Selective History

The last few days, I’ve been seeing versions of the same image showing up frequently in my Facebook feed:

(source: facebook.com/sarahpalin)

Selective History

 

 

I know the message that the Republicans are trying to send:  “On issues that are fundamental to the American way of life (freedom, voting rights, racial justice, etc.) the Republicans have been on the right side of history, while the Democrats have been overwhelmingly wrong time and again.”.*

Who knows?  It is quite possible that the Republicans are right about Obamacare, just like they were right on these three other examples.

But….

It would sure be nice if they could find a more recent example of where they were overwhelmingly right (and the Democrats were overwhelmingly wrong).  Since the infographic is about history, let’s do a little American History refresher:

• 13th Amendment:  Passed Congress on January 31, 1865
• 14th Amendment:  Passed Congress on June 18, 1866
• 15th Amendment:  Passed Congress on February 25, 1869
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”):  Passed Congress on March 21, 2010

*Let’s pause for a minute to reflect on how radically the identities of the two political parties have shifted since the Reconstruction Era.  Can you imagine the Democrats of 2015 being almost universally opposed to increased rights and protections for illegal immigrants?  Or having near unanimous GOP support for legislation allowing gay marriage?  Right, wrong, or otherwise, neither of those things would happen today.

For the sake of argument (and avoiding partisan talking points), let’s assume that Republicans will one day be able to say “I told you so” on Obamacare.  Is the implication here that the GOP has not been on the right side of history in over 140 years?

Obviously, I’m not naive enough to think that the Democrats have had a monopoly on being overwhelmingly right on the important political and social issues of the last 140 years.

But here is the message I get from this infographic:  “Once upon a time, we were on the right side of history.  But since we don’t have a good example of that happening since Andrew Johnson left office, we really hope we’re right on Obamacare.”

And that really doesn’t seem like something to brag about.

Four More Years, But A Life Long Lesson

Today is the inauguration of President Obama’s second term in office.  For a sizable chunk of the country (including a vast majority of my Big Red home state*), the start of Obama’s second four years in the White House is a cause for trepidation, not celebration.

*How deeply Republican is Nebraska?  In the 2012 election, Mitt Romney won 92 of the 93 counties in the state.  In 43 of those 93 counties, Romney received over 75% of the vote.  The lone victory for Obama came in tiny Thurston County, where Obama won by 308 votes.  In Nebraska, Obama yard signs were about as common as folks flying Texas Longhorns flags on fall Saturdays – you could do it, but it’s a great way to alienate your friends and neighbors.

But setting aside the President’s politics, I am thrilled to see him get another four years.  Why?  It’s not because I’m a card-carrying liberal or have a strong connection to any of his policies.  The reason is much more personal.

We adopted both of our children through an agency in Florida.  My son is African-American, and we believe our daughter’s birth father is black.  We know that the color of their skin is going to stand out here – it does almost every time we leave the house – and there will come a day when they are treated differently because of their skin.  I know that some day they will have doubts on what they can achieve, or if the color of their beautiful skin will be a hinderance to their hopes and dreams.

When those moments occur, I will remind them that for the first four and eight years of their lives, a black man was the President of the United States of America.  And with the proper motivation, dedication, and passion there is absolutely nothing they cannot accomplish.

For me, having a positive role model like Obama for my children trumps any concerns my fellow citizens may have about his policies and views.

Random Thoughts on Random 2012 Events

A little peek at how the hotdog of this blog is made:  often something will catch my eye – a newspaper article, something on the radio, a viral video, etc – and I’ll start a post with my thoughts, observations, and (hopefully) unique spin on things.  For examples of what I mean, I’ll refer you to my posts on Google Goggles, the Penn State scandal, and the alternate uniforms worn by the Nebraska football team.

But sometimes those posts don’t get published.  Sometimes life (work, family, sleep, etc) takes priority, and by the time I get back to it, the moment has passed.  Or I’ll stop working on it because I don’t like where its going or I feel like I don’t have an interesting enough point of view.  At that point, it lingers out in my Drafts folder on the remote chance that I’ll eventually complete it or salvage it for scrap.

However, in light of my all-out, everything must go blitz today, this is a good opportunity for me to clean out some of the stuff I have lingering in my Drafts.  So let’s take a trip back through the year that was 2012, and I’ll quickly give my two cents which will seem oddly out of place several months later (especially where I incorrectly predict that Jon Bruning wins Ben Nelson’s Senate seat).

Fat News Anchor
Recap:  Some guy thinks the local news lady doing the morning show is setting a bad example because she’s on TV, overweight, and has not made any obvious changes in several years.  The anchor (Jennifer Livingston) responds on air, and the video ends up being a virally shared “I wish I’d said that” rallying cry for anybody who has ever felt bullied.  (More info here)

My take:  Maybe I’m calloused by years of reading online comments, but I didn’t really see the “bullying” in the original email.  The worst thing he says to her is that she is that her “physical condition has not improved” over the course of a few years – which she freely admits.  He does not call her fat, obese, or any other nasty playground name, nor is he (in my opinion) mean spirited in his comments.  I didn’t read where he says she needs to be an overly tanned, 110 pound stick with fake breasts to be on TV.  To me, it sure looks like he is saying “You have a great opportunity to use your platform as a TV host to promote a healthy lifestyle, and I wish you’d take advantage of it”.  Maybe he could have provided more suggestions like how the she (and her station) would benefit from chronicling her weight loss journey on air, as it would likely motivate many viewers to do the same, but again – it’s not like his email was cruel, mean, or full of hurtful words.

NFL Replacement Refs
Recap:  The NFL locked out the regular refs for the first weeks of the season, replacing them with guys who were officiating D-II and D-III colleges.  This let to numerous screw-ups, culminating in a botched call on Monday Night Football that cost the Green Bay Packers a win.

My take:

I’ll get the disclaimers out of the way right up front:  I’m not a huge NFL guy.  I don’t watch a ton of NFL games (and what I do watch is more in the form of background noise while I’m doing other things).  Since I haven’t been in a fantasy league for a few years, my knowledge of the game is fairly low – which is to say that it’s probably on par with most Americans.

But this week it has been impossible to not be aware of the controversy and chaos caused by the replacement refs working NFL games.  This week’s Monday Night Football game was (incorrectly) decided on a last second pass that appeared to be intercepted, but was ruled as a touchdown.  Since then, the outrage from fans, players, even the President, has reached a fever pitch.  At last count, SportsCenter had shown the play 12,753 times, completely wearing out two digital copies of the play.

Here are some thoughts I have on the replacement refs:

• It will be awesome when the “real” refs come back, as they have never done anything controversial, or had high-profile blown calls that impacted the outcome of a game (cough, cough, Phil Luckett*, cough, cough)
• With the poor way the lockout has been handled, and the negative impact it has had on the league, could it possibly be true that sports’ favorite scapegoat (MLB commissioner Bud Selig) is now ahead of Roger Goddell in popularity and public perception?
• When the real refs come back, what sort of grace period will they get from fans and the media where mistakes and miscues are forgiven?  I’ll set the over/under at two games (and would likely take the under).
• Listening to the MNF game, I’m surprised ESPN commentator Mike Tirico didn’t reference the 2006 Alamo Bowl (Nebraska v. Michigan) that was worked by officials from the Sun Belt conference.  In that game, the refs made several questionable calls, and appeared lost on some of the reviews.  Tirico could not stop talking about how the officials from a lower conference were not equipped to deal with the speed of a bowl game featuring BCS conference teams.  Definitely an easy parallel to the replacement refs moving from D-III to the NFL.
• Ironically, that Michigan-Nebraska Alamo Bowl came down to a crazy, bizarre, rarely before seen, last second play where a number of obvious penalties were missed.

*I had initially planned to just drop in the Wikipedia link for Phil Luckett, but when I googled him to find the URL, I saw this article – Luckett was in the replay booth for the ill-fated MNF game as a league supervisor for the officiating crew.  Geez, this guy has a Forrest Gump-ian way of showing up for controversial moments.  If he ever gets on your flight, I’d suggest walking.

Worseminton
Recap:  In the Sumner Olympics, eight players from four different badminton teams (South Korea, China, and Indonesia) were tossed out of the Olympics for intentionally trying to lose their matches.  And I mean intentionally.  Here is a video of one of the matches where some of the greatest badminton players in the world can’t (won’t) hit the shuttlecock over the net.  When we played badminton in junior high P.E., we were better than these Olympians – of course, we were actually trying.

My Take:  A few days before this happened, I posted a list of Rejected Olympic Events.  One of the events I listed was “worseminton”, which was a punny (and hopefully funny) play on badminton.

I did not think anybody would take it seriously.

Why would anybody try to lose at the Olympics?  Because of how the badminton tournament is set up.  Basically (as I understand it) in the early rounds, teams play a sort of round-robin style.  These teams had already qualified for the next round, and the outcome of these matches would determine who they played in the quarterfinals.  Apparently, the teams figured out that losing would be advantageous to their medal chances.  The event organizers should have been aware of this loophole and should work to ensure the best way to win is by winning, not losing.

And that is why I don’t really have a problem with them trying to lose.  These people train hours a day for four years for the chance to win an Olympic medal.  Twenty years from now, nobody will care if the Indonesian B Team won their 3rd match in pool play.  They’ll care if Indonesia won a medal or not (as much as folks will care about badminton results in 20 years).  So if these teams figured out a (legal) loophole to improve their chances at that medal, good for them.

Where they screwed up is by sucking so badly.  It’s too bad that in all that training, they could not have found time to practice losing in a plausible manner.

MLB Home Run Derby
Recap:  The 2012 Major League Baseball All-Star Game was held in Kansas City.  Robinson Cano of the New York Yankees (a team Royals fans love to hate) initially said that he would consider picking hometown slugger Billy Butler for the Home Run Derby, but then left him off the team.  Cano was booed loudly during his HR Derby at-bats, and exited the competition quickly.

My Take:  KC fans were justified to boo Robinson Cano.  Consider:

I guarantee that if Cano does not say anything about including a representative from the Royals, he does not get booed (or at least not that loudly – he is a Yankee, after all).  But Cano opened himself for the abuse by opening the door and then slamming it in the face of the Royals fans.

There was a ton of criticism for how the KC fans reacted which bothered me too.  If this happened in New York, Boston, or Philly, not as much would be made of it, but the media couldn’t understand how the normally charming Midwesterners could do this.  As a Midwesterner, I’ll tell you:  treat us with respect and we’ll return it tenfold.  Treat us like fools and suffer the consequences.

Finally, with this being MLB, there must be criticism for Bud Selig and the commissioner’s office.  One of two things needs to happen.  Either 1) Always include a roster spot for a hometown guy, or don’t put the pressure of picking teams on one of the players.  Take the defending champ, the leaders from each league, and any other blatantly obvious choices (i.e. Prince Fielder, Jose Bautista, etc) who might be left out.

Obama Slow Jams the News
Recap:  President Obama went on Late Night With Jimmy Fallon and took part in a bit where he discussed policy (the cost of higher education, in this case) while The Roots and Fallon provided a background of a smooth R&B jam and backing vocals (“He’s the POTUS with the most-us!”).

My Take:  This is an interesting way to take his message to the audience (Fallon was taping at the University of North Carolina that week) that would love it and respond accordingly (instead of CNN, C-SPAN, or some speech).  I like how Obama embraced this and was able to pull it off looking smooth and cool, which is not something you’d see out of pretty much any Republican nominee (save, maybe, Bush Jr.)  Could you imagine Romney, McCain, Dole, Bush Sr, or Reagan trying it?  That would be a different kind of hilarious.

But ultimately, how does Obama benefit?  Sure, he locks up a good chunk of the youth and “hip” vote, but I’m guessing Romney would much rather have the old and “un-hip” vote, as they, you know, tend to actually vote.

Bob Kerrey Runs For Senate
Recap:  When Ben Nelson chooses to retire from the Senate instead of seeking reelection, Nebraska Democrats recruit former Senator and Governor Bob Kerrey to come back from New York City to run.  Why?  Because it is widely believed that Kerrey gave Democrats the best chance to retain Nelson’s seat.

My take:  Politics in Nebraska is kind of like a Harlem Globetrotters game.

The Republicans are the Globetrotters, the seemingly unbeatable team dressed up in red, white, and blue.  The Democrats are the Washington Generals, the hapless team that feigns resistance while the Globetrotters do whatever they please to keep the people happy.  In Nebraska, the Governor, all three U.S. Representatives, and one Senator are all Republicans.  So are Attorney General, Secretary of State, and the majority of state senators.

So Kerrey announcing that he’s going to come back and run for the Senate is both good and bad.

It is good because it means the Senate seat won’t be decided in the primary election.  The Democrats have a candidate with name recognition, experience, and serious potential to win the election.

But it is bad because the best candidate* the Democrats could find to replace the soon-to-be 71-year-old Ben Nelson is a 69-year-old who has been living in New York since 2001.

*No disrespect to University of Nebraska regent Chuck Hassebrook, who decided to run after Kerrey initially declined to join the race, but you were going to join Stormy Dean, David Hahn, Mike Meister, and others in the category of “Sacrificial Democrat Lambs in Nebraska Elections.”

And that is the sad part.

It is sad and pathetic that the Democratic Party has so completely and utterly failed in developing viable, state-wide candidates that Kerrey is the best (if not only) option to have a shot in November.

Look at the Republican Party:  you have some rather established names in the big offices (Heineman, Johanns, Fortenberry, Terry, Smith).  But it is the depth that helps to make them a political juggernaut.  Bruning, Sheehy, Flood, Foley, Fischer, and a couple of other state senators whom I’m blanking on at the moment.  One goes down, two more step in.

This isn’t to say that there is nobody in the Democratic line-up.  On the contrary, there are some very good state senators (Bill Avery, Danielle Conrad, Amanda McGill, and my fellow Gretna Dragon, Heath Mello).  All are doing good things in the Unicameral, and making names for themselves.  Unfortunately, none of them are truly ready for a statewide or national election.  And that failure is squarely on the shoulders of party leadership.

And so I will be voting for Kerrey (mainly because Jon Bruning is a sweater vest away from being Rick Santorum), but I hope the Democrats know and understand that after this election, there will be no more white knights riding in to save the day.

Exercising My Right to Complain (and other random election thoughts)

Today, I voted over the lunch hour, guaranteeing my right to complain for another four years.  I would like to exercise that right, as well as share some of my thoughts and feelings on other national and local issues.

Let’s start it off with the main event:  the presidential race.

President Obama reelected.  Despite this and my last two posts, I do want to keep this space largely free of politics so I’ll withhold my thoughts on the reelection itself.  But I will say this:  I have two (adopted) children under the age of four.  My daughter has an African-American birth father, and both my son’s birth parents are African-American.  Having an African-American President isn’t going to erase (or likely reduce) the racial challenges they will face in their lives – especially in an overwhelmingly caucasian state like Nebraska – but it will make it easier for me to tell them that anything is possible.  And that is a huge victory in our household.

Poor timing.  For the majority of the night, we kept our coverage on ABC – mainly because I prefer their Lincoln affiliate for local coverage.  Unfortunately, when Obama got the necessary 270 electoral votes, we missed out on the moment as we were watching a local reporter stumble through an interview with a reelected Congressman.  Talk about anti-climatic.

Popular vote vs. Electoral College.  As I write this, President Obama has a very slight lead in the popular vote* (around 200,000 – less than the population of Lincoln, NE), but he is absolutely crushing Romney in the all-important Electoral College (303-203 at the moment).  This is bringing up the same debate we have every four years on if the best way to elect our President is to continue the Electoral College or put it simply to a popular vote where the candidate with the most votes wins.

*Currently, I’m mixing up my election coverage with some Fox News.  The nice blonde lady is struggling to figure out why Romney lost even though he is doing well in the popular vote.  I’m guessing this anchor was hired more for her looks than her political savvy, but surely somebody there can explain the Electoral College to her, right?

Without getting into that debate, I think the thing we must recognize is how well – in this election and in 2008 – Barack Obama and his campaign team did in a) understanding exactly how the system worked and b) creating a winning game plan to win under the system in place.  Frankly, I think if the goal was to win the national popular vote, Obama’s team would have emphasized that instead of focusing on the critical swing states.

For what it’s worth, I’d love to see how the election would have played out if every state used the system in place in Nebraska and Maine:  the electoral votes are not winner-take-all, but are divided by Congressional district.  That could be a fair compromise to the issue.

Long lines to vote.  Throughout the day, I heard stories of folks having to wait for hours on end to vote at their local polling place.  And I don’t understand it.  This is my sixth presidential election, and I have never waited more than five minutes to cast my ballot – and for most of them (including today) I simply walk in, sign the thing and vote.  So what is the deal?  Are there not enough polling places?  Not enough workers staffing them? Whatever it is, it needs to be fixed.

Moving closer to home, there were a handful of local races and amendments that I felt strongly about.  Looking back, I probably should have shared my thoughts before the election, but given the large margins by which they were defeated, it probably would not have mattered.

Bob Kerrey loses his bid for the U.S. Senate.  Despite some late polls that showed Kerrey (a former Nebraska Governor and U.S. Senator) had closed the gap on state senator Deb Fischer, this was never really in much doubt.  Kerrey never had much of a chance, and the simple fact that he – somebody who has not lived in the state since 2000 – represented the Nebraska Democrats’ best (and only) hope for retaining Ben Nelson’s Senate seat should tell you everything you need to know about the strength of the democratic party in Nebraska.  But to be clear – it stinks.  Yes, there are some bright, young, and talented democratic senators in the Unicameral, but blowout losses in the elections for  three congressional districts, both Senate seats, and the Governor’s mansion over the past few years demonstrates the failure of the democratic party to recruit, develop, and support talented candidates.

I can certainly understand that few people in this vastly Republican state care about the stumbles and fumbles within the Democratic Party, but, having both parties being viable and competitive is in the best interest of all Nebraskans.  The GOP is more than holding up their end fo the bargain.  Let’s see if the Democrats can do the same.

During his acceptance speech, Nebraska Congressman Jeff Fortenberry forgets one of his children.  It is a standard part of the post-election speech.  Candidate thanks his wife, his kids, and everyone who supported him.  Fortenberry was doing the same thing; he recognized his wife, named three or four kinds, and was moving on when his wife interrupted him to point out that he had forgotten about one of his daughters – who was standing four feet away from him.

An amendment to extend term limits is rejected.  The amendment would have kept term limits on the Nebraska legislature, but would have changed the maximum number of terms from two to three.  Personally, I liked the idea as the Unicameral is seeing good senators forced out and replaced with inexperienced newbies, who spend most of their first term getting familiar with the ropes.  A part of me thinks this was defeated for the same reason term limits were initially enacted – to keep argumentative and contrarian senator Ernie Chambers out of office.

Speaking of which….

Ernie Chambers reelected to the Nebraska Legislature.  He’s baaack!  His WikiPedia page refers to him as “‘Defender of the Downtrodden’, the ‘Maverick of Omaha’ and the ‘Angriest Black Man in Nebraska.'”  He was forced out by term limits, sat out for four years, and is back and ready to use his mastery of the political process to block bills that he does not support.  Ernie adds much-needed life to the Unicameral, and he does a good job of thinning out some of the junk bills that get pushed every year.

No pay raise for the Legislature.  An amendment to give Nebraska’s state senators a $10,500 pay raise (from $12,000 to $22,500 a year) is soundly rejected.  I know that my fellow Nebraskans are a fiscally conservative bunch, but I wonder a) why anybody would spend thousands of dollars campaigning for a full-time “part-time” job that likely pays less than minimum wage per hour worked. and b) if there is any way that a person like me (i.e. married, kids, car payment, job that pays considerably less than six figures) could ever survive as a Senator without starving (or getting cozy with a lobbyist).  As the old cliché goes – you get what you pay for.

Campaign Workers and Volunteers.  As I was driving my kids to daycare this morning, I recognized a former co-worker (Phil Montag) holding a alarge campaign sign at an intersection.  Ten hours later, as I was taking my daughter to her gymnastics class, Phil was still on the street corner still holding that sign.  I assume that Phil did not spend his entire day holding a sign up for motorists to ignore, but I have a ton of respect for the folks – on both sides – who freely give their time, talents, and energies to help their candidates get elected.  Some really believe in their candidate(s).  Some – like Phil – are political junkies who enjoy the nuts and bolts of elections.  Regardless, I applaud those who do the little things to help make our democratic elections work, from the presidential elections down to a humble race for County Commissioner, such as the one Phil was holding a sign for.

The Irony of Joe Ricketts

Joe Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade (and part of the Chicago Cubs ownership) is donating lots and lots of money this campaign season through his super PAC.

He recently spent $200,000 on an ad to defend U.S. Senate candidate Deb Fischer (R-Neb) against an attack ad by her opponent Bob Kerrey.  This brings Ricketts’ total to almost $700,000 in this race.  And the Nebraska Senate race is small potatoes compared to what Ricketts has spent on the Presidential race – almost $10 million, with likely more to come.

I’ll try my best to leave politics out of this post – Ricketts earned his millions and can spend them any way he damn well pleases.  If he wants to try to impact/influence/purchase an election, that is his right under the current set of super PAC rules, as enacted by the Supreme Court.  Maybe Ricketts really like Deb Fischer.  Maybe he believes it is an investment – that he’ll make all of that money back with Fischer and/or Romney in office.  Who knows?  That’s not how I’d chose to spend $10 million dollars, but again, it’s not my money to spend.

And don’t go thinking this is some partisan rant against big spending Republicans.  You better believe that there is somebody on the other side spending the same amount of money to get Kerrey elected and reelect President Obama.

But the reason I bring this up is the sick, twisted punchline that is ripe for the picking.  Joe Ricketts’ super PAC has a name that is painfully ironic considering everything above:

Ending Spending

Seriously.

I couldn’t make that up if I tried.

How to Improve the Presidental Debates

The third (and thankfully, final) Presidential debate is tonight.  I’ve watched most of the first two rounds, and I think the debates are long overdue for some changes.  Instead of hearing clear, concise answers to tough questions, we get spin, cheesy stories about some schmo they met on the campaign trail, distortions, half-truths, and flat-out lies.  Meanwhile, the moderator – arguably the worst job on television – struggles to keep the candidates from talking too long, never moving on to the next question, and avoiding questions.

My fellow Americans, we deserve better.  Together we can improve the debates, turning them from unruly gabfests to world-class television:

• “Please welcome tonight’s moderator, Jon Stewart from The Daily Show.”
• Both candidates are strapped to polygraph machines, with the results being shown on-screen.
• When a candidate runs out of their allotted time, their microphone is cut off.
• Responses are judged by Food Network personalities on the basis of taste, plating, and originality.
• Take a cue from the Family Feud – ask one candidate the questions while the other is off-stage in a sound-proof room.  Then ask the same questions to the other guy.
• Each candidate gets one red challenge flag per half.  The replay booth (staffed by factcheck.org) calls down with their ruling.
• Use the audience from a Jerry Springer Show taping.
• If a candidate is found to be flip-flopping on a previously stated position, an audience member gets to smack them with a flip-flop.
• Candidates are tied to a chair, suspended by a rope, 10 feet over a pool of rabid sharks.  Every time they lie, interrupt, or go over time, their chair lowers by a foot.
• Each candidate gets three lifelines:  phone a friend (either their wife or running mate), poll the audience, or a 50/50.
• Candidates must participate in the drinking game, so when Obama talks about the “47%” or Romney brings up gas prices, they have to do a shot.
• When a candidate says something that is proven to be an exaggeration, an extortion of the truth, or a flat-out lie, the opposing Vice Presidential nominee gets to take a shot at him with a paintball gun.  (Bonus points if Paul Ryan or Joe Biden show up dressed as Rambo.)
• Shock collars
• Instead of dark suits with power ties, candidates wear costumes picked out by the opposing campaign.  Obama will be dressed as Muslim cleric, and Romney will be dressed as Mr. Moneybags from Monopoly.
• Instead of two minutes, candidates have 12 seconds to answer.
• The one, truly undecided voter in America is back stage.  After the debate, he comes out and give his candidate a rose.  The other candidate is invited to appear on “The Bachelorette.”
• Candidates are given a secret word or phrase to be worked in at some point during the debate.  Governor Romney, your word is “onomatopoeia”.
• When somebody interrupts you, you get to slap them in the face.
• Replace the podiums with the Wipeout! obstacle course.  You get to talk non-stop until your opponent clears the obstacle.
• No changes, except both candidates are made aware of the 100 gallon drums of Nickelodeon slime perched above their podiums, and the two switches on the moderator’s desk.