Annotated Statement: Trump Responds to the Manafort Plea

It took a while, but Trump finally responded to Paul Manafort coming to his senses and agreeing to cooperate with Robert Mueller's team.  Of course, he responded on Twitter.  Of course, it was not worth the power it takes to display it on a computer or phone screen.  Here it is with my annotations.

While my (our) poll numbers are good, 

Which ones?  Approval among the ever-shrinking number of self-identified Republicans?  Unless you're talking about that, you owe us an explanation as to what polls you're talking about, because I've not seen one that reflects the version of reality that you're peddling.

with the Economy being the best ever, 

By what metrics?  By what actions of yours?  The POTUS gets to much credit and blame for the state of the economy, and someone who thinks they can just "print more money" should not be taking credit for any skillful stewardship of the economy.

if it weren't for the Rigged Russian Witch Hunt, 

A "Rigged" "Witch Hunt" is redundant.  Leaving that aside for a moment, the "rigging" your referring to is actually the mechanisms of the justice system that are intended to seek the truth while respecting the civil liberties of the citizens.  As for the "Witch Hunt" claim, the volume of convictions and pleas among your floundering excuse for an administration should make it clear that the only way this is a "Witch Hunt" is if you have a lot of people commuting to the White House on brooms.

they would be 25 points higher! 

You're a pollster now?  What do you base this one?

Highly conflicted Bob Mueller 

What conflict?  The golf dues membership thing?  The interview for FBI director thing?  Really?  That's a conflict in your mind, but you think that Jeff Sessions did you dirty by recusing himself from Russia related investigations as AG?  Your lack of logical consistency is astounding.

& the 17 Angry Democrats

You have not provided one bit of evidence of the political affiliation of any of the prosecutors on Mueller's team or any evidence of why it would matter even if they were all Democrats.  Typically, Special / Independent Counsel are of the opposite party of the POTUS / target.  You have a Republican running yours.  Quit you whining, especially until you have some basis for anything your saying.

are using this Phony issue 

EVIDENCE!!! There is tons of EVIDENCE!!! Even if nothing wrong happened, we would be stupid to ignore the EVIDENCE!!!

to hurt us in the Midterms.  

They're investigating real crimes.  Don't want to be hurt electorally by crimes, don't hire criminals.

No Collusion!

Then let Mueller do his job and you shut up and do yours.

Fear(ful) Thoughts

Assuming that the reporting and sources in Bob Woodward's book about the early stages of the Trump Administration are accurate (which I do for the most part), there are two things that serve as massive warning flags that anybody who cares about the nation's physical and economic security should be absolutely terrified of.  Neither of then has anything to do with Russian conspiracies or obstruction of justice.  Both of them are troubling on their own, but both are also indicative of massive deficiencies in Donald Trump's ability to comprehend the complexities of the world we live in.

The first thing that frightens me is how Donald Trump is unable to comprehend the argument that all of the military assistance and the troops we have stationed in South Korea are actually to the benefit of the United States.  He apparently fixated on the fact that the United States was paying for a missile defense system in South Korea and was livid that the Koreans were not paying for it.  The fact that there was nearly a fifteen minute difference in the United States' ability to detect a North Korean missile launch and, therefore fifteen extra minutes to shoot it down before it could reach the United States, was apparently lost on him.

There were other intricacies to the benefits to the United States of our relationship with South Korea that numerous officials tried to explain to Trump, but his failure to grasp even this most simple of them is demonstrative of a startling lack of sophistication by Trump.  That is not to say that Trump would ultimately need to agree with those arguing to keep the South Korea relationship as it was.  The problem is that he did not even seem to grasp their arguments, even as simple as they were. 

The other main source of fear, at least for me, was Trump's utter disregard of facts in the realm of economics.  This came up in the realm of his obsession with trade deficits as a barometer for economic success.  There is an account of an attempt to explain why trade deficits do not work the way Trump thinks they do, particularly in the context of the United States' transition to a service (as opposed to manufacturing) economy.  When backed into a corner on his thinking, and confronted with all of the data to the contrary, Trump would simply say (paraphrasing) "This is what I think, I've thought it for 30 years, and if you don't agree with me you are wrong."

At one point, this came in the context of tariffs against China.  It was explained to Trump that if China wanted to retaliate, they could raise the prices on antibiotics, of which they make the VAST majority consumed in the United States or they could refuse to export them to the United States.  The United States buy them from a third party country.  Germany was used as an example.  Germany would mark them up to take a cut of the profit, like any middle-man would do.  Trump's response (again, paraphrasing, but this one is pretty close): "Then we'll buy from another country."

There is no shortage of examples of people in the administration trashing Trump in the book.  They call him all sorts of variation of stupid.  Those are the quotes getting most of the attention.  There were moments in the book that left me thinking, "Trump actually seemed to treat that particular situation with the gravity it deserved, regardless of whether I agreed with the outcome."  Such moments were in defiance of my expectations and offered brief hopes of improvement to come. 

Those moments usually were quickly followed by another demonstration of Trump's disregard for the value of facts or the way the government is supposed to work.  It are Trump's own words that are the most fear inducing.  They betray a lack of sophistication.  They betray an (at best) outdated and juvenile idea of how countries and the world operate.  The realization that we have a willfully ignorant man unable or unwilling to consider that leading the United States is not the same as running a private real estate company with nuclear weapons... that is fear.

Ivanka Trump Statement on Child Separation: Annotated Statement

In case you were wondering, being completely tone-deaf is apparently hereditary.  Ivanka Trump would do well to engage in some serious self-reflection on her supposed values.  Below is her tweet celebrating her father's brave "reversal" of a human rights and child abuse travesty he created.  In the interest of context and truth, my annotations are inserted, but the text of the tweet is copy / pasted from her original text.

Thank you @POTUS for taking critical action ending family separation at our border. 

It's action he could have taken more than a month ago or, better yet, he could have not destroyed these families in the first place.  In fact, he has been saying for weeks that he couldn't end this by executive order because it was a "Democrat policy."

Congress must now act

I see you're complicit in the use of these families as legislative hostages too.  Congress has been trying to act.  They've given your dad multiple immigration compromise bills with conditions he previously said he could agree to only for him to change his mind because he didn't get enough money for his pointless wall.  This is the same predatory behavior used by hostage takers and domestic abusers all over the world.  It is disgusting.

+ find a lasting solution that is consistent with our shared values;

Based upon your "charity" work, your lack of statement on this issue before now and the way you flaunted your ability to hug your child during this travesty that is just one of many your dad has helped visit upon the innocent, I'm guessing that we don't share as many values with you as you think.  These kids were abused by the mere act of taking them away and isolating them from their parents.  When these traumatized innocents were screaming in fear, because of your dad a well meaning caregiver could not even give them a hug.  Where the hell was your advocacy for women and families during this?  How dare you spread your sanctimonious filth after the fact (not that anybody who pays attention actually believes this is over).

You want a long lasting solution consistent with our values?  Convince your dad to fire his entire administration and then resign.  That would be half of the battle for America right there.

the same values that so many come here seeking as they endeavor to create a better life for their families

The only "American values" your father and the administration you work for care about is making as much money as possible at whatever cost necessary, even if that cost is only felt by others.  He has implemented a policy that is a violation of people's human rights.  He gets no credit for supposedly ending a travesty he created deliberately.

And you, Ivanka Trump, get no credit for sitting quietly by while your father / boss did this to children that you supposedly care about.

Donald Trump Returns from Singapore: Annotated Statement

This week was the perfect encapsulation of the Trump Administration.  We have corruption, false claims, exaggerations, self-gratification, and further attacks on democracy and the rule of law.  It was a normal week.  That representative week is wonderfully distilled in a twitter statement made by Donald Trump (across two tweets).  I have reproduced that statement below; however, in the interest of safeguarding the truth (something typically absent from Trump statements), I have annotated the statement as best I can.

“Now that I am back from Singapore, where we had a great result with respect to North Korea,”

You achieved nothing. You got an empty promise that is less substantive than the similar promises made multiple times in the past. You got a photo op and a chance to pat yourself on the back for a non-achievement.

“the thought process must sadly go back to the Witch Hunt,”

For those of us that care about the preservation of our democracy and the rule of law, we never stop being worried about the serious matter you falsely call a “witch hunt.” Repeating it over and over doesn’t make it true.

“always remembering that there was No Collusion and No Obstruction of the fabricated No Crime.”

It’s not a memory if it’s a load of garbage.

“So, the Democrats make up a phony crime, Collusion with the Russians,”

If you don’t understand that “collusion” is a civilian shorthand and not a formal legal accusation by now, you are willfully ignorant or incredibly stupid. The issue is the crime that may have been committed during the course of whatever collusion occurred.

“pay a fortune to make the crime sound real,”

Nobody’s actually floating “collusion” as a crime, but the criminal acts associated with collusion don’t need money to sound real. They just need your son’s emails.

“illegally leak (Comey) classified information”

Comey is not a Democrat. I’m fairly certain the information he “leaked” was not classified, though some of it may have been confidential within the Justice Department. You are not exactly one to be casting stones about disclosure of classified information.

“so that a Special Councel [sic] will be appointed,”

As Special Counsel was appointed because you fired someone in charge of an investigation that had to do with you and then shredded your own pretext when you admitted you were thinking about Russia when you fired him and then bragged to the Russians that the was a “nut job” and that the “pressure” was off because you fired him.

“and then Collude to make this pile of garbage take on life in Fake News!”

It’s not collusion for journalists to follow the facts, many of which are derived from you own associates. It’s not their fault that the ridiculous behavior that you and your campaign engaged in are so outrageous that people want to know. Anybody who cares about the integrity of democracy SHOULD care.

Net Neutrality: An Emergency, Whether You Understand It or Not

It sounds like a dystopian fiction version of the future, but it is closer than most of us would care to realize…

Imagine if your power company could decide that they would only provide power for a certain brand of appliances and that they could make that decision because a particular appliance company paid them for it.  Your choice would be to go without those appliances or buy the brand you have been effectively directed to buy.  In the United States, shopping for a new power company is not even an option.

Now, imagine your government has the right to decide that one delivery company did not have to obey the speed limits while all others would be required to adhere to a 20 m.p.h. speed limit at all times.  Neither you nor those other companies can decide to use different roads.  You are stuck with the slower delivery service of the company of your choosing, or you can pick the one that does not have to follow the same rules as everybody else.  Again, they have probably paid for that ability.

If this seems like  an extreme, crazy, unrealistic, alarmist exaggeration of a future where citizens and consumers are deprived of the basic economic choices that we currently make every day, then you are wrong.  While my analogies are not perfect, the future on our doorstep is actually much more terrifying. 

Ajit Pai, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and human embodiment of “regulatory capture,” is proposing the end of rules guaranteeing what is called “Net Neutrality.”  Setting aside for the moment all of the disingenuous and downright dishonest gamesmanship that Pai’s FCC has engaged in over the public commenting on Net Neutrality and the supposed DDoS attacks by proponents of Net Neutrality against the commenting process, Pai’s proposal seems poised to have significant and detrimental effects on American consumers and the American democracy.

Pai is proposing allowing internet service providers (ISPs) to prioritize web traffic as they see fit.  That means they would be able to slow down data to and from particular websites or web services to the point where your ISP could essentially dictate your internet usage.  That means they could decide:  where you shop, what you buy, what video(s) you watch, where you watch it, who you talk to, what games you play, how you play them, on what platform you play them, where you get your news, where you look for jobs, and what devices you use to access the internet.

But wait! There is more.

Because of the increasing consolidation of communications and related industries, there is a good chance that your ISP is also the provider of your cable or satellite TV package.  There would be nothing to stop, for example AT&T (providers of UVerse and Direct TV) of making it basically impossible for cord-cutters to access Netflix or Hulu.  Same is true for Comcast, owners of NBC, and for Verizon, who provide TV through their FIOS service.  In other words, these companies will be able to use their de facto monopolies to make it impossible for competition to exist.

The this anti-competition problem extends beyond the communication and entertainment industries though.  Many small businesses and start up companies rely on their internet presence for survival.  These types of businesses stand no chance in an economy where larger competitors can pay to cripple their web traffic and cut them off at the knees before they get started.

The only people who benefit from the eradication of Net Neutrality are the ISPs.  We are forced to rely select ISPs for nearly all aspects of our daily lives.  In terms of its importance in modern America, it is on the same level as power, water, and roads.  Without Net Neutrality, the internet essentially becomes the private property of those ISPs, private property that they can sell off, rent out, evict people or entities from, and censor at will.  Ajit Pai wants YOUR access to information to be determined by the highest bidder, be it a company looking to sell you something or an interest or political action group looking to influence politics. 

The level of greed that Pai wants to empower is dangerous to the fundamental stability of American democracy and the American free press, two things already increasingly under attack.  There are no Republicans or Democrats on this issue.  Whether you get your news from Occupy Democrats, InfoWars, MSNBC, Fox News or The Onion, you need to care about this.  This is an America issue.  No american should stand for this.  No american should be quiet about this.  Every american should be scared and angry as hell about this.  Most importantly, no american should be idle about this.

Call your representatives and senators.  Call the FCC.  Call your newspaper.  Talk to anybody who will listen.  Educate yourself.  Find a way to help fight.

Joe Arpaio: Disgrace, Racist, Criminal

I have been looking for things to say about the pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio from his federal conviction for criminal contempt of court.  I want to rail about how disgusting his actions were, how antagonistic not only the decision to pardon him was but the timing of it as well.

I cannot imagine how marginalized his victims feel seeing their tormentor pardoned without a penalty.  The high of seeing the man who seemed bulletproof for so long finally be held accountable only to have that accountability swept away like it was nothing must be devastating.  I know that, but I do not feel it like his victims do.

Many others have done a fine job of detailing the deplorable behavior and criminal acts by this supposed agent of the law.  I cannot add to the conversation there, but I cannot stay silent.

Arpaio, between his conviction and pardon, attempted to scare his racist and / or ignorant audience by telling them that if the big bad government can come after an innocent law man doing his job (paraphrasing his words), then they can come after “anybody.” My response to his contention is this: You’re damned right, and that is as it should be!

Anybody who systematically violates the rights of citizens and doze so largely on the basis of race and in the name of electoral politics should absolutely expect the government to respond with righteous justice and accountability.  Nobody should expect that they will be able to hide and cower behind a badge or behind the oversized tie of an unqualified and equally cynical (and / or racist) executive trying to distract from his own self-inflicted political wounds and controversies.

Lee v. Washington (v. Lee)

One of the recent arguments in defense of the preservation of Confederate war monuments is the laughable claim that there is no difference between Robert E. Lee and George Washington.  One of the people doing this is Donald Trump’s lawyer, who has taken time away from defending his client against unrelated allegations to make this argument.  It is an act that is indicative of the fact that Donald Trump is not merely accidentally defending white nationalism, and also the lengths to which Trump and his team will go to distract from his Russian problem.

But why is the comparison so pathetically misguided?  The argument amounts to saying that both men were slave owners who led rebellions against their former nations of allegiance.  This is true so far as it goes, but its omissions render it disingenuous at best.

First, Washington is and was not a traitor to this nation.  He did not betray the United States.  He helped found it.  Britain can rightfully consider him a traitor to them, but he is no traitor to the United States of America.  Additionally, he remains the only sitting president to lead the army into battle when he led troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Lee did betray the United States.  He led an armed rebellion against the United States.  Even if the Union had lost, Lee would still have been a traitor to the United States even as he would have been a Confederate Washington.  So, this isn’t merely a case of history being written by the victors.

Second, while the causes for the American Revolution and the American Civil War are complicated, their motivations are less so.  The American Revolution was largely motivated by the colonies / states not being represented in the government that presided over them.  This was an active and ongoing problem that resulted in acts, taxes and legislation aimed at enriching the British Empire at the expense of the colonies that drove it.

On the other hand, the American Civil War was motivated by the desire to protect the rights of white men to own black men.  This is the “state’s right” that the war was fought over.  The war was started because southern traitors did not like the result of a presidential election, even though the racist ⅗ compromise gave them a disproportionate vote, and even though the winner of the election indicated he did not intend to end the barbaric practice of slavery.  This means that their issue was almost entirely speculative.

They revolted because a system that was rigged in their favor was not rigged enough in their favor and did not play out exactly as they wanted.  This revolt of spoiled racists and sore losers is the rebellion that Robert E. Lee led.

Washington led a revolt of people not represented in their government.  He did not lead a rebellion of people already overrepresented in their government and were just mad because they did not get their way.

By all means, remember Gen. Lee. Remember all the men and women who fought and died for the Confederacy.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, but we cannot learn from something that we do not remember.  There is a difference between remembering and idealizing though, and these monuments and memorials idealize people who were traitors to the United States in the name of white supremacy.  I sincerely doubt that many of these monuments, if any, provide any meaningful context for the events and people they memorialize.  Those interested in commemorating the Confederacy during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement, when a large number of these memorials were put up, were more interested in holding back the tide of racial equality.

We must learn from our remembrance and study of the American Civil War and the people who fought on both sides, and that is not what these memorials are for.  I am not aware of any memorials portray Confederate leaders as well-meaning, but flawed and tragic figures simply on the wrong side of justice and history.  While I personally find most of the leadership of the Confederacy to be motivated by more sinister intent than that, it is at least an acceptable view in that it acknowledges that they were absolutely wrong, regardless of intent.

Tempting as it may be to take the view, “Washington, good; Lee, bad,” things are rarely that simple.  I was looking for the best way to illustrate that point when I learned this week that the opposition to Confederate war memorials had a very early and surprising member: Robert E. Lee.

When approached about monuments to the Confederate war effort, Lee wrote on at least two occasions that such symbols would hold the South back and would “keep open the sores of war.”  He thought it “wiser” to “obliterate the symbols of civil strife.”

So, there we have it.  Even the man who led the military rebellion against the United States recognized that monuments to his own efforts, the efforts he risked his life and the lives of his brothers in arms, were harmful to the United States and to the South specifically.  It’s unfortunate that the people who want to defend the veneration of Gen. Lee and his fellow Confederate traitors cannot actually learn the hard lessons he specifically wanted us to learn.

Name and Shame is Fair Game

I find it funny that Nazi, Klan members, Alt-Right and other bigots being identified, named and shamed after their participation in the torch-lit march in Charlottesville, Virginia over the weekend is drawing any type of negative backlash.

Freedom from speech is not freedom from consequences, no matter how much people whine about the consequences of their speech.  Freedom of speech means that you can say something ignorant and bigoted without the government stopping you.  It also means that I can respond by calling your statement ignorant and bigoted.  I can even share my opinion that you are an ignorant bigot.  I can shout to anybody who will listen that you have made ignorant, bigoted statements and that I think you are an ignorant bigot.

Unless I’m saying something that qualifies as slander or libel (which cannot be the case if what I’m saying is true or a reasonably and honestly held opinion), or there is some actual crime committed along the way, I can say what I want about your hateful, divisive rhetoric.  How others respond to that is up to them as well.  If your parents, university, peer groups, or others do not want to associate with you becuase they learn something true about you, that is your problem.

My issue with people taking offense or otherwise claiming that there is something wrong with naming and shaming the people involved in the Unite the Right (Unite the Reich, is probably a more appropriate name) or other similar events is this:  If your beliefs are such that you do not want the world to know about them, you need to reexamine your beliefs.

People are often more willing to espouse their white nationalist or other racist beliefs than they were several years ago.  While they are doing this, many of them seem to want to hide behind the perceived anonymity that either large crowds or the internet provide to them.  They are either too ashamed or too cowardly to show their views openly and without the perceived protection of anonymity.

The United States is a democracy whose people care deeply about free speech.  Generally speaking, this is not a country where people need to worry about getting killed just for their beliefs. In a country such as this, any belief worth having is worth having openly, freely and proudly.  If you have beliefs that you cannot share in a society such as this, even unpopular ones, then your beliefs are the problem.

These people are embarrassed or ashamed.  They should be embarassed and ashamed.  They should feel every ounce of social pressure available exerted upon them.  They should understand that their selfish, 19th century approach to race relations is not what the vast majority of Americans want it to be.  They need to see that, to the extent they are being marginalized, they are marginalizing themselves.

They need to understand that like it or not, Americans are white, brown, black, Jewish, Christian, Muslim and that they can either stand with their fellow Americans, or be run over by the progress that is made when people of diverse backgrounds and upbringings work together to build and further one of the most diverse, dynamic, resilient and powerful societies in the history of the world.

I hear the counter-argument though.  “Look at what happened to that guy at Google.  He got fired for sharing his beliefs just because they were not part of the liberal social justice warrior talking points.”  “We have to march on Google to stand up for ourselves.”

That man, who I am not going to name here, did not get fired for sharing his beliefs.  That man attacked the abilities of females in general to do certain kinds of work in the tech field.  He lumped them together based upon nothing but their gender and pseudo-science.  That man did not get fired for having objectionable beliefs.  He got fired for disrespecting his coworkers and his bosses, and for damaging the image of one of the largest, most visible, and powerful tech companies in the world.  He did not get fired for trying to start a discussion, he got fired for trying to start a fight.  He was not targeted for his beliefs, but for his actions that damaged the company.

At its core, the problem with these Alt-Right activists is that their real goal is to start a fight.

I have no issue with the fact that pictures are going around naming, shaming and identifying the people who took part in the deplorable rally to save the monument to an American traitor.  If that crosses over to harassment, doxing or similar behavior, I do have a problem with that and so should you. I do not have a problem with families, friends, communities and groups vocally and publicly disavowing these people and their hateful, divisive ideas.

Most people clearly do not want to be associated with this movement, as evidenced by most of the responses to the rally, including those from the Detroit Red Wings and Tiki Brand.  Reputation is important, and most people, including many of these white nationalist, recognize that association with white nationalism and its similar movements are toxic to reputations.  That is why people want to disavow any connections to them and why many of its own members want to hide in the proverbial shadows.

However, if you are going to bring this filth out into public and march in support of racial hostility, you do not get to hide.  You should not get to hide.  You do not get to drag down the public discourse of this nation and then sit back without any consequences.  You made your filthy bed, now you get to lie in it.  If your acting upon your hate costs you friends, family, reputation or the respect of others, or any of the other things you can lose when you lose those things, that is entirely your fault and your problem.  If you do not like it, have the shame you ought and keep your hate to yourself.  Do not burden the rest of us with your insecurities.

Republicans Were "Waiting," but Clearly Not Working

Donald Trump said recently that Republicans have been "waiting for seven years" to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  If I may be sol bold as to offer advise to Donald Trump, isn't the fact that they have been waiting for seven years exactly the problem?  Other than the dozens of symbolic votes to repeal the ACA and screaming about how important it is to repeal the law, they have done nothing but wait.

When they could have been listening to their constituents about their policy concerns, they waited.

When they could have been writing their own bill to repair or replace the ACA, they were taking symbolic votes.

When they could have been looking for solutions to the legitimate policy concerns with the ACA, they were scheming to win elections.

Now their decisions have come back to demonstrate just how disingenuous their words and actions have been since the very start of this debate.  This was never about policy for them.  This was about a bunch of partisan hacks scoring cheap electoral points off of a complicated issue that they all too willingly oversimplified, and sometimes just flat-out lied about to confuse and mislead the masses.  (Remember "Death Panels?)

They lied about what the ACA would do.  They lied (and continue to lie) about what it is doing.  They lied about the process used to pass the law and they lied about the role they paid in obstructing the improvement, passage and implementation of the ACA at all costs.

In what is possibly the most long-standing and disgusting of Republican lies about the ACA, they lied about having a better plan.  They lied about having ANY plan to replace the ACA.  For seven years, four election cycles, they have been proclaiming that "Obamacare" was killing the country and "repeal and replace" was at or near the top of their priority list.

Unfortunately for the country, the people who voted for these Republicans and the people who are most vulnerable to the fluctuation of the insurance market, the vast majority of congressional Republicans are both incompetent and uninterested in governing as compared with winning elections.  In the time they had to ready themselves for when they would control the Congress and the White House, a competent congressional leadership team could have had a plan.  They could have had backup plans.  They could have had contingencies for how to proceed with a small versus a large legislative majority.  They could have even come up with a plan for reform in the event that the next president was a Democrat.  They had time to make plans based upon the the real world implementation and results of the ACA and the fixes that real world application showed it needed.

THEY HAD NOTHING.

Despite the pathetic and unintentionally ironic victory celebration Donald Trump held in the White House Rose Garden after the House passed its "bill," he and his Republican allies could not have shown themselves to be more oblivious to the real work needed if they had a "Mission Accomplished" banner as their back drop.

With years to prepare, they got caught with their pants down.  With years to prepare and in near total control of the federal government, they had nothing.  That glorious display of incompetence has nothing to do with Democrats.  It only marginally has anything to do with Donald Trump.  Sure, he could have displayed some leadership and tried to right the ship, but the "deal-maker" was not willing or able to do anything except say "pass something," and then try to strong-arm some of the Republicans who saw what a disaster their efforts were shaping up to be.

Donald Trump and the Republicans had a historic opportunity to pick up where the ACA fell short and help move it toward making sure all Americans have access to healthcare that they can actually afford.  The signs along the way indicated they were not serious about doing so.  When they had a chance to prove the doubters wrong, they proved they were nothing more than the disingenuous political hacks that so many thought they were.

So, when Donald Trump says it was "always the plan" to let the ACA die on its own, do not believe him.  It is just another example of Donald Trump ignoring facts he does not like because his ego cannot handle the idea that he might not be the best, smartest and winningest person ever.  To the extent he plans to let it fail or, more likely, push it to fail, the blood for the deaths that will result is on his hands and the hands of his colleagues.

What the Democrats should be doing now, and what the Republicans should do next time, is learn from the stunning incompetence that the Republican party displayed during (at least) the entirety of the Obama administration.  That means not just complaining and using "the other side is in charge" as an excuse for not actually DOING anything.  It means working on real policy solutions to problems.  It means supporting a good idea regardless of who proposes it.  Regardless of which side is in power, it means listening and compromising for the greater good.  It does not mean theatrical temper tantrums, moving the goalposts and lying to the American people.

The ACA can and needs to be improved.  However, anybody who thought that Republicans had the collective competence, leadership, integrity and courage to actually do it now needs to realize that they were being lied to.  The Republicans, for seven years, were "waiting" (and campaigning) when they should have been working.  We do no need more people like that in elected office.  We need them gone.

I'm Just Going to Say It...

I hate Donald Trump.  It is not enough to say I disagree with him, or that I do not respect him as a leader or even as a man.  I hate him.

I do not say that lightly.  As I have gotten older, I try very hard to avoid using the word “hate,” because it is overused to the point of being nearly meaningless.  It also never has a positive influence on a course of events.  That’s part of what my problem is with the political tide that has brought him to power.  Hate is not something I want to teach my children to embrace.  I am well aware of Dr. King’s philosophy that hate cannot drive out hate, that only love can.  I agree.

That said, I reiterate that I hate Donald Trump.  I do not just hate what he stands for (today).  I do not hate most of the people who voted for him.  It is not worth belaboring the point with specifics, but I hate him as a person for what he does and the way he treats people.  I’m human.  I cannot help the way I feel, and I cannot say that I am proud of hating anybody, but I can help the way I respond to it.

So, when I say “I hate Donald Trump,” do not mistake what that means.  It does not mean that I am going to throw a temper tantrum about him being in power.  It does not mean that I intend, or want anybody else to use violence, coercion, intimidation or any other illegal, immoral or uncivilized tactic to protest or fight him.  In fact, those are some of the actions that he has supported or encouraged within his own supporters that are part of why I hate the man.  I have no intent to beat a monster by becoming one myself.

It must, as always, be love, truth and justice with which we fight the monster that is Donald Trump.  I do not know if we can defeat the monster that way, at least not in the foreseeable future.  I do know that using anything but love, truth and justice to fight him, fighting him on his own terms with his own tactics will destroy the part of America that is worth fighting to protect.  This country is  too important, and has been too good to me for me to contribute to its further disassociation with reality, practicality and basic civility.

I do not recognize a country shaped by his warped way of thinking as anything approaching the America I love.  It is that love that is most of my fuel.  I hate Donald Trump.  That is a portion of what fuels me these days.  Hate will never be my weapon in this fight though.  Hate cannot build, it can only destroy.  I know that.  My hate is inescapable baggage that I have to reconcile, but it is not what I bring to the negotiation table or the political battlefield.  In other words, my hate is MY problem and I have no right to make it anybody else’s problem any more than they have the right to make their hate America’s problem.

Yes, I hate the man and what he stands for.  But, like the overwhelming majority of people in this country, even most of the (minority of) people who voted for the man, I am better that Donald Trump.  I don’t know you, but the extreme odds are that YOU are better than Donald Trump.  I will not let him push me into acting like the worst of what America has to offer.  Regardless of your political viewpoints, you should not let him either.  When people of all political persuasions are able to have honest and civil discussions and look for actual solutions to our problems, the malevolent garbage that comes from Donald Trump’s mouth, mouthpieces and Twitter client will cease to matter.

Who knows… maybe Donald will discover a level of civility and honesty he has not demonstrated in what passes for his political career.  If he does, as an American, he is welcome to a seat at the table in my book.  Until he does he must be opposed with every fact, every ounce of love and every ounce of civility we can muster.

Donald can have his stupid wall… The rest of us should be building bridges.

Yeah, I'm Mad

That's right.  I'm mad and I'm not apologizing for it.

There is something greatly wrong with this country when we are returning to state where not only is open or thinly veiled racism increasingly common, but we are afraid to call it out as the insidious societal disease that it is.

Earlier this week, Pamela Ramsey Taylor, a  leader of a Clay County, West Virginia non-profit organization posted on Facebook that it would be refreshing to have a "classy" and "dignified" first lady in the White House instead of "a ape in heels."  Local Mayor, Beverly Whaling, responded that the post "made her day."  Clay County is 98% white.  Clay, the city of which Whaling is the mayor, has no black residents.  After the initial firestorm prompted by the comments, Taylor responded that the comment was not racially motivated, though she admitted how it could be seen as such.

I don't know if Taylor or Whaling can or will keep their jobs.  They shouldn't, but that's pretty much beside the point.  I'm also not going to go into the detail of the thrust of their comments.  Michelle Obama is one of the most dignified and classy PEOPLE to live in the White House, First Lady or otherwise.  I don't know what class or dignity anybody married to Donald Trump can bring to the White House, but it certainly pales in comparison to the embodiment class and dignity that is Michelle Obama.  Instead, I want to talk about the dog whistle that the classless Ms. Taylor blew in her comment, and that the equally classless Mayor Whaling responded to.  The idea that either one of these worms losing their jobs is an adequate response to what they've said is off the mark.  It's not enough because what they said is not the real problem; it's just a symptom of the problem.

The problem is that anybody is thinking this garbage to begin with.  The problem is that there is an entire group of people thinking like this.  The problem is that we have a candidate for president around whom the purveyors of the glory of a white America can gather.  The problem is that when these people are caught, they are allowed to sneak away with their tail between their legs without long term repercussions and without being called out as the racists that they are.  The problem is that they are backed by countless people who simply think the solution is to "not say that," or (more realistically) not get caught saying that.  The problem is that these people will continue to support and vote for people and policies that uphold the primacy of white America.  

The problem is that these people either think there is no racial divide in this country, that it is the fault of minority populations, or that the divide is not a problem.  The problem is that we have racists in our government and our voting population and that they are not called out for what they are until they are so embarrassed to show their faces in public.  The problem is that we don't shame these people until they are too afraid to make their voices heard, until they realize that THEY are the minority and that they're living in the past.  The problem is that we have enough of these people that the election process allows them to nominate and then elect a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, bigoted bully to be the President of the United States.

The problem is that this person, these people, are in my country.  The problem is that we're afraid to call this deplorable woman what she is, a racist.  The problem is that she's not alone.  The problem is that the Republican Party disproportionately attracts racist voters and activists, but the good people in the party are either afraid to call them out for fear of losing their votes, or they don't understand the thinly veiled racism that these worms are spouting.  The problem is that the hypocrisy of expecting black Americans to take a greater degree of responsibility for "black on black" crime, or expecting Muslims to turn in members of their community as potential terrorism suspect while failing to take any responsibility for policing racism within one's own party (because we wouldn't want to lose their votes).

The problem is that racism is alive and well in this country and the vast majority of people are either afraid to admit even the possibility of that being the case, or they're afraid of being called oversensitive or "playing the race card."  The problem is that these deplorable neanderthals are allowed to be over-represented by a political system that was never designed to see that everybody was represented in government, and has not substantially evolved (with the exception of women's suffrage) since shortly after the Civil War.  They're over-represented because they can be manipulated by people who, in all honesty, may not be racist themselves, but are perfectly willing to harness the racism of others to get what they want.

None of these problems are addressed by either of these deplorable women joining the ranks of the unemployed (though they certainly both deserve to), because the deplorable ideas that they’ve displayed are not only alive and well, but they are a significant part of what propelled them, and so many like them, to positions of influence.

I don’t know what the best way to combat this failure to evolve, but pretending there is no problem and allowing others to do the same is not part of that solution.  That is why I will continue to call out racism when I see it.  I will do my best to remain respectful in doing so, but I’m done sugarcoating the way I approach this topic.  If you can't handle that, then take a look in the mirror.  You are the problem.

Violence and Unrest in Milwaukee

Rally for justice.  Rally for truth. Rally to grieve with those who mourn.

Now is not the time for anger and judgement about what happened in Milwaukee that left a young man dead at the hands of a police officer.  The time for anger and judgement will come, but it is only with full information that anger and judgement, when warranted, can be directed to the right place.  The truth is that there are probably no clean hands when it comes to the problems of violence in our country and that includes you and me.

I would argue that if Smith, the young man who was killed, raised a gun to an officer, it is tough to blame that officer for responding with deadly force.  Even if it is true that the police officer that shot and killed Smith did so with actual legal and moral justification, that does nothing to detract from the conversation that needs to happen what our community expectations of police are and how we deal with race relations in this country.  In fact, I would go so far as to argue that recognition by those would be and have been critical of police that this latest incident was justified (if true) would go a long way toward establishing the actual, constructive dialogue needed to actually accomplish any meaningful reform.

Conversely, if it turns out that the officer did not act with full legal or moral justification, a prompt and proper response from the police department and any other applicable authorities would help establish that necessary conversation.  Everybody needs to stop trying so hard to make facts fit the narrative that they're pushing that they forget that nothing worthwhile gets accomplished without keeping a solid focus on the truth, whatever it may be.

This cannot continue to be a shouting match between two groups of people.  Neither has a monopoly on righteousness.  Neither has completely clean hands.  Neither can solve the problems of our society and keep the peace on its own.

Now is the time to cry, pray, mourn and gather.  It is also the time to listen, learn, consider, converse and remember that lives of all colors matter.  We all have a responsibility to leave a world, country and community to our children in which they can live theirs to the fullest.

My Fond Farewell to "The Best Soccer Show"

The Copa America Centenario is about to get underway. The Euros aren't far behind and MLS is in full swing, but something is missing from what some are calling the Summer of Soccer.

Less than a month ago I said The Best Soccer Show, the long-running american soccer podcast hosted by Jason Davis and Jared Dubois.  I never missed an episode but I very rarely got to listen to the show live.  Even though I learned of the show’s end with less than 12 hours notice,  I made sure that I was able to listen to most of the show live.  (My two year old prevented me from catching the beginning of the show.)  I had never called into the show before, but on this occasion I was able to participate in the show.  In fact, I had the honor of being the final caller they ever took on the show.  It was a privilege to tell Jason and Jared an abbreviated version of why their work meant so much to me and how it has literally changed my life.  As I told them, I truly cannot thank them enough for what they did for me.

My view of CenturyLink Field in Seattle.

In 2010, I was a law school student at the University of Wisconsin.  I had not devoted much time or thought to soccer in years.  I played rec soccer growing up but played my last season the summer before my sophomore year in high school ten years earlier.  Since then, I had reffed youth soccer for one summer and reffed intramural soccer in college, but I never followed the professional game at all. I doubt that I could have named ten professional teams anywhere in the world at that point.  I would not have been able to name many more players, past or present.

I would pay some attention when the World Cup came around, but that was about as far as I would go.  Once the World Cup was over, I would basically be unaware of soccer until the next World Cup. Even then, I would not know the players on my own national team and I would scarcely understand what was going on on the field tactically or strategically other than if the ball was going toward the goal I wanted it to go toward.

The order of events from 2010 is a bit blurry in my memory, but I do not think the order of events matters. I remember watching the England match with my brother at a Buffalo Wild Wings in Madison. I remember a group of law students huddled around one person's laptop as we watched what looked to be the dying breaths of the tournament for the USA, only to see Tim Howard, Clint Dempsey, Landon Donovan and Ian Darke create one of the most dramatic moments in the history of american sports. Some time during that summer, either as a primer for the World Cup or as a “what else is there” for after the tournament, a friend of mine introduced me to The American Soccer Show podcast.

Jason Davis and Zach Woosley (a.k.a. The Ginge) were the host of the show talking about all things american soccer.  My interest in the game remained almost exclusively with the men’s national team, so I did not care about MLS or any other professional league except as it pertained to the national team or national team players.  Still, I listened for when those things I did care about would come up.

Not long after I started listening, Woosley stepped away from the show and was replaced by Jared DuBois. The balance and chemistry between Jason and Jared meant that even when I had no idea who or what they were talking about, I found them entertaining as much as informative. Jared, being a fan of the LA Galaxy provided a different perspective as compared to Jason's general MLS fan perspective. I had never followed any sport without having a favorite team basically handed to me as a birthright, but I did not have that with soccer. Hearing the different ways that they were fans but the passion they both still had for the game was contagious to me. I do not think I realized at the time how much of an impact the juxtaposition of their perspectives had on me. It made me able to just appreciate the game without needing to pick a team.

So, I listened and enjoyed. I learned about how MLS was so different from other leagues and other american sports. I learned about what other leagues mattered to Americans. I learned about the problems of not having soccer-specific stadiums. I learned what the Gold Cup, Confederations Cup, Copa America and the Euros were. I learned about how the federations and confederations work and how shady all of that is. I never felt like I was learning because the most important thing I learned was how fun it could be to talk about these things. Soccer did not have to be hidden behind an impenetrable wall of snobbery.

Along the way, the American Soccer Show became The Best Soccer Show. The information and fun never changed though. The Best Soccer Show may have been an aspirational or ironic title choice, but to me it was an honest one. The show stoked my desire to learn the game better, to understand it and seek out new perspectives as well. They made me feel included even though I had no idea the depths of what soccer was really about. They helped give me the confidence to experience it for myself.

In 2010, I experienced my first national team game at a friendly in Chicago. That same friend who introduced me to the show, Zach, convinced me to go.  It was an amazing experience. A couple of years later, while visiting my father in Boston, we went to watch an MLS match between the Revolution and the Red Bulls. I was excited to see Thierry Henry and Juan Agudelo play that night, but neither of them did.  I was pretty disappointed to not see Henry play, but I did not learn for some time that he never played on turf. Agudelo, though earning his first international appearance already, had not yet established himself as an every-game starter for the Revs. Still, at that point, it was safe to say that I was no longer the oblivious, theoretical soccer fan I had been, but it did not stop there.

My brother (left), dad (center) and me at Gillette Stadium before
our first MLS game. Yes, we're repping our other sports love.

Zach (left) and I at CenturyLink Field

In June of 2013, Zach and I (and our pregnant wives), flew to Seattle for the World Cup qualifier between the US and Panama.  While we were there, I almost literally bumped into Alexi Lalas as he was coming out of the Nike Store following a recording of his former podcast with Taylor Twellman.  On the street, we passed Jermaine Jones (who Zach had played pickup ball with while spending time in Germany the summer before Jones turned pro).  I shook hands with Cobi Jones at the American Outlaws party the night before the game.  We marched through the streets of Seattle to the match.  I do not actually remember much of the game.  I remember the atmosphere and the feelings.  I remember being part of something special.  I remember the energy.  I remember that for those 90 minutes, there was no place on earth I wanted to be more than right where I was.

Since 2010, I have been actively finding new friends to watch soccer with.  I have even started watching MLS and other leagues.  As opposed to years past when I would make minimal effort to partake in the World Cup, in 2014 I was having people over for the games, even people who were were not “soccer people.”  I never wanted to be the obnoxious soccer fan, but if people showed an interest, I was and am more than willing to help them get over that barrier to entry that kept me out for so long.  I had gone from being on the outside looking in, to being the guy holding the door open for other people.

Sharing the game with my daughter before she
could even hold her head up.

When my daughter was born, I wasted no time in sharing my love of soccer with her.  Days after bringing her home from the hospital, I remember sitting on the couch with her in my arms with her empty bottle of milk on the end table and an EPL game on the TV.  Once she could walk, I put a soccer ball in front of her.  It was not about trying to turn her into the next Carli Lloyd.  It was, and is, about sharing the game I love with someone I love and hoping that some day we can share that love together.  When my son is born this summer, you better believe I will do the same with him.

I do not remember when the rumors started to swirl, but I probably first heard about them on The Best Soccer Show.  The Copa America Centenario was coming to the US. When Zach and I first heard these rumors, our thoughts were identical: if the US played close to us, we were going.  Through all of the personal twists in our lives since then, along with the real questions over whether the tournament would even be held, Jason and Jared were on my playlist and always near the top. They were the buddies I talked soccer with since Zach and I have not lived closed together since college.  Jason and Jared were the guys who, when anything big happened, you wanted to hear what they had to say about it whether you agreed or disagreed with them.  They never knew me other than through fleeting twitter interactions or that final call on The Best Soccer Show, but they were my friends.

No, they ARE my friends.

While The Best Soccer Show is done, Jason and Jared are not gone, nor are they even done podcasting together.  Even if they were, the gift they gave to me is worth a lifetime of my gratitude and friendship.  They gave me the chance to fall in love with the beautiful game.  They opened the door to new experiences and people that I never would have encountered had I not been willing to open myself up to them.  The Best Soccer Show was the catalyst for that by helping me build the basic knowledge base to not constantly feel lost in the soccer world and by always reminding me that above all else, soccer is supposed to be fun.

On my way back home from Chicago on June 7, I will not be able to look forward to calling in or tweeting at The Best Soccer Show about what happened like I had been hoping since “Copa Fantastico” became a reality.  I will not be able to look forward to their reaction podcast.  There won’t be a podcast.  My friends do not do that anymore. As sad as that makes me, that sadness is overwhelmed by the gratitude and happiness that comes from knowing that without Jason Davis and Jared DuBois, I would not have been there in the first place.  I would not have been any of the amazing places soccer has brought me or will bring me.  

Thank you, my friends.  You are The Best.

The State of the United States Soccer Federation

The state of U.S. Soccer is ugly. I'm not just talking about the pathetic attempt at new kits that Nike recently unveiled for this year, though they are quite ugly. The ugliness goes way deeper and to a more important place than fashion, and to both of of the senior teams.

On the men's side, the team had been in utter disarray for at least the past year. After an embarrassing end to the Gold Cup last summer and then failing to beat Mexico in the playoff for the Confederations Cup spot, 2016 is continuing in the same way 2015 ended: embarrassingly. It's not that the USMNT was beaten by Guatemala, just like the problem wasn't that they didn't earn a Confederations Cup spot winning the Gold Cup ire even the playoff, it's how they did those things.

First, they lost to teams they are clearly more talented than. That happens though. The game isn't played on paper. In the Gold Cup, the USMNT was outplayed and outshot in basically every game. In Guatemala, they were beaten because of simple mental errors that should have been handled by professionals. They could have lost by more if Guatemala had been more able to finish. To be fair, the U.S. Had chances in the second half, but that was after.  

Had half the team not been playing out of position, those errors are probably not as numerous or as bad.  The fact is that this is a hallmark of what Klinsmann has done with the national team.  It’s one thing to fill a gap or fudge a bit on the margins to get your best team on the field or even your best eleven on the field, but that’s not what is going on.  On Friday, we had a center back or defensive midfielder at right back, a right back at right mid, an attacking midfielder at defensive/holding midfield, and a holding/defensive midfielder at attacking midfield.  Klinsmann had a player for each position on the field and he just didn’t do it.  It’s like he’s playing musical chairs with his lineup (and yet somehow Benny Feilhaber is always left without a seat when the music stops).

I understand that Gonzales and Orozco were not the first choice pairing for this game.  In fact, both of the first choices, Besler and Brooks, were out with injuries from training (another shock in the Klinsmann era).  In truth, Orozco shouldn’t have been on the team.  The team has plenty center backs and plenty better than him.  You could say that Klinsmann was vindicated in bringing so many center backs with to suffering injuries, but you would be wrong.  If you play Yedlin, an EPL right back, at his position, you can move Cameron to the position he plays in the EPL.  You get the added bonus, apart from two players playing the positions that got them noticed, an extra midfielder who can actually maintain possession of the ball.  Instead, we got a lineup that was indicative of tactical simplicity rather than nuance, sophistication or common sense.

We have a coach committed to playing as many half of his outfield players out of position, despite evidence at the club and international levels that it is a mistake, bringing in players who are not performing and ignoring players who are.  Players seem lost.  That’s probably a result of so many players playing out of position, and the consistent inconsistencies with regard to tactics, lineups and formations.  Experimenting requires controlled and uncontrolled variables.  Klinsmann seem to not have a concept of the controlled variable portion of experimenting.  Whatever logic there is in the way Klinsmann approaches his tactical and roster choices, it’s completely beyond me.

The chaos with the US Soccer program is not just confined to the men’s national team.  Despite the women’s team winning the World Cup, having the World Player of the Year and a slew of talent, there are problems off the field for the women’s team.  After being forced to play the sport’s signature event, the World Cup, on artificial turf last year because  FIFA takes women’s soccer about as seriously as Jim Rome takes the sport in its entirety, US Soccer sent them on a “Victory Tour,” and did such a poor job of vetting venues that one of the matches had to be cancelled because of how bad the field was.  That’s after forcing them to put up with substandard practice facilities.

This is the United States Women’s National Soccer Team: the reigning World Cup champions, the most decorated team in the history of women’s soccer, the crown jewel of American soccer, and they’re playing and practicing on fields that they don’t even feel safe on?  Follow that up with the commencement of litigation over impending collective bargaining between the team and the federation and it does not add up to a good look.

I could go into a diatribe about how Sunil Gulati, the head of the USSF, should have been dealing with these issues rather than playing powerbroker at the recent FIFA election, in which the federations simply got to select a new breed of corruption from the large assortment, but the fact is that there was and is nothing stopping him from multitasking these issues.  Maybe he learned something from the USWNT field debacle and maybe the collective bargaining process is going on as all sides expected.  It still isn’t a good look, but maybe he’s doing the best he can with the circumstances.

It is fairly clear that Gulati thinks things are okay with the men on the field though, or at least that the idiotic contract extension he gave Klinsmann before the World Cup has boxed him in so tight that all he can do is watch as the disaster slowly unfolds in front of him.  That’s the BEST case scenario and if that’s what’s going on then there is hope for him to learn from that.  The worst case is that he still doesn’t get that Klinsmann is a disaster of a coach (though he seems to be more suited to the Technical Director role that was included in his extension).  He could still be clinging to the idea of the great German international coming and showing Americans how to futbol. If that’s the case, there is no hope as long as Gulati is in charge.

Primary Season

As primary season officially gets underway, keep this in mind: While the primaries are a de facto part of our political system, they are not legally such. They aren't governed by your votes, they're controlled by the respective parties and subject to their manipulation. The parties can, will and have manipulated the nomination process to suit their needs and there's nothing to stop them from doing it because whichever party it is, it's their party, not yours (especially if you're not a dues paying member). This primary system is one of the countless ways our system is engineered from within and manipulated from without to deliberately and perpetually limit your choice by maintaining a two-party political system that is enshrined NOWHERE in the constitution.


If you're not pissed, you're not paying attention.

I'm Out on College Football

The title says it all.  I'm done with college football.  

I should qualify that a bit.  I love the sport of football.  I love the Wisconsin Badgers.  I was a student season ticket holder for 2 years.  My wife and I loved attending Badger games while I was in school at Madison.  That being said, I can't tolerate college football as a whole anymore.  

College football is a game where the rich get richer.  Rich schools make more money.  Great teams get the the best players.  There are no "student athletes" at the higher echelons of college football.  Okay, they're there, but they're not the ones who usually dominate the conversation.  At the top level, college sports is really professional sports in disguise.  We all try to pretend it's something different.  What we end up is the worst of the amateur athletics that college football is supposed to be, mixed with the bad parts of professional football.  The greed, money and politics overpower the school pride and love of the game that supposedly makes college football so special.

I'm sick of Alabama.  I'm sick Ohio State.  I'm sick of Nick Saban.  I'm sick of Urban Meyer.  I'm sick of Johnny Football, Reggie Bush, Pete Carroll, Joe Paterno, and all of the jerks who pretend that top level college football is about building character, playing for your school or anything other than making money.

This fall, the attention that I used to pay to non-Badger college football will be focused on the English Premier League.  Sure, the EPL has the same problems that college football.  In FIFA, soccer may have the only governing body more corrupt and hypocritical than the NCAA, but at least professional soccer doesn't pretend to be anything else.

Independence Thoughts

It's the 4th of July, American Independence Day.  Of course, most are in a patriotic mood, and I am no exception.  Apart from fireworks (which do nothing for me) and summer fun, July 4th always prompts me to think about the country that I live in and why we take so much pride in it.

America aspires to greatness.  That greatness is based upon freedom and liberty, ideals which countless Americans have fought and died for over the years.  Brave Americans have been willing to die for these causes since before we knew what kind of country we would have.  Lately, we've become rather prolific at killing for our ideals.  Dying and killing for ideas is easy.  America's greatness is realized when we live up to our ideals.

To be true, the United Stats of America has never even come close to achieving what it is that so many people think we have.  That's okay.  When you aim for the stars, sometimes you make it to the moon.  The problem is that people think we have reached the pinnacle of what we can be.  The illusion that America has no progress to make, nothing to learn from the rest of the world, stunts our growth.  It hinders our ability to realize the full potential that we have as a nation.  It is when you stop trying to move forward that others pass you by.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I couldn't say it any better myself.

Happy birthday, America.  We've got work to do.

Pro-Bowl Solutions

The Pro-Bowl is a joke.  It is a waste of television airwaves and it should not be watched by anybody, football fan or not.  The players don't care about the game, they don't take it seriously and they're only in it for the free trip to Hawaii.

Rather than complain without offering a solution, I am here to offer a legitimate solution that could actually help make the Pro-Bowl into something remotely watchable, while keeping the party/celebration atmosphere that players seem to actually want:  Make it flag football.  That's what people are comparing it to anyway.

Here's the proposal:  a school yard style flag-football tournament.  Four teams, selected by 4 captains, selected from the Pro-Bowl participants.  Players play both sides of the ball, the games take between 15 and 30 minutes of real time, and the entire process, starting with picking teams until the champions are crowned takes the same amount of time as the game does now.

Why is this better?  Most importantly, the non-contact nature of the game means that players shouldn't have the same fear of injury that they do with a supposedly full-contact game.  Players understandably don't want to get hurt in a meaningless game.  Taking the contact out is the most you can do to reduce the injury risk without eliminating the game entirely.

The current game tries to put a legitimate veneer over what is not a legitimate NFL game.  By removing the pretense that the game is anything but grown men at recess, and the added danger that comes from full contact football, both the players and the viewers can appreciate the game for what it is.  No helmets means we can hear and see the players better, which will allow everybody to appreciate the lighthearted nature of the game.  Flag football would also lend itself to the big plays and the displays of athleticism that people want to see from an exhibition game.

I am not sure that the Pro-Bowl can be saved, but I think that there are some things that can be done to give it every chance to succeed.  I would like to see something similar to this implemented    It might actually make the game watchable again, if it ever was.

Reflections on Election Practice

The election is over and I think it's time to start thinking about what lessons we can take from the experience.  Many have already tried to draw conclusions about the political prospects for the next cycle of elections or even the next presidential election.  At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I think there are far greater concerns that our most recent election highlights.  Specifically, the problem is the way American elections work in the first place.

To put it succinctly, American election campaigns are way too long, but the elections themselves are way too short.

If we first examine the length of the campaign, we quickly see that the voting population (and the non-voting population as well) grows fatigued with the incessant campaign ads long before it is time to vote.  Our experience in Wisconsin is one where Eric Hovde started running campaign ads for his senate campaign nearly a year before the election.  This problem is compounded by the ridiculous amount of money that can be dumped into a particular election by outside parties thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling.  Any television viewer or radio listener in a swing state is probably all to familiar with the compounding effects of the length of the campaign cycle and the copious amounts of ad spending.

We're already seeing this repeat itself.  The election is not even a week old and already people are talking about the next election.  You do not hear Republicans talking about their legislative agenda (because I do not consider "impede everything Obama does" to be an actual legislative agenda).  Instead, you hear them talking about their political agenda, how they will fight with the President, how they will retool for the next election and how they can reach voters who want "things" as Bill O'Riley so bluntly put it during Fox News coverage of the election.

Conspicuously absent is a legislative agenda.  Republicans in Congress are setting up to do exactly what they tried to do for the last four years: dig their heals in on every conceivable issue and then blame the President for not getting more stuff done.  What we have is a bicameral body of 435 people whose full time job is to win their next election, not to govern a massive and powerful country responsibly.

If it is clear that the campaign is too long, it should be equally clear that the actual election is too short.  It is way too difficult for way too many Americans to find the time to stand in line (in many cases) during one 12 hour window in November.  Real people have real jobs, they have kids, they have responsibilities that have a much more immediate impact on their every day lives than casting their vote in even a Presidential election.  Why does the single mother have to chose between voting and making dinner for her children?

The myriad of early voting options has certainly made things better as of recently, but that will only reach so many people.  If you want to make sure that everybody is able to vote, you have fundamentally change the way we conduct elections in the United States.  First, voter registration needs to be automatic and mandatory.  Second, elections cannot be held during the work week.   Elections should either be moved to the weekend when people are more likely to actually have the time to engage in the process.  Failing that, election day needs to be made a national holiday where EVERYBODY is given the day off.  Obviously there would be some exceptions out of necessity, but the national business of the day needs to be the election and the election only, as far as is feasible.

If you give people an adequate opportunity to vote, coupled with the incentive to do so, people will engage.  Right now we have a system where voting is too much of a hassle, and they are desensitized to the process by an over-saturation political advertising that deals in nothing but generalizations and scare tactics.  Perhaps a shorted campaign season would force candidates to make a more logical case for their candidacy, rather than relying on the power or repeating simple ideas over and over until they sink into people's brains.  If more people felt like they were being  persuaded rather than talked at, they might be more willing to engage in the process.