh. I've finally eaten at all of them. Not ranked: fast food places that aren't focused on the burrito, like Taco Bell.

1) Moe's Southwest Grill
Moe's is great. Their meals have cheeky or pop culture-referencing names, which helps them stand out. Their menu is a little more robust than some others, and they have a vibrant atmosphere. At first, the oft-shouted "Welcome to Moe's!" is a little off-putting, but it soon becomes a part of that vibrant atmosphere. But the atmosphere isn't enough to top this list: The burrito is delicious. While points are taken away for lack of free guacamole (if I remember right), points are given back for a generous assortment of salsa, size choices and good queso. The best salsa of any of these places is Moe's green tomatillo salsa, which is sadly seasonal. Memories are a part of it: When I was single in Pittsburg and didn't have anything to do on a Friday, I'd go to Moe's in Joplin as part of a night of errands and feel happy afterward. I also remember eating at Moe's in Norman before it closed and eating at Moe's several times while the kids were in the NICU.

TIE 2) Qdoba/Chipotle
I go back and forth on which one I like better. These are the two burrito restaurants in Liberty. I tend to lean toward Qdoba, but it might just be because their lines are shorter. Chipotle has added chorizo to its menu, which is delicious. Their menu is super small, there's no queso offering, and the atmosphere is detached and assembly line-esque. That said, their guacamole is memorable, their salsas are tasty (the hot salsa is my favorite) and the meat is usually fine. As for Qdoba, they get extra points for a larger menu, flavorful rice and options in meat (two differentiated marinated chicken options). They not only have queso, but have choices in queso. Where they lose points is in the guacamole (meh) and the salsa (choices, but nothing stands out). Anything at this level or above is a good fast food burrito.

4) Homemade
I made these all the time in college, but haven't made them in years. Here's the quick recipe: George Foreman or grill some cheap, marinated steak. Sauté an onion and a green pepper. Meanwhile, cook some stovetop Mexican rice from a package. When all that's cooked, combine in a large burrito with cheese. Fold burrito and place, seam side down in the pan. Flip once it's browned on bottom. Remove when brown on other side. Add salsa when eating. MMMmmmm... so good. I don't have the time/ability to make them with the kids running around right now, but just writing that out has me salivating. Anything this level or higher is worth eating in public.

4) Eat Something Other Than A Burrito

5) Baja Fresh
I forgot about eating Baja Fresh until I researched this. They used to have a kiosk/outlet/whatever in the Pittsburg State student union. Sometimes, if I had a story on campus around lunch and didn't have time to grab food anywhere else, I'd get Baja Fresh. Every time I ate there, I just got this feeling of mediocrity. There was nothing to make it stand out, the food was merely acceptable, and it just left me wishing I'd eaten somewhere better. Worst, it was both dry and bland, neither of which should be acceptable for a great burrito. I gave it multiple chances, but Baja Fresh was just disappointing and bland.

6) Give Up and Find a Taco Bell

7) Consider Skipping The Meal

8) Freebird's
I finally ate at Freebird's earlier this month, which was nice for the purposes of finally feeling like I could write this article. It was not nice for the purposes of taste. The best things I can say about Freebird's is they had varying sizes of burritos and a good atmosphere. This was the first national chain burrito that I've ever considered not finishing or not eating. It was bad. The staff was unhelpful. Everything about the burrito was bland and uninspired. I was hoping there would be good salsa or queso or something to make up for it, but nothing did. They had a tomatillo salsa, but it didn't flow like salsa should, it oozed like syrup. It tasted like tomatillo syrup, too. Their other salsas were equally bad. At least with Baja Fresh, you could cover it up with salsa. Freebird's salsa only made it worse. Friends don't let friends eat at Freebird's.

Name of the Year update

I got 7/8 in the Bulltron regional, only missing on the best matchup: Alpha McMath v. Guy Hands. I said I liked Guy Hands, but I thought the voters would go with McMath. I was wrong about that. I should have had more faith in my prognostications. And although the final polls aren't closed, I'm currently 4/4 in the next round, too.

In the Sithole, I went 6/8, and I'm proud to say I called the Tugg Snowbarger upset! I missed on Tony Orlandoni-Subu Dubey (the latter won), but that winner is going to lose to 1-seed Marmaduke Trebilcock anyway. I also missed on Bumper Pool upsetting Dr. Prospero Gogo, but I think that's because Bumper Pool is an Arkansas linebacker, and so Arkansas fans rallied to his defense.

I was most wrong in the Chrotchtangle, only getting 4/8. But I feel I called the toughest pick: Boats Botes upsetting Eliza Fox Teats. I picked Taco Dibbits, who lost in a narrow vote to La'Genius Wisdom Williams. I also didn't see Bird Lovegod upsetting Teena Touch, but I can rationalize it now: Teena Touch only has one funny name. I was shocked that Jeffrosenberg Tan lost to Headman Dadzie, especially by four votes. Also, I backed the wrong "zard", with Edzard Overbeek losing to Mythzard Thelisma.

Finally, the Dragonwagon, where I got 6/8 right. I don't even care, because a) I called the two biggest upsets and b) Those two are going to lose in the next round to much better names anyway. Let's go back. The two biggest upsets were by 12-seed Demon Clowney and 13-seed Christian Joo. I got them right. The ones I missed were Dougal Spork over Chito Peppler (Spork will lose to Andy Brandy Casagrande IV in the next round) and Fiery Cushman over Cash Masters (Cushman will lose to Sultan McDoom next round).

Round 1 total: 23/32. My goal is 75 percent, and that's only one off. The Chrotchtangle ruined me in the first round, but I'm super proud of calling most of the major upsets: Demon Clowney, Christian Joo, Tugg Snowbarger, and Boats Botes (!).

Summary Judgments

I thought this was a good look at how conservative media failed during the battle over health care reform.  •  •  •  Russell Westbrook is amazing. Not only is he going to average a triple double for the season, not only [continues rambling about Westbrook for another paragraph], but he's also going to father a child.  •  •  •  I am running again this week, but it's been harder to get back on the wagon than I thought. A run earlier this week required me to stop for a minute after mile 2, and I think it was because I was pushing myself too hard. Now that I know I can run 4 miles, I want to know how fast I can run it. But in doing so, I think I'm overdoing it. That's a hard line to determine: How do I push myself without also causing me to lose the ability to finish at all.  •  •  •  I don't remember the cause, but recently I feel like I introduced the concept of fear to Roland. Something had happened, and I asked him if he was scared. And the response was like "Oh... yes, scared. That's what I'm feeling. Yes, I am that." But with tears. So lately, Roland has started using "I'm scared" a lot more. He started crying in the Chick-fil-A play area because some big kids were making noises — "I'm scared." He woke up at 4:30 a.m. because of a storm — "I'm scared." Some of the times he uses it, I think he's just using it as a go-to saying rather than actually being afraid, but it's hard to tell. Either way, I feel like he didn't really understand "Oh, this is fear" until I introduced him to that concept. I mean, I know I had to at some point, but it's still weird: I told my kid what fear is like, and now he knows fear. "My son knows fear because of me" is a weird, guilt-inducing statement.

Schrodinger's Truth

Quantum physics can help us understand modern media/politics.

In 1935, Austrian theoretical physicist Erwin Schrodinger was frustrated with a common quantum physics theory at the time, the Copenhagen Interpretation. In short, this theory held that a particle of an atom could exist in two different states/positions at the same time until it's observed — at which time it falls into a single state/position. In arguing with Copenhagen Interpretation co-founder Albert Einstein, Schrodinger came up with a thought experiment that explains the absurdity of this view on a larger scale:

Suppose there's a cat in a box with a radioactive element. This radioactive element has a 50-50 chance of decaying in an hour. If it does decay, that will release a poison that will kill the cat. If it doesn't decay, the cat lives. Until you check on the cat, Schrodinger theorized, doesn't that mean the cat is both alive and dead?

Schrodinger meant this as a critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation (and Einstein gave him high praise for it), but it's become something of a touchstone thought experiment for modern quantum physics theories. I won't get into that, but there are applications we can make to other fields.

Take, for instance, President Trump's claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by President Obama. He first made this claim in a series of tweets on March 4. We're now on March 23, and we remain in a Schrodinger's cat state of both truth and lie, a Schrodinger's Truth if you will.

Democrats and the FBI Director and the NSA Director and even the more foreign policy-heavy GOP Senators (McCain and Graham) have called the claims empty or stated that there is no evidence, but none have outright called him a liar. Instead, they continue to "investigate" or find no evidence, but that also leaves the door open that evidence could be found later. They don't slam the door shut on his lie.

On the other hand, the argument isn't settled. Trump and his supporters continue to push the claim. It's because of stories and quotes like this that continue the delay on what is and isn't truth. The lie remains a half-truth for as long as possible. The claim is both true and false at the same time.

In fact, just Wednesday another story came to light that seemed to vindicate Trump: House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) saying that some communications by Trump's transition team may have been picked up by "incidental," "normal," "legal" surveillance. It's a distraction. 1) This isn't wiretapping. 2) If it's all incidental, normal and legal, then what's the problem here? 3) The word "may have" and "possibly" were heavily repeated in Nunes' comments. 4) If it's the transition team, then that's AFTER the election, not before. Nunez didn't give a definitive yes/no. Until you get a yes/no, people may assume both could be true: A Schrodinger's Truth. Quick media note: All three major TV websites had this story on the front within minutes. None of the major newspapers had a mention of it at all several hours later. I thought that was smart of the newspapers.

Media organizations, the NSA and the FBI will say things like "there is no evidence to support," but reporters (distinct from personalities) won't say "Trump is lying/wrong." They're afraid of being proven wrong down the road, which could damage their credibility. By refusing to call a lie a lie, the media has ended up giving it partial legitimacy — it might be true, even if we don't know it yet. It's the difference between saying "We have found no traces of black on this sheet of paper." v. "This is a white sheet of paper."

This is a way in which journalism is being manipulated. It doesn't seem objective to say something is a lie — that appears to be subjective, which puts it in the realm of politics/beliefs/partisanship. But by refusing to put in plain language what they're trying to explain ("No evidence" = not true), the claim continues to be both alive and dead at the same time.

Schrodinger himself was making the argument that the cat can't exist as both dead and alive at the same time. Likewise, an outrageous claim like Trump's wiretapping claim cannot be both true and false. It is either one or it is the other. We're now two weeks into whether Trump lied or not about Obama's wiretapping. He lied. But his lie is still both alive (still being reported on/covered) and dead (not true, per many sources). Journalists should be brave enough to be willing to stick its neck out the slightest bit or it risks being manipulated into irrelevancy.

The Power of Placement

Monday morning was a busy day, as FBI Director James Comey was testifying to the House and the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearing was taking place. I decided to check the placement of the stories each website used at about 11:30 a.m., when much of the main news of the day had already broken. I looked at CNN, Fox News, NBC News, NPR, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

(Writer's note: I cut the in-depth analysis for length, but I can provide examples if needed.)

What did I learn? Probably nothing much. Fox News is slanted toward the GOP/conservatives while demonizing Democrats. I came to realize just how over-the-top/alarmist CNN is in its negative Trump coverage. Your views on that may vary. I found the Washington Post and New York Times' news information helpful and informative, though the NYT loses points for high opinion placements where they don't need to be. NPR seemed more of a 1,000-foot view, while NBC News was probably my overall winner based on placement and coverage choices.

Summary Judgments

This is why we don't burn books, people.  •  •  •  Great story by my old colleague Baxter Holmes for ESPN's TrueHoop about the NBA's addiction to PB&J sandwiches.  •  •  •  I went running yesterday for the first time in 11 days since the 4-miler. I only ran 3 miles and was pretty tired, but I had a great time: 32:00. Even if I ran a 12-minute mile for mile four, that would still mean I'd finish 1:15 ahead of my last 4-miler. I was pretty happy! Also, even though I've eaten terribly these last 10 days or so, I haven't gained any weight, so that was a pleasant surprise.  •  •  •  I've got a couple of Roland stories, because he's been pretty funny lately as we settle back into a routine. 1) I was sitting outside Roland's room this week as he was falling asleep. Just as I think he's falling asleep, he starts grunting and making sounds of movement. "I can't take off my hands!" he keeps saying. I finally go in to check on him, and he's going back and forth, trying to pull his hands off. "You can't take your hands off, buddy," I say. "OK." I lay him back down and he soon goes to sleep. 2) Yesterday morning, we had our morning ritual of fighting Roland to get his clothes on. He hates having to take his pajamas off and put on his clothes. I get his clothes on, but he's screaming and I have to go to work. I ask before I leave if I can get a kiss, and Evie declines, while Roland runs at me screaming. "What's wrong, Roland?" I say, kind of exasperated with the tantrum taking place. "Give kiss!" he yells at me, brow still furrowed and lips still tense. "Oh. Ok." He leaned in and gave me the smallest, stiff-lipped kiss before turning around and continuing to whine. It was the maddest, sweetest thing he's done.  •  •  •  And because I haven't had a good Evie story in a while, last night I had just gotten out of the shower when Alyson brought the kids home. Evie is fussy, so I pick her up (I'm wearing a towel around my waist). I think it is at that moment that she discovered I have chest hair. She started stroking my chest hair and patting it. Unsure of what she thought of it, I put clothes on, including a polo shirt that was unbuttoned at the top. I started to button it, but she told me to stop. She then poked at the chest hair coming out from the opening. "Button that," she said, then turned around and went back to her business.

The Second Annual Name of the Year Bracket Breakdown

In 2013, my Kansas City Chiefs earned (successfully failed into) the No. 1 pick in the NFL Draft. In most years, this is an opportunity to get a game-changing quarterback or an elite pass rusher. But 2013 turned out not to be that type of year. The two best choices (at the time) were two offensive tackles, Eric Fisher and Luke Joeckel. While history has shown the Chiefs chose the greater of those two choices, neither has particularly been the sort of cornerstone, team-changing player that one would hope for at the top of the draft. In fact, the whole of the 2013 draft was... subpar. Of the top 10 picks, only 1-2 have made the impact expected. A year earlier, and the Chiefs get a great quarterback. A year later, they get a great pass rusher.

And that's my point: Some years are better than others. When this year's Name of the Year bracket came out, a quick glance told me that it wasn't as good as other years. There are some standouts — just like in the 2013 NFL Draft — but on the whole, it's just not as strong as usual. I don't know why that is, but both Alyson and I made that observation independently.

But that doesn't mean I'm not going to spend time overanalyzing something silly like this. I need this. I NEED THIS. I need to not worry about the Schrodinger's Cat of Obama wiretapping Trump Tower. I need to distract myself, if only for a few minutes, from the not-a-Muslim-ban-but-kind-of-anyway executive orders. I need to forget the chaos rumbling from the White House for just a week or two. I need to set aside my fears about the Republican health care plan until the dust settles. Maybe you do, too.

So with all that said, here's the 2nd annual Name of the Year Bracket Breakdown, still believed to be the only such analysis of the Name of the Year Bracket in the world. Click the link to see the bracket.

Bulltron Regional

If you had to name the No. 1 overall seed, it's probably Bulltron top seed Kobe Buffalomeat. Alyson and I heard that name earlier in the year and thought "That's a great NOTY name." He'll move to the second round. I have Cherish Bloodgood winning her first round, too. The first upset I have is 12-seed Clapperton Mavhunga over the overrated 5-seed Svengali Matari Brownlee. While Rushmore Cervantes is a fine 4-seed, I am calling the upset: Melanie Gubbels Bupp as a 13-seed. That two-name combo makes me giggle, though the first name adds little. I've got YourMajesty Lumpkins edging out Tutz Honeychurch, and both H. King Buttermore III and BonJovi Hardeman easily moving on. The best Bulltron matchup is Alpha McMath v. Guy Hands. I love the name Guy Hands more than I should, but I feel like the voters will give the edge to Alpha McMath. In the second round, I've got Kobe Buffalomeat and Melanie Gubbels Bupp moving on, with Kobe Buffalomeat making the regional finals (the top of the Bulltron is weak, Buffalomeat aside). I see YourMajesty Lumpkins topping Alpha McMath and the nostalgia of BonJovi Hardeman moving him on. Despite the upsets early, I see BonJovi Hardeman moving on to the finals before losing to the top seeded Kobe Buffalomeat, because two good names are better than one.

Sithole Regional 

Last year's Sithole was weak. This year, I think it's the strongest, top to bottom. Top seed Marmaduke Trebilcock and 2 seed (and possible relative of the regional's namesake?) Fortunate Sithole both should waltz into the second round. I see the rhyming of Tony Orlandoni also advancing. I think the name synergy of Hella Jongerius works better than Di Cerulean Stylo, and the advanced degree of Dr. Prospero Gogo helps him move to the second round, too. The 3-4 seeds are really strong in this region in Dick Posthumus and Faraj Fartass, both of whom should advance to the second round. The best Sithole matchup is Heavenly Joy Jerkins and Tugg Snowbarger. If I'm being serious, I think Heavenly Joy Jerkins wins for the multiple name effect. But I am partial to Tugg Snowbarger, and these are my picks, dang it! Snowbarger moves on. Trebilcock and Sithole should both make it to the Sweet 16 without problems. The same goes for Dick Posthumous and Faraj Fartass. It seems weird to have all the top four seeds move on, but the top four are great in this region. Although Fartass is an all-time hilarious last name, Fortunate Sithole has a two-name combo, whereas Faraj adds nothing. Sithole advances to the finals. The toughest call is Dick Posthumus-Marmaduke Trebilcock. Both have funny genitalia references. Both have depth beyond a penis joke, though. But Marmaduke Trebilcock is poised for a deep, deep run, so he advances and takes down Fortunate Sithole, who — first name aside — we've seen before.

Dragonwagon Regional

There are a few great names here, but I think this is a weak region, particularly the top half. Chardonnay Pantastico is my least favorite of the top seeds, but she has a favorable draw into the Sweet 16. For the record, I think Windy Swetman III loses to Pantastico in the second round. I see upsets by both 12-seed Demon Clowney and 13-seed Christian Joo. Easily the most underrated name this year was Andy Brandy Casagrande IV, who the committee made a 6 seed (!). That name should be a 2 or a 3! In fact, I have him beating out Chito Peppler in the next round, too. 2-seed Sultan McDoom is set up for a good run, and I have him trouncing Cash Masters in the second round. To finish up the second round, I see Demon Clowney working as a better two-name combo than Christian Joo. If not for the first name-last name combo, Christian Joo isn't particularly funny on either side. In fact, I'm calling the upset: Demon Clowney over Chardonnay Pantastico in the Sweet 16. The hardest pick I'm making this entire tournament is Andy Brandy Casagrande IV v. Sultan McDoom. Both have nearly everything I want in a NOTY naminee: silliness of the name, added bonus ("IV" v. "Mc") and both halves of the name adding something. My head says Sultan McDoom. My heart says Andy Brandy Casagrande IV (I hope he pronounces the last name Cass-a-grand-EE for rhyming purposes). I'm going Sultan McDoom, but I don't feel good about it. Sultan McDoom should thump Demon Clowney in the finals.

Chrotchtangle Regional

The bottom half of this region is loaded. The top half is forgettable. Top seed Quindarious Monday should skip to the Sweet 16, beating Edzard Overbeek in the second round. I've got the oddity of the first name of Jeffrosenberg Tan moving on to the Sweet 16, also beating the not-particularly strong 4-seed Dallas Creamer in the second round. In the bottom half, the two easy picks are Teena Touch and Aphrodite Bodycomb to move on to the second round. The two best matches in the first round are here: Eliza Fox Teats v. Boats Botes and La'Genius Wisdom Williams v. Taco Dibbits. I've got Taco Dibbits moving on, but let's focus on the Eliza Fox Teats-Boats Botes matchup a second. I think the winner of this first-round match goes on to the Final Four. If Boats Botes beats Eliza Fox Teats, he can beat anyone. The same is true in reverse. Sometimes the commenters give clues, and this year they don't help much: Many love Boats Botes, but feel Eliza Fox Teats is the only name good enough to beat him. Fortune favors the bold: Boats Botes wins (I've gone back and forth on this multiple times, so apologies to Ms. Fox Teats). Boats Botes should beat Teena Touch in the second round and Taco Dibbits will fall just short of upsetting Aphrodite Bodycomb. Quindarious Monday is a week 1 seed, but there's no good challenger in the top half. He makes the finals. As I said: the Boats Botes-Eliza Fox Teats winner wins the regional finals. Boats Botes tops both Aphrodite Bodycomb and Quindarious Monday to make the Final Four.

Final Four

Kobe Buffalomeat and Marmaduke Trebilcock is a classic Final Four matchup of 1 seeds. Boats Botes-Sultan McDoom is 2-14 matchup. Yet both are incredibly hard to decide. While Kobe Buffalomeat is from nearby Lawrence, I think Marmaduke Trebilcock is stronger thanks to the three-syllable synergy. Sadly, the Cinderella run of Boats Botes ends here, as Sultan McDoom is a beautiful name with a great first, last and out-of-nowhere bonus ("Mc"). But the comic strip character/musical key/genitalia reference is too strong to top this year: Marmaduke Trebilcock is my pick for name of the year.

Summary Judgments

I am not an expert on the military. Which is why I've loved reading the folks at Foxtrot Alpha and their wonderful ongoing analysis of American capabilities, vulnerabilities and unnecessary expenditures in the Armed Forces. This recent entry on the new aircraft carrier being built explained in clear terms why what we're really building is a very expensive target for our superpower rivals.  •  •  •  There's a song by Vampire Weekend wherein the chorus starts: "Who gives a **** about an Oxford comma?" Well, here's your answer: Maine dairy drivers.  •  •  •  Just to let you know: I'm working on an observation/criticism of journalism, but I need to let the news play out a bit before I go all-out with it. As a teaser, here's the working title: Schrodinger's Truth.  •  •  •  I went on vacation and got pretty sick the first few days. At one point, I debated if I had the energy to go upstairs and take Tylenol. But by Wednesday I was feeling better. The weather on vacation was balmy -- in the 60s and 70s all week. That made for a rude awakening for my first race of the year: a 4-miler in Westport when it was snowing the whole race. BOO! But I finished the run in 45:15, which I was happy with, since my goal was 46:00. I'm taking this week off on running before picking back up next week. I'm looking forward to warmer weather. My next race is at the end of April.  •  •  •  Roland's been particularly difficult to deal with lately, so we're trying to change some of our approaches. He slept through the night two nights ago, so we were hoping it was the start of a trend. Then, last night he wakes up screaming again. We are really trying not to go in every time he wakes up, so we let him cry a while. Eventually Alyson goes in, and... he had a massive nosebleed. So much so that it look like he was in a pie eating contest. That's not something any parent really wants to wake up to: child covered in blood and screaming. He did it again later in the night, but with a much smaller nosebleed.  We have a cool mist humidifier in his room, but he often screams about it at bedtime: "No Smoke! I don't want the smoke!" Dealing with him (moreso than Evie) lately has been like trying to traipse through a minefield. Any wrong step could set him off.

Quick Thoughts on a Long Speech

I didn't watch President Trump's speech to Congress on Tuesday. I think this piece by Deadspin's Tom Scocca summed my feelings (particularly early in the piece). I felt better not having seen the speech itself nor the pundits afterward. Like always, I did a lot of reading on the not-a-State-of-the-Union address to Congress. I'll try to hit the highlights in bullet point form.

• Even before becoming president, Trump was obsessed with appearance. His hotels had the appearance of glitz/glamour. His name plastered on everything gave the appearance of wealth and importance. This speech was the first in which I felt he put on the appearance of being a serious president. I had several issues with some of it, but for the most part, this was not the Twitter personality, ranting, Baldwin parody subject Donald Trump. It was an appearance of respectability, but whether there's much depth to it or not has yet to be determined.
• I respect his decision to recognize Black History Month, the rise of anti-Semitism and the shooting in Olathe. However, here's an example of "appearance." Reporters have been asking him about the rise of anti-Semitism for weeks. At his big press conference last week, a Jewish reporter asked him about it. He denounced the question as "not a simple question" and got mad at the reporter (the question was "Do you denounce anti-Semitism?") Then, the Olathe shooting took place more than a week ago. He or his administration has been asked about it plenty. Yes, the answer was correct. But he took so long to respond that it meant little.
• Infrastructure is one of the few areas of agreement between Democrats and Republicans. It was smart to get this out of the way early on for Trump and to hit it again later on. His goal of $1 trillion in investment is great on paper, but the devil is in the details of how to make that happen. Obama repeatedly tried it but got no help from Republicans.
• Several claims without evidence: drugs pouring over our borders at an "unprecedented rate," the stock market rising because of his administration, the F-35 dropping in cost (he claimed a planned cost reduction as the result of his efforts), a lobbying ban similar to — if not weaker than — Obama's lobbying ban, and 94 million Americans out of the labor force. Some of those are easily disproven, like the labor force statistic and the "vast majority" of terrorists coming from overseas. Neither is true.
• I've said it before: Coal isn't coming back. The market has spoken: Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner. It's not about regulations, it's about a cheaper and cleaner alternative. That's a lifestyle and culture shock for people in Appalachia.
• A one-sentence evidence on how what Trump says sounds good, but ultimately means little: "I am calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs and, at the same time, provide better health care." Those are great goals. But you can't provide better health care without increasing costs. Likewise, you can't lower costs without removing quality of health care. You can't expand choice and access while also pleasing your fellow Republicans. It's a rosebush of thorny contradictions.
• Education as the civil rights issue of our time is... stolen directly from the last two presidents. If it is, then what makes Betsy DeVos the right person to address it? His statement about school choice included private religious schools, which would likely end up siphoning money away from public schools. That is worrisome to teachers I know on both sides.
• I was worried by the creation of VOICE -- Victims of Immigration Crime Enforcement. What this means is he's creating an office to track the crimes committed by illegal immigrants. One liberal analyst pointed out three possible assumptions of this office: 1) There's so much crime by immigrants that it demands a special office to investigate it. 2) There is something unique about these crimes by immigrants that demands a special office or 3) The creation of a politically minded office intended to smear immigrants will be popular with Americans. The first true are false assumptions. In short, this is veiled racism and should be read for what it is -- it's an office created to investigate/track crimes of brown people. I don't like to be that blunt, but... what's so special about these crimes or these people?
• I want to spend as little time on the soldier's widow issue as possible, because my feelings are fairly complicated. I think it's wonderful to applaud the fallen soldiers and the families that they left behind. It was an empathetic moment for Trump in a career largely devoid of them. On the other hand, it's very fair and possibly even accurate to say that it was Trump's poor decision making that cost Senior Chief Owens his life in Yemen. Both can be true. That said, what was with the weird comment about Owens being happy because he broke a record for applause?
• Overall, I thought it was fine. It was the best speech Trump's given by far. But that's a low bar to climb. It wasn't this pivot point, either. I'll believe that when he stops using Twitter and gets down to the nitty gritty of how to solve the contradictions he made in his speech. So far, he's done a lot of things that don't take much political effort. I'll be more impressed when he has consistent discipline or is willing to stick his neck out for something.

Russian to Judgment

One is chance, two's a coincidence, and three's a trend. Paul Manafort resigned as Trump's campaign manager due to his ties to Russian oligarchs. Lt. Gen. Flynn resigned as national security advisor for lying to Vice President Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Now Attorney General Jeff Sessions is under fire for lying to Congress about speaking with the same Russian ambassador.

As of this writing, I expect Jeff Sessions to remain in office. I can't see Republicans getting all that upset about Sessions lying to Democrats. Flynn had to go because he lied to Republicans. I do think we're seeing movement on him "recusing himself" from the FBI investigation of Russian ties to the Trump campaign. But even those are couched in qualifying statements — Paul Ryan said Sessions should recuse himself IF he is the subject of the investigation. That's... a pretty big loophole.

Sessions made an argument overnight that because of the wording of the questions, he had not spoken with any Russian officials in his role as a Trump advisor. Rather, he spoke with the Russian ambassador as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. On the face, this sounds like at least a plausible defense. But the Washington Post did some strong reporting, contacting 20 of the 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to find out if they had conducted a one-on-one meeting with the Russian ambassador last year — including the chairman of the committee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. All 20 of the respondents said they had not.

Party On or Party Poopers? 

There's a stark difference in how Democrats and Republicans see the economy. According to the University of Michigan's respected consumer sentiment surveys, Republicans feel the economy is not just going to grow, but at an unprecedented pace. Not to get bogged down in the weeds with numbers, but their expectations for a Trump economy are higher than the poll's history -- which dates back to 1952. They're higher than the post-WWII boom! Democrats are the opposite, naturally. Democrats are wildly pessimistic, at levels near that of the Great Recession.

Democrats are probably wrong — If Barack Obama left the economy in such good shape, Donald Trump can't wreck it overnight. There has to be more to the doubts than just fear, and I haven't seen any troubling major indicators yet. But Republicans are probably wrong, too. Their chief economic drumbeat of deregulation won't create the economic boom to rival the last 60 years. So what does that mean? Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and reconsider what they think of the economy.

Summary Judgments

Fun tool by the Washington Post about which bridges are in need of repair in your county, and how your county stacks up nationally. For those of you like me who have written stories about transportation issues, including these very problems, this is like a Christmas gift of data.  •  •  •  Gannon is a one-word epithet for many conservative Republicans in Kansas. In short, the state has a Constitutional clause that education funding must be suitable. The Legislature has tried to shortchange education before and lost in court. They slowly tried to do it again and naturally got sued again. There were two parts in question: lawmakers weren't funding education equitably (fairly between big and small districts) and adequately (enough at all). The first question was settled a while ago, and resulted in a relatively small chunk of money helping to balance it out. The second question was solved on Thursday, and while there isn't a money amount attached to it, lawmakers are going to have to redo the budget. Effectively, the court told the state legislature to either put in a lot more money (probably $500-$800 million!) or prove that kids can get a good education with less money. They have until June 30. Good luck, lawmakers.  •  •  •  Running has been pretty successful lately. I did 3.5 miles yesterday, but I really felt it. This next week is going to be tough: I'm going to be on vacation before my first 4-mile run next Saturday. I'm excited about the first run of the year, but it's also my first 4-miler.  •  •  •  No great stories about the kids this week. Sorry.  •  •  •  News Judgments is probably going to be off next week. I will be on vacation and don't really want to think about it. If I have time, I may write. But don't expect an update next week.

Constitutional Amendments, Ranked and Categorized

I am not immune to lists about silly things, but today I want to make a list of Constitutional Amendments. Not only will I rank them from least important (No. 27) to most important (No. 1), but I'll also group them together. Absolutely no help was taken from here.

Not A Thing Anymore Group

27) 18th Amendment (Prohibition)
Last place goes to the only Amendment that is no longer actually in place. Americans learned a few lessons: Teetotalers are no fun and also that Americans love our liquor too much to ban it.

26) 3rd Amendment (Quartering of Soldiers)
Our first of the Bill of Rights amendments, there just isn't much of a need or desire to quarter soldiers anymore. There haven't been any significant judicial rulings involving it for decades. In 1787, this was a BIG DEAL. This is the Third Amendment! This is before all the judicial stuff and slavery stuff! Nowadays, I can't imagine the government even wanting to use private homes for bunkhouses.

25) 21st Amendment (Ending Prohibition) 
The only real "Oops, never mind" amendment there is. Beyond its application to the 18th Amendment, this one doesn't have any real modern relevancy.

Minor Procedural Issues We Should Have Seen Coming Group

24) 20th Amendment (Start Date of Terms) 
This changed when Presidential and Congressional terms start. It moved them up, because travel and vote counting was no longer a reason for delay. It also put in writing that if a President-Elect were shot or died before inauguration, the Vice President-Elect becomes President. This is an amendment you never think about and only ever learn in school.

23) 27th Amendment (Congressional Pay Hike Delay)
This was actually one of the first 12 amendments proposed, but it wasn't adopted by enough states and was forgotten about until Gregory Watson, a University of Texas grad student, found it and pushed it nationwide. States jumped on board, and soon it was passed. Only four states have never affirmed it, but who cares...it's law. In short, Congressional pay changes don't take effect until after the next election. Interestingly, Watson got a C on his original paper because the professor didn't think it was realistic that it'd become an amendment.

22) Seventh Amendment (Civil Trial By Jury) 
The second of the Bill of Rights! I had to take a look at this a second time. At first I read it as "you can have a trial by jury." That's important! But no. The Seventh says you can have a trial by jury for a civil suit over as little as $20. Even with inflation, $20 is still the rule. Who invokes a jury trial for a $25 disagreement? That seems like a job for the People's Court, not a court of the people.

21) 12th Amendment (Presidential Election Fix) 
This is the "Oops, political parties messed things up" Amendment. Originally, the electoral college voted for president, with Vote-Getter 1 becoming President and Vote-Getter 2 becoming Vice President. Obviously, this doesn't work out great if they're of opposite political parties. This amendment came after President Adams and Jefferson were elected with less-than-helpful vice presidents.

20) 22nd Amendment (Presidential Term Limits) 
You know that whole "We have a President, not a king" thing? Well, it took us until after FDR had been elected four times to really mean that. This was touted by Thomas Dewey... of "Dewey Defeats Truman" fame... during the "Dewey Defeats Truman" time period, too.

Major Procedural Issues That Had To Be Addressed Group

19) 11th Amendment (Sovereign Immunity)
In short, states can't be sued by people who don't live in that state. Nor can they be sued by a foreigner who doesn't live in that state. Long story short, six years after the Constitution was signed, Georgia got sued by a dude from South Carolina on behalf of a guy that gave supplies to Georgia during the Revolutionary War. Georgia said "We don't answer to you, Guy Who Doesn't Live in Georgia." In court, Georgia lost. Within 2 years, this amendment was passed to say that states are immune from lawsuits from outsiders. It was the first "That's a Problem; Let's Fix It" issue after the Bill of Rights.

18) 16th Amendment (Income Tax Distribution)
This is another reaction to a court case, called the Pollock case. The Constitution pretty clearly said that taxes on property have to be distributed by population. The Pollock case ruled that portions of a graduated income tax were unconstitutional because it wasn't distributed by population. Congress decided to fix it by saying that income tax can be distributed however Congress wants.

Important Yet So Broad They Aren't As Important Group

17) Ninth Amendment (Other Powers)
"Just because we didn't list other rights doesn't mean those other rights can be denied/disparaged." In theory, this means a lot. In practice, it doesn't. The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and those in his judicial vein have found, in short, that "Just because other rights exist doesn't mean the Constitution protects them." These folks are called Originalists, and basically believe that if the Constitution doesn't list a right, it doesn't get protection. Many conservative court-watchers are originalists. But originalists are kind of contradicted by this amendment, right?

16) Tenth Amendment (Federalism) 
If the Constitution doesn't explicitly list a right for the federal government, then that right belongs to the states. This rarely gets much application anymore, and the Supreme Court in 1941 said it's mostly just a harmless truism. However, the Tenth Amendment has been a part of some significant recent cases, most notably the 2012 Obamacare ruling that said states can't be forced to expand Medicaid.

Why Didn't We Think Of This Before? Group

15) 25th Amendment (Presidential Succession)
What happens if a President dies? OK, that's in the Constitution, but nothing after that. No way to fill the role of Vice President, no idea what happens if the Vice President dies, no way to determine if a President is incapacitated (even temporarily, like during a colonoscopy). This cleans that up. It's important, but it's also mostly just legalese.

14) 26th Amendment (Voting Age Lowered to 18) 
This may seem like it should go lower on the list, but it was mostly a response to the Vietnam War. If 18-21 year olds can fight and die for the country, they should be able to vote. It's significant, but it's not like this was a political earthquake or anything.

13) 23rd Amendment -- (D.C. Electors)
Washington, D.C., gets electors in the electoral college based on population. But they are limited to no more than the smallest state. In this case, Wyoming is the smallest state with only three electors. As of the most recent Census, there are more people living in D.C. than in Wyoming. If they gain another 300,000-400,000 people in the future, the size cap on electors could become an issue -- then, they'd be somewhere around the 43rd largest state and be pressing harder for statehood.

12) 17th Amendment (Senate By Popular Vote)
You get to vote for Senators now! Before this, it was decided by state legislatures. This probably should have been the case the entire time, but it took us until just before World War I to figure it out.

I'm Not Sure Where This Goes, But Here Seems OK

11) Second Amendment (Gun Rights) 
It's interesting how the "well-regulated militia" part gets left off by gun rights advocates. There are lots of recent court cases about this, and it will probably always be in the courts. I don't have a lot to say about it; this moves up or down the list depending on your affinity for guns.

Civil Rights Group

10) 24th Amendment (No Poll Taxes) 
Also known as the "Knock it off, Southern States" Amendment. It was used as a go-round to stop African Americans from voting. This one was only passed during the Civil Rights era.

9) 15th Amendment (Voting Rights for Black People) 
An extension of the whole reason we fought the Civil War. Voting rights can't be based on race. This was a key part of Reconstruction.

8) 19th Amendment (Women Can Vote)
There's not a lot to say about this, other than it took too damn long. Roughly 50 percent of the country getting the right to vote is SUPER IMPORTANT.

7) 13th Amendment (Banning Slavery) 
Yet another issue that took too damn long. It's the reason for the country's only (yet!) Civil War. I just read the text, and ... involuntary servitude is still legal as sentencing for a crime. That's an interesting loophole, but I think it also gets covered by another amendment further down the list.

Pillars of Modern Justice

6) Eighth Amendment (Cruel and Unusual Punishment) 
Hey! It's that other amendment I just mentioned! Legally speaking, there are other, more basic rights. This one is further down the list because many believe the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but it's legal. Also, it's only for those already convicted of crime, and there's just a slight bit less empathy for convicts than those merely accused of a crime.

5) 4th Amendment (Unreasonable Search and Seizure) 
These next three are incredibly hard to rank. I have no argument if you place them in another order. They're all the most basic of our laws for the Judicial Branch. Nearly half of the Bill of Rights is about putting more of a spine in the Judicial Branch. Search and seizure is kind of the start of an experience with the law. Any one of these three without the others would leave the court open to corruption. This one is about police needing a warrant before searching and seizing your property*.
* Some exclusions may apply, but it's complicated and I don't want to get into it.

4) Fifth Amendment (LOTS OF THINGS)
There's a lot in this one amendment: No one will face trials for major crimes unless a grand jury indicts them first; No double jeopardy; "I plead the Fifth" -- no self-incriminating testimony can be compelled; The "due process" clause that you can't lose life, liberty or property without due process; and eminent domain (the odd man out here) that the government can't take private property without proper compensation. It's a pretty dense amendment. That's why it's so important.

3) Sixth Amendment (ALSO LOTS OF THINGS)
You've got a lot here, too: Right to a speedy and public trial; Right to a jury trial in the district in which the crime was committed; Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; Right to have witnesses face you in person in trial; Right to have legal counsel; and Right to subpoena witnesses on a defendant's behalf. Can you imagine a world in which these don't exist? It sounds like a dystopia or North Korea or something.

Super Important Ones

2) 14th Amendment (Citizenship and Equal Protection)
This one gets really high up on the list not just because of its immediate impact -- Reconstruction -- but because of its impact on history. This one granted Native Americans and former slaves citizenship. It also said the federal government trumps state laws, part of the due process clause. But most important was the "Equal Protection" clause. It doesn't look like much in context, but it was first extended beyond African Americans to Asian Americans, then to women. It's the basis of the arguments for gay rights advocates right now. The rest of the amendment mostly dealt with post-Civil War issues, but the three biggest issues were biggies: citizenship, equal protection and due process.

1) First Amendment (Five Freedoms)
It's 45 words, but these 45 words made America what it is. It included five freedoms that remain the basis for constitutional democracy worldwide. Here are the Five Freedoms: 1a) No law respecting an establishment of religion 1b) nor the free exercise thereof 2) No law abridging the freedom of speech 3) Nor of the freedom of press 4) Nor of the right to peaceably assemble 5) We also have the freedom to petition our government for redress of grievances. That's probably the most succinct yet powerful 45 words ever. Without the First Amendment, we don't have much of a democracy.

Mixed Signs in New Poll

A new poll by Quinnipiac focused on who the public trusts more, President Trump or the news media. The answers were both a relief and a concern.

First, the good news: 52 percent of the respondents said the news media is more trustworthy than President Trump, as compared to 37 percent who say it's the other way around. (Note: I still think that's too high.) Those numbers are fairly consistent with men overall (50-40), women overall (55-35), college-educated white voters (55-37), independents (50-38), and respondents across every age category. The age groups were also telling: the younger a respondent, the more likely they were to trust the news media over President Trump. That gives me hope that the younger generation trusts the work of journalists.

Where I found concern was that the poll also showed a few groups that trust President Trump more than the news media, and it's almost exactly what one might expect. Self-described Republicans trust President Trump more than the news media by a whopping 78-13 margin (!). White people without a college degree are the opposite of the national trend, trusting President Trump 55-37 over the news media. Further, the disparity between white people and those of color could not be more clear. White men trust President Trump more, 46-45. White women trust the news media slightly more at 48-45. White people in general trust the news media more 46-45. People of color trust the news media 68-18 more than President Trump.

Olathe Shooting

We're exactly the opposite side of metropolitan Kansas City from Olathe, but what I thought would fizzle out as a regional story has been picked up by national outlets. I'm glad it's gaining national attention, because the story behind the shooting of three men at a bar in Olathe is horrifying.

Two Garmin engineers of Indian descent, Srinivas Kuchibhotla and Alok Madasani — both my age, roughly — were regulars at a bar called Austin's. A 51-year-old white man, Adam Purinton, began yelling racial slurs at the two and told them to "Get out of my country," according to witnesses. He then opened fire. Madasani survived. Kuchibhotla died on Wednesday. Another man, Ian Grillot, tried to chase down Purinton in the parking lot, but counted the number of gunshots and was nearly killed (hit in hand and chest by bullet, but will survive) for his trouble. Purinton fled the scene to Clinton, Mo., where he told a bartender at Applebee's that he needed a place to hide for a while, since he just shot two Middle Eastern men. He was soon arrested and is in jail on $2 million bail.

Kuchibhotla and Madasani were not Middle Eastern. They were not dangerous. They were engineers contributing to the country. There are GoFundMe accounts set up for Kuchibhotla and Grillot (who's still in the hospital). This is a hate crime. Where did Purinton get these ideas? Demonization without empathy produces hate. This is the power of rhetoric: that anyone who looks vaguely Middle Eastern is considered a threat by those predisposed to hatred. This incident is a pitch-perfect example of why some of us are so incensed by hateful rhetoric.

Summary Judgments

It's concerning to me when members of the Administration have different talking points. The messages given by Vice President Pence and Steve Bannon to EU representatives show there is a sharp divide in the Trump Administration.  •  •  •  In case you were wondering who I prefer for the chair of the DNC, the short answer is I don't care. The long answer is: If they want to win and not just be an opposition party, they'll have to have a 50-state strategy. They'll have to work to take back state legislatures and governorships and seats in "red states." It doesn't matter the name on the chair so long as they're committed to being more than an obstacle — to being an alternative — for Republicans. So far I've not been impressed by Democratic messaging.  •  •  •  I have been running a lot this week with the great weather. I ran 3.1 miles on Monday in 34:30. I then ran 3.25 miles on Wednesday in 34 minutes. I'm on track for my first 4-miler on March 11. I've been looking at my running calendar, and I'm seriously considering a 10K in September. I might be crazy.  •  •  •  The kids have been adorable lately, especially when Roland eats something with protein in it. When he doesn't have enough protein, he's a 2-year-old Terror. When he gets a cheese stick or peanut butter? He's the most adorable kid ever. One night this week after he ate dinner, he got real close to Alyson's face and said, "You're pretty, Mommy." And that's how our heart melted in three words.