On A Clear Day, I Can See My Barn.

On A Clear Day, I Can See My Barn.  Over the next three months, American voters will be deciding who they will choose to lead our nation for the next four to eight years.  It is not a reach to say that the candidates available for that choice are two of the most flawed in history.   Some have even gone as far as to say that the vice-presidential candidates for each party are superior to their presidential candidates.  Perhaps so, but the choice remains either Trump or Clinton.  There will likely be many from each side of the political aisle that will remain home in protest on Election Day.  Bernie’s legions and the army of Cruz will not totally accept the candidates that vanquished their idols.  Will this advantage break for either Trump or Clinton?  Not likely.  It is more probable that an equal number from each party will abstain in protest.  As perhaps never before, at least in modern history, this will be an election where the winner can legitimately be labeled the “least of two evils”.  

There are many today who know exactly who they will vote for in November.  Their visceral dislike for one candidate or the other is cemented in their consciousness and nothing that occurs between now and Election Day will change their mind.   These “already decided” voters might very well be in equal numbers for each party.  That would leave the “yet to decide” voters to determine our next President.  That group would be composed of Independents, crossover voters from each party, and yes…the members of each party who remain voteless in protest.  In reality, a Republican non-vote for Trump is indeed a vote for Clinton; and likewise, a Democrat who chooses not to vote for Clinton might as well be casting a vote for Trump.  It could be that close.

If this election cycle has proven nothing else, it has proven the remarkable limits on the abilities of political prognosticators to accurately predict election results.  When all is said and done, I suspect the same will be true of pollsters.  All that being said, it is such good sport to speculate on how this race might end, especially with a race that promises to be very entertaining (or depressing?), that I will render a notion or two about its possible results.

Hillary Clinton has been a government addict her entire life.  With the exception of her brief and controversial work at the Rose Law Firm, her entire professional life has been involved in some form of civic performance.  It is amusing that the Democratic National Convention attempted, once again, to reintroduce her to the American public.  I hardly think there are many among us who do not have a pretty solid opinion, one way or the other, of Hillary Clinton.  It is also true that her extensive experience with governmental affairs is a two-edged sword; it both qualifies her for public office and exposes her weaknesses and failures in public office.  From her First Lady of Arkansas chapter, to her First Lady of America chapter, through her New York Senator chapter, to her Secretary of State chapter, she has worn many hats and costumes.  The opportunities to promote and advocate for varied causes and principles have been plentiful and one can simply read the history pages to arrive at a verdict on her effectiveness as a public servant.  The more relevant, not my meaning but the reality of the situation, aspects of her many adventures in elected office will be her many brushes with controversy, corruption, and legal gymnastics.  Whether or not Hillary Clinton should currently be residing in a big house somewhere with “three hots and a cot” is a matter of opinion; but the fact that she has so often been associated with matters of questionable ethics must pose a cautionary concern to any person considering her for the top office in our nation.  While she will proclaim her resume as great presidential qualification, she must also answer the many questions left unresolved by her scandalous adventures.  Clinton’s argument of competence will have to be proven beyond the list of offices she has held; a list of accomplishments will be necessary.   She will have to either effectively address the public mistrust that so many hold for her and win them over to her abilities or convince the people that Trump is so incompetent as to pose a real danger to the nation; leaving herself as the only logical choice.  One other balancing act that will test Clinton’s political skills will be the tricky feat of clinging to Obama’s support by essentially painting her election as a third (and fourth?) Obama term while also convincing a clearly uneasy American citizenry that she has the recipe for necessary changes; changes that will address the many troublesome issues that have flourished under Obama and are currently vexing this nation.  No matter what else she or her campaign managers might say or do, Hillary Clinton will represent Obama and his policies and the WDC establishment in general; she is the personification of status quo and business as usual.  Her task will be to spin those connections in a fashion that casts a favorable light on their continuation.

While Donald Trump cannot be painted as a career politician or even a politician at all (in the conventional sense), I have no doubt that an effective argument can be made that he has gamed the government system no  less than Hillary Clinton has over his lifetime.  The difference is that his gaming has been from outside of government.  As with Hillary, careful and thorough research will no doubt find ample proof of Trump’s dalliances with moral and ethical ambiguities.  It is easy to picture that each other’s charges of character failure will be basically off-setting and will garner neither an advantage of any worth.  Trump is a new phenomenon in American politics that most observers are still trying to figure out.  How much of what he does is calculated and intentional and how much is simply “seat of the pants” spontaneity and Donald simply being Donald?  Throughout the Republican Primary season, political insiders tried to solve this mystery and the fact that Trump now stands as the Republican nominee speaks to their inability to effectively answer that question.  This is the double-edged sword that Trump bears.  His seeming obliviousness to accepted political behavior and correctness is no doubt a large part of his appeal to many of his most ardent supporters.  But the risk that he runs every time he goes off script (which is MOST of the time) carries a high price and could be that particular sound bite that ends up destroying his campaign for President.  Just as Hillary will tout her varied public office experience and simultaneously be forced to defend her possible conflicts of interest, Trump will crow about his business acumen, his outsider status, and at the same time be forced to explain his corporate bankruptcies in that context.  Can this man convince the American voter that he is competent to be President?

As the title of this blog suggests, on a clear day I can see my barn from my front porch.  There is not much between here and there and I am certainly far removed from WDC and the political power epicenters of the American establishment.  But this I do believe: Two arguments will likely decide who will be our next President.

Either Hillary Clinton will convince voters that in spite of the reservations that most people hold about her public and personal records regarding honesty, corruption, and abuse of power, she nonetheless represents a more competent choice for President.  She will try to persuade people that even if they do not agree with her policy positions, she will put seasoned and capable people in charge of governmental departments and agencies and the machinery of this nation’s administrative systems will begin to function with some greater degree of efficiency and effectiveness.  Oh…and while she is attempting to convince people that she is the sane choice, she will be trying to convince people that Trump is a raving lunatic and is the insane choice.

Or Donald Trump will convince people that Hillary Clinton represents business as usual.  She represents more of the nanny state intrusions into our private lives that Obama has spent eight years pursuing.   He will try to tie her to Obama’s many foreign policy failures and attempt to lay the blame for today’s global chaos at the feet of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.  He will say that our government needs to be changed in order to function properly and that change must come from someone with a new perspective; an outside the government perspective.  He will not be specific, but will instead simply emphasize all the domestic and foreign policy maladies that ail this great nation and indicate that he knows how to fix them.  He will say, repeatedly, that Hillary Clinton’s quest for the Presidency is simply a naked reach for an opportunity to fuel her greed for money and her thirst for power; a chance to rename the American government as Clinton’s Playground.

Are people so fed up with the status quo that they will take a chance on an outsider?  Are people so frustrated with government that they will franchise someone to implement unspecified wholesale changes?  Will people be so distrusting of Hillary Clinton and her aversions to the truth that they will discount her litany of government experience?  Can Trump manage to go three months without that damning fifteen second sound bite that will cripple his campaign and convince people he is a loose cannon?  Can Hillary mange to play a three month long game of dodge ball with her scandals; keeping the focus on her opponent and off of her problems?  Has Clinton learned from her extensive government experience how to make it work better; or has her extensive government experience jaded her and made her even more susceptible to her appetite for power and corruption?  Has Trump’s burgeoning capitalist conglomerate given him a fresh insight as to how government might be modified to make it more functional; or, is he so indoctrinated in the bottom line obsession and greed that drives corporate America that he is unable to see any other business model?   If this election is framed as competence versus change, which way will the American voters choose?  On a clear day, I can see my barn.  On even a really clear day, I cannot see the answer to that question.

Government Policy on Disclosure.

Government Policy on Disclosure.  In a recent press conference, State Department spokesman John Kirby stated the following: There were no rules governing this sort of action in the past, so I find no reason to press forward with a more formal or deeper investigation.  What matters to me – and I take it seriously – is our commitment to transparency and disclosure.  This remark by Kirby was in response to the discovery that the State Department had deliberately edited out selected portions of a prior State Department news conference archive record at which State Department official Jen Psaki had essentially admitted to hiding the beginning date of Administration negotiations with Iran; all while trying to sell Congress and the public on the wisdom of the Iran Nuclear Agreement.   This Kirby admission came only after the State Department had previously blamed the archived video deletion on a glitch.  In other words, the State Department lied about lying and then tried to cover up their lies.  Oh…and Kirby said “I take this very seriously”.   Obama and his Kiddie Korps are on parade once again.

Psaki is one of the primary faces for U.S. foreign policy.  Her prior experience includes various press and communications roles in the Obama Administration.  She is also married to a deputy finance director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  If you think about it, you can easily recall not too long ago when she and her fellow official Marie Harf were putting in a lot of face time before the press.  It just so happens that Harf actually served as the Acting State Department Spokesperson prior to Mr. Kirby being selected for that job.  Her consolation prize for losing that spot turned out to be the job of Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications to Secretary of State John Kerry.  She was the leading Administration official on the Iran Nuclear Deal communication strategy team. 

Add to this dynamic duo the esteemed Ben Rhodes, who recently revealed in a highly publicized interview that the Administration misled journalists regarding the correct timeline of U.S. negotiations regarding the recent Iran Nuclear Agreement; thus using (in his words) the young and inexperienced reporters to create an echo chamber to parrot the Administration’s line on the talks in an attempt to sway public opinion.   Rhodes is the same fellow whose previous claim to fame was serving as driver and gopher for various political campaigns while attempting to write the great American novel.  I believe Mr. Rhodes’ current title is Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting for U.S. President Barack Obama.  He was also an Advisor on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iran Nuclear Deal.   He is married to one of Senator Boxer’s chief staff members.

These are the people…Rhodes, Psaki, Harf… that Obama has chosen to help administer one of the most critical strategic agreements in our lifetimes?  This is the group that will help to form a nuclear agreement with what is likely the most radical nation in the Middle East?  This is what America has gotten from the Obama Administration; a group of arrogant, idealistic, and naïve yuppies that are more than willing to drink the One’s kool-aid and carry his luggage.  They obviously share his philosophy on ethics and as Kirby said…a commitment to transparency and disclosure (cough, cough).  For all intents and purposes, these are bright and witty college grads that moved directly from the campus into the political process.  They have never evolved intellectually or emotionally beyond their collegial adolescence and fit in quite nicely with the balance of Obama’s school of imaginary reasoning.   Their entire universe revolves around themselves, those that are just like them, and those that will do anything to be one of them.  They live in a shiny WDC bubble where all value is placed on style and all spoken prophecies are self-fulfilling.  Is it any wonder that they are some of the most arrogant and conceited individuals ever employed by the U.S. government and harbor nearly zero regard for any allegiance to the constitution and government’s inherent responsibility, and accountability, to the citizenry?

In the last few days, Hillary Clinton’s right-hand gal Cheryl Mills was deposed regarding the ongoing Clinton email scandal.  Mills was Clinton’s Chief of Staff when Clinton served as Secretary of State.  Mills has been associated with the Clintons ever since Bill’s impeachment hearings back in 1999.  In Mills deposition, she was asked approximately 250 questions.  She brought seven lawyers with her.  She responded to 182 questions with “I don’t know”.  She responded to 40 questions with “I don’t recall”.  Does any sane person actually believe that a Clinton Administration would be any more committed to transparency and disclosure than the Obama Administration has been?  Does any sane person actually believe that a Trump Administration would be any more committed to transparency and disclosure than the Obama Administration has been?  Based on the way he has lived his life and conducted his business, one can only imagine the carnival atmosphere of a Trump presidency.  He won’t even disclose his tax filings or be forthcoming about his faux college enterprise. 

There is absolutely no reason for any American citizen to credit our government, ALL of our government, with any degree of integrity or honesty.  Veronique De Rugy has an excellent article on this subject at @ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436105/government-trust-larry-summers-washington-post-accountability.  Morality, ethics, and any grasp for the concept of accountability flew out the doors of the White House and the Capitol a long, long time ago.   Obama has fully embraced and taken to new levels the seedy corruption and greed that Republican and Democrat Presidents before him have created and nurtured.  At this point in time, we are left with the vaporous hope that either Trump or Clinton will restore some degree of integrity to our Executive Branch; that one or the other will replace Obama’s corps of college glee club appointees that litter this Administration top to bottom with some people who have experience, intelligence, and some semblance of honor.   Damn slim hope.

It is often said that a fish rots from the head.  If we compare our government to a fish, the decay has extended well past the gills and is moving rapidly towards the tail.  This nation celebrated Obama’s initial presidential election as a chance for new beginnings.  His supporters were absolutely giddy with the hope and change mantra that he so enthusiastically put forth.  Even after four years of reality that pretty well demolished his façade of genius, the American public still yearned for that change and gave him one more term.  They were mistaken; tragically so.  He has naively continued his attempt to systematically dismantle many of the very principles that created this country and have made it great.  He has forsaken responsibility and leadership for idealism and rhetoric.  And now…we apparently look to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to cleanse the government of Obama’s useful idiots, restore function and common sense where none has existed for decades, and lead this nation back to a global position of admiration and respect.  Are we all really that stupid?

Moral Evolution?...How About Leadership Devolution?

Moral Evolution?…How About Leadership Devolution?  Well, our sophomoric president is globe-trotting again.  These days find him in Japan telling the world that it needs to morally evolve.  In his inimitably condescending, patronizing, and didactic fashion, he once again held himself out to be the self-proclaimed patron saint of America and wanted all within earshot to understand that he was far better and more enlightened than his home nation or any of the leaders who had come before him.  Once again, I shudder to think how these foreign leaders think and speak of him in private after his pompous escapades.  This man has taken our nation backwards in so many ways and it seems certain that he will continue that effort, at an accelerated pace, for the balance of his term in office.   For a man who is morally bankrupt, intellectually transparent,  and painfully devoid of any intestinal fortitude, he does more second guessing of courageous leaders than anyone I have ever seen.  Our president is not qualified to judge whether the White House coffee is hot or cold, much less the life and death decisions made by our war-time presidents from eras past.   His “BIG I, little you” brand of moral superiority has long outlasted its amusement quotient. 

The great leaders I have known, both personally and in a literary sense, are those men and women who stand in the arena with you.   They are the ones who rise above petty differences and manage to bring people together in spite of principled disagreements.  They are the ones who inspire by their actions, not by their bravado.   They are the ones who recognize the price of every action taken, and can fully appreciate the cost of inaction when leadership is required.  A great leader makes a choice, states plainly why that choice is made, and steps forward to be held accountable for the consequences of his or her action.   They make deliberate decisions, but are unafraid to acknowledge mistakes and are big enough in character to change course when necessary.   A truly great leader will provide those he or she serves with moral and ethical leadership that truly inspires and encourages all who follow to aspire to something better than they presently are.  And when a great leader inspires, the inspiration comes from being one of the many and speaking from their perspective; not from being a holier-than-thou narcissist who speaks from above to the masses huddled down below.  Our president is none of these things.  He postures and primps, he harrumphs and belittles, his feet are forever planted in sand, he is inherently lazy and the only voices to which he pays heed are the nonsensical musings that he generates himself. 

It is bad enough that our nation has been cursed to have this man as president for the last seven and a half years; it is downright insufferable that he must showcase his pitiful competence around the globe.   For all of the damage Obama’s leadership has inflicted on this nation and this government in a domestic sense, the far more unsettling and potentially catastrophic cost is what it has done, and continues to do, to our country’s global relationships with friends and foes alike.  In due time, the American economy will rebound; the DOJ will once again come to grips with its proper role of enforcing the law as written as opposed to trying to create a liberal nirvana through executive order; the American people will eventually learn to, as a good man once said, judge their neighbors by the content of their character and not the color of their skin…without the ham-handed and bigoted bludgeon of the federal government.   In spite of what Obama has wrought, there will once again be jobs for those looking to work, compassion for those unable to work, and accountability for those who are able but refuse to work.  As low as we have sunk, this nation will recover domestically because of its inherent strength and principle.  But in the dangerous environment of world politics and power, where every day seems to rest on the hair-trigger mentality of some despot in a foreign land, we can only hope and pray that America’s brief (in the sands of time) respite from world leadership will not leave a permanent scar.  How much of the capital that the United States has earned over the decades with our most precious blood left on foreign lands has been frittered away by this idealistic lightweight?  We can only hope and pray that our next President will have the intelligence, the character, and the courage to lead this nation back to prominence as the leader of freedom and dignity for all, international respect for all peoples, and the willingness (God forbid) to make the hard decisions when no one else will.

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm.

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm.  As Donald Trump continues his apparent primary victory tour in an effort to consolidate Republican support, Hillary Clinton continues to lose primary contests to Bernie Sanders; and yet, everyone has apparently moved on to the national Presidential race between Trump and Clinton.  There are occasional articles about what happens if Hillary is indicted, or what happens if her poll performance continues to deteriorate, or what happens if there is a right-wing Republican effort with an alternative candidate; but it appears the electorate at large is coming to terms with what likely shapes up to be an extremely entertaining, and perplexing, 2016 Presidential contest.

Kentucky held its Democratic primary this past Tuesday.  Bernie Sanders is an avowed, 74 year old Democratic socialist from New England who has at times proposed income tax rates up to 90 percent and endless federal social programs that will literally explode an already burgeoning federal debt.  On Tuesday in Kentucky, this man received over 200,000 votes and lost the primary to Clinton by approximately 2,000 votes.  A SOCIALIST received over 200,000 votes for PRESIDENT in KENTUCKY this week.  You tell me…is Bernie that good, is Hillary that bad, or are Kentuckians that crazy?  I can see Bernie winning Louisville and Jefferson County, but running this well statewide is nothing short of remarkable.  Sanders has now defeated Clinton in 11 of the last 14 Democratic primaries, yet Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination.  I continue to marvel at those who perpetually portray the Republican primary process as a strange brew while accepting the Democratic primary as normal.   There is nothing normal about either party’s primary campaigns and the message that appears to come through loud and clear on both sides is that…people…want…change.

Just a few months back, the NRA was trying to decide which conservative they would support this year.  Would it be Ted Cruz, or Rick Perry, or Marco Rubio, or some other right-wing-card-carrying disciple that espoused their mantra in an acceptable fashion?  This week, also in Kentucky, the NRA enthusiastically embraced The Donald and gifted him with their 2016 Presidential Endorsement.  This is the same candidate that over the last several months has held no fewer than half a dozen different positions on gun rights.  This is the man who has likely contributed as much, or more, campaign dollars to anti-gun-rights Democrats as he has to pro-gun-rights Republicans.  Once again…is Trump that good, were his Republican opponents that bad, or is the NRA that crazy?  Like the NRA, we have seen several individuals and groups who had previously vowed NEVERTRUMP break over and begin to cozy into the Trump enclave.  To  his credit, Trump has changed his campaign message to provide cover for these wayward conservatives to come home to Trumpland; the latest being his list of potential Supreme Court nominees who all just happened to be Republican nominated conservatives.  Just how effective can Donald Chameleon Trump be in bringing these disgruntled conservatives back into the Republican fold?  Will he bring home more Republicans than Hillary will bring home the Sanders supporters?

Just a few weeks back, Hillary was well ahead of Trump in national polling and national Democrat leadership was nothing short of smug in their anticipation of running against the Donald.  Now, the majority of most recent national polls (Rasmussen, Fox, ABC/WP) show Trump leading Clinton and panic is beginning to seep into the Democratic establishment; the very same panic that has been growing in the Republican establishment ever since it became obvious that Trump was going to be their nominee.  Hillary Clinton likely has the largest amount of negative baggage that any national political candidate has every possessed.  It is hard to imagine a scandal or charge that could not be leveled, not proven, against her.  This is a result of her experience; her record as an activist college student, conniving attorney, Gubernatorial First Lady, Presidential First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.  She is the bad choice that is known.   She is the proud possessor of a double-edged sword that simultaneously represents her greatest asset and her greatest weakness.  Since he has never served in public office, Trump’s past record is mostly suspicions based on very public events and circumstances that produced fleeting headlines, but very little investigation.  You can bet your farm that those investigations are well under way as we speak; and you can rest assured that there is plenty of ammunition in there to keep Trump under a constant barrage until the first Tuesday in November…with heavy artillery.  But until these forays into Trump’s past bear fruit, Trump’s baggage will fall into that zone of accusation and innuendo; he is the bad choice we suspect.   Ultimately, either candidate will be quite able, and certainly willing, to hurl any and all slimy, nasty, immoral, corrupt, illegal, fantastical, well grounded, and baseless accusations towards the other with absolutely no reservation.  Can you just imagine the upcoming debates between these two?  It will be like having two knights in armor with an endless supply of small rocks to throw at each other.

At this point in the process, there exists the possibility that the ultimate Presidential contest might even feature someone other than Trump or Clinton; but as things stand today, they are the contestants.  It is going to be entertaining, as well as disgusting, to observe whether the American voter prefers the devil they know or the devil they suspect as their next President.   Either way, I suppose we will end up with one hell of a President.

For new posts alert...follow on Twitter @ centerlineright.

Spontaneous Emotion in Sports.

Spontaneous Emotion in Sports.  I have mentioned before the ongoing discussion in MLB about the proper amount of spontaneous emotion that should be allowed in the game.  Celebratory post-play antics by players of all professional sports have come into vogue and have become fodder for fascinating debates between old-school players and fans versus the newer generation of players and fans.  Personally, the first taste I ever got of this phenomenon was back in days of the Houston Oilers and Billy “White Shoes” Johnson.  His end zone dances were something to behold and I had never seen that type of on-field celebration before.  The moment of joy behavior pioneered by Johnson is now commonplace in the NFL, it spilled over into the NBA several years back, and is now the topic du jour in MLB.  Before making my comments about this subject, I urge all readers to remember two things about professional sports: First, there are many, many gray areas in sports; even in the written rules.  So many times, a decision is made in the moment of battle and is later judged with the benefit of hindsight.  There are a lot of clearly right/clearly wrong calls made in sports; but there are also a lot of subsequent what if judgments made concerning those calls that are truly unfair and simply don’t take into account the prominent role that chance plays in sports.  Secondly, we have to remember that professional sport is a game.  Yes, it is a gargantuan business making billions of dollars; it is bad and nationwide. While noble at its heart, it is certainly not pure in spirit.  It impacts a world of people in very significant ways.  But…it…is…a…game.  It is entertainment.  Whether we like it or not, sports has evolved and will continue to evolve in an independent fashion; only a portion of it can be orchestrated.  All changes will not be good, all changes will not be popular; but changes will be made and will occur.  Learning to roll with these changes is one of the keys to the enjoyment of sport. 

One problem I have with spontaneous emotion in sport these days is the fact that a good deal of it simply is not spontaneous.  Players make their livings both on the field and off the field; for many, the off the field business ventures dwarf their on the field earnings.  For this reason, the players are super aware of their image and their limited opportunities to mold that image in the eyes of the public.  Each player is well of when their game will be televised to millions of viewers and many of them, if not most, plan in advance how they will behave if they make a sack, score on a pick six, hit a walk-off homer, hit a game winning three, or make some other spectacular play.  In other words, a good deal of the spontaneity has been removed from these celebrations because they have become so calculated.  

As a fan, I react to plays in an emotional way.  I overly celebrate the routine stop on third down for my home team defense.  I bounce around the room and act a fool when a four point lead is expanded to six by a routine layup.  This is the great thing about being a spectator; we have the liberty to celebrate anything and everything in the most outrageous fashion imaginable.  But those players on the field, those athletes in the arena, they have to stay focused, they have to stay aware, and they have to maintain intensity.  The celebrations that we see now from many players for routine plays are even more extravagant that those we see from athletes making great plays.  A grade of “A” is meaningless if most of the class gets an “A”.  It is rather transparent that the enthusiasm for the celebration is greater than the enthusiasm for the game when one celebrates a routine third down tackle five yards past the first down marker.  It really makes you wonder…Did this guy have this little dance all planned out beforehand and figured that this might be his only chance to play it out?

When a celebration is truly spontaneous, there is no doubt about it.  When Jose Bautista hit his seventh inning, three-run homer in the fifth game of the 2015 ALDS, there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that his bat flip was spontaneous.  Old school or new school, both schools understood that it was one hell of a play and Bautista was in the moment.  It is hard for me to understand how this type of sincerely spontaneous celebration of a great play can do anything but raise the excitement quotient of the sport, no matter what sport it might be.  As long as these moments occur following great plays, they can be a positive evolution of any sport.  But if they get watered down by the pathetic and awkward machinations of chest thumping and flexing that follow so many routine plays these days, the entire subject of spontaneous emotion in sports will become detrimental to the game and ultimately degrade the fan experience.

The Obama Administration's DOJ Penile Obsession.

The Obama Administration’s DOJ Penile Obsession.  Our current Administration in WDC will go down in history as being AWOL on many of the issues that needed to be addressed during their term.   They will also be remembered for the inordinate attention they have paid to other issues in an effort to advance their liberal agenda.  Among their glorious record of nonfeasance or malfeasance in so many areas, I find the Department of Justice’s most recent legal misadventure amusing, if not downright ridiculous.  The DOJ’s ongoing suit/countersuit battle with the state of North Carolina over transgender rights and public restrooms is truly in the arena of the absurd. 

The DOJ seems to believe that refusing to allow a man who believes he is a woman to use a woman’s restroom, or refusing to allow a woman who believes she is a man to use a men’s restroom, is a violation of their civil rights.  This DOJ obsession with exactly who does and does not have a penis is fascinating.  Most males that I know consider their penis to be a useful biological tool to relieve oneself of bodily waste and, on occasion, it serves a very useful purpose for some recreation and procreation.  However, there are apparently others in society that view a penis as something that can be added, deleted, or if one is to believe media advertising, something that might be greatly enhanced.  I confess to befuddlement as to how the presence or the absence of a penis (or any other penis-related topics) entered into the formulation of the Civil Rights Act, but the DOJ has apparently found a magical connection hidden away in all that legal text.  I always thought a penis was one of those things that, when a person possesses one, they tend to get rather comfortable with it.    Obviously, there are some who never quite achieve that reconciliation with their body; and that is OK with me.  What a person does or does not do with their own penis is their own business; as long as they keep it to themselves.  But when they want to bring their junk into a public restroom where my wife, daughter, or grandchild is present, then it becomes another matter entirely.  When my daughter or grandchild has to share their dressing room at school with the guy who thinks he is a gal, then it becomes another matter entirely.  Why in the world does Obama’s DOJ want to take everyone who has a problem with their penis, or lack thereof, and make them everyone else’s problem?  The human mind is a complex creature and there are no doubt psychological ailments that are beyond understanding.  If a person has the desire, and the wherewithal, to change their current penis arrangement, then they certainly have the right to do that.  But it is equally certain that is their own private business and there is really no need for the government or the non-associated public to become involved with their personal decisions.  Additionally, it should go without saying that there are absolutely no grounds for taxpayer resources to pay for surgeries that enable or disable these penile aspirations.

With all of the many problems that exist in the world and this nation, one marvels at how this Administration finds the time and the resources to pursue this type of campaign.  You would think that the DOJ would have enough to do with all of the white collar, blue collar, civil, uncivil, and governmental law breaking that is going on today; apparently not.  You know…things might work out better if this Administration would quit dicking around with what’s inside of peoples’ pants and bedrooms and instead focus on making this country’s government functional again.

The Conceit of Passivity.

The Conceit of Passivity.  I have been amused by several opinion pieces written in the last few days by those in the media who are devastatingly disappointed by the apparent presidential choices we will have this fall.  Most of those that I’ve read are by rightward Republicans who cannot find it within themselves to vote Trump and vow to stay home and vote for no one.  On the left, there are also many who feel that Hillary is far too moderate to consider as qualified to continue Obama’s quest for the ultimate nanny state.  In due time, I feel we will find that the dissatisfied faction on each side of the aisle is more or less equal to the other.  The Republican dissent is more evident at this time simply because the Republican race has reached a more climatic point.  Once the Bernie folks pack it up and head to the house, there will be plenty of Democrats wailing about Clinton’s shortcomings.  However, once we reach the point (that we are rapidly accelerating towards) where Hillary directs her full attention towards the Republican nominee and wastes no further efforts dissing Bernie, I believe we will begin to see that the Democratic left will be far more satisfied with Clinton than will be the Democratic moderates.  A very good clue as to which faction ultimately feels the most disenfranchised will be Hillary’s selection of a running mate…Who will get the big crumb thrown their way?  Trump’s selection of a veep candidate will also be instructive, but his choice will not be nearly as calculated as Clinton’s; that just ain’t the way this cat operates.

Returning to the original point, two key questions in trying to predict this fall’s Presidential contest winner are (1) how many in each party will crossover to vote for the other party and (2) how many in each party will stay home and refuse to participate.  I don’t mean to leave out the Independents here; they will no doubt be influential, but not as impactful as groups (1) and (2).  My prediction, as things stand today, is that Clinton will rule in group (2) regarding turnout and Trump has the best odds to benefit from group (1) regarding crossover voters.  Democrats have proven over the last several Presidential elections that they understand winning in national politics far better than do the Republicans.  They have a far greater tolerance for supporting their imperfect candidate than do the Republicans and this has resulted in a pronounced advantage when considering national politics.  On the other hand, no matter what opinion one might hold regarding Trump, it is undeniable that he has the greatest potential to attract Democratic voters that we have seen from any Republican candidate in recent memory.  There is a lot of campaigning left to play out, but it easy to see today how Trump might put some states and cities in play for the Republicans that heretofore have been essentially written off.  The devil’s advocate might suggest that his candidacy will also weaken some traditional Republican strongholds; and that just might be right.  What is so difficult about trying to assess a Trump v. Clinton contest are the high negatives of each candidate.  It is tempting to fall into the trap of trying to pick the least of two evils; but even if this emotion drove a voter’s decision, they would never admit that and would confound it by diluting their logic with some type of perverse rationale to justify their ultimate choice. 

The select conservative leaders and journalists who are disowning Trump and pledging to take the fifth on this election had better think long and hard about the consequences of their actions and how they might affect this country.  The Presidency has always received too much credit for good times and too much blame for the bad; it is the decision makers the President selects that most impacts the lives of Americans.  On rare occasions, we have had great and gifted leaders in the White House who have used their bully pulpit to galvanize the national consciousness, to lift spirits when times were difficult, to raise social awareness when a crisis arose, or to set a moral tone for our nation when we seemed to lose our way.  In other various periods, the performance of our President has been so dismal and incompetent (like….NOW) that it has sorely tried the resiliency and resolve of our fundamental democratic principles.  But by and large, the President of this nation has been a figurehead whose greatest impact is reflected in the people he trusted and the power he gifted to them.  Hillary’s long track record in the political world gives one a pretty accurate idea of who she would choose to help her run this government.  I feel very comfortable in predicting that if she wins, her administration(s) will pretty much be a continuation of Obama’s (at least domestically).   If the reluctant and dispirited conservatives feel bad enough now to stay home this fall because Trump is their nominee, they will certainly be looking for a very high bridge from which to jump if we have eight more years of Democratic policies under Clinton’s leadership.  For those who feel that Trump is grossly unqualified to serve as President, I would simply point out that the one saving grace for any flawed candidate who gets elected to the highest office in this nation is the fact that they themselves don’t run this government.   The real impact of our next President will be the people they choose to replace Obama’s sorority and fraternity adolescents who occupy positions of authority up and down this government.  Who will have the President’s ear when they consider relationships with Congress and foreign leaders?  Will they surround themselves with those who agree with them unquestionably and enable their egos to expand in biblical proportions, or will they actually engage individuals who have the courage, intelligence, and experience to try and make this government functional once again?  In the next four to eight years, the sitting President will have the greatest opportunity in my lifetime (63 years) to make a real and meaningful difference in American lives through their Supreme Court nominees.  Think on that for a moment.

There is an old saying about choosing the devil we know over the devil we don’t know.  When considering the upcoming Presidential election, it might be fair to say that Clinton is the devil we know while Trump is the devil we don’t know.  Either option looks pretty scary at this point.  The fate of this nation for the foreseeable future will come down to how people choose between these two.  Based on history, we can have a pretty clear idea about who Clinton will put on her leadership and implementation team.  How comfortable, and easily persuaded, will voters be when they consider who Trump might bring along with him?