Cruelty, Impeachment and State Mottos

Perhaps no single word can show the divide in the last two administrations like the word "audacity." It was part of Barack Obama's book title, "The Audacity of Hope." The opposite sentiment can be found in the Trump administration's audacity of cruelty.

The cruelty has been eating away at me more and more this year. That's likely why my posts have dropped in frequency and why I feel myself drifting from politics while knowing I must stay engaged. The cruelty has been rampant and destructive to people. This cruelty shown by both Trump and his administration has been directed at people he does not know, at people he knows, at people outside of his party, at people within his party, at potential allies, at longtime allies, at enemies. Seemingly the only person to escape the Trump ire has been, of all people, Vladimir Putin.

But one thing that has been drilled into my head is to show my work.

So let me explain through examples. Let's start with immigrants. For illegal immigrants, the Trump administration is separating families at the border. I shouldn't have to explain how difficult that must be for people who are (mostly) seeking refuge. For legal immigrants, the Trump administration has made the process of seeking asylum nearly impossible. It has caused legal immigrants to flee away from the U.S. and toward others, like Canada. Our national attitude has been that if you're not from here, we do not care about you in the slightest. He has placed DACA recipients on pins and needles while blaming Democrats for a decision that he made.

Our president has been one of the most line-in-the-sand politicians I've ever seen. Either you're with him or you're against him. If you're against him, whether in his party (McCain, notably, but Flake/Corker/etc.) or not (Elizabeth Warren, Pelosi, Schumer, etc.), he has nothing but contempt — not just privately, but incredibly publicly.

In one breath, he can talk about the dangers of crime and thugs and drug dealers, often ignoring facts of cases (see the Central Park Five) to stoke the wildest fears of the easily frightened. He has simultaneously wiped the slate clean for people like Dinesh D'Souza, who pled guilty to election fraud, and Scooter Libby. Both of these men are the exact types of people who he would lead chants against if they had been Democrats.

He has placed punitive tariffs not just against our economic enemies (China, to a potentially overblown extent) and our economic allies (Canada, the EU, Mexico). He has turned the G7 Summit of the seven greatest economies into a G6 + the U.S., while pushing for the inclusion of, of all countries, Russia to make it a G8 once more.

He has enabled terrible people like Scott Pruitt, Jeff Sessions and Mick Mulvaney. Many of his political appointees have made it their direct, explicit goal to undermine the agencies which they head. Specifically, Mulvaney and Pruitt have done the most damage while managing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency. He has undermined his own Department of Justice and FBI for conducting an investigation into his campaign's ties with Russia. He cannot help himself from lashing out at anyone who dares suggest the investigation was legitimate. He has used Rudy Giuliani to muddy the waters before the Mueller investigation.

He has taken a flawed but working Affordable Care Act and made such a mess out of it that those who have come to rely on its provisions — the most vulnerable of us, by definition — have been in constant jeopardy since he took office, and the latest news will not make it any easier.

He has joined fights that were not his to fight, like the cancellation of Roseanne and the right of NFL players to kneel during the National Anthem. He has used invitations to the White House as a cudgel and played the victim when no one wanted to attend in the first place.

Cruelty is easy. It is easy to be cruel. It is easy to not care for people. It is hard to care about repercussions, to seek out common ground, to make compromises on difficult subject, to treat your enemies and allies with respect, to be a decent human at all times. I am no different. It is hard to be kind and generous and wise and reflective and forward-thinking and engaged.

There is an old line that you should do the right thing even when it's hard. I would argue that the right thing is almost always hard. Doing the right thing should challenge you, should push you past your comfort point, should be inconvenient, should not come naturally. But that's exactly why we should do it. As I've said over and over again, it is easier to dismantle and destroy and demolish than to build. I pray that our country — and the leaders in charge of it — would build a better America. I believe in a better America, worth working for and changing from within. It will not come without costs. It will not come easily. It is worth doing. I wish that our nation's highest leader would pursue such a path rather than the cruelty that has been on display nearly every day.

Note: This is not to dismiss everything the Trump Administration has done as useless or evil or malicious. I do not ignore success when success is earned. The economy is strong. I have many reservations about the North Korea summit, but I am willing to say that I feel the likelihood of nuclear war in Korea is lower today than before it. Trump deserves some credit for that. 

Impeachment Book

I have no doubt that the Mueller investigation will be scathing, revealing and worthy of political ramifications. There has already been enough guilty pleas, enough evidence, enough cause to believe Trump's campaign, and Trump himself, have been involved in undermining democracy. The Trump Tower meeting alone should be impeachable, let alone the cover-up press releases that followed.

On my vacation last month, I read a book called the Citizen's Guide to Impeachment. It reviewed lessons from the impeachment cases that have taken place in the country's history. Here's what I learned:

1) Impeachment is not a criminal charge. It's merely for removal of office. If you're charged with, say, bank fraud in impeachment proceedings, then you can (and almost assuredly will) be charged with bank fraud in a criminal court afterward. Impeachment is done in the House, who becomes the "prosecutors." The Senate becomes the "jury."

2) What we think of as "impeachable offenses" is not particularly well defined. There are three descriptions for what a person can be charged with: treason, bribery and "other high crimes and misdemeanors." You will probably never see someone charged with the first two, because there is a certain burden of proof there. There are specific legal steps that have to be met in order to prosecute those crimes. Almost every person who has been impeached has been under the "other high crimes and misdemeanors" header, even when it is... bribery (this actually happened once).

3) The causes of impeachment are legion, but Trump has already met several, in my opinion. There is profiteering, lying to the American public (see the Trump Tower press release he dictated), undermining the freedom of the press, not protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (vague, but this would be pursuant to justice concerns), violating the emoluments clause, undermining the federal judiciary, encouraging law enforcement to violate the rights of others, deceit, undermining the office of the Presidency by siding with white supremacists.

4) Those are a ton of reasons that are unrelated to the most obvious reason: obstruction of justice. Every president that has been impeached (Johnson, Clinton, and nearly Nixon) were impeached on obstruction of justice charges. If you think Donald Trump has not obstructed the Mueller investigation, then please let me sell you anything at all. He has publicly denounced his own Department of Justice, fired an FBI director for not interfering in the investigation, lied about his reasoning after the fact, attacked investigators by name and undermined the credibility of a federal investigation. It is not a witch hunt, unless witch hunts have found multiple witches and more are on the way. Obstruction of justice is obvious and should be pushed by everyone, Republican or Democrat. Neither side seems to be pushing it right now, which is frustrating. Democrats appear to prefer an impeachable person in power (easier to campaign against?) than to take the risk of overplaying their hand. Republicans appear unwilling to oppose Trump, under the spell of his cult of personality. Here's the catch: there is some reporting that the FBI, and by extension Mueller, can not charge a sitting President with obstruction of justice directly. There has to be an impeachment action/removal first, and then he could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice criminal charges. This theory hasn't been tested in any court, but it would only go to delay the process.

5) Special investigations are usually a slow process. With an investigation as deep and complicated as this one, I would not be surprised if there is not a final report more than a year from now, let alone by the end of Trump's (first?) term. Patience is required from the Mueller team. I know this sounds like doublespeak, but patience is required for the Mueller investigation while time is of the essence for impeachment.

State Mottos, Ranked and Annotated in Reverse Order

50) Indiana, "The Crossroads of America"

This is not a state motto. It is a nickname masquerading as a motto. It is an Indiana tourism branding statement. It is the worst state motto.

49) Minnesota, "L'Étoile du Nord" (Star of the North)

Also a nickname and not a motto, but it gains points for alluding to its French fur trapping origin story.

48) Florida, "In God We Trust"

The only state truly too lazy to think of something original is the only state it could ever have been.

47) Texas, "Friendship," 6) Rhode Island, "Hope," 45) Utah, "Industry"   

These are all one-word concepts, which isn't a motto... it's a state aspirational goal. They sound like parts of the Scout Law. Mottos should either be an ethos or represent the state/people, and none of these do that. Have you met Texas drivers? Most unfriendly people in the world. Rhode Island's motto seems to be a verb, which is... slightly better. The best of this bad bunch is Utah's, which at least fits with the beehive/Mormon settlers history concept.

44) Montana, "Oro y plata (Gold and Silver)," 43) Tennessee, "Agriculture and Commerce" 42) New Jersey, "Liberty and prosperity," 41) Delaware, "Liberty and Independence," 40) Vermont, "Freedom and Unity"

Two-word concepts, but not really a motto. It's just two things. Montana's (despite the rare Spanish motto) gets docked for being two things in the state rather than two personality traits. It'd be like if West Virginia's motto was "coal mines and hills." Tennessee's two things are boring and sound like a small-town grocery store: Farm N'Barter! The other three are near interchangeable.

39) Pennsylvania, "Virtue, Liberty and Independence," 38) Louisiana, "Union, justice, confidence," 37) Georgia, "Wisdom, justice and moderation"

Three-word concepts are also not mottos. They are better than one-word or two-word concepts, though. Georgia's sounds the smartest, Pennsylvania's is the worst because liberty and independence are the same thing, and Louisiana's just doesn't sound like Louisiana.

36) Nebraska, "Equality before the law," 35) Wyoming, "Equal Rights" 

Nebraska's is fine. It's just a wordier version of Wyoming's. I can accept Wyoming's as a motto because it's an ethos, aspirational goal and nod to history all in one. Wyoming was the first to give women the right to vote, and they won't let the other 49 states forget it. Nebraska doesn't even have the history behind it.

34) Illinois, "State sovereignty, national union"

This is true for any and every state. It is boring and lame and merely says "We're a state and we're in the United States!" I'm tempted to push this one farther down. Nothing about this says Illinois.

33) Michigan, " Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam circumspice (If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you"

I love geography and mentioning your unique geography. Peninsulas are cool. But this motto is the sticker on a map of the mall saying "You are here." A better motto would be something like "Not afraid to stick out." See? It's a peninsula riff without being obvious about it.

32) Maryland, "Fatti maschii, parole feminine (Manly deeds, womanly words)"

Sexist? I don't want to peer too far into the abyss, but this is either talking about a dude with the voice of a woman or a woman who does manly things, like spitting sunflower seeds or running a beer mile.

31)  Colorado, "Nil sine numine (Nothing without the Deity)," 30) Connecticut, "Quit transtulit sustained (He who transplanted sustains)," 29) Arizona, "Ditat Deus (God enriches)," 28) Ohio, "With God, all things are possible" 

I have nothing against pledges of fealty to God. That's cool with me. But it's only a perfectly fine state motto. Colorado's is kind of a weird indictment of God, that he would enable the many strange/weird things about that state: pot dispensaries, ski bros and the Denver Broncos come to mind. Connecticut's is a bit obtuse of a God reference. The other two are perfectly cromulent but not particularly memorable state mottos. Ohio's is Philippians 4:13, and you can't go wrong with Bible verses.

27) Missouri, "Salus populi suprema lex esto (Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law)," 26) South Dakota, "Under God, the people rule," 25) Arkansas, "The people rule"

These are pretty similar, but Missouri loses points for being wordy. South Dakota's gets to the point faster and explains the legal hierarchy: God, then people. Arkansas has the punchiest and easiest to teach a grade schooler, which matters.

24) North Carolina, "Esse quam videri (To be, rather than to seem)"

This sounds like part of a Hamlet monologue. It's super esoteric and tries too hard, though. Short revealing story about myself: Once, when I was in middle school, I thought I could impress a girl I liked by acting pensive and trying to share with her some super-deep thoughts about snow. It was dumb, it failed, and it's the source of laughter to this day for everyone. North Carolina's state motto is the "deep thoughts about snow" of state mottos.

23) South Carolina, "Dum spiro spero Animis opibusque parati (While I breathe, I hope Ready in soul and resource)"

It's way too long,

22) Washington, "Al-ki (By and By)"

It's in Chinook! That's cool, right? Once you get past the four letters and rare language of it all, this is kind of lame. It seems unusual and cool and different at first, but is actually just boring, like [insert BBC sitcom that failed in America here].

21) Wisconsin, "Forward"

I give Wisconsin a pass on the one-word concept, because this is both a preposition, a command and a direction. It's simple, as the best state mottos are, but it's a little too simple.

20) Oklahoma, "Labor omnia vincit (Labor conquers all things)"

I grew up with Oklahoma's. It's easy enough to remember and explains the state work ethic. The only problem is it can sound kind of nose-to-the-grindstone/toil is your friend/"Some day you'll get that boulder to the top of the hill, Sisyphus" atmosphere. Not quite as good as its cousin from Kansas, which is further down.

19) Idaho, "Esto perpetua (Let it be perpetual)"

My friends from Idaho tell me how beautiful it is, and now I want to visit. The idea of it lasting forever sounds nice, like a garden of Eden pre-Fall. There's a hidden message of "It's already great, so keep it this way" that is both instructive and environmental-sounding. It's lovely.

18) North Dakota, "Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable"

This sounds more like an oath of office or pledge of allegiance than a state motto. It's longer than it should be and it's sort of repetitive with union/one/inseparable. But I'll be danged if it doesn't have good flow, sound like something a grade schooler can remember, and embrace multiple dichotomies. I like it even though I know I kind of shouldn't.

17) Kentucky, "United we stand, divided we fall"

It's an old platitude, but a good one. This doesn't make me think of Kentucky or say much about the state. We're starting to get into the better state mottos.

16) Hawaii, "Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono (The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness)"

That is wordy as hell, but it embraces its native language, which is great. It sounds like something any dad might tell his children, in that "I'm being poignant here, but taking too many words to say it" sort of way. The response is: "Yeah, Dad, I get it. If I'm good, the land will last forever. My morality is clapping and the land is Tinkerbell."

15) Iowa, "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain," 14) Virginia, "Sic semper tyrannis (Thus always to tyrants)," 13) Massachusetts, "Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)," 12) Alabama, "Audemus jura nostra defendere (We dare defend our rights)," 11) Mississippi, "Virtute et armis (By valor and arms)"

I call these the "We will fight you" mottos. It's no surprise that three of them are Southern states. Iowa's is the lamest of the bunch, because it's just an implied threat. Virginia's is too far in the opposite direction and loses points for being something John Wilkes Booth shouted after killing Lincoln, though it is still badass enough to be this high. Massachusetts is wordy and too stuffy, but perfectly Massachusetts in that way. Alabama's seems needlessly provocative, but still has that cutthroat mentality. I love the simplicity of Mississippi's.

10) California, "Eureka (I have found it)"

It's got the gold mining history incorporated, it's simple and punchy, it's a nod to Archimedes. It's also a little full of itself, which is perfect for California.

9) New York, "Excelsior (Ever Upward)" 

It's one-word, but it's aspirational and implies growth over time. It's easy to remember and punchy. It gains points for me because of the Stan Lee connection. The famed Marvel Comics legend would end his columns with this word in the idea that other writers wouldn't copy. It is perfectly Stan Lee in that it's kind of hokey and outdated, but delightfully so. It's the Adam West Batman of state mottos.

8) New Mexico, "Crescit eundo (It grows as it goes)"

Sweet, simple and doesn't have the Stan Lee baggage. Points docked for Latin instead of Spanish.

7) Oregon, "Alis volat propriis (She flies with her own wings)" 

Oregon is a feminist state, or at least a feminine pronoun state. Even though there's a bit of a Li'l Brudder aspect to it, the wings imagery is beautiful and poignant. But if you didn't know this was Oregon, you still wouldn't know.

6) Kansas, "Ad astra per aspera (To the stars through difficulties)"

I was kind of surprised how high this one rose, but it's got all the earmarks of a great state motto with only one drawback. It kind of rhymes in Latin, it's super easy to remember, it's aspirational while accepting of reality, and it's the name of a beer. The stars are a greater goal than merely flying, so it's better than Oregon. The only drawback is that it doesn't scream Kansas. It's one of the best mottos, but it just can't break through to the upper echelon. It is the Kansas City Chiefs of state mottos.

5) Maine, "Dirigo (I lead)"

The punchiest, best one-word motto in the country. It's a declaration and direction. It's aspirational and easy to remember. It's simple but not simplistic. This is the best motto that doesn't make you think of its state at all. Be honest: If you read the motto first, did Maine come to mind? Probably not, which is a shame. Any motto ranked higher than this gives off an "F yeah!" attitude, and this one is

4) Nevada, "All for our Country and Battle Born"

Points docked for having two mottos. However, each of these mottos is excellent. The first is so patriotic it hurts. The second gives a vibe of "we can handle anything." It's also the name of a Killers album. Honestly, they should drop the first motto and just be "Battle Born," since it sounds so incredible and like they can handle anything. It makes me think of Nevada, though again, that may just be the Killers album doing work for the state. It'd look great on a license plate.

3) Alaska, "North to the future"

Geography tie-in! But more importantly, there's maybe only one other state this could possibly be (Minnesota, maybe?). It's just a motto that immediately conjures Alaska. It's aspirational and a good motto. Quick thought: Is traveling north always a good idea, especially in the winter?

2) West Virginia, "Montani semper liberi (Mountaineers are always free)"

Hell yeah! This is the best "who we are" motto in the country. It screams place (mountains), people (mountaineers), identity (always free), and aspiration (implied). You don't want to mess with these guys, because they are one with the land.

1) New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die"

There's something to be said for keeping it simple. In 13 letters, it's an ethos, an identity, a dare to others, a charge, edgy, a line in the sand and morbidly awesome. You can imagine New Hampshire militia members yelling this as they charge up a hill. It'd make a great tattoo if you're from there. It's also immediately recognizable as New Hampshire, because of all those factors. Hell, it's practically a Die Hard movie. It's definitely not as mild and fluffy and star-eyed as the others. It's put-up-or-shut-up in New Hampshire. It's also got a great historic lineage. A classic for a reason.

Summary Judgments

Here's a short summary of the Inspector General FBI report: Clinton's emails were not criminal in any way, Comey was wrong to make not one but two public statements that likely damaged her status in the election, and the FBI had a few people that didn't like Trump. None of those actions were done for political reasons. It reminds me of an offshoot of Occam's Razor called Hanlon's Razor: Never assign to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.  •  •  •  Paul Manafort is now in jail for witness tampering. Surely he wouldn't do that if he were innocent, right?  •  •  •  This is a salient point that I should probably elaborate on next time, since this is News Judgments and all. In short: journalists are treating the President's quotes as gospel and quoting him as if he were an authority, even when what he is saying is contrary to the nuance and depth of a story. It misleads the public when a headline like "Trump: watchdog report a 'total disaster' for Comey" runs instead of "Watchdog report: Comey erred, but not biased in Clinton probe." The latter is a much better reflection of the report and doesn't grant supreme authority to the President. The former assumes that President Trump actually read a 500-page report. I encourage any Trump supporter to look me in the eye and say that he read the whole report.  •  •  •  I ran a Warrior Dash last week. It wore me out so much that I had trouble sleeping for two days. It was through a farm field, so it was dusty. It was a record high in Kansas City that day, with heat indices over 100. The mud dragged your body down and the water obstacles only did so much to remove the mud. It was brutal and exhausting and physically demanding. I loved it and want to do it again next year.  •  •  •  We have been telling the kids that if they want to stay up after we tuck them in and read/play quietly, they can do so. Evie has been exploiting this loophole even though she knows we want her to be in bed. Last night, it was 10:45 and I knew she was still awake. I walked by her room to a point I could see her but she didn't know I was there. She got up and was playing with her dresser when she looked up, saw me looking at her, had a moment of recognition like a deer in the headlights, then darted into bed and pretended she was sleeping. She fell asleep for real 10 minutes later.

Ten Thoughts on the White House Correspondents Dinner

1) The White House Correspondents Association pretended to be surprised about comedian Michelle Wolf's performance. I say "pretended," because their press release announcing she'd do the dinner included the line that they liked the way she "speaks truth to power" and that she's no-nonsense. After the performance, the WHCA said that her performance did not fit the spirit of the dinner. This means one of two things: Either they didn't do their homework on Michelle Wolf's act (which is a bad sign for the people who are supposed to be doing their homework on the Administration) or they are being disingenuous now. I lean toward the latter, though I can't rule out the former.

2) The performance at the WHCA is traditionally a roast. The comedian of choice comes up and makes fun of the political powers-that-be, the media themselves, and whoever else is in the room. I have no idea why this didn't fit the spirit of the dinner, since it... exactly fits the spirit of the dinner. A quick scan of past hosts show that four of the last dozen have said/done something "controversial," no matter how benign.

3) I watched the whole performance. About 50 percent of her jokes landed as intended. About 30-40 percent weren't funny/didn't land. The remaining 10-20 percent were tasteless/bad jokes. That's not a bad ratio for any comedian. She's the sixth woman to host/perform at the event. She's the first female stand-up comedian of an opposite-party stance since... first female host Paula Poundstone in 1992. No offense to Cecily Strong or Aretha Franklin, but the nature of stand-up comedy is riskier. And most of the other women did so during liberal administrations. I don't know the reason for the reactions, because I'm not a psychiatrist. But I can't rule out her gender as a motivating factor here.

4) Most of her jokes were good. The best one was that Mike Pence looks like what would happen if Anderson Cooper wasn't gay. HILARIOUS. Some of the uproar has been Wolf's treatment of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. None of her jokes about Sarah Huckabee Sanders were about her appearance; they were about lying to the American public and that she is a woman that treats other women badly. She made some quite pointed Handmaid's Tale references, but they weren't about her looks. The jokes about lying should come as no surprise to SHS, as that's the nature of the job. Every press secretary obfuscates, diverts, blurs, confounds, hides, and mischaracterizes the truth. The worst joke of the night was a tasteless abortion joke. But in the end, is a tasteless abortion joke in a 20-minute routine really major news? If the whole controversy is "woman tells a few tasteless jokes," then what are we doing here? This wasn't bullying, as one bad CNN writer put it, because she didn't have any power. (Albert Burneko brilliantly takes that hot take down with a searing critique of his own.)

5) Alyson and I rewatched Stephen Colbert's famous WHCD performance in 2006, with George W. and Laura Bush on the dais. Several Bush aides walked out, and some said that Bush looked upset. After watching it again, Bush himself laughed at most of the jokes, particularly the one about Cheney shooting Colbert in the face. There were many jokes that didn't land, but it seemed everyone was willing to laugh at themselves a bit. Colbert also gave a "Sicilian hello" to Antonin Scalia, who guffawed and slapped his knee. That's the spirit of this event, and both Bushes notably shook Colbert's hand afterward.

6) I would make an argument that Michelle Wolf is a little less established than many of the other hosts have been. Maybe she didn't know how to read the room as well as the others? Maybe in 5 years, she will look back and maybe throw a few punches differently? I don't know. Just an observation.

7) Most people didn't know who Michelle Wolf was before the event. Most probably wouldn't have known who she was after the event. But by making a controversy out of it, you've only given her a greater platform for her comedy. Now, she's on the front pages of news sites because they drew attention to it.

8) Speaking of drawing attention to it, that's my whole problem with this "controversy." As an example, let me tell you a story about the kids. Often, they'll run into a wall or door or fall down or scratch their knee or bonk their head or... [list continues forever] and there will be a momentary pause. They're looking at us, the parents, to read our reaction. If we say "Are you hurt?", they'll start to sniffle and eventually cry. If we say "Ouchie! You're alright!", they pop back up and walk away. I think this was a case in which the media ran to the Administration and asked "Are you hurt?", and the Administration responded to the question.

9) Why do I say that? Because the first reactions to Wolf's comedy were not from the Trump administration or SHS. They were from the media itself. Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, most notably, but others, too, joined in on the rudeness/vulgarity/insert-your-adjective-here aspect of the dinner. They didn't actually get administration reaction for a while after the event, but by then the "controversy" had already been percolating. I don't blame SHS and the Trump administration for responding to "Are you hurt?" with a few sniffles and "Yeah, that joke was no fun." But it's a controversy entirely drummed up by the media itself. Maybe that's to cozy up to the Administration as a "we really are the moral arbiters of right/wrong, and you're wronged this time." Maybe it's just pearl-clutching by the media. At any rate, this was a media event that drew media attention that didn't need a national audience. It was a bad joke or two at a trade association. It was not deserving of a national audience. The right response is "Ouchie! You're alright."

10) Which brings me to my larger point: What is the purpose of the WHCD anymore? These days, it seems like an opportunity to dress up and hobnob with celebrities and whichever politicians show up. I kind of feel like Trump is right to choose not to attend. Is the event to pat other journalists on the back for their work in covering the highest of high politics? There's a coziness with its subjects that big-J Journalism never really wrestled with post-Trump. It's a symbiosis and encouragement of news-making behavior that Journalism has fed on like a lamprey. Journalism didn't learn any lessons from the 2016 election, and has only grown more parasitic. The "controversy" of Michelle Wolf has only obscured that her sharpest jokes were about the media itself:  "You guys love breaking news, and you did it! You broke it!" she joked about CNN. "You helped create this monster, and now you're profiting off him." Amen.

Senate Midterms update

There have been a few changes in the Senate races that I think push it a little closer to a contest to flippable for the Democrats. While I still think it's unlikely that the Senate flips, a few new polls show some new battlegrounds for Democrats in an absolutely terrible map for them. Reminder: They have to win two more seats than they lose in order to flip the Senate.

First, the bad news for the Dems: Bill Nelson has a fight on his hands in Florida against incumbent Gov. Rick Scott. As much as Democrats have to hold on to their own battleground states in order to flip the Senate, I'd argue that this has suddenly become one of the two or three hardest to retain for the Dems, meaning they'd have to win three GOP seats to take control of the Senate.

The good news for the Dems is that things have changed in two states to make a Democratic flip feasible. In Texas, Beto O'Rourke is within a few points of Ted Cruz according to a Quinnipiac poll. Some of the better political pundits I read are skeptical that he could win, but if you're within single digits, it's not impossible, especially since O'Rourke's main handicap is the public doesn't know him well. O'Rourke is a charismatic guy and far more likeable than Cruz, so as people become more knowledgeable about him, the margin may narrow further. The other major pick-up would be the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Bob Corker in Tennessee, where polls show a lead for the Democrat, the former mayor of Nashville. This is surprising in a deep red state like Tennessee. Polls also indicate slim leads  or ties for Democrats in battleground states, like Missouri's own Claire McCaskill and Arizona (Jeff Flake's old seat, would be flipped).

My current guess is Tennessee flips, Arizona flips, Florida/Missouri/North Dakota/West Virginia all barely stay blue, Texas stays red. That'd be +2 for Democrats, but Indiana and Nevada could go either way right now. I'm waffling on Florida and Missouri. If Democrats win Nevada, Indiana would be a moot point — they'd have control of the Senate. But if the GOP wins Nevada, the Dems would have to keep Indiana to take control of the Senate. Nevada — a 1-point GOP lead in the latest poll — is the key.

Name of the Year update

I'm feeling very good about my pick to win the Name of the Year. That's because it's in the finals, and my pick of Dr. Narwhals Mating (my pick) is in the finals against Jimbob Ghostkeeper. I'm really proud of my prognostication this year, as I picked 6 of the Elite Eight. I correctly called Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper emerging, and Miracle Crimes making a good run. I also called Makenlove Petit-Fard v. Rev. Dongo Pewee in the Fruithandler, where I also correctly picked the 14-seed upset by Obra Kernodle IV and tabbed Dr. Megha Panda to have a good charge. In the Dragonwagon, I had Quindarious Gooch making the Elite Eight and called the early exit of top seeds Ceejhay French-Love and La Royce Lobster-Gaines, but I didn't call Delicious Peters' march to the Final Four. Finally, I called Shaka Licorice's early exit and called 7 of 8 first-round matches in the Chrotchtangle. I didn't have Gandalf Hernandez going quite as far, but I did have he and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd duking it out in the Sweet 16. All in all, I'm incredibly proud of my prognostication skills, and I'll probably buy myself a Coke or something if I'm right and Dr. Narwhals Mating wins. (UPDATE: He's losing in voting... this is a travesty.) This has been "Andrew indulges in a little silliness."

Summary Judgments

In Japan, it's not Ronald McDonald, but Donald McDonald. This story explains why.  •  •  •  John Green had this quote in the excellent Vlogbrothers series that made me think: "I am attracted to information that is novel and surprising even though that kind of information is often not the most useful or accurate... Like any predator, I listen quietly to what is loud and look at what is bright, and that can make it easy to distract me or mislead me." That one hit me hard.  •  •  •  I can't read this story without feeling sympathy for Caster Semenya, whose track and field governing body is almost explicitly out to get her.  •  •  •  If you haven't read Kevin Wong's work on Peanuts, this is a great new article to start on. It's about how Lucy and Schroeder explored dysfunctional relationships.  •  •  •  This is a video of Future Roland.  •  •  •  I'm running again, but I've had a couple bad runs. I was kind of sick on Monday, so that might explain why I couldn't run hardly at all that day, but I'm simply not having the same results as I did last year. That's frustrating me. I mean, I'm up to 2.75 miles, but that's with a few walking breaks thrown in. The Warrior Dash is about a month from now, and I just don't feel like I'm where I want to be physically. :(

On Oklahoma Teachers

I spent 8 of my 13 years of K-12 education in Oklahoma schools. So when I saw that Oklahoma teachers were striking in order to get a) better pay and b) more investment in education, I wasn't surprised. I was only surprised it took so long. My 5th grade teacher, Mrs. Alloway, was a finalist for Oklahoma Teacher of the Year. She left for Texas. Last year's Oklahoma Teacher of the Year left for better pay in Texas. One of Alyson's good friends went to school to be a teacher and taught for a few years in the Tulsa area. As a single woman at the time, she decided it made more sense for her to leave teaching and go into the business sector, because it allowed her to make enough money to survive.

Lawmakers in Oklahoma and Kansas just don't get it. Both state legislatures have made cutting education a priority, and don't seem to understand why their teachers are turning on them.

Kansas, for one, has had to have the state Supreme Court intercede not once, not twice, but three times since 1991 to force them to fund education to state constitutionally approved levels. A Kansas GOP study (read: expected be sympathetic to the GOP) found that the state needed to add $2 billion to education funding. Needless to say, the GOP-dominated Kansas legislature has responded rationally and calmly by ... just kidding, they're trying to rewrite the state constitution so that the Supreme Court can't get involved and they can just determine the funding themselves.

I don't know Oklahoma politics as well as Kansas, but I do know that before the strike, the Oklahoma legislature offered to give the teachers what they thought they wanted: a pay hike. The teachers are still on strike, however, because they saw through the ploy. The ploy was that the pay hike had no additional funding measures, so would have likely been paid for through cuts elsewhere in education. It was not just about the teachers getting a pay raise: It's about their schools and students getting the funding needed to do their jobs. We're now on a full week, when the students should be in the middle of standardized testing. The latest is the Legislature offered a school funding increase of $40 million (a pittance in state funding) and the teachers said thanks, but that's not enough. Teachers also want funding measures in place rather than promises for more money but really just a reshuffling of money. It'll be interesting to see what happens and who cracks first.

Gun Control and Vitriol

I'm usually a person slow to block people on Facebook. But I've seen the most hateful, vitriolic things from the right on the gun control issue and done just that. It's largely either baseless or downright awful things that are said about the Parkland teens. Let me remind you: These teens are asking/demanding gun control provisions stronger than what we have now. They want to prevent what happened to them and their friends from happening again. I haven't seen incidents of them being particularly nasty or vile toward anyone to earn ire — their presence, publicity and pressure has been an irritant, I guess. They have not called for repealing the Second Amendment in its entirety that I've seen, nor have they attacked anyone who hasn't attacked them first.

Much of this has been directed at two teens (both under 18, mind you) David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez. I've seen people say that David Hogg keeps tampons in his backpack (HE'S A GIRL! HAHAHA WHAT AN EMBARRASSMENT! DURHURHUR SO FUNNY!). I've seen people say they want to literally barbecue David Hogg. I've seen people wish he were knifed. Then there's this story. I've seen the thoroughly debunked PhotoShop image of Emma Gonzalez tearing up the Constitution, though the original was a target.

I've also seen numerous people say that the Parkland shooter did it because he was bullied, including one meme that included Emma Gonzalez by name and picture as his bully. This is ridiculous for several reasons: 1) We have no evidence that the Parkland shooter was bullied 2) We have no evidence that Emma Gonzalez bullied him. In fact, we have evidence of the opposite: Emma Gonzalez spoke about his classmates having concern about him, and another classmate/peer counselor saying that no amount of befriending Nikolas Cruz mattered. Let's get past this silly idea that if only his classmates had tried harder to be Cruz's friend, that he would not have attacked his school. It's baseless and distracts from better arguments.

In short, I've been incredibly disappointed in many of my right-leaning friends on this issue. There are a few who use logic and actual arguments in their stances, and I learn a great deal from them. However, the vast majority have been categorized as hateful and angry. If anything has happened in the last 2 months since the shooting, we've only seen looser gun regulations in red states and tougher gun regulations in blue states. Teachers can now be armed in more schools than before. Surely we can do better as a society.

Summary Judgments

My mom sent me this article that talks about how our rush to teach kids earlier and earlier is missing a lot of brain development in their heads. It feels like we, as parents, are expected to have our children reading, counting money, doing advanced calculus, and interpreting the works of Nietzsche by the time they enter kindergarten. It's a lot of pressure on parents, but that just trickles down to the kids. Maybe it's time to reconsider our pressure to educate earlier and earlier and let kids be kids a little.  •  •  •  Please don't suck. The Dark Tower movie sucked. This is one of the few books/comic series I truly care about not sucking.  •  •  •  I've run up to 2.25 miles lately, and should be on track to be running 5Ks by the time of my first/only current race, the Warrior Dash in early April. I want to be running a 5K by the time of vacation in mid May, so I can pick up where I left off after we get back. I also need to start working much harder, because I'm far heftier than this time last year.  •  •  •  The Kansas City Star did a tournament to determine who has the best burnt ends in Kansas City. Zarda's BBQ won. I grew up in Blue Springs and I've been trying to get to every BBQ place in a town known for its BBQ (I'm going to write up our rankings here some day soon). So with that all said, let me state this unequivocally: Zarda's is trash BBQ. Their burnt ends are nothing special, and at least four places off the top of my head do them better. Hell, Zarda's isn't even the best burnt ends in Blue Springs -- that's Plowboys. I could honestly rant for hours about this. Zarda's is garbage barbecue, and they didn't deserve to win.  •  •  •  I just learned the term Milkshake Duck, so now that's something I'm sharing with you.  •  •  •  Evie gets in trouble a lot at day care because she's... let's put it at "often emotional." I don't want to get into it. But the other day, Roland got into trouble at day care, and when the director came in to check on him in time out, Evie was sitting at the table smiling. This happens at our house, too. When Roland is in trouble, she'll be particularly helpful, reminding us often that "I'm good! I'm not being bad!" For now, kid. For now.

The Third Annual Name of the Year Bracket Breakdown

For a minute there, I started to think this year would go by without a Name of the Year bracket. The Committee kept making promises, and the bracket didn't show. The actual March Madness bracket was nearly decided before the Name of the Year bracket (link to this year's bracket) came out. But it has, and it *inhales deeply* is worth the wait.

I am, as far as I know, the only person to attempt analysis of the bracket in the world. This is my third year. Last year saw the meteoric rise of Boats Botes, who won the people's votes. Kobe Buffalomeat won the Committee's vote. I had both in the Final Four.

Last year's bracket was very top-heavy. This year's bracket has a number of duds like any year, but my feeling is that it has stronger depth than last year. There are a few favorites, but none that I feel instantly will have deep runs. In short: A better bracket means it's harder to pick winners. But that's what I'm here for. As a reminder, names that tend to do better in the bracket are names that a) have funny first and last names, b) have good name synergy, like Miracle Crimes this year and c) have some added bonus, like Dr./Rev. or Jr./III/IV or diacriticals.

Bulltron Regional 

(For those new to the site, the regionals are named after winners in the early 1990s. This regional is named after Assumption Bulltron, 1992 Name of the Year winner and Name of the Decade. The others are named after Crescent Dragonwagon, '93 winner; Doby Chrotchtangle, '91 winner; and... I'll get to the other one soon.) 

This is one of the two strongest regionals. Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper should continue the hot streak of 1 and 2 seeds. Mosthigh Thankgod has an easy matchup, too. 10-seed Jamez Brickhouse is only funny because of one letter, so I think Dr. Dimple Royalty crushes him. The 8-9 matchup is weak, so I'll pick Zeus de la Paz as the winner. My first upset pick is Miracle Crimes over 4-seed Early Charlemagne. Miracle Crimes was severely underseeded. Tuna Altuna is a beautiful example of why I love this tournament, and she (he?) should advance. Finally, Habbakkuk Baldonado has two names that clash beautifully, which should lead it to victory over one-name Armageddon Draughn. Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper should coast into the Sweet 16, and Miracle Crimes continues the Cinderella story. The lovely symmetry of Tuna Altuna should be enough against Mosthigh Thanked. Unfortunately, this region is really about two names: Jimbob Ghostkeeper in the bottom half and Salami Blessing in the upper half. I think they move on, with Salami Blessing as the region's winner.

Fruithandler Memorial Regional

The Committee has not yet explained their reasons for renaming this regional. It used to be the Sithole Regional, named after '85 winner Godfrey Sithole. But the regional has been renamed after Jerome Fruithandler, '04 winner. I await their reasoning. 

This regional has great depth, top-to-bottom. 16-seed Dr. Pitt Derryberry would be a mid seed any other year. This year, he faces the wondrous Makenlove Petit-Fard in the first round, who should win. Other easy picks in the first round include Corky Boozé and 12-seed Dr. Megha Panda. Rev. Dongo Pewee checks all of my boxes, too. I've got Sir'Zion Dance and Sparkle Hayter moving on, but those are guesses — neither those names nor their competitors really stand out. The toughest calls come between Dr. Birchann Paffenbarger-Covadonga del Busto Naval and Blossom Albuquerque-Obra Kernodle IV. Honestly, I think the Committee should have swapped the seeds in the latter match, because 14-seed Obra Kernodle IV is winning that one. I'm going with my gut on Covadonga del Busto Naval in the other, but it's a tough call. Rev. Dongo Pewee and Makenlove Petit-Fard will waltz into the Sweet 16 without trouble, and I've got Obra Kernodle IV moving on, too. Dr. Megha Panda-Corky Boozé is a tough matchup. One name has a Ph.D., the other has a diacritical. I've got Dr. Megha Panda winning, but losing in the next round to Makenlove Petit-Fard. Obra Kernodle IV-Rev. Dongo Pewee is a matchup you could imagine in the finals of a week year. Usually I can get a sense of zeitgeist by reading the comments section, so I'm letting Rev. Dongo Pewee not only win this round, but move on to the Final Four. (Though Makenlove Petit-Fard is my personal favorite.)

Dragonwagon Regional

This is the weak regional this year. Someone will have to win it, but they're not winning the tournament. 1-seed La Royce Lobster-Gaines should have no problem reaching the Sweet 16, beating Darthvader Williamson, but there are better names out there in the regional. I like 10-seed Adele Gorrilla in the first round, as well as the underrated Chardonnay Beaver and Lola Honeybone. Ceejhay French-Love is probably OK against Yo'Heinz Tyler, but I wouldn't be surprised about an upset. I smell an upset by Forbes Thor Kiddoo against Crystal Patriarche. The comments section leads me to believe Mike Diaper has a chance, but Quindarious Gooch is 10 times more fun to say. It has two good names to Mike Diaper's one. I like Quindarious Gooch against Forbes Thor Kiddoo. Ceejhay French-Love... I guess makes it, but neither they nor Adele Gorrilla will last long. Finally, I think the Lola Honeybone-Chardonnay Beaver winner ends up winning the regional against Quindarious Gooch. But which one is a hard call. My instant reaction was Chardonnay Beaver, but after more deliberation, I think Lola Honeybone takes it to the Final Four.

Chrotchtangle Regional

This regional is stacked with the best names. Even its worse names, like Bucky Worboys and Bramble Klipple, are still pretty good. So let's get on with it. Dr. Narwhals Mating is a deserving 1-seed. Mahogany Loggins has great flow to it and will win the 8-9 matchup. I've got an easy win for 11-seed Hallelujah Lulie and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd. Rev. Hobbit Forrest should have no trouble in the first round, and I also like Beau Titsworth against Palestine Ace. As much as I like Lukas Chalupa, I love the clash of styles of Gandalf Hernandez. Finally, if I'm going to pick an upset, it'll be Tuesday DerMargosian over 2-seed Shaka Licorish. Either way, Licorish goes down in early rounds. Dr. Narwhals Mating should cut down the delectably named Mahogany Loggins with no problem, and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd has too much for a game Hallelujah Lulie. I've got Gandalf Hernandez moving on to the Sweet 16. Finally, the Rev. Hobbit Forrest-Beau Titsworth is why I do this analysis. At the end of the day, Beau Titsworth really only has one funny name, body humor as it is. Rev. Hobbit Forrest moves on. I think Dr. Taekwondo Byrd has the easier matchup to reach the Elite Eight, while Dr. Narwhals Mating-Rev. Hobbit Forrest is a game for the ages. In the end, Dr. Narwhals Mating wins to set up the Ph.D. regional finals: Dr. Taekwondo Byrd-Dr. Narwhals Mating. Which is funnier? I think Dr. Taekwondo Byrd is kind of cool, whereas you'd be a little embarrassed to be named Dr. Narwhals Mating, so he moves on.

Final Four

Dr. Narwhals Mating will beat whoever comes out of the Dragonwagon, in this case Lola Honeybone. Salami Blessing-Rev. Dongo Pewee should be worth the price of admission (free). Both have a subtext genitalia joke. Both have good name synergy. As much as I love the ordination of Dongo Pewee, I think Salami Blessing's name synergy is a little better, making it more popular. In the finals, Dr. Narwhals Mating is your winner. He has a Ph.D., after all.

Summary Judgments

Fascinating read about a rare disease and what it's like to live with it. Haunting and in-depth, this is worth a read. •  •  •  I am a big Royals fan. Let it be hereby noted that I have no idea what their plan is this year. They don't have the talent to make the playoffs; heck, they don't even have enough talent to be decent this year. They also have a terribly depleted farm system and aren't playing young guys at the major-league level. It's going to be a long season, I think.  •  •  •  This has been the first week where I truly feel back in the swing of running. I'm running 2 miles without walking pretty consistently. If I keep improving at this rate, I should be running a 5K by the end of April.  •  •  •  In case you missed it, we have a new dog. His name is Wheeler. Anyway, I got home with the kids before Alyson got home yesterday, and the kids and I took Wheeler outside to do his business. The kids run out into the middle of the yard, and I warn them there are a few poops in the yard. Roland stops, does this comical arms-out stance: "Where are the poops?" I then had to walk them back to the entry, because they believed the yard was booby-trapped with poops. There are only like, 3 poops out there (We usually pick them up), and he's walking across a minefield in his mind.

Lessons from Pennsylvania's 18th special election

NOTE: Apparently I forgot to post this... It will inevitably be buried by my next post, but if you're curious, this is up now. 

If you're a Democrat, the win sure sounds exciting: Unknown Democrat beats well-funded Republican in a (gerrymandered-to-be) heavily red district. The intimation is that if this district can turn blue, so can a lot of/most of/many less red districts across the country. I'm not so sure it'll be that easy, but there are a few lessons we can take away.

Candidates matter, to a point. Let's tie in the Alabama Senate special election here. Republicans, even in safe seats, are vulnerable with scandals. Roy Moore had his scandal, and it cost him. The only reason the Pennsylvania 18th was up for election at all is because the pro-life GOP incumbent was caught telling his mistress to have an abortion. The GOP put up their candidate and the Democrats put up theirs, but the GOP had been tainted. The Democrats put up a candidate who opposes abortion personally but doesn't think it's the government's place to get involved (a nuanced view shared by Tim Kaine and Joe Biden) and is for gun regulation but not gun control (also nuanced). The GOP candidate Saccone said in the final days that Democrats hate Donald Trump (probably true), America (absolutely false) and God (maybe some, but not nearly true). In short: Saccone was a bad candidate dragged down by his predecessor, and the Democrats had a perfectly OK candidate.

Unions can matter, to a point. Saccone also made a point of announcing anti-union positions. This was dumb in a district that is heavily unionized. Roughly 20 percent of the workers in the district are unionized. The unions endorsed the Democrat Lamb and put energy behind him. That said, not every suburban/rural district has a heavy union presence. Those union-heavy conditions in Pennsylvania's 18th are unlikely to be found in Iowa or Arkansas or Kentucky.

Republicans are in trouble. There have been eight special elections for Congress since 2016. Seven have been in "red states" (a term I dislike, but that's another story). There has been a swing in the margin of those elections (partisan lean compared to actual results) to the Democrats in every one of those eight races. In six of the eight, the swing has been double digits. The average swing has been about 17 percentage points. Even if you take out the horrible candidates of the Alabama and Pennsylvania races, the average has been 13 points. This Pennsylvania race even had higher turnout than the last midterm in 2014. The short version: Democrats are energized and flipping the House may be a greater possibility.

Retraction

I'd like to make a retraction of sorts. When I said that Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury book seemed to have truth to it, I think that's correct in the parts that have been supported by outside interviews. I also think the Bannon-related stuff is correct, as I have heard no denials. However, I'm more and more disappointed by how exposed Wolff has been in his desire to be sensationalist. He pumped up talks of a Trump affair in the media, then played coy and tried to let the media "connect the dots." At different times he seemed to indicate Trump's affair was with Hope Hicks (I could believe it) and then Nikki Haley (I could never believe this). Either way, when called out, he embarrassed himself. At one point, he claimed earpiece issues, and the host then replayed what Wolff had heard, and it showed no problems at all. In short: I am sorry for giving Wolff any endorsement at all when the proper reporting has been done by more reputable sources. But the more I think about it, this is how journalism works. Reporting — good or bad — will be able to stand up over time. Reporting by the Washington Post and New York Times stands up well over time. Michael Wolff's reporting has been embarrassing to all.

Summary Judgments

I thought this was an interesting story explaining the old law that's been a thorn in Trump's side. It further explains that Obama's administration fell victim to the law, too, but it was almost entirely late in the administration after Congressional avenues and other methods had been blocked. Fascinating contrast.  •  •  •    •  •  •  We watched Mulan last weekend. I stand by my assessment that it doesn't meet the Nash-del test. The romance angle is entirely tacked on and ruins the "this isn't about romance" stuff that had been the theme of the rest of the movie. Better movie than I remembered, but still doesn't quite meet my test.  •  •  •  Good story on pro wrestling, and the legacy of father to son.  • •  •  Grrr... This is why other countries are stepping up in leadership. When there is a leadership vacuum, other countries will step in. I don't think that's a move in the right direction for the U.S.

An Early Look at the 2018 Midterm Playing Field

It's getting close to primary season, which means we'll have some real data to look at in regard to the American political temperature soon. To broadly categorize, Democrats are facing competitive primaries in many districts to run against Republicans, who are doing a better job of staying out of their own primary battles. That may sound like a negative, but it's actually fairly typical of a party that is not in power. The GOP did the same thing before the Obama-era midterms.

But the midterms will be important. If the Democrats flip both chambers, I expect they'll push impeachment. If they flip just one chamber, they'll force major changes in governance and make President Trump an effective lame duck until 2020. If they flip only the House, they may write articles of impeachment that ultimately go nowhere in the Senate. That's all to be decided by this year's midterm elections.

Before I get into some of the major changes and news, I want to make one key point: I will guarantee that, barring a major terrorist attack or some earth-shattering news, that Democrats will pick up seats in the House. It's only a matter of how many. This is because in the midterms, the president's party almost always loses seats. I said almost always, because the GOP actually won seats following the 9/11 attacks. There are a few other exceptions like that. But in modern American history, there has traditionally been an opposite-party push during the midterms of some size. Alright. With that out of the way, let's talk midterms.

Senate Unlikely to Flip
Mitch McConnell is more likely to keep his seat than Paul Ryan. Seats in the House are up every two years, and seats in the Senate are up every six. Thanks to the seemingly random way it's happened, the 34 seats up this year include roughly 26 that caucus with the Democrats. Simply, this year's midterms are being held on Democratic ground, and there are vulnerable Democrats in many locations. That's not to say it's impossible for Democrats to flip the Senate. Roy Moore lost an Alabama Senate race to Doug Jones to make the current balance 51-49. But if you look at which seats are in play, it's just incredibly unlikely barring a Democratic wave.

To be specific: In order to flip the Senate, Democrats need to win two more races than they lose. There aren't a lot of opportunities. According to a couple smart political sites (Larry Sabato and Cook Political Report), there are 2-3 vulnerable Republicans: Jeff Flake in Arizona, Dean Heller in Nevada and maaaaaaaybe Bob Corker's empty seat in Tennessee. After that, it's a stretch to Ted Cruz in Texas. The other five GOP seats are safe. But overlooked in that is that Democrats would have to hold onto all of their contested Senate seats. And there are 4-6 in jeopardy: Claire McCaskill here in Missouri (real trouble), Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota (just got a serious GOP challenger), Indiana's Joe Donnelly, West Virginia's Joe Manchin (real trouble), Tina Smith in Al Franken's old seat in Minnesota (I think this is safer than projected), and Bill Nelson in Florida (on the safer side).

All told, it means the Democrats would have to get really lucky in some unlikely places to win control of the Senate.

House is up for grabs
I've read about five different sites talking about the House. Almost everyone says the House flipping is either a coin flip or barely edged in one way or another. Democrats need to flip +24 seats (Meaning they need to flip 24 more than they lose). That's in the range of a normal midterm flip. If results from other special elections (which show a sizable Democratic swing) hold up, then that may be within striking distance. But there's another thing working against them: Republicans were in control of redistricting efforts across the country in 2010, meaning they largely gave themselves advantages in states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It's possible for Democrats, but it's also an uphill battle. Winning the coin flip is possible, but it's also a weighted coin.

Pennsylvania redistricting analysis
It didn't get a lot of press coverage, but the GOP gerrymandering in Pennsylvania was overturned and a new map, drawn up by the state Supreme Court, makes major changes. I've seen some reporting that it helps Democrats, and while that is true, that's the opposite tack that the reporters should have taken. The GOP had created an unconstitutional advantage in their gerrymandering, and that advantage was taken away. The new map gets rid of the weird shapes for a much prettier map.

Anyway, the point is that there were a few changes. Two open seats that were already targets for Democrats became more Democrat-leaning after the redistricting. Another seat that leaned GOP now leans Democrat. So that's three seats that are FAR likely to switch parties. Two more seats went from safe GOP seats to just leaning GOP. Let's be conservative and say the Democrats win three seats from Pennsylvania. That's 1/8 of what they need to flip the House. Maybe they get four or five, which would give the Democrats a little breathing space in their race to 24.

The Race for the Rest
Using Sabato's Crystal Ball, there is a pathway to Democrats getting to 24 (they use 25, because they expect a GOP pick-up in Minnesota). Let's take a look at how I view their breakdown, with my short analysis in italics:

1) Pick up four open seats (AZ-2, CA-49, FL-27 and NJ-2) in Democrat-leaning areas. Book it. Three were in Clinton-won districts, and the fourth is in New Jersey. Conservative: 3 seats Educated guess: 4 Optimistic: 4

2) Win three of four open seats (CA-39, MI-11, NJ-11 and WA-8) that are considered toss-ups. Reasonable. Two are Clinton-won districts, and the other two includes a close race with a strong Democratic candidate. Conservative: 2 seats Educated guess: 3 Optimistic: 4

3) Win three seats from Pennsylvania. I covered this above, except there is one more seat that didn't change in redistricting that will probably be a close race. Conservative: 3 seats Educated guess: 4 Optimistic: 5

4) Beat three of five vulnerable incumbents in Clinton-won districts in California. Pretty self-explanatory. Two were really close last time. A third includes the most pro-Russia representative in the country — not a great fit for a Dem-leaning district. Conservative: 3 seats Educated guess: 3 (I'm skeptical of beating five incumbents, no matter the demographics) Optimistic: 5

5) Beat three of six vulnerable incumbents in Clinton-won districts (CO-6, FL-26, IL-6, MN-3, TX-23 and VA-10). Looking at the partisan leans for those districts, this is a real coin-flip category. The most vulnerable is the Florida seat. Conservative: 1 seat. Educated guess: 3 Optimistic: 4

6) Beat one of three incumbents in Clinton-won but historically Republican districts (NJ-7, TX-7 and TX-32). Ehh.... we're getting into dicey territory here. It's hard to beat incumbents. One of those has won every election by a sizable margin, and that's the one in New Jersey. The most vulnerable is TX-7, which is a GOP-leaning district usually. Conservative: 0 seats. Educated guess: 0 Optimistic: 1 seat.

7) Beat one of two Trump-district freshmen who narrowly won narrow districts (NE-2 and MN-2). Right now, it looks like both races will be rematches from the last election. I don't expect any changes, but it's not impossible. Conservative: 0 seats. Educated guess: 0 Optimistic: 1 seat

8) Win two seats from "Trump York." There are seven seats in discussion here, and it's reasonable, even on the conservative side. All the vulnerable seats are currently held by the GOP. Two are considered toss-ups with strong Democratic challengers. Another district was won by Clinton. Another couple districts are getting strong Democratic challengers in a traditionally blue state. Conservative: 2 seats. Educated guess: 3 Optimistic: 4

9) Win two of four Trump seats with down ballot Democratic DNA (IL-12, KY-6, ME-2 and UT-4). A deeper dive is optimistic for Democrats here. Three of the four have decent Dem candidates, but they're fighting uphill. Conservative: 0 seats. Educated guess: 1 Optimistic: 2

10) Win a seat in Iowa (IA-1 and IA-3). My gut is that Iowa has swung red, where it used to be purple. I'll be happy to be surprised, but I don't expect it. Conservative: 0 Educated guess: 0 Optimistic: 1

11) Win a seat in Kansas (KS-2 and KS-3). Now these districts I know. And though you might be skeptical of Democrat chances in deep red Kansas, you're overlooking it. A Democrat held KS-2 before Lynn Jenkins did, but Jenkins is retiring. The most famous name in the race is former Democratic governor candidate Paul Davis, who actually won the district in his governor race against Brownback. The most recognizable GOP candidates for the empty seat are a couple of state senators, including Caryn Tyson, who I know well (She's very nice, but far-right for a district that tends centrist. She's a lovely person, but her legislative track record has done her few favors.). KS-2 includes some Democratic strongholds, including Topeka and Lawrence, and to a lesser extent the toss-up area of Pittsburg. Davis is likable enough and a well-established name in a weak field of GOP candidates. Don't count it out. As for KS-3, it actually went for Clinton over Trump in 2016. Yoder is vulnerable if he gets the right candidate (a Paul Davis-type), but I don't think any of these candidates are strong enough to do so. Conservative: 0 Educated guess: 1 Optimistic: 1

12) Win one of these eight seats in Trump-won districts in Ohio, North Carolina or Virginia (OH-1, OH-12, NC-2, NC-9, NC-13, VA-2, VA-5 and VA-7). North Carolina is similar to Pennsylvania, in that courts have demanded redistricting. But it's looking unlikely that will be completed by the midterms thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it had, you could expect 1-2 seat flips just in the GOP losing its advantage. As it is, I think VA-2 is in play (it's already a swing district), NC-13 (strong self-funded Democratic challenger) and OH-1 might be. But these are not easy wins. Conservative: 0 Educated guess: 1 Optimistic: 2

In case you're wondering, I added them all up for you, barring no Democrat losses outside of MN-1. Remember, 24 to flip the House.
Conservative: 14 seats
Educated guess: 23 seats (See why the House is considered a coin flip? The N.C. redistricting may matter, too.)
Optimistic: 34 seats

Thoughts on Billy Graham

I read an incredible story yesterday about how the current wave of NBA All-Stars didn't grow up watching Michael Jordan. They knew he was important and watched old clips. They might have watched VHS tapes or known some of the mystique, but they couldn't quite understand what the older generation had seen in him. They said the right things, but they were parroting what they heard rather than having experienced it themselves. They grew up with different heroes (Kobe, Iverson, Vince Carter).

I think the same is true for me and Billy Graham. He's always been past his prime during my lifetime. I know he's important, because of what people tell me, and so I kind of get it, but I didn't grow up with it or experience it myself. He's a legend, and I say that, but I don't quite understand — I grew up with different heroes.

Summary Judgments

I have no idea what President Trump actually wants on guns. He's been all over the place with what he wants and doesn't appear to have a cohesive plan that would pass Congress. He's winging it, to be blunt. One thing: If this has the support of the NRA and gun owners, then it's no longer a question of whether gun regulation/control is a thing that can be done, but rather how much.  •  •  •  Here's a live look at NRA-backed politicians considering action after the Parkland shooting:

•  •  •  I didn't run much this week because weather has been terrible. I've also decided to treat March 1 as my start date on truly focusing on running and eating better. Lord help me.  •  •  •  A rare story by a child who is not my child: One of the kids' friends at day care is Emrie, whose Mom we ran into tonight. At one point recently, Emrie asked her mom if all dads have no hair (her dad is bald). Before her mom could say that no, some dads have hair, Emrie said "Evie and Roland's dad has hair." Given that my dad is bald, this makes me incredibly happy.

Politically Depressed

I'm sorry I haven't written on my normal schedule lately, but all the political news and current events just have me feeling depressed. It's just that solutions seem so tantalizingly close or obvious, but no politician is willing to stick their neck out for it. Or maybe it's the fact that we as a country seem to be doing the same things year after year with little change.

We had a worse school shooting on Wednesday than Columbine, which is now shorthand for "school shooting." But if you believe Republican sources, there is nothing we can do about it. We can't have background checks universal and close gun show loopholes. We can't prohibit domestic abusers from having guns. We can't require gun owners to have insurance for their weapon like it was a car. We can't bar gun sales to violent criminals. We can't bar gun sales to convicted stalkers or (if it IS a mental health problem) expand our mental health services in the country. We can't even make bump stocks (like in the Las Vegas shooting) illegal. We can't. We can't. We can't. But other countries have. And it's been successful. But we can't. Canada doesn't have these types of shootings. They have guns. Germany doesn't have these types of shootings. They have guns. The UK and Australia had mass shootings that prompted incredibly strict rules on guns. The UK had 26 gun-related homicides in 2015-2016, the equivalent of 130 if it were the size of the USA. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since. Take this chart of what Americans support and what experts believe will work. (Also, please peruse this graphic by 538 about gun deaths in America. Nearly 2/3 are suicides, and more than half of all gun deaths are suicides by men. Nearly half are suicides by white men. Fascinating information, and research tells us if there isn't a gun around, the suicide rate would drop dramatically.). We aren't going to do any of them. We can't. We won't.

If you dislike abortions (many pro-choice folks also wish to see their decline), then take a look at both Colorado and the Netherlands. Colorado made birth control widely available to women, especially teenagers. Guess what? The abortion rate dropped, as did the teen pregnancy rate. If you dislike abortion, follow Colorado's lead. The Netherlands has liberal abortion laws, but wide access to public health programs and facilities. Their abortion rate is half that of the United States. Ireland is the same way, but with an even lower abortion rate. Put simply: If you think abortion is an issue that politicians must address, then an investment in access to and costs of health care is a proven solution. But we aren't going to do that. We can't. We won't.

We continue to see Republicans and Democrats tussle over immigration laws, specifically DACA. However, DACA has never been a partisan issue until Donald Trump. Two-thirds of Republicans believe DACA recipients should receive citizenship status. This should be a non-starter. Americans by a nearly 2:1 margin are opposed to Donald Trump's wall on the southern border. There are ways to combat illegal immigration — Barack Obama's administration deported more criminals than any other president before him. However, let's draw a line between violent illegal immigrants and nonviolent illegal immigrants. Syed Jamal, a Kansas chemistry instructor who overstayed a student visa, is not violent. He has been in this country for decades and volunteered in schools. He has, by all accounts, been an active and contributing member of society. Yet he was arrested in front of his children and nearly deported to Bangladesh. If you want to get rid of the "bad hombres," that's one thing. But Jamal has been an angel. We aren't going to focus on the people deserving of deportation. We can't. We won't.

I could keep going with things that have proven solutions yet we stand here stone-faced as though there are no possible solutions. We could fix our country's infrastructure if we wanted to, or actually help Puerto Rico or not be racist to other countries ("S***hole") or give tax cuts to people who need it instead of the rich or address global warming on a national scale or have meaningful conversations about gender, sex and #MeToo. But we aren't going to do that. We can't. We won't.

Maybe some day our country can move past its ugly present and be progressive, be visionary, and be forward-thinking. Maybe that'll happen with Democrats in charge. Maybe they won't get elected. I just know that I'm tired of seeing worse and worse news come out of Washington. It's not just one party or the other.

I want to see politicians debating issues on their merits. I want to see politicians using facts and data to drive their decisions. I want to see politicians actually giving a crap rather than scoring political points without action. I want real, meaningful progress. I want fairness and justice and bipartisanship. I want to believe that the Mueller report will spur the GOP to act, but I don't think so after seeing their push for and reaction to the Nunes memo. I want to believe the Democrats are already pushing for obstruction of justice charges, but instead they're waiting a year and a half for Mueller to issue a report telling them what they already know. I want a president who is more interested in governing than picking fights with perceived enemies. I want an administration that won't drag its feet in denouncing domestic abusers.

But we aren't going to do that. We can't. We won't. And that's why I'm politically depressed.

Using Numbers Correctly and Researching Data

I find myself caught in between two people groups, and I am satisfied by neither's stance. On one hand, my left friends have been passing around the number of "18 school shootings this year." On the other hand, my right friends have been passing around stories detailing that those numbers are inflated.

My right friends are correct in fact: There were not 18 school shootings. Those numbers include a suicide in a high school parking lot at 2 a.m., an accidental shooting from a holstered gun of an officer in a school gym (a third grade student grabbed it), and several other incidents where no one was injured or targeted. Scary yes, but certainly not what anyone would categorize as a "school shooting," a la Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, etc., etc., etc.

But my left friends are correct in function: There are too many school shootings. By even the strictest definition, there have been 3 school shootings this year: At least Italy, Texas, one in Kentucky, and Parkland, Fla., with some wiggle room on others. It's not even two months into the year! That's too many.

My right friends are right on the figure, but are missing the point: How many deaths/school shootings are we willing to accept? The left is strenuously shouting ZERO!, which should be the only correct answer. These problems don't happen in other countries, and by arguing over the details of this figure, it's an effective hand-wave of the problem. In essence, they're saying "It's overblown, so what's the big deal?" It's missing the forest for the trees.

My left friends are wrong on the figure, but right on the point: That's a problem, too. We, the public,  need to be able to use common definitions for problems, and use well-supported data. If we're just spouting numbers without knowing what's behind it, that's a lack of critical thinking and a poor basis for governance. The number of 18 school shootings is wrong. The left is not absolved of its sin of poorly backed data just because it gets the big picture view right.

So here I am stuck in the middle, both agreeing with and upset at my left and right friends. (Note: The conversation we need to have about guns is not a racial one. I can point to data that shows that white male suicides are nearly half the gun deaths in America — that's an unaddressed problem! — and also point to data showing that more than twice as many black Americans are killed in homicides than white Americans (same link) — that's an equally unaddressed problem.) I want to use good numbers to back up my assertions. I want to be able to support my arguments. If you're going to go into battle, know what you're fighting for and have the best gear.

My Favorite Kids' Movies

(Editor's Note: I'm including this again because I didn't share the last edition and I really liked this section. I wanted to include it to share my thoughts.)

I recently explained my kids' movies theory to some friends. Specifically, it's why I prefer Moana and Zootopia to most other films. These are practically the only two kids movies with a) female protagonists b) with two supportive and alive parents (though they can and do have flaws) c) they pursue career/societal/personal goals d) that are not about getting a man and/or they don't have a love interest.

That's not to say that I only like movies with female protagonists or that love stories aren't good. It's also not to fall into the trap of saying movies are PROBLEMATIC when they don't meet my version of the Bechdel Test. But there is such a depth and breadth to stories told about men, and stories about women are almost always reduced to "her life isn't complete without a man." Men don't get the same treatment.

Before these two movies, the closest Disney movie you had that fit the bill was Mulan. However, the romantic subplot with Shang seemed to undermine the message that she was an independent woman with the ability to pursue her own goals. Heck, the whole "Montage of Protagonist Discovering Their Focus And Abilities" is set to the song "Be A Man," which also undermines the message a bit. It's the closest Disney had come, but it doesn't quite meet my standard because of Shang.

There has been a little more emphasis in recent years to meet these checks. Finding Dory and Inside Out arguably meet all four, but at least meet three. I haven't seen Brave. Frozen does not pass the test. Tangled doesn't. Even ones from my era, like Pocahontas and The Little Mermaid don't. Going back even further doesn't do Disney/Pixar any more favors. But that's what's so interesting about this list: In the history of Disney films, they might have only 2-4 that meet these simple tests.

Summary Judgments

I thought this was an interesting perspective from a person on the ground in South Korea on the medal ceremonies.  •  •  •  Yet another reason why I feel hopeless about our media situation in America. The more you read in that story, the ickier you should feel.  •  •  •  This is really amazing, and I have to give credit to the FDA for this: There's a new blood test for concussions! There are two proteins that show up 97 percent of the time with CT-diagnosed concussions. The blood test can identify it within 12 hours. It's one of the first medical tests/medicines approved by the Breakthrough Devices Program, which is kind of a "fast lane" for awesome medicine (passed by Congress in December 2016).  •  •  •  Ready Player One looks like crap, though maybe that's just because I hated the book. I have lots of thoughts on that one that I'll share closer to the movie coming out. Black Panther, on the other hand, looks amazing.  •  •  •  It's been too cold to run until this week. And I've been under the weather, health-wise. So I couldn't take advantage of it. I did sign up for the Warrior Dash in June and am thinking about the Tough Mudder.  •  •  •  The kids have each had their grumpy moments. We think there's been a minor bug going around giving us all stomach aches and general malaise. But Roland's the latest (and last) to get it, so he's been incredibly grumpy lately. This morning, he woke up, went to the bathroom and then came into our room and got in our bed. "Mommy, I'm mad at you!" "Why? You just woke up." "I'm very mad at you!" "You can go back to your room until you're nicer." "BAAAH!" /Goes to his room. Alyson and I just looked at each other like "What just happened?"