Strike 3 Baseball

Our American Pastime is on life support and I fear it's time to finally pull the plug.  Baseball is one of the few sports, possibly the only one, that has not been able to adapt to new times and what a new generation of fans want to see.  The games are too long.  The pace is too slow.  The action is too sparse.  And the players are less accessible than other sports.  Moreover, Baseball has always been steeped in tradition, which is part of what made the game great, but it dramatically hampers the ability of MLB to adapt to changing times. 

Stats, the foundation on which baseball was built, are now the boat anchor tied around baseball's need to change.  Baseball cherishes and protects its statistics more than any other sport.  For a long time, this is part of what made baseball great as there were fairly reliable ways to measure modern players to the greats of the past.  A statistical record actually meant something, and was the for the most part, relatively as difficult to achieve in 2000 as it was in 1960.  But the desire to maintain the sanctity of stats and records is having an adverse impact on baseball's ability to change in ways that benefit fans and increase viewership.  Ironically, the changes that have occurred organically in baseball (all bad I would argue) have also had a negative effect on the records the MLB so vehemently tries to protect.  Cy Young won 511 games as a pitcher.  That record will never be broken...ever.  Why? Because in today's game a pitcher is on innings restrictions both in game and for a season.  There are 5 and sometimes 6 days rest in between starts.  Pitchers simply cannot get enough games in to ever challenge that record.  Likewise, Nolan Ryan's career strikeout mark of 5714 will almost certainly never be challenged.  Will we ever have another 30 game winner?  I doubt it given the increasing difficulty for a pitcher to even reach 20 wins.  Will we ever have another .400 hitter with defensive shifts and specialist pitchers?  Seemingly the only record baseball doesn't care to protect are those associated with homeruns...the single offensive achievement that causes the biggest delay in a game.  So I have to wonder, is the MLB really interested in protecting the sanctity of stats and the ability to compare generations of players based on them?  

Baseball has also failed to attract the next generation of fans.  I suspect that's almost entirely due to the pace and length of games.  The average length of an MLB game in 2019 was 3 hours and 5 minutes...a record.  By way of comparison, the length first exceeded 2 hours in 1934.  By 1954 a game now lasted 2 hours and 30 minutes.  2014 marked the first time the average game exceeded 3 hours.  Why so long?  It boils down to 2 main culprits: Pitching and extended time between innings (likely for increased TV commercials).  Pitching has changed more than any other aspect of baseball.  Throughout much of the first half of the 20th century, pitchers regularly completed games.  The second half of the 20th century saw relief pitchers begin to emerge, most notably specialist closers.  I don't know the exact date, but somewhere around the turn of the century we entered the phase of speciality pitchers.  Now instead of seeing 2 or 3 pitching changes in a game, you might see 2 or 3 in an a half of an inning.  Every pitching change causes delays in the action and potentially loses viewers.  Pitch count per game is also up (thus increasing game length) as well as the increased amount of time to simply call a pitch and execute it.  Think about how much of a game is actually being played versus preparing to be played.  It's the only sport in existence where well more than 75% of the game has no one playing it at all.  Why would anyone want to watch that?  Why would anyone want to spend 3 hours of their day to see 4 pitching changes in the 7th inning of game 63/162 of a season?

Additionally, there has been virtually no modernization of baseball to make games more exciting.  While time delays caused by pitching, defensive shifts, time to analyze data for specific in game scenarios, etc. are losing viewers every day there is nothing being implemented to counter-balance and attract fans.  A 162 game season is too long.  I once heard someone say, "Every team wins at least 60 games and loses at least 60 games so the season is really about the other 42."  And it's true.  No one cares about game 92 in the middle of July.  Other sports have adapted.  For example, the NFL brilliantly used fantasy sports and gambling to retain and even attract a brand new set of viewers.  The NBA has been at the forefront of in-arena changes to improve fan experience while also implementing changes such as the slam dunk and the 3-point line.  Why can't baseball figure out some way to make a meaningless regular season game more exciting to watch?  Why does every change for baseball seem to inadvertently make things worse?  How about a higher fence in center field that's worth 2 runs if you hit it over the fence?  Or what about a time clock, like in chess, where that's all the time you have in a game to pitch the ball?  How about model positional changes after soccer and only allow 3 in total per game?  There are lots of ways baseball could change, but they refuse.

Possibly most frustrating is the current global stoppage in sports has provided the perfect excuse for baseball to adapt and try something new.  The MLB has every opportunity right now, with likely huge support from fans, to do whatever is necessary to resume play.  The NHL has come up with a brilliant World Cup style format to finish their season.  The NBA will take on a 22 game play-in style mini March Madness format.  But MLB, the sport that's played outside where most games have built in social distancing due to lack of fans, can't figure out how to get back to the field.  MLB, which already has locations in Florida and AZ (Spring Training sites) that would be perfectly suited for resuming play, has no plan to restart.  Instead, they want to battle between league and players over how many games they will play and how much of their salary they will make.  The NHL will attract new fans because they will be one of the first sports to resume.  If MLB could have figure it out first, they would have at least had a fighting chance to win over some fans who would literally watch anything sports-related right now.  Instead, they are going to be the last and maybe not have a season at all.  Baseball, already on life-support, has given up hope and we might as well pull the plug.  It sad really, but Baseball has no one to blame but themselves.  

Maybe, Just Maybe

First, let me state where I stand on everything related to COVID.  I think far too often folks love to shout their opinions without the proper context of what's driving their views.  Why is this important?  Personally I have a hard time accepting someone's views to continue the lockdown if they are gainfully employed with the new luxury of working from home full time.  Conversely, I have a harder time accepting someone's views to open up if the basis of their argument is solely to return to a normal life.  Life as we know it will not be "normal" again for a very long time.  We all just need to accept that as a fact at this point.  So back to where I stand.

• I agreed with the lockdown initially, especially given the lack of preparedness, data, and information we had at the time.
• I disagree strongly with the notion we must remain on some form of lockdown until there's a vaccine or successful treatment.
• I disagree strongly with the notion we must continue to lockdown almost entirely due to protecting the at-risk and elderly.  This does not mean I want them to die.  What it means is they should quarantine, and so should anyone who wants to see them, while the rest of us get back to rebuilding.  We don't quarantine the healthy...we quarantine the sick.
• I am not financially impacted by the lockdown in any way.  
• I think masks are stupid and ineffective, but if that's what it takes to start re-opening, then I'll play along with the game. 
• I believe this is not just another flu and that it's highly contagious.  I also believe the risk of death to the vast majority of the country is incredibly low. So when I say we should re-open, it's not that I think I won't get COVID, but rather I'm strongly confident it will be nothing worse than a terrible two week ordeal.  
• And finally, short of a vaccine,  I believe ultimately the number of deaths and cases was always going to be the same regardless of our measures.  The difference would be how long it took for the virus to run its course.

But this isn't a post specifically about the virus.  This is a post for why maybe it's not all bad we've gone through this the past two months.   This experiment, the likes of which we've never seen before, has served to expose a great deal about who we are, what we care about, what we've taken for granted, and what an extreme version of government control means to our lives.  

Let's be real about who we are.  We are not all in this together.  We are not a nation that comes together when there's an emergency.  We are not a nation that ultimately puts others before ourselves.  Certainly pockets of the nation and like-minded people are acting this way, but as a nation we are more divided than ever.  And those never-ending commercials where giant corporations are telling you how much they care and want to support you and your community?  Well they still just want your money.  That's it.  We've hoarded toilet paper and other grocery items.  We have a raging social media battle on how to deal with the virus where vitriol is spewed on a daily basis between family and friends.  We have some saying, "who cares, let em die", while others are saying "who cares about 36 million people now unemployed".  We don't really care about the people outside our circles and now at least we know it.  We know that if there's a true national emergency you won't be able to count on your fellow man to just take what they need and leave the rest for others.  You won't be able to rest assured our government will come together as one to do what's best for the nation.  And sadly, you likely won't be able to rely on the empathy and support of those on the other side of the debate from you...the idea of winning the debate is far too important for us to take a second to care for those we fight against. So now we know who we are and we can all stop pretending we are something different.  Or maybe, just maybe, we can all use this as a time of self-reflection to see who we are and start to change.  Trade anger for empathy.  Trade selfishness for selflessness.  Trade singularity for unity.  It's never too late.  

But it's not all bad news.  I think and hope many of us have a much greater appreciation for what we care about and what we've taken for granted for so long.  Yesterday I noticed the local Starbucks had re-opened.  Yes, there's loads of restrictions, but damnit it's open!!  It filled me with momentary joy and made me realize how spoiled we are in America.  There's coffee all over the place and for the past two months I've been annoyed the one I like isn't conveniently close to me?  Or how about our stores?  That slight pang of anxiety when you walk in and whether your favorite item is in stock.  Then the wave of relief and even excitement when it's on the shelf.  We've grown accustomed to never having to be without a single thing we desire.  And now that a tiny fraction of what we want is a little hard to get, we are outraged?  Millions of people around the world don't know where their next meal will come from and our biggest worry is whether we have to get canned tuna in vegetable oil instead of canned tuna in water.  We are spoiled and have been for decades.  Maybe, just maybe, we will have a little more appreciation for all we have instead of the little we are doing without.  My wife did a mission trip to Haiti where she met a local pastor.  When talking about being poor he said something to the effect of, "Poor?  Your poor have shoes."  We live in an amazing bubble of alternative reality called America, and while not perfect, it's so vastly better than what so many other people have to experience on a daily basis.  You are free to argue with your neighbor and government without being thrown in jail or killed.  You aren't waiting in line for the last loaf of bread, which will be your only meal for the day.  And virtually all the time we don't even need to leave the couch to buy the next thing we desire and have it show up on our doorstop, with Amazon Prime free shipping, two days later.  Yet, we feel the right to complain because we've been marginally inconvenienced for two months when other countries have been in civil wars for decades?  I'm not asking for people to stop pressing for a return to normalcy, but maybe we should check our outrage at the door for a bit.

And lastly, I think we've all seen a healthy dose of what over-reaching government control can bring.  Regardless of your political affiliation, you should be alarmed at how easily and swiftly federal and local governments were allowed to control how you live.  You should be alarmed at the unilateral power Governors have seized for such an extended period of time.  You should be scared about how easy it was to turn one of the best economies in history to rubble in a matter of a week.  You should have second thoughts about nationalized medicine when we can't even agree on how to handle one virus.  For the past two months our lives and livelihood have been at the mercy of our elected officials and the effects have been profound and drastic.  I simply don't understand why people continue to vote for officials who tell you how to live, how to think, and care more about the few than the many.  I don't know why people continue to put into office the candidates who are running their regions into the ground.  But maybe now those elected officials have also been exposed for who they are.  Maybe, just maybe, those who are still waiting for a stimulus check in California will be outraged by Nancy Pelosi's desire to protect marijuana over their jobs.  Yes, that's right, did you know in the Democrat's latest proposed stimulus bill the word cannabis is mentioned 68 times which was more than the words job and jobs combined?  I can only hope people treat their right to vote and their voting choices far more seriously going forward than they've done in the past.  

You see, the freedom and choice we've taken for granted for so long has never been free.  We are an entitled and spoiled society that has long forgotten the sacrifices of those who came before us.  We need to be kinder to each other, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with each other's views.  We need to be more thankful for what we have instead of focusing on the little which we lack.  We need to be more serious about our privilege to vote and elect those who allow us to live freely instead of telling us how to live.  And we need to understand that change starts with ourselves and not with our neighbors.  If you want a different and better world, it starts with you.  Do you make the lives around you better or worse with your actions?  In this time of crisis are you throwing gas or water on the fear, anger, and anxiety flames?  There's been a raging virus of antipathy and discord in our country for many years.  It's highly contagious and has been slowly killing the fabric of our nation, our mental well-being, and our relationships with others.  Are you part of the virus or part of the cure?

God Bless America and God Bless You All.

Blind Trust

Like many people around the world, I struggle daily with the new reality facing us due to COVID-19.  It's not hard to find arguments for and against the measures being taken to curb the virus and the vitriol is increasing daily on the battle lines.  While this post is not primarily about advocating for a side in that argument, I will take a few minutes to state very clearly my position.  I was 100% in favor of the initial lockdown measures, almost entirely due to the absence of data and too many critical unknowns.  I continued to be for the lockdown after preliminary data became available even though my natural desire was for the disease to just run it's course.  Too many people were dying and the epicenter was so close to where I live, making it all very real.  I turned against the lockdowns a couple of weeks ago when a few things became clear to me.  First, I am in very low risk and so is my family.  In saying this, I understand someone in a different circumstance would likely have the complete opposite view and I respect that.  Second, as the contagion rate increases with every new study, that also means the death rate is dropping.  By one measure the true mortality rate of COVID-19 is .5%.  Third, there is a way to keep the most at-risk out of harm's way while letting the vast majority of society go about their new normal.  This notion that we must all be locked away, now that we understand the facts of the virus, seems arbitrarily severe.  And finally, the consequences of the solution are beginning of showing signs to be just as detrimental (and possibly more) than the virus itself.

But this post isn't about my opinion, although I'm guessing any response to this post will be solely about that.  This post is about why suddenly as a society we decided to blindly trust the severity of this virus when our entire history is riddled with examples of ignoring critical health warnings.  What has changed in the way we think, the risks we are willing to take, and our responsibility for others?  Let's walk through two counter-examples.

Smoking has long been part of our society despite longstanding and clear negative health impacts to both ourselves and those around us.  As early as 1929, German Scientist Fritz Lickint discovered a link between smoking and lung cancer.  And yet people continued to smoke.  By 1964 the US Surgeon General issued a definitive report linking cigarettes with lung cancer.  And yet we continued to smoke.  In 1986 the US Surgeon General concluded second hand smoke was harmful and potentially deadly.  And while Cigarettes were on the decline, we continued to smoke and did so in public.  While smoking in public has gotten more and more restrictive, smoking cigarettes is still common with roughly 14% of the US population declared as regular smokers.  To make matters worse, as the rate of smokers continually decreased from the mid-1960's, we introduced Vaping in roughly 2005.  Today an estimated 9 million citizens say they are regular vapers.  Even worse, our youth are using e-Cigarettes at alarming numbers.  In one survey 26% of high school juniors said they vaped in the past 30 days and 11% of 8th graders had as well.  Over the past 2 years we've begun to see Vapers develop chronic and deadly lung issues as a result of their e-cigarette use. And yet people continue to Vape.  Years of evidence on the link between Cigarettes and lung disease.  Years of evidence linking second hand smoke and lung disease.  Years of evidence linking e-cigarettes and lung disease.  And yet we continue to smoke/vape, it continues to be legal, and you can still do it in public.  So why is this version of an activity which impacts our lungs, causing sickness and death, ignored by so many of those same people who blindly believe in the risks of COVID-19?



Unprotected sex, outside of marriage, is a common practice in our society.  And while I couldn't easily find when health risks became clear, I think it's safe to say we've known for at least the past 100 years.  In a 2017 survey, 46% of High School Seniors who'd had sex in the past month did so without protection.  It's estimated that as high as 65% of those having sex, do so regularly without using a condom.  Yet we know unprotected sex leads to sexually transmitted disease, some of which cause lifelong health issues and death.  According to WHO, unprotected sex ranks second amongst the top ten risk factors to health in terms of the burden of disease they cause.  The most extreme example is AIDS, where tens of millions of people have died from the disease since the 1980's.  WHO also estimates that 350 million people annually contract some form of treatable sexually transmitted disease.  A 2016 survey showed unprotected sex as the fastest growing health risk for teens.  And while I don't care to entertain a debate on abortion, unprotected sex results in an estimated 600,000+ abortions per year (deaths of unborn humans).  So with all of this clear and abundant data on the health risks and associated deaths, why are so many people still having unprotected sex?  In fact right now, during lockdown, I'm guessing many unmarried couples are regularly having unprotected sex since buying condoms would require them to leave their house and risk the COVID virus.  Think about that, some of our youth are more willing to engage in an activity that has high risk to their health than one that would translate to a lower risk to their health.

Back to my original question.  What is it about COVID that's created this level of fear and paranoia, when other and more severe health risks are dismissed daily as commonplace?  Why are so many in our society willing to blindly trust health officials, with far less scientific data, about COVID?  Why is our government willing to go to this level of extreme to contain this disease when they gladly accept the tax revenue associated with cigarettes which causes the same type of lung disease?  Time will tell if this is just a short-term, knee-jerk reaction or whether we're now entering a permanent new norm.  But if this many in our society are this concerned about public and personal health risks, maybe we should pay a little more attention (and get a lot more strict) about some of the health risks we choose to ignore and profit off every day.

Once Upon a Time, A COVID-19 Movie Edition

Once upon a time Baby and Johnny met while Baby's family was vacationing in the Catskills.  Entitled Baby learns to dance from bad boy Johnny, despite objections from Baby's overbearing father.  The end of summer party arrives, Baby is put in a corner, Johnny gallantly rescues her, they land the big dance move, and Dirty Dancing was born.

Today, the Houseman of Representatives family escapes DC from the Coronavirus and travels to the Catskills.  The Kellerman resort, purchased by Donald Trump during the 2008 financial crisis, has been renamed Mir A Lago Catskills.  The resort is open, but following strict social distancing guidelines following an outbreak of COVID, mostly amongst the aging guests.  Baby, played by AOC, is petulant as ever waiting out her summer before she can join the Peace Corps.  Baby tries to convert the entertainment staff to Democratic Socialism and tells them they should demand a living wage.  While talking to the entertainment staff, Baby meets Johnny Castle, played by the entire mainstream media.  Johnny quickly becomes infatuated with AOC and convinces her to go to her father, played by Dr. Anthony Fauci, for testing kits and ventilators for the now sick staff.  As the lockdown continues, employees and guests are at odds on whether to proceed with the end of season party.  Baby's father is adamant that she stay locked away and miss the party, therefore forfeiting her chance to use it as a stage to tell the employees they should not go back to work when the pandemic is over.  At the movie's climax, Johnny races to Baby's cabin, pounds on the door, tells her Father "Nobody Puts Baby on Lockdown", whisks her away to the party where they pass a $23.00 minimum wage, the employees declare "They've had the time of their lives", and they all live happily ever after.  Except they don't because Mir A Lago can't afford to pay $23/hour and replaces most of their staff with self-service automation.

Once upon a time Phil Connors travels with producer Rita Hanson and Cameraman Larry to Punxsutawney PA for the annual Groundhog Day celebrations.  Phil wakes up to Sonny and Cher every morning, lives the same day over and over, tries to seduce Rita and fails, steals Punxsutawney Phil, has a death wish, becomes a good man, gets Rita to fall in love with him, finally wakes up on a new day, and the cult classic movie Groundhog Day was born.

Today, the CNN news crew decides to broadcast Groundhog Day even after concerns grow regarding the COVID virus and the need to social distance.  Phil Connors, played by Chris Cuomo, is unable to make the trip as he battles COVID and instead does his weather broadcast remotely while in quarantine. Rita, played by Ellen DeGeneres' talk show staff, is furloughed by CNN and replaced with a less expensive non-union producer.  Buster, played by NJ Governor Phil Murphy, decides at the last minute to cancel the festival even though Punxsutawney has virtually no confirmed cases of COVID in the town.  Buster imposes a strict lockdown, closes all parks, requires mandatory face masks when in stores, and implements a fine for those not following the new mandates.  With this new lockdown, Phil begins to live the same day over and over again until it drives him crazy.  Meanwhile, residents of Punxsutawney have grown restless and decide to hold a "Re-Open Punxsutawney Rally" in the center of town.  Punxsutawney Phil attends, sees his shadow, predicts 6 more weeks of lockdown, and is fined for congregating in public.  Ned Ryerson, played by Damon Johns, is arrested for price gouging N95 masks, hand sanitizer, and toiler paper.  The Tip Top Cafe, played by every small business in America, runs out of money, has to let go of Doris the Waitress (played by 27 million American workers), files for stimulus money under the CARES act, is not awarded any money as it goes to Harvard and Shake Shack instead, files again after round 2 of the stimulus package, receives a small forgivable loan, barely holds on thanks to a take out only service and partnership with Grubhub, and they all live happily ever after.  Except they don't because the health and economic hardships created by the lockdown last far longer than the virus itself and Punxsutawney was never the same town again.

Once upon a time Nick Young and Rachel Chu meet in NYC and fall in love.  They travel to Singapore for Nick's best friend's wedding, Rachel discovers Nick is loaded, is treated poorly by Nick's mother and the wedding's bridesmaids, decides her love for Nick isn't worth it and abrubptly leaves, Nick races to the airport before Rachel boards her flight to propose, and the movie Crazy Rich Asians was born.

Today, Nick is "The Bachelor" and meets Rachel, 1 of 25 women vying for Nick's love.  After several rose ceremonies, 1:1, and group dates, Nick is down to the final 4.  Nick decides to take Rachel to his best friend's wedding for their hometown visit even though COVID-19 is beginning to ravage Asia.  After all, Singapore is considered safe given their extensive testing, tracking, and social distancing measures.  While in Singapore, Rachel discovers Nick is actually a toilet paper magnate.  Nick's mother, played by Nancy Pelosi, immediately suspects Rachel of only being interested in him because her family is down to their last few rolls.  Nick's mother is widely criticized after appearing on the Late Show in front of an entire room of toilet paper, while advocating for Rachel's dismissal from the show.  Rachel meets the Bridesmaids, played by The Squad, who try and shame her for the carbon emissions she put out flying to Singapore and a tweet from 2006 (when she was 10) which they believe clearly shows she's a xenophobe.  Rachel can't take anymore, decides to leave Singapore before the travel ban takes effect, is met at the airport by Nick who promises to give up his toilet paper fortune and asks for her hand in marriage, accepts his proposal, returns to NYC and everyone lives happily ever after.  Except they don't because a second wave of COVID sweeps Singapore and Nick's mother dies. Rachel and Nick return to NYC, bringing the virus with them, and infect patient 0 in the US.  For the next several months in the US thousands are infected and die, society is on lockdown, the economy is destroyed, millions of workers are out of jobs, and the movie title is changed to Crazy Sick Asians.

Random Thoughts of Idleness

From time to time I feel the need for a stream of consciousness high colonic where I evacuate the thoughts bouncing around in my head.  It's essentially the mental equivalent of an earworm where failure to get the various thoughts out just means they play over and over again in my mind.

Side note on earworms...that's the actual term for a song that gets stuck in your head and you sing it over an over again until sweet relief finally takes over.  And sorry for what I'm about to do to you...Dancing Queen by Abba.



So welcome to the Dancing Queen version of my mind.

I'm fascinated by the public's response to products as they relate to disease.  While reports of Corona Beer's steep sales decline has been very misrepresented, it is true that sales have suffered amidst the crisis.  This is partly true due to restaurant and bar closings,  but one study showed it's directly correlated to the stigma attached to the name.  A related example is the difficulty in finding Chinese food restaurants open right now.  While restaurants are struggling to survive, most have transitioned to take out only.  The exception appears to be Chinese food restaurants where the vast majority, at least in our area, are temporarily closed.  I can only assume this is also tied to the stigma of the virus or maybe just rampant and idiotic racism.  The best example in my lifetime was the diet pill named Ayds.  If you aren't familiar with the product, it was a candy style dietary supplement in the 1970's and early 1980's.  Sales were very strong until the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (that's right, AIDS) was discovered in 1981.  By the mid-1980's the phonetic similarity of the names was impacting sales of the supplement to the tune of roughly 50%.  The company tried to change the name, but ultimately was taken off the market.  If you want to know why they had such an issue, I recommend you watch this commercial for the pill and take into context the similarity to the symptoms of the AIDS disease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTitP5_yDUU

At what point in the COVID pandemic did the lockdown policies become the new battleground of liberals vs. conservatives?  I completely understand the line in the sand between those who want to re-open and those who believe public safety is of greater concern.  However, I would have thought the re-open crowd would be business owners and young people, while the public safety crowd would be those whose economic risk was low and the at-risk/elderly.  However, it appears somewhere along the way this became Red vs. Blue.  Republican vs. Democrat.  Conservative vs. Liberal.    Reds believing personal freedoms are gradually being eroded in an attempt to drive us to the socialist state they believe all Blue's are trying to create.  Blues believing personal freedoms are a small price to pay for public safety and Reds care more about their bank accounts dying than their fellow citizens.  Republicans screaming the Dems must hate small business owners and want the economy to crash in another effort to remove Trump.  Democrats screaming the Republicans must hate the at-risk and elderly and value money over the health of our citizens.  Conservatives debating whey liquor, marijuana, and abortions are deemed essential services while Church is not.  Liberals asking Conservatives why they value vulnerability and life as it relates to abortions, but not as it relates to those at risk of dying from COVID.  So what changed?  Early on it appeared opinions on both sides of the debate were a diverse cross-section of our social/economic/age/race/religious points of views.  Then suddenly it devolved yet again into a political debate.  People who argued for a lockdown now saying we should re-open.  Those who said this was all ridiculous and over-reaction, now chastising rallies to re-open states.  And I don't think this is about having more facts to have a more informed opinion.  I believe the gravity of our political views has once again drawn us into our separate corners.

Most of us are spending more time with our spouses and significant others than we ever have in our lives.  At no point in my 24 years with my wife have we ever spent this much continuous time together.  Normally we'd have work or travel or personal engagements to give brief breaks apart.  But with the lockdowns, we've had no more than an hour apart from each other since March 5th.  I suspect many families are the same and I'm curious to see what this does to relationship statistics moving forward.  Will these measures bring families closer together, reminding couples why they got together in the first place or will the constant connection drive couples apart?  Will we see a COVID baby boom in 9 months or an increase in divorce rates?  Will domestic abuse rates go up or down?  I have to believe infidelity is currently at an all-time low, but what happens when people are allowed to socialize again?  As for me, I've really enjoyed spending more time at home and also really happy my wife doesn't own a gun.

I miss sports, but I'm thrilled there's no Yankees vs. Red Sox.  I didn't think it was possible for social media to get more annoying and contentious, but we also need it now more than ever to stay connected.  I always look forward to each day, but also spend each day trying to erase 1 hour blocks of time to get closer to when I can go to bed.  I talk about COVID and flattening the curve daily and also look forward to the day when I never utter either again.  Long stationary lines outside of stores in order to prevent too many people inside does not seem to make sense.  I've lost the concept of time while simultaneously feeling like time is standing still.  We are living the movie Groundhog day, except in this version of the movie Phil Connors reports on Groundhog day from his house while recovering from COVID, Rita Hanson gets furloughed in favor of non-union producers, Larry the Cameraman dies of COVID (because well, it's Chris Elliot so of course he does), Ned Ryerson is price gauging N95 masks and Hand Sanitizer,  Punxsutawney Phil get's a citation for going outside, and the song I Got You Babe is played so many times that it replaces Dancing Queen as your current earworm.   At least I got Abba out of our head.

The Turd Mentality?

If you aren't familiar with the term Herd Mentality, it refers to how individuals can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors on a largely emotional, rather than rational, basis (Wikipedia).  It's also known as mob, pack, and gang mentality.  An historical example of the herd mentality was the "Tulip Mania" of the Dutch Golden Age where a single tulip bulb would sell for as much as 10x the average craftsman's salary.  Shortly after being introduced, tulips became a luxury item when a normal flower was nothing more than a commodity.  Within a few years bulb prices continued to rise to the point the Dutch actually created a Futures Market for bulbs in 1636.  And then the tulip bulb market completely collapsed in February of 1637, likely and ironically, due to the outbreak of the bubonic plague. 



Today's current mania is centered around paper products, specifically, toilet paper.  The onset of the CV-19 lockdown, and subsequent advice from the CDC to stock up on household items, has as created a run on toilet paper never before seen in our lifetime.  Most of us know it's irrational, yet we all are now part of the herd, feeling lucky when we score a role of toilet paper we'd hesitate to use in a gas station bathroom.  Yes, thanks to CV-19, we now have the Turd Mentality.

Quick side note:  It's fascinating to think about what creates the herd mentality.  Think about a line forming to board an airplane.  It's not the first person who gets in the line which creates the herd mentality.  In fact, if you are like me, you silently mock the weary business traveler, alone standing in line 30 minutes before boarding.  The herd mentality is actually created by the second person.  At that point, you start to assess whether you are going to miss out on something if you don't join the line.  What happens if a few more people get in line?  Will I have overhead space for my carry on?  By the time your quick assessment is done, travelers with faster mental computation have already joined and now the line is several deep.  At that point, you see the herd mentality take effect and the line goes from 1 to 2 to 10 to everyone.  And then sadly the late arrivers show up, shaking their heads, dismayed by the fact they are at the end of the line and sure to miss out.  

I believe the Turd Mentality originated through a combination of normal disaster preparedness, extreme fear of the virus, ambiguity of what a lockdown would mean, and what countless end of times movies/books/shows have shown us all.  I will spend a few minutes breaking down each of these components.

Disaster Preparedness: When the announcement of imminent lockdowns was made, many people's shopping habits were very similar to how they would normally stock up in preparation for a natural disaster, like a hurricane.  In those times, you need to get certain supplies which you may not normally need (like water).  In fact, if you watched any news reports at the start of the lockdown, bottled water was also initially being hoarded.  So why did water not end up in a shortage when TP did?  People quickly realized this was not a normal natural disaster where they'd be out of their home or electricity would be knocked out, therefore water was always going to be in abundance.  They simply needed to just turn on their faucets.  Meanwhile, more and more news reports began to broadcast the herd (and in this case some real turds) beginning to get shopping carts full of toilet paper.  And we all begin to ask the question...what happens if I run out of toilet paper?  We'll call this the metaphorical "first person in line". 

Fear of the Virus: Meanwhile, fear of the virus continues to grow and some portion of our society is starting to get afraid to leave their house.  We've started to shut down the economy.  People are working from home.  The initial wave of non-essential stores are closing.  So the fearful gather up the courage to make one more trip before they hunker down...they go to the store to stock up on supplies.  And when they go to the store, they are armed with the mental images of the TP hoarding and the new information of TP shelves which are showing just the beginnings of becoming bare.  So they gobble up all they can.  We now have the second "person" in the metaphorical TP line.  The herd is getting ready to pounce.

Lockdown Ambiguity: Very few of us have ever been under mandatory lockdown and therefore we didn't know what to expect.  Would we be able to leave our house for essentials or would that be forbidden?  Would all stores eventually close or would some remain open?  Our internal threat computers are missing data to make the proper decisions so we look for any available data to guide our paths.  And what data is readily available?  Loads and loads of people buying toilet paper.  They must know something I don't, so TP must be something I need.  But this can't really be true.  I'll just go to the store, and while selection may be low, I'll get my TP without any problem.  Yet amazingly, when we hit the stores, there's none left.  But we are smart, we know of other places, and luckily we find a couple packs via online, or drug stores, or the smaller markets.  But our stories are told to friends & family and posted on social media.  The panic is in full force.  Now the metaphorical TP line is 10 deep.


The way I felt after finally finding TP at the store

End of Times Entertainment: Now even the most calm are in some form of a panic on whether they will ever find TP.  Every doomsday show/movie/book we've ever watched tells us certain items, once a commodity, now are being traded like currency.  In fact, some restaurants in Italy were taking TP as payment for food at one point.  Entertainment told us medicine, booze, weapons, and cigarettes would be the most important but TP isn't sexy...of course entertainment would leave that out.  The irrational part of our brains, now with tons of idle time, is going into overdrive about the impending TP crisis.  Amazon has to have some...awesome, found it...shoot expected delivery May of 2023.  We go store to store and every shelf is bare.  Signs are now posted limiting the amount you can buy.  You see someone with a pack of TP and in your head you are computing how much you'd actually pay them for the pack.  You are at the back of the metaphorical TP line and you don't want to be left out.  TP has now become an end of times commodity and the Turd Mentality is in full effect. 

But don't be dismayed, much like the Tulip Bulb collapse of the 1600's, we are already beginning to see the TP market slow down.  While still light in some places, our largest store has had stocked TP shelves for the past 1.5 weeks.  The herd has grown more compassionate, only buying 1-2 packs, instead of a cartful.  Okay, they aren't more compassionate, they are being limited by the stores.  Regardless, the panic and fear is starting to subside.  We won't need to engineer a homemade bidet. We won't need to cut paper towel roles in half.  We won't need to shower after every trip to the bathroom. And as quickly as it came, the great TP crisis of 2020 will go away.  To paraphrase a great Seinfeld episode, "Yes, we will indeed be able to spare a square". 

Attestupa

Attestupa is a prehistoric Nordic phrase supposedly originating from sites where the elderly threw themselves off cliffs (or were thrown off) when they were unable to support themselves or assist in a household.  I doubt we'll find anyone who thinks this is an acceptable practice and we'll consider this one bookend in the spectrum of how a society should treat those who are old, sick, or otherwise at risk.  

Our most recent example of the bookend at the other end of the spectrum is the current CV-19 lockdown, where we are figuratively throwing our young and healthy off an economic, social, and mental cliff in order to protect the elderly and at risk.   I believe much of the nation was and is willing to temporarily give up some freedom in order to prevent the spread of a dangerous pandemic.  I also believe we are willing to do so, even if our own personal risk is low, so those most at risk can remain as healthy as possible.  So for a moment let's abandon the notion the social distancing measures were wrong in the first place and instead focus on what it will take to resume some form of normalcy in our lives.  

We were told these extreme measures were necessary to flatten the curve to slow the spread of the virus.  The most important word in that sentence is "slow".  This was never about waiting until there was no threat at all or the virus was eradicated.  This was always about slowing the spread of the virus to give us time to learn more about how to treat it and to prevent overwhelming our medical response.  

In a perfect scenario a vaccine or highly successful treatment would quickly be found and everyone would have the confidence to resume life as normal.  What we know is a vaccine is at least a year away (and more likely 18 months).  After 4 months we also don't have a treatment protocol agreed upon by health experts to cure those infected.  And we have no timeline for mass testing of potentially infected as well as antibody testing to see those who may be immune.  So in short, we really aren't any closer to a medical solution today than we were 4 months ago.  

Here's some rough stats (probably not perfect but good enough to make my point)

• Globally 1.9 million people out of 5.5 billion are known to be infected.  In those terms, we are all on quarantine over a .000345 infection rate. 
• Globally 119k have died out of those 1.9 million infected.  In those terms, our lives are all on hold over a 6% global mortality rate.  You have a 94% chance of survival if you get it and that's assuming every demographic has the same mortality rate, which we know is not the case.
• In the US 581,000 out of 319 million are known to be infected.  That's a .0018 infection rate.
• In the US 23,604 of those infected have died.  That's a .04 mortality rate.  You have a 96% chance of survival.
• We have 17 states with less than 1000 confirmed cases.  We have another 15 states with less than 3000 confirmed cases.  That's 60% of the states in our country.
• NY and NJ have over half of the reported deaths for the entire country (NY alone is 42%).  And while I don't have the numbers, I'm guessing NYC and Newark account for more than 75% of those numbers.  

We have seen the curve begin to flatten but we are also regularly warned of the dire consequences of returning to life as normal too soon.  So what then is the acceptable criteria for beginning to relax the current measures in place?  There will be no vaccine this year.  We have no end in site for a cure.  There is no timetable for mass testing nor a plan to use that testing to systematically return life to the new normal.  So what then are we waiting for?  Newly infected cases could go to zero but the risk of a return of the virus will still be there.  Our elected leaders are telling us they need science and data to guide their decisions on when we will re-open.  Another way to say that is they currently do not the necessary scientific data to make a decision about the best course forward.  In other words, that same lack of scientific data is being used to keep is on indefinite lockdown.  Net/net, limited data is apparently fine for definitively hurting 99% of the healthy population but not okay for potentially putting at risk the other 1% of the at risk population.

So I ask again, what will it take to reopen?  In the absence of a vaccine, a cure, and testing, what will give our elected leaders the comfort to relax the rules?  And if the answer is nothing, then we either need to gradually return to normal now or all be prepared for continued lockdown for several more months.  What if the real answer on how to save the most lives is for herd immunity to take effect?  What if our lockdown is simply prolonging the issue while creating a number of other unintended consequences like unemployment, increases in spousal abuse, and mental health erosion?  What if 80% of the population already is immune?  What if we never find a vaccine or cure?  

I want to reiterate I'm not attempting to minimize the significance or severity of CV-19.  I'm simply arguing the risks are extremely low for the vast majority of the population, so let us make our own decisions about how much risk we are willing to take.  For those who are old and/or at risk, by all means stay at home.  Social distance to your heart's content.  Allow them to continue to work from home if they choose.  But for everyone else, let them roam free.  Life is risky.  We die every day from disease, accidents, overdoses, old age, heart attacks, etc.  Life is hard and it ends the same for 100% of everyone.  Linda Ellis wrote, "Your life is made of two dates and a dash".  I'm not advocating putting someone else's dash at risk, I'm simply asking to be allowed to live my own dash as I see fit.  

A Journey of 1000 Commutes

I've been commuting now for 20 years.  And when I say commuting, I'm talking 2-3 hours per day almost every day for 20 years.  I recently had my 18 year anniversary at my current employer and decided to quickly calculate how much time I've spent in the car going to and from work over that 18 year period.  Turns out it's about 1.5  years.  Yes, you read that correctly, 1.5 years just driving to work every day.  It's not all bad, the time in the car allows me to unwind, get educated, think, catch up with friends, listen to music, etc.  The commute has also allowed my family to thrive, have a parent home with my once young kids, and generally allowed us to have a great quality of life because we aren't a slave to a mortgage.  But let's not kid ourselves...commuting sucks.  Now over those 20 years of commuting I've learned a few things that I will now share as my 6 truths of commuting.

1) The 2 Worst Commute Days: I have no empirical evidence to prove this, but at this point I'm going to call myself a commute expert and you'll just have to trust me.  Contrary to popular belief, the worst commute days are not those surrounding holidays.  If commuting was torture (which in many ways it is), holiday travel would be dripping water torture.  I'm going to tell you the drives that are the water boarding of commutes.  For the drive in, I've found the first Monday of the Fall Daylight Savings Time adjustment to be simply awful.  My theory is it's the one day of the year people actually got enough sleep.  You generally go to bed an hour earlier than normal and when you wake up at your normal time, you've actually slept an hour later.  In other words, when that alarm goes off in the morning I suspect not nearly as many people are hitting the snooze over and over again.  Therefore, instead of the commute being spread out over several hours, I believe it's condensed into a 1-2 hour window.  For the drive home, you don't get any worse than Halloween Night.  My theory here is this is the one day of the year when virtually everyone is trying to get home at about the same time.  Parents get home to take their kids trick or treating.  Other people are getting home to go to a party.  Still others are getting home just to be in their house to hand out candy.  Regardless of the reason, loads of people are all trying to be home around dark which makes for a brutal commute.  Net/Net, avoid the morning commute on the Monday of Fall Daylight Savings and avoid the evening commute on Halloween.

2) Slow Drivers in the Fast Lane:  This is one of my huge pet peeves.  A few years ago I began to realize a pattern when it came to who was holding up traffic in the fast lane.  More often than not, it's a driver of a pick-up truck.  I'm guessing it's well over 50% of the time.  I don't know why it is or what the rationale may be, but check it out the next time you are driving 60 mph in the left lane and wonder who the lovely person is that's making everyone go so slow.  For you pick-up drivers, yes we all know you have a nice big vehicle that commands a presence and loads of room to drive.  But here's a little secret for you...the right hand lane is just as wide and was specifically designated for people who do not wish to drive the speed limit.  Try it out, we'd all appreciate the gesture.

3) Prius Drivers:  Prius drivers drive incredibly slow.  I'm a hybrid owner so I understand the concept of slower starts and even acceleration in order to keep things in electric mode.  However, I don't see non-Prius Hybrid/Electric owners drive as slow as the Prius Hybrid/Electric owners.  Tesla owners drive fast; I suppose I would too if I had one.  Most other hybrid/electric owners drive basically normal other than a bit slower starts from being at a stop.  But Prius owners just tend to drive slowly and poorly most of the time.  Is there a poor driver test you need to take before acquiring a Prius?  Do you void the warranty if you actually drive the speed limit or take a turn faster than 5 mph?  Does Prius actually stand for "I know you may be in a hurry but I'm not so please continue to waste your time behind me while I go out for my Sunday stroll"?

4) Commuters Will Try Anything to Get Through the Commute:  If idle hands are the devil's workshop, then idle driving is the devil's commute.  I've tried just about everything to pass the time and entertain myself along my drives, including some very stupid and unsafe things.  I've listened to music, listened to books (The Imperfectionists is my favorite), taken work conference calls, had many phone conversations with friends, listened to the entire bible from start to finish (Numbers is brutal), listened to PodCasts (Anything from Gimlet Media is awesome), tried about every genre of station on Sirius XM, spent a couple of weeks pretending to be an in-field traffic reporter (shout out to Leyla Gulen for entertaining this one), done loads of thinking, counted stop-lights, listened to business books, experimented with how long it would take me to drive past cars with license plates from every state (I never finished this one), and once even redlined a supplier contract (this falls into the incredibly unsafe category).  The bottom-line, you do whatever you have to do to get by.  Many thanks to all the people, writers, singers, and companies that have made my commute bearable over the  years.

5) Small Changes Make a Big Difference: This probably falls into the "duh" category but it's still worth mentioning.  Really small changes in the commute can make an enormous difference.  On the negative side, one large pot hole, a tire in the road, a broken down car, or a fender bender can wreck a commute for hours.  There aren't many on the positive side, but Government Holidays pretty dramatically reduce commute time.  If you ever wondered the size of our government, just look at the positive way your commute changes when they have the day off and you don't.  So this is where I implore CalTrans to be smart about their changes, because they do have a profound effect on us drivers.  Metering lights to enter a freeway do not work.  I don't care what your science says, as a driver it has added time to my commute and not made the freeways any less busy.  Get rid of them.  Having toll lanes closed for seemingly no reason is always a bad idea.  And whomever is in charge of the decision not to widen the Richmond Bridge is costing Bay Area commuters hours of their lives on a yearly basis...you've failed us all.  For commuters, for the love of God, please stop rubbernecking.  You really do not need to see what's going on in the other direction just because their are blinking lights.  You do not need to slow down to a crawl because one of the electric freeway signs reads, "Buckle Up, It's the Law".  And you certainly do not need to drive 40 mph below the speed limit just because there's a little drizzle.  Please be safe, but please also be smart.

6) Dear Fellow Drivers, Please Stop:  We share the road together and therefore are reliant on each other for a successful and stress-free commute.  In order to accomplish this very important mission, please do not stay stopped when the light turns green because you are talking on your phone.  Do not drive too slow because you are putting on your makeup or shaving while driving.  Do not have your left turn blinker on when you are in the far left lane.  Do not drive with one foot on the brake and one foot on the accelerator...those following you have no clue whether you are stopping or going.  If you find yourself in the front of the turn lane but really need to go straight, suck it up, make the turn and figure out another way to get back to where you need to go.  If you are looking to turn into oncoming traffic, do not wait until the last second before I arrive to suddenly make the turn...if you weren't bold enough in the 10 seconds before I arrived don't start being bold in the 1 second before I get there.  And finally, do not sit in a parking space for more than 10 seconds while in reverse, stop in the road to talk to friend or neighbor, have a license plate with any format of XX ❤YY, tell me how many people are in your family with stickers of people and pets, or forget to wave thanks when I've let you in front of me when you are desperately trying to get into my lane.

Who Gets My Vote and Why It Won't Matter

Let me start with a little background on me.  I've voted in every General Election since I was eligible to cast a ballot.  In every election of any kind, I've never cast a single vote for anyone other than a Democrat.  I suspect that may surprise a few of you, but it's true.  I think Democrats tend to appeal to younger and more idealistic voters and for much of my life that's exactly who I have been.  I'm also a Political Science Major and while I get fed up with election season like everyone else, I'm also fascinated by the entire process and take it very seriously.  On multiple occasions we've taken a ballot and gone over every candidate and every measure and debate their pro's and con's as we prepare for election day.  

Quick Mid-Post Rant:  Most of us have spent the entirety of the last 6 months fighting over who will become our President.  During that same time most of us have ignored every single other race and measure.  You will walk into the voting booth completely unprepared to vote for everything else, so you'll do 1 of 2 things.  You'll go down the ballot and vote for the names you recognize (or the parties they represent) and cast your measures vote on some 30 second commercial you saw on TV.  Or you'll simply decide not to vote for most of the other candidates and ballot measures because you aren't educated enough on the topics.  This is how we get lifetime Congressional Members.  This is how our taxes creep up year after year and we end up paying $5 to cross a bridge.  In reality, whomever gets elected President will likely have zero impact on your own personal life.  However, your local races and measures will have profound effects on you.  It's not too late to spend a little time getting educated on the other votes you need to cast so I urge you all to do that before Tuesday.  

Ok, back to me. I've never struggled with a decision about where my vote would go more than this year.  I had said long ago that I would vote for a Republican this election no matter who the Republican candidate turned out to be.  That seemed like a fairly low risk statement given 17 Republicans were running for President and several of them seemed like decent choices to me.  I came out of the gate liking Rubio and even donated to his campaign, but Christie exposed him for the lifetime politician he is and my support (and everyone else's) quickly disappeared.  I think liked Christie for about 30 seconds until it became clear I was the only one and there was no chance he'd be elected.  So I turned my support to Ted Cruz.  Many of his positions were similar to mine and he didn't seem to come with all of the venomous rhetoric you heard from Trump.  I also liked the fact both Democrats and Republicans seemed to dislike Cruz.  That told me he was not a typical politician and raised my hopes of what he could do in D.C.  Meanwhile, Kasich kept hanging around like the crazy guy he was talking nothing but common sense and practicality.  With every debate and every primary I continued to hear nothing but good ideas and sound approaches on everything I seemed to care about.  I found myself hoping against hope that somehow Kasich would emerge as our Republican candidate.  But he didn't and so I was left with Trump.  

I guess you could say I was like a man wandering through the desert desperately looking for a glass of water.  Rubio was salt water and ended up making me sick.  Christie was a mirage.  Cruz was ice water that would never melt.  And Kasich was just a dream that would never become reality.  So as I continued to wander and my thirst grew and grew my only option became Trump.  By no means was he a cold glass of water or an ice cold beer.  Sure he was a warm, stagnant, fly infested pond in the rain forest where I'd likely get dysentery, but I was thirsty and in dire need of drink.  So I took a sip and at first found it wasn't all that bad.  Yes, the taste was unpleasant, but it did the job.  I didn't like how he said things but I did find I liked the core of a lot of what he said.  (For example, I don't think Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers, but I do think our borders are far too porous to illegal aliens from all countries.)  So I found myself drinking more and more of the water until I ultimately became sick.  I didn't like all of the reports that began to leak about the way he's treated women in the past (or present for that matter).  I didn't like the way he behaved in debates and the fact any person could provoke him into an early morning Twitter tirade.  So I began to purge myself of my Trump support feeling worse than I did when wandering through the Republican Primary Desert. 

But who would I vote for?  I cannot and will not vote for Clinton (hereto referred to as HRC).  I definitely don't believe everything that's come out about her, but enough of it is probably true to make me believe she's the exact embodiment of everything I loathe about Washington D.C.  I believe at best she's an unethical politician and at worst she's a criminal who belongs in jail.  She's every bit as negative and vitriolic as Trump and her hypocrisy has no limits.  For example, how can she possibly demand the FBI be transparent about their evidence when the only reason they are investigating her is her lack of transparency on tens of thousands of emails??  HRC is the devil in sheep's clothing (or pant suit if you like) and it's unfortunate so many people believe she's okay because she's "not as bad as Trump."

I won't vote for a 3rd Party candidate.  It's not that I'm opposed to 3rd parties and in fact think a viable 3rd party would be very healthy in America.  But Gary Johnson is just a mediocre politician turned drug pusher who wasn't good enough to be elected as a Republican so has decided to stay in the spotlight every 4 years as a Libertarian.  And with that, I won't waste any more words on him.

So I still have no one to vote for.  But wait, I live in California and no matter who I vote for my electoral votes are going for HRC.  So that frees me up to do whatever I want to do.  So I decided to do a write in and cast my vote for the Republican I thought would have been best.  That's right, that tall drink of water John Kasich.  I had found the loop hole.  I didn't have to vote for Trump or HRC.  I was proud to be able to take the moral high road and not have to put my "support" behind either candidate.  Oh I talked a good talk about how if I lived in a battleground state then I would have made the tough choice on voting for one of them, but in reality it was a cop out.  Since our nation was formed, millions of men and women have died for my right to vote and I wasn't going to be a chicken because the choice was hard.  

So this morning I woke up with a decision.  I will vote for Donald Trump.  I will not vote for him because I think he's a good man who represents America well, because he doesn't.  I will not vote for him just because I think HRC is evil and a vote for him is a vote against her.  I will not vote for him because what he supports is exactly equal to everything I believe, because it isn't.  I will vote for Trump because I think Washington D.C. and the entire electoral process needs a complete and total overhaul and he's more likely to bring it than anyone else.  I'm tired of politics as usual.  I think it's funny all of the hyperbolic statements people make about the world we'll get if we elect Trump or HRC.  The reality is for the past 30 years no President has been able to do anything at all so why on earth do you think one of these two people will get anything done?  But if Trump gets elected, it will send the strongest message ever to American politicians.  It tells them the status quo of ineptitude and idleness is over.  If a guy like Trump, with all his flaws and problems can beat a career politician in HRC, then they all have to change now.  

So now I'm faced with the backlash of casting my vote for Trump.  I've heard some say only toothless uneducated men from the south are his supporters.  Well I have all my teeth, went to college, and I don't say yes sir and ma'am.  I've heard HRC say Trump supporters are deplorable (or at least half of them).  Well I'm not.  I'm a high integrity Christian who has been forced to make a difficult choice.  I've heard people say if you vote for Trump you aren't representing your wives, daughters or mothers.  Well that's just like saying if you vote for HRC then you aren't representing our soldiers or the people who invented email (and no, that wasn't Al Gore).  

But none of it really matters because in America and in California my vote does not count.  We still have this crazy system of an electoral college where somehow we believe that's the best way to elect the most powerful person in the world.  I actually think this is where Trump is right.  The election is rigged.  But not against him.  It's rigged against the American Voters.  How is it possible that Al Gore can win the popular vote in 2000 but not be elected President.  Why is it that okay?  Why is it okay that I live in California and unless my vote goes to HRC then my vote doesn't count?  Or on the other side, why is it okay that a Democrat in Texas never gets their vote heard?  How is it possible that the Republican Party started this election with an incredibly narrow path to the White House simply based on electoral votes and the states that never change.  This was all long before Trump was the candidate.  It's time for that process to change which I believe we get more people out there to vote because each vote matters much more.  I want my vote to count and so should you.  

The Lessor of Evils: We've Made This Mistake Before

US History is littered with examples of our government working with the lessor of the evils to get rid of the greater of the evils.  The thought being that in order to dismantle the perceived largest threat, you may need to create allies with those you normally wouldn't.  A 22 year old Saddam Hussein was a paid by the CIA to kill the then President of Iraq.  Osama Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen where he and other militant leaders were trained by US funded through Pakistani armed forces, all in an attempt to help Afghanistan defeat the Soviet Union in their long-standing war.  The US supported the Batista Dictatorship which ultimately led to the Cuban Revolution and the rise of Fidel Castro.  And so on and so on.  Whether it was the Contras in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, or Chiang Kai-Shek in China, the US has routinely used the "lessor of two evils" tactic.

I realize all of the examples above show the bad thing that can happen when the lessor of the evils turns out to be a greater evil.  I'm sure there are many examples where the lessor evil did what we needed and then faded into the background.  However, our success record should be suspect enough to at least give you pause.

So what you ask?  Why does this matter at all?  Now enter the 2016 Presidential Election.  It's not hard to see how wrong Trump is as a candidate, world leader, or even human being.  Even those who will vote for him will tell you they don't support him as a person (I used to be one of them).  On a daily basis the media is showing new examples of his wrong-doings and providing ample examples of why "Anyone But Trump" is a logical conclusion.  And a great deal of the American public has accepted that argument and turned it's cheek to what could be the greater evil thinly disguised.  In an effort to completely destroy Trump, the media and much of America, has chosen to give Clinton a complete pass.  They have essentially wiped clean her suspect judgment around Benghazi.  They have taken at face value a sham of a process by the FBI around her potentially illegal use of a private email server (a use that would have landed virtually anyone else in the US in jail).  They have chosen to completely ignore a daily barrage of email releases from Wikileaks where it's been proven she manipulates the media and makes bigoted and elitist comments about virtually every social class and race.  HRC supporters turn a blind eye to how the DNC essentially undermined Bernie Sanders in an effort to ensure Clinton was the Democratic Nominee.  Clinton's comments about the women involved with her husband are totally ignored.  And believe it or not, something like 46 Clinton associates have been found dead under suspicious circumstances in their 3 decades of political power, yet that never seems to make the nightly news.

So many are so completely infatuated with the immorality of Trump that they've stopped noticing the potential evil in Clinton.  Now lest anyone think I'm encouraging you to vote for  Trump because I am not.  What I'm asking you to do is open your eyes.  Trump supporters have been forced to do so; they have no choice but to see him for who he is and make their decision accordingly.  In my case, I went from voting for Trump to deciding not to based on what I've seen recently.  But I fear Clinton supporters are so wrapped up in the Never Trump movement that they long ago stopped paying attention to who they have thrown their support behind.  Now maybe everything I mention above is just smoke and mirrors.  Maybe Clinton is no different than any other politician (by the way that alone should give you pause).  But what if she isn't?  If this were any other election where she was running against any other candidate, would any of what I mention above be relevant to you?

We tend to deal with the things directly in front of us because those are the things we perceive can do us the most harm.  Donald Trump is right in front of us and it's not hard to see the risk in him as the leader of the free world.  And the typical logic would state Hillary Clinton is not Donald Trump, therefore she must be the right choice in opposition.  But if the US had to do it all over again, would they have backed Saddam Hussein?  Would they have funded and trained Bin Laden and the Contras?  Would they have supported Batista and Pinochet?  In those cases the true evil was also right in front of them but were ignored because the known evil was more evident.  I would argue the very same risk is upon us in 2016.  In an effort not to elect the bad candidate we might just elect the evil one.

It Was Debasing Not Debating

The debate last night was well, interesting.  It felt like candidates on The Bachelor suddenly broke out into a debate.  At least one moderator spent more time arguing than simply asking questions and keeping things on track.  A former President was harshly attacked and he's not even running for President.  And the final question of the debate forced the candidates to say something nice about each other.  For the record, Clinton couldn't even do that although she came close enough by complimenting Trump's kids.

The three key points in the debate I'd like to discuss are the hot mic controversy, the Clinton emails, and the moderators in general.  Today I'm going to play arm-chair debater and tell you how I would have handled things had I been Trump, Clinton, or a moderator during the debate.  Of course I have the benefit of hindsight, no pressure, and what I say will only be read by 4 people instead of watched by millions.

TRUMP: HOT MIC CONTROVERSY

I didn't care for the way he answered the question.  Yes, he successfully got through it without further damage, but in my opinion he could have turned it into a opportunity.  He played the damage control card only and then went on the attack of Bill Clinton in an effort to show the hypocrisy of the Clintons.  I've never been a fan of the "Yeah I did it but what they are doing is worse" defense, so his entire tone on that set of questions fell completely flat on me.  Here's how he should have answered the question:

"Regardless of how long ago it was or the circumstances surrounding it, I said some very insulting, stupid, and demeaning things.  There is no way to defend or explain what I said, so I'm not going to even try.  Instead, I'm simply going to say I'm sorry.  I'm sorry Nancy O'Dell.  I'm sorry Arianne Zucker.  I'm sorry Melania.  I'm sorry to my family. And I'm extremely sorry to the American people who have put their faith for a better future in me and whom I severely let down.  I realize some people will not vote for me solely because of these statements, and while I wish that was different, I totally understand the reason why.  It's a great lesson to us all that what we say and do can always have an impact on us later in life and we must own up to those actions.  My hope is the American people look at more than just this issue when they cast their vote.  I hope they accept this apology and realize that even though I'm a flawed man, I still will be their defender of our Constitutional Rights.  I will be the one who is toughest on our enemies and will bring judgment to ISIS.  I will bring jobs back to our Nation and stop the constant flow of work overseas.  I will lower taxes.  I will defend the 2nd Amendment.  I will put a conservative like Justice Scalia back on the Supreme Court.  And I will leave the office with America in a better place than it was when I took it. So I first ask for your forgiveness, and if you can find it in your hearts to do that, then I now ask for your vote."

CLINTON: EMAIL ISSUE

It felt like Clinton did an equally bad job answering the questions about her email as Trump did about his words.  When she talked about doing things differently, it sounded more to me like doing things differently so she wouldn't have gotten caught.  She spent a lot of time minimizing her actions and never really acknowledging how many people view what she did and how she's been treated in the aftermath.  For someone who loves to say she's not part of the elite, on this issue she's been treated like royalty.  Richard Nixon lost his Presidency over a scandal and cover-up for less significant than than the email issue.  I think it would have been important for Clinton to at least help the voting public try to understand why she did it and why deleting 30,000+ emails looks really bad.  I'm not entirely sure what she could say to make things look better, but hoping the people believe she had 33,000 personal emails is a bit far fetched.  The success of her argument lies in the fact our highest law enforcement agency, the FBI, has formally cleared her of any criminal wrong doing.  If I'm Clinton, I respond to every question with reminding everyone the FBI completely cleared her of any criminal wrong doing.  No matter how much Trump may want to talk about her poor judgment, the FBI has essentially said she did no wrong.  Every time she tries to explain herself she either comes across as arrogant or seems to imply we are dumb enough to buy her flimsy excuses.  Additionally, her facial expressions barely hide the fact she knows she got away with something a normal private citizen never would have.

THE MODERATORS: LEARN THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD

The definition of moderator is as follows:  someone who leads a discussion in a group and tells each person when to speak; someone who moderates a meeting or discussion

An alternate definition is: the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.

Both of those definitions seem to either explicitly state or implicitly imply an unbiased approach to the leading of a discussion.  Last night we saw both moderators, but particularly Martha Raddatz, seemed more interested in joining the debate than leading it.  Raddatz continually interrupted Trump, argued with Trump, ask follow-up after follow-up regardless of how he answered, and generally showed complete contempt for him as a person.  Now Trump probably deserves that from the majority of the free world, but Raddatz is there to MODERATE not PARTICIPATE.  She is not there to show her support for either candidate.  She is not there to make sure one candidate looks foolish and she's certainly not there to be part of the story.  She is there for 2 reasons only.

Reason 1:  Ask questions, including a follow-up if the questions is either not answered or the answer is not clear.
Reason 2:  Keep time and make sure a candidate doesn't run long.

That's a pretty simple list of job responsibilities to keep clear.  No matter what she feels, she needs to stay out of the debate and let the candidates spar with each other.  Want proof?  Trump was interrupted 26 times by Raddatz while Clinton was interrupted only 12 times.  That's 38 times she felt the need to insert herself into the conversation instead of just letting them respond on their own.  (Side note: lest we think this was just a problem last night, Lester Holt interrupted Trump 42 times in the previous debate)

Anderson Cooper wasn't much better either.  Over and over I heard him say something to the effect of, "Mr. Trump please don't interrupt her, she didn't interrupt you."  Why not just say, "Mr. Trump, please hold your comments."  Why was it so important for Cooper to continually compare Trump's behavior to Clinton?

Further, the moderators did a horrible job getting the debate off to the right start.  While they clearly needed to talk about Trump's hot mic issue and Clinton's email issue, leading with both set the standard this was going to be a bare knuckle brawl.  Would it have been so wrong to lead with something else?  Or if you lead with Trump's scandal, then get to other real issues right away before you get to Clinton's emails.  We were 30+ minutes into the debate before we got to an actual issue.  Additionally, the first social question from the public was another one about the hot mic issue.  And if that wasn't enough, Raddatz felt the need to augment the question with her own spin.  No other social question or question from the Town Hall attendees was augmented or adjusted by either moderator.

CONCLUSION

The losing participants in the debate were the moderators.  No one lost my trust more than them as the didn't play the very simple role they were asked to play.  Who lost the debate?  Probably all of us watching.  I don't think any of us learned anything new and we subjected the entire world to the circus that is this year's election.  I've watched every debate since I was 16 years old and this is the first time I was physically uncomfortable.  My like the election in general, I just wanted it to end.

Understanding vs. Character Assassination

I haven't blogged since 2010.  That's a six year hiatus and based mostly on this year's election, suddenly I feel compelled to come back and start writing again.  I suppose this election brings out different things in all of us, but from what I see most of those things are negative.  I think the most disappointing thing more me to see is how everyone is attacking each other...and I'm not talking about our candidates.  I'm talking about how intelligent, good, otherwise well-behaved adults are at each other's throats because of who they support or what they believe.  There is very little effort to have intellectual debates on the merits of each others views.  There is very little desire to try and understand different points of views to shape your overall opinion.  And there is zero understanding of people who have different motivations for how their vote will be cast.  We are a nation of people who live in glass houses paid for by the money we've made as professionals in the National Stone Throwing Association.

TWO THINGS CAN BE EQUALLY TRUE

An interesting thing happens any time new information comes out on either candidate.  There is a rush to social media so people can say, "See, your candidate is terrible."

The Republican narrative goes something like this: "What Trump said 11 years ago is terrible, but what he SAYS is no where near as bad as what Clinton DOES.  She's a witch and I don't mean a theoretical witch.  She's an actual witch, like Hermione but bad.  In fact, now that I think about it the entire Harry Potter series is an attempt by the liberal media to show the terrors that will befall us all if a crazy, egotistic older man with hair issues finally rises to power.  The evidence is everywhere.  You can't spell Voldemort without a T and of course Trump starts with a T.  But see, Rowling has it all wrong. Trump is more Dumbledore than Voldemort."

The Democrat narrative goes something like this: "If you have a mom, a wife, a daughter,a grandmother, a mother in law,  have ever known a female, have ever talked to a female, if you work with a woman, have a female dog (but don't call them a bitch, that's deplorable), have used the feminine gender in languages, have been near a ladies room, believe in the Virgin Mary, or used the letters S,H,E in consecutive order to spell a word then how could you possible support a man like Trump?"

You are trying to prove the quality of your choice by disproving the quality of someone else's.  I guess I understand it though.  When you have two significantly flawed candidates, it's always easiest to call out the flaws of your opposition instead of acknowledging the flaws in those your support.  But let's be clear, two things can be equally true.

When audio comes out showing the disgusting things Trump Has said, it doesn't mean Clinton is suddenly a saint.  She can still raise taxes, liberalize the Supreme Court, fail on foreign policy, be a habitual liar, and have shady business dealings.  She's the same career politician she was before the hot mic news broke.

When Wikileaks releases 1000's of emails or voice audio on the things Clinton as done, it's doesn't suddenly mean what Trump said is less important.  Trump still has no experience, will make the Supreme Court more conservative, has a history of saying inappropriate things, is not "Presidential", and could be a huge risk on foreign affairs.  He is the same career businessman and womanizer he was before the Wikileaks release.

A NATION DIVIDED

Many of us acknowledge how divided we've become as a nation on things like race, religion, beliefs, etc.  I hear many of you pleading for the country to come together, especially in times where the division is most visible.  You are SAYING  all the right things.  But in the case of this election, what you are generally DOING is the exact opposite.  People are verbally tearing into each other because they disagree on this election, and those are people who are friends with each other.  I'd love to see a study of unfollows/unfriends on Facebook directly after a political discussion on a post.

Unfortunately what I tend to see are people attacking each other instead of debating the actual issues.  I've jumped into a few "charged" discussions before and every time I've tried to insert facts and logic, the discussion abruptly ends.  When people say/post things that are not hateful rhetoric, but rather insightful information, there's almost never a discussion about it.  However, the minute you post something about Trump or Clinton themselves, then hold on for a shock and awe assault on your personal character.

WARNING.  WARNING.  WARNING.  We now interrupt this blog for a quick rant.  We'll return to the regularly scheduled rant in a moment.  
There are good and bad people who support both candidates.  Every single supporter of both candidates has sinned in their life.  Every single supporter of both candidates has done something in their life they regret.  Every single supporter of both candidates has said something offensive they'd like to take back.  And please, do not give me the line, "Yeah, but those people aren't running for President."  Well neither was Trump in 2005 and neither was Clinton when her husband was President.  I could probably just go through each of your Facebook or Twitter posts and find something offense, contradictory, or vulgar from every single one of you.

TRY TO UNDERSTAND

I think it's very important to at least try to understand the motivations behind someones support of a candidate.  I know it's easiest to just call them names and shake your head at how they could possibly support a womanizer in Trump or a liar in Clinton.  But I'd like to at least hope many of each candidate's supporters have good reasons for their vote.  I certainly know some support Trump because they are racist and want anyone who doesn't look like them to leave the country.  I know some support Clinton simply because she's a woman.

However, I'm going to hold on to the hope the vast majority of the voting public has deeper and more important reasons.  The balance of the Supreme Court is at stake with this election.  The winner of the election will essentially get to choose which direction the court swings.  This is not a 4 year decision.  The decisions of The Supreme Court last for years and years.  It's been 43 years since Roe v Wade and conservatives are still trying to get that overturned.  So when someone says they are voting for a candidate simply because of the Supreme Court nomination, that's a very valid reason.  That reason alone can trump (no pun intended) everything else the candidate has said or done.  The Supreme Court tacitly sets the laws of our very divided nation.

We have an incredible economic divide in our country.  Jobs are vanishing, either going overseas or being eliminated through automation.  Many hard working people are struggling in ways they never have before.  You Republicans, if you were in the ocean drowning, would you really care if it was Clinton who threw you the life vest?  Well many people are drowning in debt and they are looking to this next President as the person who will save them.  So if someone casts their vote for the candidate they best believes will turn around our economic divide, how can we possibly blame them for that vote?  To those people, their livelihood is far more important than the character flaws of the candidates.

And so on and so on.  Whether it's taxes, or gun control, or social rights, or health care, or foreign affairs, etc., it's very likely a voter cares far more about that one topic than they do about the person they have to vote for to represent that topic.

CONCLUSION

This is clearly a tough election.  While I have no evidence to support it, my guess is neither of these candidates would ever have been even nominated in previous years (well in the case of HRC we have the evidence).  Every candidate who has lost the General Election in the past 100 years probably would have beaten both Trump and Clinton.  And yet one of them is going to be our President.  That is a fact and no matter what amount of character assassination we lobby on their supporters, they have to vote for someone.  Don't buy into the sound bites on both sides.  Take the time to read into what they really support and the policies they intend to bring to Washington D.C.  Have real debates with your friends/family and not ones that turn into name calling and verbal abuse because of who they support.  Just because the candidates are flawed does not mean it justifies our actions to be just as flawed as them.