Smokin' Jay Doesn't Care ... Should We?

It's pretty rare that the crazy ideas I have for my sports teams comes to pass. I will often talk about moves they should make, and explain the total logic behind why the teams need to do it. I'm passionate about it, and then the team goes in the other direction. On occasion, however, my arm chair quarterbacking aligns perfectly with what the team does. When that happens I can hardly believe it. With the Chicago Bears, in particular, it doesn't happen often. But it did happen on April 3, 2009, when the Chicago Bears made a deal with the Denver Broncos, paying a small fortune in picks, plus esteemed Junior College (Purdue) alum Kyle Orton, in exchange for the Broncos franchise QB.

I had been in a bar with my brother earlier that year arguing that if the Broncos really wanted to get rid of Jay Cutler then the Bears had to make the move to get him. Cutler's numbers thus far had been good, but compared to the junk the Bears had rolled out week ... after week ... after week of my lifetime they looked downright epic. Cutler was coming off of a year in which he threw over 4,500 yards. While the ensuing eight years of NFL football have cheapened that number, it's still a semi-impressive number, and it was even more impressive back then. Cutler played on a team with awful defense, and hadn't been able to win. But the Bears, always seeming to be a quarterback away, would fix that problem for him. They had a great defense, and were only a few years away from playing in the Super Bowl. All they seemed to need was a competent quarterback, and Cutler promised to be much more than that.

The trade was made, and almost immediately upon being announced there was drama. Team leader and future Hall of Famer Brian Urlacher gave the most lukewarm welcome to the team imaginable to Cutler, while praising the outgoing Orton. Word leaked that Cutler had refused to return the Broncos' calls for over a week preceding the trade. There was smoke that perhaps the fire of a premadonna burned deep inside Mr. Cutler. But the Bears had a QB, and suddenly they also had a brighter future. Or so we thought. That future didn't come in 2009, Cutler's first year. An injury to Urlacher in the season opener damped spirits, and the team limped to a 7-9 record. I continued my calls to fire Lovie Smith, calls which went unheeded, much like most of my calls for moves by the teams I root for (see above). The 2010 season was a pivotal one for Smith's Bears, after missing the playoffs for three straight years following the 2006 season which culminated in the Super Bowl loss to the Colts*. The Bears pulled together to save Smith by winning the NFC North with an 11-5 record, and winning in the Divisional Round of the playoffs by ousting the Seattle Seahawks. An NFC Championship Game with the Green Bay Packers loomed ... and Cutler "got hurt." Of course he did. Somehow, it appeared that the Bears didn't even have a backup quarterback on the roster, or any player beyond Cutler who had ever played quarterback. Sure, Caleb Hanie was "listed" as a quarterback, but anyone who watched that game knows the Bears were screwed when Cutler "went down**." He just stood there, on the sidelines ... looking like he didn't care ... as the Packers held on to beat the Bears. The would go on to beat the Steelers in the Super Bowl.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Cutler's career in Chicago since then has been pretty bad overall. His numbers have been intermittently good, and they have been stellar compared with the history of Bears quarterbacks, but the results for the team just haven't been there. All through it, Cutler has pretty much looked like this:

Smokin' Jay Cutler just don't give a ...

The team's defense got old after the 2010 season. Lovie Smith, master of leading an underachieving team, led the team to two more underachieving years, milking out the last two decent years the defense had in 2011 and 2012. The crazy thing is he still almost saved his job in 2012 by getting to 10-6, only to miss the playoffs anyway, in a tie breaker. He was fired, and then came Trestman. That lasted two years, and in came John Fox. Two years into that, and the Bears just finished 3-13. The last time the Bears were that bad? Well, it depends on how you define it, but it's been awhile. The last time they finished with only 3 wins in a full (non-strike) season was 1973, when they went 3-11 (in a 14 game season). The last time they lost 13 games in a season was back in 1969, when they went 1-13 the year before the NFC was even founded. That year was also the last time they had a winning percentage as bad as their .188 winning percentage this last year.

Needless to say, things aren't trending in the right direction. The Bears resigned Cutler before the 2014 season, coming off his best statistical year in year one of the Marc Trestman disaster. It was a huge deal, or at least it was reported to be. Seven Years. $126.7 million dollars. That's $126,700,000. That's a lot of money. Many people have torn into the Bears over signing Cutler to this contract, but let me ask you this: have you ever looked at a list of starting Bears quarterbacks in the last 30 years? No? Well, good news my friend. I'm here to help you. Beyond Cutler, here you go (starting with the most recent non-Cutler starter, going back to the Super Bowl year of 1985):

• Brian Hoyer
• Matt Barkley
• Jimmy Clausen
• Josh McCown
• Jason Campbell
• Caleb Hanie
• Todd Collins (Note: from Collins up on this list are the Quarterbacks who have started for the Bears in place of Cutler. Because he's been injured that much. Another factor to consider.)
• Kyle Orton
• Rex Grossman
• Brian Griese
• Craig Krenzel
• Chad Hutchinson
• Jonathan Quinn
• Kordell Stewart
• Chris Chandler
• Jim Miller
• Henry Burris
• Shane Matthews
• Cade McNown
• Erik Kramer
• Steve Stenstrom
• Moses Moreno
• Rick Mirer
• Dave Krieg
• Steve Walsh
• Jim Harbaugh
• Peter Tom Willis
• Will Furrer
• Mike Tomczak
• Jim McMahon
• Mike Hohensee
• Steve Bradley
• Steve Fuller
• Doug Flutie

That is 34 quarterbacks, beyond Cutler, in 31 years. That, my friends, is terrible. And many of the quarterbacks listed above were terrible. In fact, you probably have never heard of some of them. Beyond that, I probably could have made up a name, slipped it in there, and most Bears fans wouldn't be able to tell. In fact, I might have done that. Or not. But here's another way to look at the Bears' quarterbacking situation over the last 31 years. This is the list of seasons in which the Bears only started one quarterback for all 16 games during that time period:

• 1991 - Jim Harbaugh
• 1995 - Erik Kramer
• 2006 - Rex Grossman
• 2009 - Jay Cutler

And...that's a wrap. Four seasons out of 31. Hold on, I'm curious about something...

• 1986, 1989, 1993-2009, 2012, 2014-2016

That's the list of seasons, since 1985, in which the Green Bay Packers have started only one quarterback for all 16 games. That is 23 of 31 seasons. Of course, I cherry picked the Packers, due to their stability at quarterback between Favre (he accounted for every year in that streak from 1993 until 2007) and Rodgers (every year in that streak since 2007). But it serves to prove the point: the Bears have had really crappy quarterbacks, and have had to shuffle them in and out  to injury and ineffectiveness at a maddening rate. Imagine if there was a major business that shifted managers in and out at that rate. Would we be surprised they had gone 31 years without being the top in their field? Ultimately, that's where the Bears have been. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

And that, finally, brings me to my point on this post (I know, I'm killing all 1.75 of you with my long preambles. But I'm writing again!). My purpose in this postis to ask a simple question, and attempt to give a not so simple answer. Here is the simple question:

Should the Chicago Bears keep Jay Cutler or cut Jay Cutler?

That question is valid because of the structure of that huge aforementioned deal. There was $54 million guaranteed in that contract, but now, with the first three years in the past, there is next to nothing left to hit the cap. If the Bears cut Cutler this year there would be $2,000,000 worth of dead money on the cap this year, and $1,000,000 next year. They would save a total of $30,000,000 beyond that against the cap by cutting him. The contract was one of the rare good moves the Bears have made recently because it got them a few more years to see if Cutler would put all the pieces together, all while giving them a great deal of flexibility to move on with next to no dead money on the cap once they got through three years of the contact. And so, from a financial perspective, it could easily be argued that yes, the Bears should cut him.

But the Bears already project to have just over $54 million in open cap space heading into this offseason. That is the eighth most in the league, and plenty of money to do quite a bit without touching Cutler. Because of that I would argue that, at a minimum, they should hold on to Cutler until the last possible moment, before his roster bonus is set to kick in. That gives them maximum flexibility to make the decision.

But it doesn't tell you what decision they should make. Should the Bears keep Cutler for next year? Ultimately, that comes down to what their other options are, and how they rank vis a vi Cutler. If I were to make a very quick ranking of NFL QBs by tier, this is how I would do it:

• Tier One: Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers
• Tier Two: Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson
• Tier Three: Derek Carr, Cam Newton, Phillip Rivers, Dak Prescott, Kirk Cousins
• Tier Four: Matt Stafford, Jamis Winston, Andy Dalton, Marcus Mariota, Eli Manning
• Tier Five: Carson Palmer, Sam Bradford, Ryan Tannehill, Alex Smith, Joe Flacco
• Tier Six: Tyrod Taylor, Carson Wentz, Blake Bortles, Trevor Siemian
• Tier Seven: Whatever/Whoever starts for the Browns, 49ers, or Rams, along with Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brock Osweiler

Now, I left Cutler out of there (along with the Matt Barkley/Brian Hoyer pu pu platter). Where would you realistically put him on that list? I feel very confident he's above tiers seven and six. Banged up? He fits in the fifth tier for me, but healthy he easily makes it into the fourth tier for me. And that is where this becomes difficult. The Bears have a tier four/tier five QB on what amounts to a year to year contract, with no long term commitment. They have the money to spend, so it's not like they have to cut him to pay other players. The question becomes can the Bears feasibly get a QB who will be able to play their way into the top three tiers?

Realistically, the best chance they have for that is to draft one. The league is trending younger, overall, and getting a young QB who can become the next Dak Prescott, or even Derek Carr or Kirk Cousins (meaning they would take a few years to get there) is the best direction, if you can pull it off. Teams don't trade franchise quarterbacks, and if they seem like they are about to it's probably a bit of an illusion (in fact, Cutler is exhibit A in that regard!). A name often floated, in the opposite direction, is Tony Romo. But Romo's injury history isn't any better at this point that Cutler's, and his history of winning isn't any better either. Besides that, Romo would cost you more money, plus draft picks Cutler is virtually free to the Bears at this point. Finally, best case scenario, does Romo crack the third tier at this point in his career? History says no. How about paying multiple first round picks for Jimmy Garoppolo? Given how well Matt Cassell and Brian Hoyer (among others) careers have worked out after they left their backup role in New England for other jobs, I'm not willing risk that much if I'm the Bears.

In a weak QB draft, the Bears' best bet might be to bring Cutler back, then, and draft for depth at other positions. Take a swing on a QB in the middle rounds and hope you get lucky. Build the offense around timing routes and Jordan Howard, and focus on improving an already improving offensive line and defense. Until week 17 of the last seasons I hadn't seen the Bears give up on a game. They were notorious for playing tough for a half and then getting outclassed in the second half. They didn't, if I dare say, look that far away. The NFL is designed for quick turnarounds, and Cutler may in fact give the Bears their best chance of that. As long as they don't mortgage their future for that hope, I'm fine with it. And Cutler's unique contract structure makes it so that they can keep him another year... or two ... or three ... or four, without mortgaging anything. And at the end of the day, that's why we should still care about Jay Cutler ... even if Smokin' Jay doesn't ever look like he cares back. 

* As an aside, the Bears Super Bowl loss stings less to me now than it did even a year ago. We can all thank the Cubs for that. Thanks Cubs!

** That, in large part, is what contributes to the deep disdain fans feel for Cutler. He just stands there and doesn't look invested. It is the "Smokin' Jay" persona that spawned so many memes. Come to find out, Cutler really was hurt in the NFC title game, asked to go back in and was told an unequivocal no by medical staff. But he just stood there, didn't look like he was in pain, and didn't look like he cared. Inside, he might have been dying. He might have been in significant pain, and been being eaten up by the fact that his team was so close to the Super Bowl and he couldn't help them. We'll never know. Ultimately, however, it was Lovie Smith who screwed him the most by refusing to rule him out in some misguided attempt to confuse the Packers. When your coach is playing games, mid game, with injuries hoping that throws the opponent off their game ... how did we not fire that man earlier? Please, tell me? It's one of the biggest mysteries of my life. 

The Future - A Discussion Influenced by Two Books

Discussion of the continuum of time is fascinating to me. It is probably one of the reasons that I have been so drawn to physics and astronomy as "down time" reading in my life. In my last post I referenced the variability of history; that is, none of us really know what happened in the past, unless we experienced it directly. Even then, studies have shown that people's perceptions of what happened to them are often times inaccurate even minutes and hours after the event, let alone years after. This is how you end up with two people who were present at the same event remembering vastly different things. History is "set" in that it has happened, but it is very dynamic in terms of the ways it is interpreted, not to mention remembered (consider, for instance, the way that Dwight Eisenhower's Presidency is viewed at the present time (average at best) compared to how it was viewed twenty to thirty years ago (exceptional)).

Today, however, I want to look the other way, to the future. This post is inspired by two books that I recently read. The first book is The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon by Brad Stone. The second book, also referenced in my last post, is But What If We're Wrong?: Thinking About the Present As If It Were the Past by Chuck Klosterman. Both books were good reads, although I would more strongly recommend Stone's book on Amazon and Bezos if you are looking for more accessible, easy reading. Klosterman's book was one that I found alternatively plodding and fascinating, (seemingly) depending largely on which chapter I was reading and if my mind was in a place to contemplate deep thoughts. Ultimately, however, both books were enjoyable in their own ways.

The topic of this post, however, isn't to give you a book review. It is, instead, to springboard off my last post's discussion of the past, and look a bit towards the future. Klosterman's book does this quite a bit, but there was one topic he touched on, ever so briefly, that got me thinking. Towards the end of the book Klosterman, for the first time, touches on the subject of climate change/global warming*. He notes that as he wrote the book and discussed its' premise people would often ask him if he was going to tackle that subject. Klosterman explains:

"Now, I elected not to do this, for multiple reasons. The main reason is that the Earth's climate is changing, in a documented sense, and that there is exponentially more carbon in the atmosphere than at any time in man's history, and that the rise of CO2 closely corresponds with the rise of global industrialization." ~ Klosterman, pgs 239-240 (emphasis is the author's)

Now, Klosterman first tackles this topic in his book by saying he didn't see the need to tackle it because the science is settled**. Klosterman isn't a scientist, so how can he say this? Well, he can proclaim this, I would guess, because nearly every reputable scientist in the world, regardless of culture, religion, political affiliation or anything that typically divides individuals, says that it's real. To just note a few things, I would send you to Slate's Bad Astronomy blog, authored by Phil Plait. Plait writes about all sorts of things, including amazing pictures of the universe which give me (and should you too) a real sense of how small and insignificant we all are. But Plait also does a great job of bringing the reality of our terrestrial existence to the table along side looking up to the skies. And the research he writes about isn't pretty folks. Now, here's the kicker. Not only does nearly every reputable scientist in the world agree that this is happening, and that it is bad, but so does the majority of Americans. That's right, over 60% of Americans, as of March of last year, worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about climate change/global warming.

Now,  that still leaves less than 40% of the population in this country that doesn't worry that much about it. My wife would likely fit right into that 40%. She does, however, acknowledge that climate change/global warming is real, and likely a big issue. She just doesn't worry too much about what tomorrow will bring, let alone 40 years from now ... let alone 400 years from now. She's an "in the moment" person. That doesn't mean that she doesn't care; she is in favor of green initiatives, and supports a clean environment. It just means that, as the Gallup question was worded, she'd fit into the group that doesn't worry about it either a "great deal" or a "fair amount." And I think that not only is that fair, I suspect that a good number of the people in that 40% would fit into her category: agree that it's real, agree it's an issue, not super likely to impact me in my immediate future so I don't worry about it, but I'll do what can to combat it.

So add that up, and I would imagine that you'd have (at least) over 80% of Americans who a) believe climate change/global warming is real, b) believe it is a problem that we should do something about, and c) over 60% of them are worried enough about it to worry a "great deal" or "fair amount" about it. (I am assuming that the 60% plus who worry that much also believe in points A and B, but I think that makes logical sense). Even if it isn't exactly there, even if it is around that ballpark, that's a tremendous majority of people. How often do we have roughly three quarters of our society in agreement on anything? The problem, of course, lies in who constitutes the remaining 20-25% of people.

These are the people who deny that climate change/global warming is real, or believe it may be real, but it isn't a problem and is solely just a normal part of Earth's existence so we can't do anything about it. And, amazingly, there seems to be a hugely disproportionate number of people in the US Government who fall into this 20-25%. They are, disproportionately, Republicans, which is somewhat ironic given the fact that the GOP positions itself as the party of national defense, and climate change/global warming is almost unquestionably one of the most imminent dangers to our national security. (Please take the time to click on that link; it isn't long, but it gives you a good understanding of the complexities of this issue). The GOP likes to hark on the dangers of a nuclear North Korea, Russia (well, this President Elect not so much), ISIS, and the possibility of a nuclear Iran, but it by and large blatantly ignores a coming disaster which is many times more certain to impact our country.

A nuclear North Korea is nothing to ignore; it is potentially dangerous, and certainly takes a great deal of  political nuance and energy to maintain safely (or, at least, it should). But, right there, you have the difference: North Korea is potentially dangerous. We can debate the level of that danger, but it is a possibility. Climate change/global warming is as close to a certainty as you can have. We could destroy ourselves before it comes to pass in a way that does it for us, but if we don't start taking it seriously and working to counter its' effects, then it is all but guaranteed to end our way of life, at least as we know it. Ignorance regarding climate change/global warming, a refusal to acknowledge it is real, and a refusal to support efforts to counter it/lessen it should be viewed as placing our national security at significant risk. And we have an incoming administration that, by all signs thus far, is going to do all of those things.

That, finally, brings me to the second book, by Brad Stone about Amazon and the company's founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos. One thing that stuck out to me in the book, among many things, was that Bezos so clearly seems to have been driven to take advantage of the internet to change the way that goods are provided to consumers. He did this to build a huge company with huge value and, ultimately, huge profits. And he did all this, seemingly, to push an agenda. That agenda, one could very realistically argue, is Blue Origin. That company, driven by Bezos's personal fortune, is striving to take humans to space, to explore space, to build a future in space, and ultimately, to survive in space and in other places away from here. Bezos, of course, isn't the only insanely rich person to have this goal. Richard Branson, of Virgin Galactic, and Elon Musk, of SpaceX are both in hot pursuit of similar goals. The common strand between these three men, of course, is their vast fortune. According to Forbes, Bezos heads the trio with an estimated worth of $45.2 billion, with Musk coming in with an estimated worth of $10.7 billion, and Branson's net worth a "distant" $4.9 billion. Within these three there is a huge variance of net worth; Bezos is reported to be the fifth richest person in the world, with Musk the 94th most wealthy and Branson ranking number 286. But these are three billionaires we are talking about, and they are using their wealth and resources to push for the skies.

You don't become a billionaire accidentally, unless you're born into it. For those who build and maintain that level of fortune, competition is a common thread. Bezos is famously competitive, pushing Amazon to higher and higher levels of productivity, striving to become the everything store. I haven't read books about Musk or Branson, but what little I have read in different articles indicate they are much the same. But being competitive alone isn't enough: you must also be a visionary with the ability to evaluate the current environment, project what is likely to come next, and a fortitude to gamble that your projection of what the future holds is going to be right.

Amazon started as an online bookstore, but, based on the book, it was never intended to be that. Bezos drove the company with a goal of being a store for everything, first, and then a technology company, second. But, ultimately, he drove it so that he would have the resources to push to the next frontier: space. He bet big on Amazon by betting that the internet was not a fad, and would, in fact, revolutionize everything about commerce. He was right. He bet big on the concept behind the Amazon Kindle, betting that although earlier e-readers had failed, people would read on a tablet rather than on books alone. He was right. He's not always been right, but you don't become the fifth richest man in the world by being wrong. He's been right most of the time. He's betting on space; the question is why?

And that, ultimately, brings me back to the concept of the future, by way of global warming, and, really, by way of the certainty that mankind will be annihilated. Because we will, no doubt about it, if we stay on the Earth alone. It could be climate change/global warming; betting on that would be like betting on a low yield, safe bond option, because the outcome is pretty likely, it's just a matter of time. It could be a nuclear holocaust, which is more unlikely than climate change/global warming happening, but would be clearly devastating to humanity and the Earth in general. It could be any number of things. The aforementioned astronomer, Phil Plait, wrote a book entitled Death From The Skies, in which he describes the various ways that the earth could be destroyed or, at least, the ways in which mankind could be annihilated, including asteroid impact, gamma ray bursts and, an absolute certainty, the sun expanding as it reaches the end of its' life cycle. The point, at the end of the day, is this: the Earth will be destroyed, or at least humanity will be ... we just don't know when. It could be relatively soon (a gamma ray burst could hit from Eta Carinae at anytime, at least cosmically speaking***), it could be at the end of the Sun's life cycle (roughly 4.5 billion years from now according to best estimates). It could be any point of time in between. But it will happen.

Pushing more carbons into the atmosphere to accelerate climate change/global warming just increases the chances that humanity's end will be sooner, rather than later. It's all probabilities, but I think it's at least something we should be insisting that our leaders take seriously and discuss. President Obama put it best, in his farewell address, when he said (I'm paraphrasing) that this is something we should be debating a response to, not debate about the legitimacy of. Unfortunately, we are clearly stuck in the latter debate, not the former.

So, anyway you cut it, we're screwed. It's just a matter of if we are trying to delay the inevitable or stare down the barrel of ye old gun and say "bring it on." Now, as I bring this post to a close (at least I think I am; way too long again - sorry to my 1.75 readers out there), I have to note one thing: I am, clearly, leaving religion out of this. My religious beliefs are powerful, very meaningful to me, and personal to me. I'm not looking to use this space to push them out to the interwebs, although I'm happy to share them with anyone who asks. But one thing, regardless of your religious beliefs, that is pretty evident is that even to those people who believe in God, believe in the afterlife, and believe in the religious end of the world: none of us really know when it is going to happen. The best we can tell (again, history it is a flawed thing) the Apostles really, truly believed Christ would be coming back in their lifetimes. The next few generations of early Christians did the same. Somewhere along the line that thinking went to "well, it'll happen sometime." I draw comfort from the idea that their is an end game to all of this; I am just not rushing to bring it on through our own actions, or inaction as the case may be. Put another way: if the rapture were to occur tomorrow, I could live with that. But if it wasn't supposed to happen until the year 5297 AD and we, instead extinct ourselves, mostly or entirely of our own doing, in 2297****? Well, that would be a shame, even if I was long enough gone to be blissfully unaware of it.

It probably feels like this has been a pro climate change/global warming science post, but that's honestly not my point. Here is my point: we have to work hard to create the future we want. Yes, that includes working hard to figure out ways that we can slow the rush towards sea levels rising, sea life dying, and weather getting more extreme (to name a few things that plausibly can/will happen via climate change/global warming). But I've already established that I believe, firmly, that science has given us enough evidence to believe that life on this planet will not endure; there are too many variables in the universe above for that to be the case. Because of that, working hard to create the future we want involves people beyond Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Richard Bronson getting on board with the idea of space travel. We, as a species, need to diversify our portfolio. We are continuing to put all our eggs as a civilization in the basket of space ship Earth.

For the overwhelming majority of our existence that was the only option we had. Only in the last 50 years, plus or minus a few, have we had other options. Unfortunately, ever since the end of the Apollo program our collective push towards this has been neutered, and that leaves us woefully dependent on the foresight of a few rich individuals to push the agenda. I talked to a person the other day who legitimately looked at me and said that they thought NASA had been completely shut down years ago. This was a very intelligent person who is focused on the here and now, and doesn't think about space. That's how far our own space program has fallen out of the common discussion. That's sad.

If we want to make the future of mankind even possible, then it is time for us as a society to do what we can here to keep perfecting our imperfect existence and to protect this planet, because right now it's all we've got. Simultaneously we need to be pushing hard towards the next frontier, because without the ability to travel comfortably within our solar system, semi-easily to other star systems, and to terraform anything remotely close to workable (Mars would be a good start) ... well, the future is pretty bleak. We have to think beyond our own lifetimes, and the lifetimes of our children and our children's children. To this day we read the works of Plato and Aristotle, we talk of Christ's life over 2,000 years ago, and I think the majority of people just assume that what we (as a society) do today will be reflected in 2,000 years by our ancestors. But we've been on this Earth, as a species, for the blink of an eye on the cosmic timeline. It stands to reason that we could disappear from the cosmic timeline in the blink of an eye as well. If we don't take an active role in figuring out how we, as a people, will get there ... well, if we don't start working hard on it let's just say that I don't like our chances as a civilization. And the thought that all we've accomplished as a species would just go *poof* in large part due to our own inaction and lack of resolve? That's a really, really sad thought to me. So I'll keep buying from Amazon because it has the best deals, but I'll be even happier to do it believing that I'm helping, indirectly, to fund Bezos in his push towards the future of space travel, and his attempts to improve the viability of our species, civilization, and society. The future will not come easily, but nothing in life worth having does.

* Throughout this post I will generally say "climate change/global warming." That is intentional. Both US political parties are guilty of trying to politicize this issue, and the terminology used is a part of that. I, for one, believe that we should push our governmental representatives to depoliticize this issue, so I am going to use the terms interchangeably. It doesn't matter which you choose, at least to me. Just be responsible for learning the facts of this, and for pushing a pro-survival (as in, pro humanity  surviving) agenda.

** Later in the two plus page section on this topic, Klosterman has an even more insightful take, when he says of the climate change/global warming debate that "(t)here is no intellectual room for the third rail, even if that rail is probably closer to what most people quietly assume: that this is happening, but we're slightly overestimating - or dramatically underestimating - the real consequence." What Klosterman says here is, in my estimation, extremely true, extremely dangerous, and extremely indicative of our times: as a society America has polarized on any number of issues to the point where the isn't a middle ground. Either you are a climate change/global warming believer (and, accordingly, a liberal hippie who is functionally a lemming), or you are a denier (and, accordingly, a small minded conservative who, is also, functionally a lemming). The middle ground is vast and has room for people who believe that climate change/global warming is real, but not as driven by man as by the natural functions of Earth's geological cycle, as well as people who believe that the Earth is doing its' thing but that man is exacerbating it, perhaps exponentially. I'd probably fit into the latter category. The best defense of the former category I've ever read was written by the late Michael Crichton, in his book "State of Fear." His argument is located in Appendix I, under the header "Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous." Crichton notes the dangerous nature of politicizing science through the example of eugenics. He then makes the connection to climate change/global warming, while specifically noting that he is "not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities (in the debate) are not superficial." Crichton's main point is to argue that the real argument about the data is being suppressed by the consensus, and that "any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression." For evidence, he points to the fact that the loudest opponents of climate change/global warming were retired professors who had little to lose (at least to that point; Crichton passed away in 2008 and "State of Fear" was published in 2004. Needless to say, to quote Stanley Goodspeed, "Kind of a lot's happened since then.") I don't fully agree with Crichton, but one point, made in the book proper, does ring somewhat true in my opinion: mankind has a way of glorifying its' own role in things. I have little doubt, based on what I've read, that climate change/global warming is real, and that man is a major contributor to the warming curve. I also have little doubt, based on what I've read, that the Earth would be on a warming upswing, even if we never existed in the first place. That is what makes the lack of the third rail in this debate so damning in my estimation. 

*** Although if we don't have the horror of a GRB when Eta Carinae goes boom the supernova will go from being the (likely) end of humanity to a really amazingly cool thing to see in the sky! No reward without major risk, am I right?

**** So 2297 feels insanely far out there, right? And 5297? It seems like fantasy, pure fantasy, for most of us I would imagine. But here's the deal: it is now 2017, which means that 2297 is a mere 280 years from now. 280 years ago (1737) doesn't really feel that long ago if you're a student of history. Benjamin Franklin was alive (he was born in 1706; he was even married 280 years ago). So was George Washington (he was nearing his 5th birthday 280 years ago today). But what about the other number? 3,280 years seems like a long time, even for me, a student of history. Through dumb luck (because I did pick these numbers at random) 3,280 years ago was 1263 BC, which is the date commonly cited regarding Moses leading the Israelites from Egypt. In other words, the Exodus occurred roughly 3280 years ago. The point in this, of course, is to point out what's happened in human history as a point of reference for how long ago "today" will be for our distant relatives in the future. I'd be remiss if I didn't point out, however, that on the scale of Earth's history (let alone the universe's history) 3,280 years ago is less than a blink of an eye. The Earth's history is roughly 4,500,000,000 years long, so, yeah, 3,280 doesn't really factor in. And that timeline (roughly 4.5 billion years old for the Earth) is very widely accepted... unless you are a strict creationist who believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. But if you believe that there are probably a number of things you'd disagree with me on, including the entirety of the premise of this post, the last post, and probably most of my posts. In fact, you very likely wouldn't have even made it down to this fourth footnote. Either way, this digression is officially over. 

The End Of An Era

Welcome to 2017! As a part of my "goals" for this year, I'm going to try to write a bit more on here. Nothing outrageous; this blog will still not be a "daily" blog like some I follow, nor even a "weekly" blog, like others. But I am going to try to head out, from time to time, into the world of sharing my thoughts and view points on this world we live in. I also promise that most of my posts will be rather small, at least compared to the five to ten thousand word tomes that I published prior to the end of 2016. Not all subjects require the attention that Trump's victory in the US Presidential Election did, and not all subjects captivate me emotionally like the Cubs World Series win did. So you're safe in that regard.

Today, I'm going to reflect a bit on the impending end of the Obama administration, I think. But wherever this post ends, I'm going to start here, with a quote from Chuck Klosterman's most recent book, "But What If We're Wrong?": 

"History is defined by people who don't really understand what they are defining." ~ Klosterman, pg. 91

Now mull that line over, and then compare it to another cliche take on history:

"History is written by the victors." ~ Winston Churchill 

Many people probably know the second quote, but I would imagine that the vast majority of people under the age of 40 who know the quote wouldn't know who to attribute it to. Churchill is widely considered right in his take, and certainly the evidence post World War II would indicate that he was right. History texts the world over portray the rise of Totalitarianism in Europe, the rise of Imperial Japan, and the ultimate fall of Nazi Germany, Japan and the Axis nations in a relatively consistent way. They all were power hungry, gained power, wanted more, marginalized (and murdered) people because they weren't "like" them, and ultimately their evil led them to a point of conflict with the Allies, who overtook them and restored the "right" world order. Which is Democracy if you read Western texts. And is probably not exactly Democracy if you read current Russian texts, and assuredly not Democracy if you read Chinese texts. So we get the point; the USA, Western Europe, the (then) USSR, and China prevailed. They not only got to dictate the terms of surrender, but also how things would be remembered moving forward.

This is an especially important concept now, as it relates to World War II. We are at the end of the World War II era. It was years ago that we ended the World War II era actively; George H.W. Bush was the last prominent American leader who served in the war, and his term ended twenty four years ago. Now, we are heading towards the final steps of this era, as that Greatest Generation passes on, and leaves the world to the ensuing generations. The Vietnam generation never got a conclusion the way that the prior generation did; the war in Vietnam "ended," and Saigon fell. Depending on what objectives you believe the US was after we either won, or lost, or neither. But nobody left that era feeling the way (I imagine) we collectively did after V-E and V-J day. The post Cold War generation felt good for awhile, but 9-11-01 brought a collective understanding that in a Uni-Polar world there are far more difficult things to deal with than a Soviet USSR. We are now nearing sixteen years in our longest war, the "War on Terror," understanding that it is a war we cannot win (at least through conventional means), but cannot afford to lose. 

So what happens to history when there are no victors? In a sense, I am arguing that the last big piece of major geopolitical history was written in the immediate aftermath of World War II. That history has been seventy one years in the writing, and as the last of the generation who fought in that war and lived in that depression pass on, we will continue to learn from that history. Honestly, we will continue to modify it to teach us the lessons we feel are important at the time, and to make it fit with our active world view. But we, the Western world, feel confident in ourselves as the "victors" of World War II. There are different view points on that war, but none that carry much weight around the world. It is settled, at least for the near term. 

The last seventy one years are not so settled. And that leads me to my thoughts last night as I watched President Obama's farewell address, all the while contemplating what the next four years will be like under a man who is (nearly) unquestionably considered the most unqualified person to hold the office of the Presidency in modern times. And that, ultimately, leads me to the first quote, from Klosterman. History may be written by the victors, and there is no guarantee that the victor's history is accurate, but at least it is somewhat definitive and agreed upon. In the modern age, history is never written, but it is defined. And Klosterman's point is frighteningly right: it is often defined by people who don't know or understand what it is they are defining. 

This matters quite a bit in this day and age. People are quick to jump to conclusions, and are slow to consider that they may have received bad information, so long as that bad information fits their worldview. We live in an age where whatever it is that makes you comfortable, and that you believe to be true, you can find it somewhere. You can find a website that will make you feel confident in your beliefs, no matter how out of mainstream they might be. You can find a news channel that feeds you the same viewpoints you have, all under the guise of "news." And you can find support to demonize people, institutions, and positions that are different than your viewpoints of the world. 

I often hear from people who cannot seem to STAND President Obama. In fact, I would argue that Barack Obama is the most controversial President ever. I don't think that is a function of his actual administration; rather, I firmly believe that it is a direct function of a fully realized 24 hour "news" cycle, always looking for ratings, always looking for controversy to drive those ratings, and, above all, always looking to stir up the people who identify most closely with the view points that the "news" media is presenting. We have fully arrived in an era when the top journalistic institutions of the past century and a half are considered "fake" news. Many people do not believe in the journalistic integrity of The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal. They view all three publications as a part of the "liberal media," ignoring the very real difference between the news rooms in those agencies and their editorial boards (which, in and of themselves, vary drastically in terms of political ideology). Many people seemingly don't even understand the difference between an editorial piece and a news piece. Instead, they turn to MSNBC, if they are "liberal," or, more frequently, to Fox News (if they are conservative). If Fox News isn't extreme enough in their viewpoints (which is scary enough), they turn to Drudge Report, Breitbart, or whatever is sent to them via Facebook. When they hear that about "fake news," which permeates (and, indeed, makes up) Drudge, Breitbart and the "news" stories that fill up their Facebook feed, these are the people who agree there is fake news, and then point to the Associated Press as an example. Simply put, these individuals believe in the world as they see it, and anything (news, academia, research) that doesn't fit that world view is instantly discredited. 

These are the people who cannot stand President Obama, and who say they cannot wait for his last day. These people often times will agree that Trump isn't perfect, but "at least he isn't as bad as Obama." Here's the key: ask those people to name five things that Obama or his administration has done that has made their lives worse in the last eight years. They will very quickly jump to the Affordable Care Act (they'll call it "Obamacare" because it fuels their dislike more). They might name the Iran nuclear deal. They may talk about taxes. They will struggle mightily to name five things. And they will know almost nothing about the things they do say. If you try to drill down (for instance, "what about the ACA has made things worse for you?") they will deflect and change the subject, or they will spout a Sean Hannity talking point. They will just know in their heart that Obama did it, and it made their life worse. If you try to engage these people in conversations about these things they will quickly try to deflect from the subject, or call you a "liberal," with the same tone they would have if they were calling you the queen mother word. And, if you know anything at all about any of the subjects they bring up, you'll leave shaking your head, wondering how we got to a point as society when feelings and gut instinct became more important and more real than evidence and intelligence. 

Donald Trump is the end result of this new age of "understanding." Trump feeds people lies, constantly, and many of them know it. But he gives them hope. That hope is very simple, based on many of my conversations with Trump supporters. They hope that he will take them back to a better day. It's right there in his campaign slogan: Make America Great Again. People who jumped on board with that can't tell you what the Obama Administration did to make America not great. They just know it isn't great. And so they look the other way when he blatantly attacks the press, like he did in today's press conference. They will nod in agreement when he says that The National Enquirer is "real news" and CNN or The New York Times is "fake news." They look the other way when he uses his position, as he already has, to benefit his family, and to benefit his business. They look the other way when he says that he is going to "attack Wall Street," and then puts multiple senior executives from Goldman Sachs into his administration. They, inexplicably, cheer his statement and then don't hold him accountable when he doesn't follow through.

I cannot help but believe that a large part of this is racist in nature, as it relates to Obama, sexist in nature, as it related to Clinton, and xenophobic, homophobic, racist and sexist (among other things, I'm sure) as it relates to everyone from John Kasich, Jeb Bush and to the left politically. I cannot prove these beliefs on a large scale, but it is nearly the only hypothesis that makes some level of sense to me. And, if there is any level of truth to that hypothesis, then Trump is a better option, simply because he's a white male. And, if that is the case, it becomes truly scary because it means that an incompetent (at best), self-centered (at worst) man is about to lead our country wherever he wants. And, if the media tries to call him on it, people will just say it's the "liberal media" saying it, and point to their Facebook news feed for proof. 

Here's what I believe about President Obama. I believe that he, like all Presidents before him, was imperfect for the job, a job which with each passing year becomes increasingly complex and increasingly impossible. I believe he is a good man, with good morals, and by all evidence is a great husband and a great father. I believe that he tried the best he could, and did some things well, and others not as well. I believe there are many things he wishes he could undo, and a lot of things that he wishes he could do more of. I believe that he is relieved to leave the office, and as terrified as the majority of Americans are about what is to come. I didn't agree with all of what he did, or all of what he stands for, but I have respect for the man, and appreciated his efforts to serve the country to the best of his ability. I felt a lot better about our country and our future with him and his administration at the wheel than I do with 1/20/17 bearing down on us. I felt a lot better with George W. Bush and his administration too, lest you think I'm a "bleeding heart liberal." If you cannot see the possible disaster that Trump is poised to bring, regardless of who you voted for, I don't know what to tell you. We just must live in different dimensions of the Universe (although, if you blindly believe in Trump you probably outright do not believe in the possibilities of different dimensions ... but I digress). 

We live in an era where the people who define what is functionally considered "true" regarding nearly everything ... global warming ... the Iranian nuclear program ... the efficacy of The Affordable Care Act ... are people who are ignorant to actual research, actual evidence, actual facts. That is how we end up with a megalomaniac like Donald Trump as our President, while the same people who cheer Trump demonize a President, in Obama, who led the country out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, gave over twenty million more Americans health insurance, and led the military in executing a mission to kill the man who masterminded the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Those people accept Obama as damn near evil, and look at Trump and celebrate him. 

"History is defined by people who don't really understand what they are defining." Indeed.