When Misleading Becomes Dishonest

We're in the height of campaign season, so a certain amount of embellishment and exaggerating is to be expected.  But there is one particular oft-repeated refrain I've heard from Romney and the right which I find to be misleading to the point of genuine dishonesty.

The way that it is said comes in many different ways, but this pretty much sums it up:

Republicans will point out that this is completely accurate and, yes, those were indeed the gas prices on the day Obama took office.  But what makes this completely misleading are the implications from this, namely 1) that it was a good thing that gas was this low; 2) that gas prices were that low for an extended period and 3) that gas prices will go down again if Obama is voted out of office.

The truth is a bit more complicated.  First of all, the highest gas prices have ever been was $4.12/gallon, in July 2008, 6 months before Obama took office.  In fact, gas was over $3.00/gallon pretty much continuously from May 2007 onward.




Hmm, you know what?  This looks suspiciously like another chart I know of, specifically the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the same time period:

Gas prices rocketed downward because we were in the midst of an epic financial collapse.  So, yes, we can easily achieve those gas prices again if you want to root for another financial crisis.  The Dow lost nearly half it's value from October 1st, 20007 (13,930) to February 2nd, 2009 (7,062.93).  There's the tradeoff for you: give up half your 401(k) and other investments in exchange for gas that's $2/gallon cheaper.  Seem fair to you?  Even if you don't have investments and don't care, does that strike you as a good trade-off for the country?

By the way, the day after Obama took office (it was closed for MLK Day on the day of his inauguration) the Dow closed at 7,949.09.  Yesterday it closed at 13,345.89.  Funny how you won't see that on a Photoshopped sign spreading around the internet.

I am not espousing that Obama is responsible for both the gas prices and the stock market recovery, and I am certainly not suggesting that he is responsible for one but not the other.  The truth is that, by and large, he has very little to do with either.  Both were hit hard by the financial crisis, and both are now returning to the levels they should be at - those dictated by supply and demand.  Obama's main role in the crisis was to provide temporary assistance where it was needed (something I believe he did a very good job with) and help with legislation designed to make sure this type of collapse does not recur (something I think he did a rather middling job at).  But, right or wrong, the President gets all the praise and all the blame for everything that occurs under his watch and such is the case here, no matter how undeserved or wrong it is.

But that's ok; if my friends on the right want to play this game I can do it too.  Here's a picture from this year's GOP convention that captures my feelings on their role in the deficit nicely.  Only difference is, I can actually support this one with actual facts.




Sources: Gas prices from here.  DJIA chart was my own creation in Excel, from the Yahoo Finance data.

Back to Politics Part 2 or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Obama

If you're confused about the title, you obviously have not seen this movie.

So, if I believe everything I said before (and I do), why am I supporting Obama again?  Because this election is not a referendum on his first-term performance relative to my expectations, it’s about the next 4 years.  And, even with the knowledge that he will not be tackling the systemic problems I hoped he would, by a wide margin he is still the candidate that is more closely aligned with my personal positions.

As Christy and I were driving in the car on Friday, in what amounted to a 6-hour trip to IHOP (that’s a story for another day), she was expressing her own personal frustration at not being informed about the various candidates and how hard it was to actually get informed.  Nothing that comes out of a candidate’s mouth can ever be taken at face value, and their websites are just their mouths in a different format.  Newspapers, magazines, and news shows all have their own agendas too, so it actually is quite difficult to ever feel comfortable that you’ve gotten at any kind of “objective truth”.  In any case, down the line in this discussion she asked me “why should I vote for Obama?”

Now, it’s not that I didn’t have an answer for her.  It’s more that the Mark Twain saying “I would have written you a shorter letter, but I didn’t have enough time” applied here.  I could easily have meandered through an hour-long diatribe about everything I agreed with Obama on and everything I disagreed with Romney on, but I knew that’s not what she wanted.   I think that she, like most Americans, doesn’t want to listen to hours and hours of back and forth between candidates and pundits and have to read between the lines and tease out the truths.  She wants to know, quite simply, what are the important points that each side believes, and what are going to be the actual consequences of choosing one side versus the other.

That set me to the task of trying to compile a succinct list of the main reasons I am supporting Obama over Romney.  And after about 10 minutes, I had a list of about 4 or 5 main points, and they are as follows:

1. Supreme Court Appointments – It is impossible to know when a Supreme Court vacancy will open up.  However, given that there are currently 4 justices in their 70s (Ginsburg – 79, Scalia – 75, Kennedy – 75, and Breyer – 74) and that the average retirement age of a justice is 78.7, it is likely that there will be 1 or 2 appointments in the next presidential term.  Right now the generally accepted interpretation regarding the makeup of the court is that there are 4 conservative justices, 4 liberals, and Kennedy is the swing vote (though it can probably be said that he leans conservative).  And since, of the four justices in their 70s, only Scalia is a conservative, the potential for the court to swing decidedly conservative under a Romney administration is clear.  And with Supreme Court appointments being for life, that is a swing which may last a long time.  Would a conservative Supreme Court overturn Roe v Wade?  I honestly don’t know, but certainly many conservatives hope so.  Also, the issue of gay marriage will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court in the next few years.  If you want to ensure that Roe v Wade is not getting overturned anytime soon, and you want the issue of gay marriage to come before a court that is not any more conservative than it is right now, you need to vote for Barack Obama.

2. Obamacare – I really don’t like the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but not for the reasons that conservatives don’t like it.  I don’t like it because, for all the ridiculous amount of effort and angst from the right, it’s remarkable how little it actually does.  Still, it did away with lifetime limits and will end pre-existing conditions, and also includes a mandate for everyone to carry health insurance (however toothless that mandate may be).  And I can tell you from firsthand experience that here at Blue Cross since its passage there has been effort like never before on reducing costs and keeping premium increases as low as possible.  And the bottom line is that this legislation took us one step closer to ensuring that every American has health insurance.  But the full impact of these changes don’t go into effect until 2014 or later, and Romney has outright stated that he intends to work towards repealing ACA in his first term.  If you believe that ACA is a step in the right direction and that we need to work towards the day when -  like a police force, firefighters, social security, and national defense - health insurance is something that every American is provided with, you need to vote for Barack Obama.

3. Climate Change – This one is pretty simple.  One side acknowledges that climate change is real and is largely the result of human activity, and the other side doesn’t.  In 2010 Obama signed an executive order which will increase the corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFÉ) standards from 27.5 to 35.5 by 2016.  As an executive order, Romney would have the power to undo this change at the stroke of a pen.  Obama also heavily supports investment in alternative and renewable energy; Romney supports more domestic drilling and is only concerned with getting us off foreign oil – not oil in general.  If you believe that climate change is happening, is manmade, and is a serious threat to us and our planet, you need to vote for Barack Obama.

4. Social Issues – The GOP is supposed to stand for hands-off government.  Turns out that this is only the case when it comes to gun control, taxes, and corporate regulation.  When it comes to being involved in your personal decisions they have no qualms whatsoever in getting actively involved to decide what is best for you and the country.  Part of being “hands-off” is acknowledging that things will occur that you don’t personally agree with, because above all you believe that it is not the government’s place to interfere.  That is the libertarian view, but the GOP abandoned it long ago.  There are literally a hundred issues I could point to here, but I’ll just pick a couple: gay marriage, any form of marijuana (growing hemp, recreational use, and medicinal use), internet gambling, separation of church and state, and abortion.  If you are a progressive when it comes to social issues and don’t believe that the Bible should be the basis for social legislation, you need to vote for Barack Obama.

5. Send a Message to the GOP – This one is closely tied to #s 2, 3, and 4 above.  For all the bashing I do of the GOP (and I am aware I do a lot of it) it does not come from a place of hatred.  It comes from a place of frustration, because deep down I still feel that the GOP is my party and that it is currently being held hostage by a bunch of lunatics.  I am a fiscal conservative – I believe in a flat tax, balancing the budget, reducing the deficit, and that a voucher system is a fantastic solution for both our education and health insurance problems.  Those are all ideas championed by conservatives before they got control of both Congress and the Presidency and decided that unlimited spending was OK as long as they were in power and that they would concentrate on social issues.  And if you think I'm exaggerating about the spending, I urge you to read this article written in 2003 by the conservative Christian Science Monitor.  I want to see a debate on how to best deliver universal health care to all Americans while not busting the budget and how to lower carbon emissions without killing the economy – not whether or not we should do either of those things.  I thought that the Democratic Congressional takeover in 2006, followed by Obama’s victory in 2008 would have forced them to reinvent themselves as centrists.  Instead they’ve opted to double down, summarized best by Mitch McConnell after the Republican landslide in 2010; “Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term.”  Not “our top priority is to get Americans back to work” or “to get the economy going again” or “to work with Democrats to get legislation passed which helps all Americans.”  Nope, number one objective is “Screw You Obama.”  If you want to send a message to Republicans that they need to meet Democrats and the majority of the country in the center, you need to vote for Barack Obama.  

Back to Politics (Part 1)

I initially intended this as one entry but, as I so often do, once I got going I found that I had a lot more to say about it than I initially thought.  So I am dividing this into two entries instead – the first expressing my disappointment with Obama’s first term and politics in general, and the second discussing the reasons why I am still supporting Obama for a 2^nd term.

Contrary to what it may appear on this blog, I have by and large steered clear of politics for the past couple years.  I still try and stay current and keep myself informed, but I no longer read the Economist cover to cover every week or watch all the Sunday morning political shows like I did from 2006 to 2010.

A large part of this is, no doubt, purely a function of having a lot less free time than I used to.  With Anabelle and now Charlotte soaking up a lot of that time, I find that I really want to spend the free time that I do have doing something fun and relaxing like watching sports or a movie, reading a good book, playing video games, or, in the rare times that we can get out of the house, having a night out with Christy.  I don’t consider it an abdication of my duty as an American; it’s more that I see it as my role to make an informed decision as to who the best people are to govern and then expecting them to, you know, actually do the job they were elected to do.  Politics as a hobby has lost pretty much all appeal to me, especially since it is always so monumentally frustrating.

Four years ago, things were different.  For the first time in my adult life I actually gave money to a political campaign (to both Obama and McCain in the primary and to Obama in the general election).  And for the first time since I was 17 and interning for state Rep Vince Persico, I volunteered for a campaign.  I still clearly remember driving out to Indiana on a Saturday in October with Joe to knock on doors for 3 hours.  We only talked to about 2 dozen people, most of whom wanted nothing to do with us, but I at least felt like I did something.  Obama ended up carrying Indiana and, though I know it’s almost certainly not true, I like to think that I had just a little bit to do with that.

Today I feel quite differently.  I have been very frustrated with how the last 4 years have gone.  I haven’t given any money or time to any campaign, and don’t plan to in the next 3 weeks.  I, like a whole lot of Americans, am just frustrated by the inane squabbling and posturing of politicians.  Contrary to what the talking heads on the cable news shows will tell you, most Americans would much rather see the country unified and working together towards something (anything) rather than see every single point of either party’s agenda get accomplished – which will never happen anyway.  And that is what I am most disappointed in Obama about.  I did not elect him to solve all of our problems.  I did not think that he had a “silver bullet” solution for the economy – in 2008 most economists agreed that it would take about a decade for us to fully emerge from this crisis and contrary to how the GOP wants to spin it that was always the case and is still today.  But Obama ran on a platform of changing the way Washington works and that is what got me excited.  I don’t expect government to solve our problems; I expect the government to function at a level that allows us to solve our own problems.  And the epic disappointment with Obama is not that he failed at doing that, it’s that he didn’t even try. 

The analogy I use is a family trying to pull itself out of poverty.  Unless you come from money or have otherworldly athletic skills, the best way to succeed in this country today is with a solid education.  But for millions of Americans, that’s just not an option.  They can only afford to live in poor areas with terrible schools and even if they have all the best intentions and graduate high school, more likely than not they don’t have the education fundamentals or the money to succeed in college.  So they do the best they can, scraping by and floundering.  And of course then they have kids of their own, born into the same situation and almost pre-destined to struggle through as well and the cycle just continues.  What it takes to break the cycle is for two parents to decide that they’re going to move to where the education system is better or send their kids to private school, even if those decisions mean that they both need to work 2 jobs and 80-hour weeks, spend next to nothing on non-essential items, and pretty much never take a vacation.  That’s an unbelievably hard thing to actually do – you will miss a lot of your kids growing up and they will probably resent you for it for a long time until they’re old enough to understand why you are doing it – but that’s the kind of commitment it takes if you want to break the cycle.  There’s no glamour in it at all.  You have to be willing to say, “I am not going to be the one to be successful and have a comfortable life, but I will do everything in my power to make sure I am the last generation in my family that has to say that.”

That is what I wanted from Obama.  I didn’t want him to do the “glam” work of solving our health care system or climate change  because, quite simply, I believe these problems to be unsolvable given the current state of our government.  I wanted him to dig in and tackle the rot in the system that makes government so ineffective.  I wanted him to tackle our campaign finance system – which is arguably the one single problem from which most of our other problems (or at least lack of solutions) stem.  I wanted him to address the almost limitless access that lobbyists and big donors have to candidates.  I wanted him to get actively involved in reviewing each and every government program and office, fix or eliminate the ineffective ones, and develop metrics to judge them on and rules for accountability when they fail to live up to expectations.  I wanted him to make some Congressional recommendations mandatory, so that when a bipartisan commission is formed to address a problem (like Medicare, Social Security, or the debt) it isn’t just an exercise in futility when reports and recommendations are completely ignored and never even brought to a vote.

These are the things I wanted him to work on, even if it meant he got crucified in this election for “not working on the real issues.”  If he solved even one or two of the issues above history would remember him as a great President.  As of now, if his Presidency ends this January, the only thing historic about him will be that he shattered the race barrier.  Elsewise, he will be known as yet another in a long line of politicians whose oratory skill greatly exceeded his governing skill – a nice man with lofty ideas who over-promised and under-delivered.

I pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I get on my knees and pray

We don’t get fooled again

When you've got nothing new, rehash the old!

With the new labor numbers coming out 10 days ago, I wanted to revisit an earlier post of mine.  Specifically, this post where I discussed unemployment numbers in historical context.

According to the book I had just finished (This Time is Different), In an analysis of post-1900 banking crises which have occurred (of which there are 14), the authors found that on average the unemployment rises (as measured from trough to peak) by 7 percent and takes an average of 4.8 years to do so.  Now that more time has passed and we at least appear to be in the midst of a recovery (albeit a long and brutal one) I thought it might be interesting to take another look.

Here's an updated graph of unemployment, going back to 2002 (again, taken directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics):



What does this tell us?  As before, the unemployment number technically started its inexorable climb in June 2007 (when it increased from 4.4 to 4.6 and never again dipped below 4.5).  We peaked in October 2009 at 10.1%.  This was all known when I wrote about this before, but at the time there was still the risk of a double-dip recession and a higher peak.  I think that we can now take that off of the table (by which I mean, should another recession hit it will almost certainly be due to a new economic calamity and not this same one revisited upon us).

Now, let's look at how Prognosticator John did.  This is what I wrote back in October 2010:

"we'll finally get unemployment down below 9% by mid-2011, hopefully below 8% by end of 2011, and below 7% by mid-2012 right when the election starts really ramping up. And I really think that 7% is the key number. If it gets below that, I think Obama is reelected easily. If it doesn't, he's got big problems."

How does that analysis stack up to reality?  Well let's just say that it's a good thing I didn't place any bets on those predictions.  We got below 9% unemployment in October 2011, so that wasn't too far off, but we did not manage to finally get below 8% until last month, so I was a good 9 months off there.  However, as to my other prediction (that Obama would have big problems with unemployment above 7%) that appears to be fairly accurate.  He is definitely still the favorite to win (Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight.com has perhaps the best forecasts to be found anywhere) but those odds looked a whole lot rosier one week ago.

Speaking of which, I did watch the debates last week and pretty much everything about it was brutal.  It was a thoroughly boring affair with neither side providing any real specifics as to what they want to do and mostly just regurgitating the same talking points that are showing up in my inbox 5 times per day (and since I gave money to McCain in the 2008 primary season I get the e-mails from both sides).  As bad as Obama was (and he was pretty bad) I am still fairly confident about his chances because of how the story has been framed.  The big story of the night wasn't "Romney blows away everyone with stellar performance" it was "Romney holds his own, and Obama was terrible."  I would be a lot more concerned if ti had been the former rather than the latter because, simply put, you always have the ability to make yourself better, but you are much more limited in your ability to make your opponent look worse.

On a personal note, I believe I recognized what was happening to Obama during that debate, because I have been there myself.  Certainly I have never experienced anything close to that level of stakes and pressure, and I am also certainly not even a fraction of the communicator that he is.  But throughout my career (and even in school to a degree) I have succeeded to a large extent because of my ability to speak extemporaneously and communicate my point in an intelligent, succinct, and thoughtful manner with minimal preparation (keep in mind I'm talking about in school and at work, not after a 12-pack or when arguing sports).  When you have that ability, eventually you get to the point where you just expect it to be there and you don't even think about it anymore.  And then one day (almost always at the worst possible time, I think it's a rule) you just reach down and  . . . nothing.  It's just not there for you and you sound like . . . well, like Obama sounded last Wednesday.

It will be very interesting now to see how he responds in the next debate, because it actually gets back to the panic vs. choke discussion I wrote about with the replacement refs.  Obama has a natural gift as a communicator, but now he must feel abandoned by his gift and there is the real danger that he will overthink and make things worse, like a .300 hitter mired in an 0 for 12 slump who thinks about every pitch instead of just reacting.  But then again, you don't become leader of the free world without some kind of staunch belief in your own awesomeness, so if he can just shrug it off as just one bad night, a certain amount of delusion may serve him well.

One Final Little Black Eye on the Cubs Season

The Florida Marlins just made the Cubs look bad, and they didn't even have to play them to do so.  To understand why, you need to know the story of Adam Greenberg.

Greenberg was a minor league player for the Cubs organization from 2002-2006.  He was never considered a top or even mid-level prospect but, thanks to the Cubs being terrible and not having a lot of other prospects, he nevertheless got a call-up to the big league club in 2005.  I can only imagine how excited he must have been to finally realize a lifelong dream.

How long did that excitement last?  Exactly one pitch.  On the evening of July 9th, 2005 he stepped to the plate in the ninth inning as a pinch-hitter to make his major league debut against Marlins' pitcher Valerio de los Santos.  The first pitch was a 92 MPH fastball that caught Greenberg right in the head.  He was awarded first base but had suffered a mild concussion and was immediately removed from the game.  While he expected to be back in a few weeks, he ended up missing the rest of the season as he continued to suffer from bouts of dizziness and excruciating headaches.

When he finally returned the next season (back in the minors) he was never the same player.  He was released by the Cubs in July 2006, bounced around a couple more MLB organizations (all in the minors), and then played for a few years in an independent league before hanging up his cleats after last year.  He never appeared in another major league game.  His final stat line shows a 1.000 OBP, but since being hit by the pitch is treated like a walk (and thus not an official at bat) he has no batting average and, having never taken the field, no fielding percentage.

Now, I don't mean to overstate things here.  Comparatively speaking, we're not talking about some epic tragedy here.  But if the idea of a kid finally achieving his lifelong dream and then having it instantly and mercilessly ripped away from him doesn't at least strike you as a bit sad, I'm not sure you have a pulse.  This is about the closest I've seen to a real life Monkey Paw moment.

Now cut to this year.  Cubs fan/amateur filmmaker Matt Liston started a "One At Bat" petition to try and get some team to sign Greenberg for a day in order to give him one more shot at his dream.  Now obviously this is not the kind of thing that is expected (or even has the slightest chance) to restart his major league career.  But that's not what this is about.  This is about a sad story which we have in our power to turn into a happy one (or at least one that's a lot less sad).  Sure, it's a publicity stunt but so what?  I am as much of a believer in the integrity of sporting events (see my last post) as anyone but that doesn't mean that we should lose sight of the fact that the ultimate purpose of sports is still to be entertainment.

After collecting over 14,000 signatures Liston approached the Cubs and early last month they gave their answer: pass.  Now if the Cubs were even remotely still alive for any kind of playoff contention or, indeed, if they were doing anything other than stumbling towards their worst finish in 50 years, I could understand the "integrity of the game" argument.  But right now there is no conceivable reason for fans to attend a game at Wrigley other than to have a few beers/hot dogs and enjoy the last couple of warm days before Chicago goes into deep freeze.  It literally cost the Cubs nothing to do this - ok, not quite nothing; 1/162nd of the MLB league minimum salary of $480,000  (i.e. $3000) - but still they passed.  Heck, even if you don't consider $3000 cheap for a PR stunt it would have been worth $3000 just to stop the story of them passing from getting written.  But I guess the Cubs brass didn't think so.  The "integrity" of the game was too important apparently (never mind the fire sale of all the team's tradeable parts at the the deadline).

So Liston next approached the Marlins (after all, it was their pitcher who beaned Mr. Greenberg in the first place) and last week they gave their answer: yes.  They signed him to a 1-day contract effective for tomorrow only, with the proceeds to be donated to a charity.  He will be in uniform tomorrow night when the Marlins face the Mets and, presumably, will be given one at bat.

I don't care that it's a PR stunt.  I don't care that Mr. Greenberg will likely strike out.  I am happy that Mr. Greenberg will get one more chance to stand in a major league batter's box and achieve a little bit of closure, and I'm proud of the Marlins organization for being willing to make the miniscule amount of effort necessary to give this story a happy ending.  And shame on the Cubs for not being willing to do the same.  Shame on them for missing the opportunity to have a positive PR story at the end of this disaster of a season and to send a message to their whole organization that "hey, we know you're not just assets; you're also people who have dreams and we will help you if we can."

Speaking of the Cubs, when Mr. Greenberg steps to the plate tomorrow night, 1000 miles away they will be facing the Houston Astros - literally the only other team in baseball with a worse record than them.  So glad we could "preserve the integrity of the game" by not allowing a PR stunt to distract us fans from this epic matchup.

Now, if Mr. Greenberg gets beaned tomorrow, then I can only conclude that God hates him.

Our Long National Nightmare is Over!

I am referring, of course, to the return of the regular refs to the NFL.

The title is tongue in cheek of course, lest anyone think I really do take football that seriously.  But in all seriousness, the NFL was getting pretty hard to watch, even before the proverbial last straw came in the form of a Golden Tate non-catch-but-still-a-game-winning-TD on Monday night.

Taking an objective approach, you had the makings of a very interesting social experiment in all of this.  Week 1 of the season there were some blown calls to be sure, but everything appeared to be running fairly smoothly.  There was increased scrutiny on the missed calls but there was nothing that really elevated the situation to a crisis level or even made it appear that things were headed that way.

But then something started to happen in week 2.  The players started to realize that the replacement refs weren't able to see as much as the regular refs did, so you started seeing a lot more replays where there was a lot of activity away from the play that usually would have drawn a flag in years past.  And as stories (unconfirmed) started emerging about refs commenting to players about their fantasy teams, it became apparent to both the players and the coaches that these refs were still a bit star-struck and intimidated by the stage.  The result was that both the coaches and the players started ratcheting up their antics during the game.  Now after every play there were 3-4 guys from each team lobbying for a flag and both head coaches screaming from the sidelines.  The pace of the game slowed to a crawl as the refs had to constantly huddle together to talk about each call.  And then a couple times a game they would make a mistake in the application of a rule (enforcing a penalty from the original line of scrimmage instead of at the spot of the foul, for example) and the league officials in the booth would have to buzz down to stop play so that the mistake could be corrected.

Predictably, all of these things together just served to keep undermining the confidence of the refs, which in turn just led to worse decisions and more mistakes till it became a positive feedback loop.  By last weekend, the game really started to look and feel drastically different.  I would love to see a side by side comparison of the Sunday night game between the Patriots and Ravens and the AFC championship game from January between the same two teams.  I think it would look like half the rulebook had been changed.  You had defenders basically tackling blockers away from the ball downfield, cornerbacks teeing off on receivers and not getting called for PI, and then barely touching them the next time and drawing a flag.

It all reminds me of the Malcolm Gladwell description of the difference between choking and panicking.  Choking is what a professional does - it's when a skill that they have been naturally good at their entire life and never had to think about before suddenly abandons them and they end up no longer reacting to things but overthinking everything and just making more and more mistakes.  Greg Norman at  the 1996 Masters is the textbook example of this. 

Panic, on the other hand, is the realm of the amateur.  This is what happens when someone gets in over their head and just does not have the knowledge or the skill to cope and, in realizing this, just loses the ability to see things objectively and rationally.  The plane crash and death of JFK Jr.  is a good example.

To me, the replacement refs clearly started to panic and that is what elevated this situation from a minor, tolerable nuisance into a crisis in short order.  You could almost see and feel the fear these officials felt as the scrutiny, criticism, and pressure mounted on them.  And it's not surprising to me in the least that they caved under it.  They were ordinary passengers being asked to fly a 747.  Everything's easy while the plane is flying straight and level, but as soon as warning lights and alarms start going off things deteriorate very quickly.

So with all that having been said, I am both very glad to see the real refs return and I hold absolutely no ill feelings towards the replacement refs.  Tonight's Browns/Ravens game is likely to be the first and only time that a crew of referees get a standing ovation as they are announced.  I wonder how long after that before the first call gets booed.  It's likely to be the shortest honeymoon in history.

Back Again

On the off-chance that I do still have the occasional reader or two, I thought I might try blogging again for a change.

Two stories caught my eye today, that I had some quick thoughts on.  First there's this one, about a dog in Kazakhstan who reportedly died while saving his owner's life by pulling him off the railroad tracks.  I am not trying to be insensitive in any way but this story (at least as it's written) makes absolutely no sense.  You have a guy passed out on the railroad tracks.  A train is coming, so the dog starts to pull the guy off of the tracks.  The story distinctly says that he dragged him (not pushed him) to safety and then was hit.  How does the dog safely drag the owner away yet still get hit by the train?  It just doesn't logistically work.  If the dog was dragging him, he should have been farther away from the train than the guy.  The only way it possibly makes sense is if there were two trains coming from opposite directions and the dog pulled the guy from one track into the middle, which then left the dog standing on the other tracks exposed.  That seems quite unlikely though.  I find it far more likely that the guy, who is described as being "suicidal" and "had passed out on the tracks after drinking a bottle of alcohol", simply fell asleep next to the tracks, left his dog unattended, and the dog was simply hit.  So rather than saying "yeah I'm an irresponsible drunken pet owner who just caused my dog's death" he decides to say "my heroic dog died saving my life."  Or maybe not.  Could be there's a very logical explanation for what happened and the dog really did die saving his owner.  I'm just saying that once again our wonderful media, in an effort to get a tear-jerking story out to the public as quickly as possible, has failed to provide us with an extremely basic level of information on what exactly happened.

On a somewhat lighter note, I saw the headline for this story: The Feds Can't Catch the Cartels' Cocaine-Filled Submarines and seriously thought that the story was about cartels deciding to smuggle drugs inside sandwiches.  I was both embarrassed and disappointed to discover that I was wrong.

On the political front, with the election less than 2 months away it's looking like the Romney campaign is on life support.  The overall national numbers look pretty comparable but he is behind in several key swing states, including Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin and the math is such that he basically needs all of them in order to win and that just seems unlikely.  Or rather, it seems unlikely that his campaign will have the ability to turn those numbers around on their own.  At this point, it will take another Lehman Brothers-like domestic disaster or a huge international incident to shake up this race.  Even so, the way this country is polarized right now I find it hard to believe that there are really a ton of undecided voters left out there.  Nor should there be; it isn't as if either of these candidates are mysteries to the public.  Both of them have pretty much been nationally campaigning non-stop for the last 6 years.  The only way you don't know about either of them is if you have willfully chosen to completely ignore politics over that entire period.  And if you have in fact done that, it is incredibly unlikely you'll suddenly start paying attention now in the last 50-some days.

Our News Media: The Max Powers Way

Homer: There are 3 ways of doing things.  The right way, the wrong way, and the Max Powers way.
Bart: Isn't that still the wrong way?
Homer: Yeah, but faster!

I was reminded of this Simpsons quote (since all of life can be summed up in Simpsons quotes) after watching both CNN and Fox News butcher the Supreme Court ruling last Thursday.

Now, I hate to make a really big deal over what amounted to a 2-7 minute hiccup but it's just such a perfect illustration of what's wrong with our news media today.  Be first.  At all costs.  Accuracy is a distant secondary concern.  It's bad enough that these 24-hour "news" channels present their own spin as fact, but now they're not even waiting to see what the facts are.  And the worst part is that they will learn nothing from this.  NBC and CBS were embarrassed in 2000 when they called Florida for Gore too early, and both vowed to do a more careful job in waiting for results before reporting on them.  Now they had all the facts in their hand but just couldn't wait the 3 minutes for someone to actually read through the decision before reporting on it.  Seriously, do we really need to actually see the on-location reporter reading the decision on the air?  Whatever happened to determining the facts and then deciding the best way to present them to the public?  Is this a novel idea, or hopelessly retro?

On another note, this decision surprised me in another way.  On Wednesday night I thought to myself "well, one way or another, this will all be over tomorrow" - it will be upheld or it won't but either way we can move on.  Little did I know that there would be another way.  Upheld, seemingly handing the President and Democrats a  victory, but labeled a tax, which is red meat for Republicans in an election year.

For what it's worth (very, very little) I believe the Supreme Court made the right call. As much as Democrats  tried to call it something else, it really is just a tax/penalty and thus well within Congress' rights.

What To Do With All That Leftover Easter Candy

Does this make me a creative genius, incredibly fat, or both?

Ignoring My Own Advice

One of my favorite pieces of advice to give people is pretty simple: "don't listen to me, listen to you." I find that about 90% of the time when I talk to someone about a problem, they seem to already know what the best way to handle it is and all I end up saying is "yes, I think you're right". And it never ceases to amaze me when the same person who just told me what the best solution was then goes out and immediately does the exact opposite.

Well, this time it's me doing it as I didn't listen to my own advice: I went and saw Van Halen again.

I am one of the biggest Van Halen fans that ever walked the Earth. I've now seen them 9 times since 1994 (and that doesn't even include the 3 times I've seen Sammy Hagar solo and the one time I saw Sammy and DLR solo on tour together). I also own every studio album on CD (yep, even the brand new one) and I still remember going around to ARC Record Conventions in the pre-internet days scouring dealer booths for bootleg cassettes, VHS tapes, and even the occasional $60 CD. Nevertheless, back in 2007 about midway through my 8th time seeing them (which also happened to be my 2nd time seeing them that week) I suddenly knew beyond all doubt that I never needed to see them again. And yet I did. And how appropriate that the show was a week ago Sunday. Yep, April Fool's Day.

It isn't that the show was truly bad and was torture to sit through. It's just that I found myself completely unable to get excited about it. David Lee Roth has always been a terrible singer live - even when he actually tries to "sing" instead of just talking his way through he still makes absolutely no effort to stay within the rhyme and meter of the way the song was recorded. He was able to get away with it back in the day due to his undeniable raw charisma. Well, what's original and charismatic in your 20s and early 30s just looks lazy and tired when you're in your late 50s.

And then there's Eddie. God bless him, he's still one of the greatest rock guitarists out there. The trouble is that even though that's true, he's a mere shadow of his former self. I used to go to a Van Halen show and hang on his every note; I'd strain to hear each note of every solo and actually hoping that somewhere along the way he would screw up. Because it was like hearing God make a mistake - that tiny trace of an imperfection which offered the reassurance that he was human after all. Since seeing him in 2004 when he was quite, shall we say, chemically unbalanced, that perspective has flipped. Now as each solo approaches I think "please don't screw this up Eddie". And for the most part he does just fine, but this is Eddie F'n Van Halen we're talking about here - "just fine" does not cut it. I wish I could look and listen to him while comparing him to the rest of the guitarists out there but I can't. I can only compare him to himself, and he just doesn't measure up anymore.

Really, it's not his fault. The guy's 57 years old and to compare him to his 20 and 30-year-old self is admittedly unfair. But just like it was sad to see Michael Jordan those last few years on the Wizards, it's sad to see EVH now. But here's the thing - that's when Michael Jordan retired, and that's what I think it's time for Van Halen to do.

I don't think this is specific to Van Halen though. The more I've thought about it over the last week, I think I've decided that all rock musicians should stop when they hit 40. Really, can you think of a single rock musician where, if they had stopped at age 40, the world would have been denied some of there best work? *Maybe* U2, but that's about it. Everyone else I can think of has released albums that are either downright awful or merely decent, but nothing great. Hell, I actually think that the latest Van Halen album is pretty good, but that's because 75% of it are unreleased songs that Eddie wrote 25-35 years ago.

This is a problem that's specific to rock music, I think, because rock is the music of conflict. Whether it's a political struggle or resisting conformity or just wanting the right to get high and/or drunk and/or have sex all day and not give a shit about anything else - it is predominantly about fighting for something. Thus rock is by definition the music of the young and energetic. So I think that there is just something inherently sad about seeing aging, decrepit rock stars up there singing the rock anthems of their youth. It's not that I don't think they have the right to do it, or that people don't want to see them do it, it's just that somewhere along the line I wish they'd realize "alright, that's enough already" and stop, even though I know they won't.

At least stop making new music. I think they should hit 40 and take 10 years off. Then at 50 you can come back out and play your old hits if your fans still want to pay to hear them. Just do it with the full knowledge of what you are at that point - a nostalgia act. Realize that, whether you like it or not, no matter how good you were in your glory days your contribution to the pantheon of rock music is done. You're not "still going strong" or "still rocking after all these years" - you've basically been reduced to being your own tribute band.

Taken in that context, I think that was my real problem with the Van Halen show. They still think they're a current rock band, and I was hanging onto that too. Instead, if I had gone to the show with the mindset of "oh, I just wanna get drunk and sing 'Panama' with 15,000 people one more time" I probably would have enjoyed it a lot more. Hey, maybe I will go see them one more time after all . . .

Just kidding.

I think.

Bye Bye Prius

Yesterday was a bit of a bittersweet day as we finally said goodbye to our beloved Prius. It gave us over 67,000 miles without once breaking down on us or needing any work whatsoever other than regular maintenance and a new set of tires. It was also our first new car. Yep, for four and a half years it was pretty much perfect for us.

Thus, it was sad to see it go but it was just time. The catalyst was a few weeks ago when Christy went out looking at double-strollers and realized that none of them would fit in the back. That led to a realization of just how often we have used the space in the backseat next to Anabelle for cargo, space which is of course now permanently occupied by Charlotte. We tried to see if Charlotte would be open to having the occasional grocery bag or box of litter on her lap but found her surprisingly unreceptive (such a prima donna). And then I just started imagining a day not too far off in the future when my wife would call me from the Sam's Club parking lot in hysterics because she bought too much stuff and has no room for it and Charlotte and Anabelle are both screaming and now she has to try to drive home with a bag of cat food in her lap and rolls of toilet paper strapped to the roof.

Incidentally, I was relaying this concern of mine to a co-worker (who also has two kids) when he informed me that a few years ago they went to Costco and bought so much that they ran out of space and he and the kids had to walk home while his wife drove the car. They live less than a mile away so it wasn't too bad, but still. As you can imagine, now every time he pulls up to Costco with them he gets to hear "are we gonna have to walk home again dad?" Can you put a price on that? More to the point, can you put a price on avoiding that?

So we definitely needed to get something bigger. We toyed with the idea of keeping the Prius and maybe just getting a big, cheap, used 2nd car that we'd only use for big shops and long road trips. But we had to face the fact that at 67,000+ miles the Prius was not going to last forever and this was probably our last chance to trade it in and still get decent value for it.

My first choice was to get one of the smaller SUVs but we took a look at a Rav4 and, even though we liked it, didn't feel like it offered all that much more storage space for the money (especially considering the dramatic reduction in fuel efficiency). Plus Christy really wanted a 3rd row of seats, something that I didn't view as absolutely essential but that would be nice to have. Trouble is that most vehicles offering a 3rd row are either extremely expensive ($35k+), extreme gas guzzlers (less then 20 MPG), or both. Christy was also adamant that she did not want a minivan.

So we pretty much needed a new car for less than $25k that averaged aroun 25 MPG, had a 3rd row of seats, and that wasn't a minivan. Does anything like that exist? The answer is yes, sort of. There's pretty much one (and only one) option - the Mazda5, so that's what we got. The "sort-of" part about it is that, yes, it is technically a minivan. It's actually a "mini-minivan" that is low to the ground and looks and drives like a wagon, but has the sliding doors and folding seats that are hallmarks of the minivan. At first glance, most people would not think of it as a minivan (which is of course the point) but once you look at it for a while it slowly morphs into one.

Thus, I suppose the transition into suburban parenthood is now complete. I would be more upset about the final death blow to my coolness except that I had very very little coolness to begin with. Still, it's a strange experience because until now I have always been very excited to buy my next car, secure in the knowledge that what I was getting was much better (in at least some ways) than what I was giving up. Not the case here. The best I can say is that we didn't give up much - we have almost all the same features but gave up a lot of fuel efficiency and a paid-off car in exchange for more space, a sunroof, and 60 months of payments (albeit fairly low payments). Ah yes, the joy and excitement of responsibility and compromise. Woo hoo!

Anybody Seen February Anywhere?

It seems like I lost it. Just don't know where it went. Oh well, I'm sure it will turn up somewhere.

So . . . since last I blogged my family grew by exactly one-third. How many times do you get to say that? Just once, I think. Well, unless we decide to have 5 more kids and then have triplets, but I'd classify that as somewhat less than likely so we won't worry about that for now.

Charlotte was born exactly 2 weeks ago today. She was much more considerate than her sister in that she sent Christy into labor at 6:00 A.M. as opposed to 12:30 A.M., so everyone in the house was at least moderately well-rested. Christy and Charlotte came home that Sunday and we have been busy adjusting to the "new normal" ever since.

They say that with a 2nd child the one thing you're not supposed to do is make comparisons to the first. I say that if you happen to be an actual human, on this planet, occupying this particular plane of reality, it's inevitable.

Here's what's the same. First, no matter how prepared you are, when you hear your wife say "I think my water just broke" it still seems sudden and unexpected. I don't know how many kids you'd have to have before the whole experience of running around and getting ready to leave, getting to and checking into the hospital, and going through the whole labor and delivery process seems routine. It's a lot more than 2 though. Maybe once you get into Duggar territory. It definitely was less hectic and anxiety-inducing than last time, but only incrementally so. Secondly, the moment you see your child for the first time is just as amazing. The phenomenon of seeing someone for the first time but literally in an instant being struck with such an intense feeling of love and a fierce desire to protect them is just as overwhelming the 2nd time as it is the first.

What's different? Well, pretty much everything else. For one thing, there is an expression that "once something is known it cannot be unknown." In other words, in some instances naivety and ignorance are a blessing. Leading up to Anabelle, I knew that it would be a challenge and that there would be sleepless nights but it all just seemed so surreal and mysterious that I really had no solid conception of what our life would be like with a newborn. That is no longer the case with Charlotte. I remember exactly what it felt like to hold a tiny little creature in my hands who screamed at me for 2 hours straight with complete and utter disregard to the 100 things I did to try to placate her and I knew that at some point in the next couple months that was going to happen again, probably multiple times. I also found myself pretty much assuming that all of the difficulties we had with Anabelle would be repeated, while also being convinced that everything that was easy and went well with her will not happen again. And this is not imagined in some vague, hypothetical scenario - now that I have had some real world experience to draw from, I can vividly picture it. I don't mean to indicate that I live in a constant state of mortal terror, just that I no longer have the luxury of being clueless. In reality, so far I'd actually say that Charlotte's habits and temperament have been remarkably similar to Anabelle's.

Then there is the matter of attention to detail. With Anabelle I found myself obsessed with her every move and facial expression. Was she looking at me? Was she trying to grab that toy? Did she see the cat and does she realize what it is? Was that a smile or just gas? I read all my daddy books to find out when to expect the myriad of milestones (rolling over, crawling, etc) and then always silently but consistently marked her progress against the "norms". It is only in hindsight that I realized that it wasn't till somewhere in the 3-6 month range that Anabelle's personality really began to emerge and that, well, that's pretty much the case with all babies. So with Charlotte I just find myself being a lot more patient about this whole process. I realize that right now her body is busy developing, um, pretty much everything, and that what we are mainly seeing at this point are reflex actions. Soon enough all of those reflexes will be replaced by deliberate thoughts and actions and we'll really get to meet her.

From a logistical standpoint, it certainly is crazier with two (and through 2 weeks neither Christy or I have spent more than a couple hours alone with both Anabelle and Charlotte) but somehow there is just something much more clarifying about it. With Anabelle, I find that we got ourselves in trouble a lot easier. By this I mean that we'd get Anabelle to sleep and then we'd both go about doing our normal activities (i.e. watching TV, playing video games, shopping, etc). So then Anabelle would decide to have one of her bad, stay-up-all-night episodes and neither one of us would be in any condition to handle it. Now, with very few exceptions, when Anabelle is asleep (whether it's a nap or for the night) then either Christy or I need to be asleep too. Period. Otherwise we're just setting ourselves up for disaster. We also just completely accepted the fact that until probably the one-month mark we will never be sleeping in our bed at the same time.

Overall, I think that we have been adjusting pretty well. It's certainly more of a challenge with two kids, but it's not twice as hard. By comparison, going from 0 to 1 is the one that's twice as hard.

Or maybe it just means that my wife is doing all the work this time . . .

I Am Having Trouble Counting the Number of Ways This Article Bothers Me

This one here. If you don't feel like clicking through, I'll summarize. On this week's episode of Modern Family, it is going to appear that a toddler drops an f-bomb, and this is apparently causing a controversy amongst anti-profanity advocates.

Did you ever see that Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns goes to the doctor for a check-up? They tell him that he's actually the sickest man alive, but that it's as-if all of the germs are trying to squeeze through a doorway at once and none can get through. That's kind of how I feel about this article. I have so many objections and they're all trying to get through at once it's such that I'm having trouble expressing them. But I'll try.

First of all just the idea of an "anti-profanity" group is comically ridiculous. Now, I guess in my logical mind I was aware that people and groups like this existed. I mean, as the world approaches a population of 7 billion you can be almost positive that if your mind can conceive of anything that could be remotely considered a cause, someone somewhere has decided to make it their key issue to devote blood, sweat, and tears to. Yet my mind still reels when I have to conceive of a person who looks at the problems of this world (war, hunger, homelessness, cancer, AIDS, child labor, Michael Bay) and has decided "gee, someone really needs to stop all these people from swearing." But if you've seen this Penn & Teller episode, you know that these people are dead serious about this "cause". I believe that the argument runs somewhere along the lines of what NYC did in the early 90s - i.e. stop small crimes which will help change the culture and people's perception which will then stop larger crimes - but it doesn't matter. They're wrong and they're wasting their lives. Now let me waste no more of my own life talking about them.

Now we come to the 2nd problem - no actual profanity is occurring. Not only is ABC bleeping out the word and pixelating the mouth, the toddler actress herself didn't even swear - she said "fudge". So now we are not protesting profanity, we are protesting the appearance of profanity. This is the equivalent of a parent grounding a child for talking back one time, and then the next time the child doesn't talk back but still gets grounded anyway because he gave them "a look". You know what? That's giving this group too much credit. It's more like two small children fighting in the back seat: "Moooooommmmmm, Billy's poking me!"; "Stop poking your brother Billy" followed a few minutes later by, inevitably, "Mooooooommmmmm, Billy's looking at me!"

Then there's problem number 3, and that's the fact that this is even being reported on. When a "sane" person (like a political candidate, celebrity, or CEO) says something crazy, I understand how that's news. It's a person of influence who has a reputation making a statement that alters or destroys that public perception, so I can see how it qualifies for widespread public distribution. But when crazy people and/or people with very extremist views say crazy things, that's not news. And yes I do realize the giant irony of me writing about and therefore bringing attention to something which I am arguing deserves absolutely no attention. If this were the only problem that I had with this story, I would have remained silent.

So now we come to my fourth, and biggest problem, with this story. And that's the fact that it really isn't true. Yes, I do believe that there is an "organization" called the "No Cussing Club" and that the founder of this organization really does want this show pulled off the air. But that's irrelevant. The point is that there is absolutely no controversy. I'd call it a manufactured controversy but nothing's really been manufactured. It's a manufactured appearance of a controversy.

Think about this for a second. Imagine me saying the craziest thing you can think of in this space. Something really controversial and just completely crazy like that there were no planes that hit the WTC on 9/11. Wait, what? Some people actually have said that? Seriously? WTF is wrong with people? Anyway, the point is that no matter what I say on this blog (and for the sake of agument let's pretend that I have an audience of greater than 6 people) I guarantee you that it will not get picked up by the AP.

So why is it that this story was picked up? Because it's a commercial masquerading as news. It's an ad for Modern Family that Disney/ABC didn't have to pay for. Obviously this is only my opinion, and I realize that I am veering dangerously close to conspiracy theorist territory here, but I think a little bit of thought makes it not only plausible, but likely. I don't have empirical proof of course, but I'd be willing to bet that there are many, many groups that have a problem with Modern Family purely on the basis of it depicting two gay parents raising a child. There's probably also an anti-gay group that also is anti-profanity too but you wouldn't hear from them. Why? Because that's too close to an actual controversy, and that wouldn't be good press. But this? This is just free air time and ad space! Disney and ABC can feed this story to the wire services, this "advocate" can think he's getting more attention to his cause, and people will click on it so they can look at fun, distracting "news" and feel superior to this person. But the truth is that we are all just being used by Network Executives. They thought "how can we capitalize on the recent Emmy win and get more people to notice us?" and this is what they came up with. Ask yourself how is it that this is being protested before it has even aired? Was there an advance copy made available? And how is it that it comes out of the AP wire at 11:00 E.T. on Wednesday, which is coincidentally the night that Modern Family airs. It's all just so transparent.

Look, I have nothing against Modern Family. I don't think it's a phenomenal show, but I find it entertaining and definitely better than 90% of what else is on TV (though that may not be saying much). But I don't like being manipulated, and I especially don't like being given an ad that I'm told is news. We have media that is separate from the government because our founders realized the inherent danger of having the government completely control the flow of information. Well, it's pretty dangerous when the message is purely corporate-controlled too. And this, while a fairly minor betrayal, is a good example of why.

Politics - Where Logic is Checked at the Door

Just a brief foray back into politics. I watched the Iowa results sparingly last night even though I wasn't all that interested - hey, something had to fill the time during the Sugar Bowl commercials after the Bulls game ended.

With Romney's narrow win last night, commanding lead in New Hampshire, and an endorsement by John McCain it looks like only a mammoth scandal is going to keep him from the nomination at this point. Gingrich is a long way back right now in New Hampshire and I just don't think he can overcome the momentum if he loses the first two states. My recollection may be wrong, but it seems to me that when the first two states split (as in Obama/Clinton and Huckabee/McCain in 2008) then the race is still open but when one candidate sweeps both (as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004) it's pretty much over.

So it would seem like Gingrich is the big loser last night. Had Santorum won, a victory by Romney next week would signal a split and keep the race open because, despite what various political cable news shows may say to fill their around-the-clock programming, no one believes Santorum has any kind of real chance to be the nominee.

It appears that Gingrich knows this as well; as he is now out trying like hell to spin the results in his favor. To that effect, he unleashed this gem earlier today in reference to Romney:"The fact is three out of four Republicans rejected him." I'm not sure what it takes more of - balls or stupidity - to say that. Doesn't that statement just beg the question: hey Newt; where'd you finish last night? Oh, 13%? Hmm, doesn't that mean that 7 out of 8 Republicans rejected you? It's the kind of thing you say from the stump to your fervent but dejected supporters. People that aren't really going to critically assess your statement and are just looking for a reason to keep believing. Perhaps he didn't notice that in addition to those individuals there are these other people with cameras and microphones there too, and they are more than willing and able to print this nonsense and show it in the harsh light of day.

Anyway, so it's Romney. You excited about that Republicans? I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is 1996 all over again. I remember that one well because I was in the midst of interning for a Republican state rep and also was a card-carrying member of the Young Republicans. I remember being so excited after the landslide Congressional victory in 2004 and salivating as Clinton's approval numbers just continued to tank. There was blood in the water, and the Republicans were poised to strike. And then: Dole. Dole? Yes, Dole. No, surely we can come up with someone better than Dole. Nope, we can't; it's Dole. The results were predictable from there. Hell, 2004 was the exact same thing on the other side with Kerry. The fact is that a campaign that is strictly an anti-incumbency one doesn't work; if you don't excite, motivate, and mobilize the masses you will lose. End of story. Because while the answer to "do you want this guy or someone else?" is usually "someone else", the answer to "do you want this guy or that guy?" is an entirely different matter.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Just a token post to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and to let it be known that I still have not officially declared this blog dead and that I plan to continue letting it slowly wither on the vine until I literally do not have a single reader left. (and I'm oh so tantalizingly close now . . .) Basically, I'm in search of the day where I can write an eloquent post intimating that I have discovered the truth about myself - that I am actually a small colony of meerkats in a man costume - and not get one post or comment indicating anything out of the norm.

Not a whole lot going on right now. The Holidays were of course eventful and hectic as they always are. And as expected no one enjoyed Christmas more than Anabelle, but I'll let Christy take care of those details on her blog. On Christmas Eve I had victory within my grasp but fell a few rolls short in the annual Risk game. Damn those Alaskans and their pesky defenses!

In semi-intellectual pursuits I am currently reading Republic Lost, a new book about corruption in politics and the need for campaign finance reform. Here's one quote that I've found particularly interesting so far:

"The Republican party is now facing a great crisis. It is to decide whether it will be, as in the days of Lincoln, the party of the plain people, the party of progress, the party of social and industrial justice; or whether it will be the party of privilege and of special interests, the heir to those who were Lincoln's most bitter opponents, and the party that represents the great interests within and without Wall Street which desire through their control over the servants of the public to be kept immune from punishment when they do wrong and to be given privileges to which they are not entitled."

I think that sounds like a pretty apt description and criticism of the Republican party today, except that this quote was said by Teddy Roosevelt almost 100 years ago (April 1912). The more things change . . .

Sweetness

I just finished reading Sweetness, the new biography on Walter Payton. It's become somewhat controversial because, as you would expect from the first truly definitive biography, it dares to show Walter Payton as (gasp) an actual human being and not some larger than life persona who could do no wrong.

As a beloved figure in the sports world and particularly in Chicago, I suppose that this is inevitable. People do not like to have their idols torn down. And there definitely is something special about Payton. If you go to the Bears game this weekend you will still see a lot of people wearing Walter Payton jerseys. There will be a smattering of Singletary, Ditka, Butkus, and maybe even Sayers jerseys but I suspect that after Urlacher, Cutler, and Hester (all current players) that far and away the most popular jersey you'll see is Payton, despite the fact that he played his last game nearly 24 years ago.

So does the book really tarnish his image? I would say that it does. While the positives outweigh the negatives by an unbelievably wide margin, a couple of the negatives are pretty damning. Supposedly, Payton popped painkillers like they were candy. That's not terribly surprising given the amount of punishment his body took. He also suffered from terrible bouts of depression after he retired. Also not surprising, given that many athletes suffer through similar issues and what we now know about the damage caused by repetitive blows to the head. Then there is the philandering. Supposedly Payton could rival Wilt Chamberlain in that category. But of course as a professional athlete, that type of behavior is certainly not out of the norm. So all of those are revelatory, but not altogether shocking. The big bombshell (at least as far as I'm concerned) is that he fathered an illegitimate child and then completely ignored him. Literally never saw him once, despite the fact that until Payton's death he never lived more than 30 miles away from him. He did financially support him and the mother whenever they asked for it, but I view that more as self-interest since he wanted to make sure she didn't run to the press about it.

I have found the reaction to these revelations to be very interesting. Mike Ditka said (about the author) that he would "spit on him" if he ever saw him, despite the fact that he cooperated on the book. And Ron Rivera (his former teammate) has said "It’s unfortunate somebody wrote a book and throws that kind of light on somebody who's not here to defend himself." So keep in mind that neither of these people are suggesting that what is revealed in the book isn't true, just that it shouldn't be written about. That's a head-scratcher to me. So if we wish to write something negative about someone, we are limited to only doing it while they are alive? Once they are gone, we should limit ourselves only to a person's positive aspects? If so, I'd be very interested to read the Ron Rivera version of Hitler's life.

I have always been of the belief that it is never wrong to speak the truth. There are times when, in the interests of politeness or conflict avoidance, it may be better to lie, but I still would never fault anyone for telling the truth. I've always thought that one of the big motivators to leading a good and moral life was so that the memory of that would live on in the people that you affected. But if everyone's going to remember you in a good light anyway after you die, I guess you might as well just act like a selfish jackass.

Really though, I do understand the reaction. It reminds me of a Simpsons episode. Lisa uncovers some terrible truths about the town's founder, Jebediah Springfield. In the end, she decides not to reveal what she found to the townspeople because she says that the memory and legacy of Jebediah Springfield has value too, and she didn't want to take that away from people even though Jebediah himself didn't deserve to be beloved. I suppose it is the same here. Walter Payton wronged some people, and he deserved to have those truths exposed. But the people who admired and respected him probably didn't deserve to have that taken from them.

As I said, on the other side of these revelations are all the things that were truly incredible about Payton's life. His work ethic was unbelievable - it literally would be impossible to overstate his commitment to keeping himself in peak shape. There are also dozens of stories (and, according to the author, literally hundreds more that were didn't make it into the book) about Payton going out of his for one of his fans. It's not just that he would agree to meet a sick child that happened to be on the same airplane with him, he'd sit down and talk to him for half an hour. He's agree to make an appearance somewhere and speak for 10 minutes, and then he'd stick around for 4 hours and just talk to everyone. In an age of diva star athletes, that's really refreshing. And of course the way that he approached the end of his life can only be described as extremely courageous. Once he made the decision to go public about his disease, he didn't hide from it or from anyone. He just continued to go about his business, giving speeches, meeting his fans, catching up with old friends and teammates - all the way until he no longer physically could.

In the end, I still have a lot of great memories of watching Sweetness play for the Bears. He's one of the main reasons I became a Bears fan in the first place. I have even more respect for him as a football player than I ever have, and I truly believe that, taken as a whole, he was the greatest running back of all time. After reading this, though, I'd have to say that I won't think of him in quite the same way ever again. But you know what, that's ok. I'd rather have the truth.

Happy Halloween

Baseball finally, mercifully, ends tonight. Which means that after tonight I can finally start thinking about . . . the next baseball season. The baseball season is dead; long live the baseball season! Oh, and have I mentioned before that I hate the Cardinals? The kind of burning, searing hatred that you could really cook a nice steak on.

Even though Halloween isn't till Monday, this is still the official honorary Halloween party weekend. Come to think of it, what's so sacred about October 31st? Can't we just say that Halloween is the last Saturday in October? I mean, if we can do it for Easter, Thanksgiving, Labor Day, Memorial Day, and MLK Day why can't we do it here? This sounds like the kind of pointless and trivial endeavor that I could really get behind. What cities and/or streets do I have to occupy to get this done?

This year the Delaney household isn't too geared up for Halloween. It's kind of an odd age for Anabelle. She's not yet old enough to really get into the idea of dressing up as something (well, for more than 30 seconds at a time) but she's old enough to rebel against anything we try to dress her up as. She has a cow costume and she tolerates that well, with the exception that she won't wear the bell and isn't too keen on the hood either. In any case, Christy and I will be off to Phil and Liz's 2nd annual Halloween Party tomorrow night. We're trying to come up with a coordinated outfit that incorporates her pregnancy; so far the best we've come up with is Christy being an 8-ball and me being a pool cue. Not sure if that's what we're going to end up with though.

I have been lamenting the lack of good scary movies this Halloween season. For the last 6 years we've always at least had a Saw film. Even though they haven't been any good since 2 it was at least something dependable. Now we're getting annual Paranormal Activity movies and they're just not doing it for me. I saw the first one and thought it was decent but that it was really just an extension of the Blair Witch concept and there's a definite "been there, done that" vibe for me. Even though it's not really horror (more horror spoof) I would like to give a very hearty recommendation to Dale and Tucker vs. Evil. It's a really funny and interesting take on the whole "college kids go to a cabin in the woods and run into a couple rednecks" horror cliche. The studio did this really awkward release with it where it was available on-demand before it got a limited release in theatres. It's still available On-Demand and at Amazon, or you can wait till it's released on DVD/Blu at the end of November. I would urge you not to watch the trailer though; it gives away way too much. And for any of you Serenity/Firefly fans out there, all you really need to know is that it stars Alan Tudyk (aka Wash).

And finally, on Monday this blog will officially be 5-years-old! Wow, it seems like just yesterday I was bringing it home from the blogosphere and it was typing its first words. How time flies! Pretty much the only thing that hasn't changed since then is my place of employment, but I'm working on that.

My New Children's Book: Curious Hank and the Bad Simile

This story is going to be remembered this way: Hank Williams Jr. compared Obama to Hitler and ESPN fired him for it. It's a perfect microcosm of our news media today: succinct, sensationalized, and completely inaccurate.

First of all I'll put my linguistics/grammar hat on and analyze what HW Jr actually said. He said that Obama and Boehner playing golf together "would be like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu." So let's parse this down. Suppose that instead of using this poorly conceived wording, he had instead opted to say "Obama and Boehner is like oil and water." Would we then expect the headline to read "HW Jr. Calls Obama Oil". No; that would be nonsensical. But it's just as nonsensical here. The "point" he was trying to make is that Obama and Biden are the enemy and "our guy" (Boehner) should not be fraternizing with the enemy.

The reason it is important to draw this distinction is that when this becomes a "dumb celebrity says dumb thing" story, it completely buries the real issue here. And that's the fact that we have a large contingent of people in this country who believe what HW Jr believes: that Obama and Biden are not political adversaries that need to be engaged, persuaded, and/or voted out, but that they are enemies that need to be alienated and eradicated. Such is the political climate in this country right now. It was not created by the media but they have certainly done their best to stoke the flames. Thus, I did not want to see an apology from HW Jr. for the Hitler comment; I could care less about that. I want an acknowledgement that people on the other side of the political spectrum are not "enemies".

Shockingly, I'm going to make a sports analogy here. My team is the Bears. Every Sunday I want them to beat the living crap out of their opponents. I will get angry when my team loses, and in the middle of the game I don't have fond feelings for the other team. But once the game is over I don't balk when I see players from both teams shake hands and maybe hug in the middle of the field. The game's over, there are winners and losers, and you move on. So it should be in politics. You fight, you win/lose, you shake hands and move on. Opponents today may be allies the next and vice versa. You're not enemies; just on different teams.

The "HW Jr" mentality isn't like that though; it's more akin to gang warfare. You're wearing the wrong colors and therefore you're my enemy and I hope you die. It's sad because politicians generally DO have the NFL and not the gang mentality. You would hope that when the public sees politicians on different sides of the aisle socializing together that it would dawn on them that "hey, they just disagree; they don't actually hate each other." Sadly, that doesn't happen. Politicians could do a lot to help their own cause by placing a lot more emphasis on stating that they are attacking a position and not a person. Yeah, I don't see that happening either.

Now we come to the 2nd part of the story, which is that HW Jr got fired from ESPN as a result of his comments. I've already written about this kind of thing numerous times on here so I won't harp too much. But it's absolutely ridiculous that someone loses their job over something like this. He wasn't on the air representing ESPN, or the NFL, or anyone other than himself. Yeah, it's not technically a violation of his free speech rights since the government isn't doing anything to him, but it's still a croc. It's becoming a de facto law that what you say in public cannot contradict the position of your employer. That's just very dangerous, especially considering that the definition of "in public" is expanding by the day.

A Revelation

I had an epiphany the other day. Not one of those life-changing, re-evaluate the value of your existence kind of things. More along the lines of a random observation of something quite trivial that nonetheless immediately struck me as true.

You know how disco music is instantly recognizable as "disco"? There is just something about the drum and bass lines that scream the mid-70s. Even if you've never heard the song before and know nothing about it, you'd instantly know when it was from within a margin of error of 2-3 years. Similarly, when you hear those horrible synthesizers masquerading as real instruments you instantly know that it's from the 80s. And with both of those, there is always this question (at least in my mind) of "did people ever really think this sounded good?" Don't get me wrong, I enjoy 80s pop songs, but it's almost all on a level akin to bad movie enjoyment. It's like, "wow this sounds so ridiculous that it makes me smile so I like listening to it." But even though I lived through it (the 80s at least) it's still hard for me to fathom that there was a time where everybody took that sound seriously. A time when million-dollar artists and producers spent hours in the studio looking to perfect their sound and said "yes, this is what I'm going for. This will announce to the world that I can make good, high quality music."

So what's my point? Everything that I've just said above - that's auto-tune in 5 years. We will look back on these dance/pop songs and will instantly know "oh, that's a song from 2008-2012" and that will instantly be followed by "why did we ever think that sounded good? Why did we think that making a human voice sound like a robot stuck in a paint mixer was a good idea?"

So that's my pointless epiphany. If only I could find a way to make money off of it.

And I'm Back

And so ends the grand experiment. Anybody make it to the end with me? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Regardless of the answer (which I'm going to guess is pretty much nobody except maybe Becky) I'm declaring victory. I had only written 40 pages over the previous 4 and a half years and this process did indeed give me the push I needed to write another 60-plus pages and, most importantly, finish the damn thing. Regardless of whether it's any good or not (and my honest appraisal is that it's both) at least it's finally finished. Ever since I had this idea 5 years ago and had my wife and friends telling me that I definitely needed to write it and not let it be one of those ideas that I just don't do anything with, this whole project has hung over my head like the Sword of Damocles. Every time I was sitting around with free time there was this ever-present voice in the back of my head constantly saying "you know, instead of just sitting here you really should be working on your story." To which I would Homerically respond "Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a q-tip!" But now that little nagging voice has been silenced. Final tally, after I tweaked a bit more and added a title page, is 101 pages in Word. I really have no idea what that translates into as far as an actual published book goes (since those are obviously not 8.5 by 11) but I'd guess about 120-130 pages. Using this definition, at 21,983 words I fit squarely into the "novella" category, so from this point forward we're going to go with that.

In any case, if anybody did in fact make it all the way from beginning to end I would love to hear your thoughts! Not so much in the grammatical areas (i.e. all the typos and punctuation that I no doubt screwed up), but more from an overall story perspective. I'm interested to know which parts dragged and which parts felt rushed, if the overall narrative made sense (in as much as a superhero/supervillain story ever does) and wasn't confusing, where the humor was good and where it fell flat, and finally (and most importantly) if it was entertaining. I welcome any and all criticism because (even though I certainly also welcome praise) that's ultimately what will be most helpful to me going forward. As should be apparent, I am under no illusions that I wrote a masterpiece, so please let 'er rip!

So now of course the operative question is "what now?". And that applies on a couple different levels. What do I do with this completed novella? Christy, of course, thinks I should start submitting it to publishers. God bless her supportive little head, but I am not so deluded to think that it really has much of a chance. Frankly I think I'd be lucky if I could get a publisher to read it all the way through before rejecting it. Really, I try and see the finished product for what it is: a really valuable learning experience and a good first effort. Ultimately, if sometime in the next year or two our finances allow it, I will probably end-up self-publishing a really small run of 10 copies or so (which will cost about $300 if I do a hardcover) just so that I have something to throw up on my bookshelf as a conversation piece.

The next "what now?" pertains to my next big writing endeavor, and frankly right now I have no idea what that will be. I have a couple of different ideas bubbling around inside my head, but nothing that's really formed enough so far to get me excited. I definitely want to start again on something pretty soon. I really felt like I picked up steam as I went along and I'd hate to completely lose that momentum.

And finally, the last "what now?" has to do with this, my beloved blog. Again, I have no idea. I really have only been passively paying attention to politics (in fact I even just let my Economist subscription expire) but I imagine that will start to change in the next 6 months as we really start to ramp up into the 2012 election. Until then, I will probably go back to my semi-regular (but hopefully more regular) updates of randomness and inanity.