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. 

The POV Post-Election Analysis - Trumpocalypse Now

Twice in one year. Can you believe it? I'm writing something for the second time in 2016! Things are trending up! I may even have one more post before we ring in 2017, on a far more enjoyable subject that this one, but I believed this one was more important to get out, if only for my sanity and because I've had a few people ask me to write it. In my defense, I started thinking about this post in the weeks leading up to the election. I think my analysis of the Presidential Election this year was relatively spot on: Clinton was a favorite, varying from a slight to heavy favorite throughout the year leading up to election day, but Trump wasn't "dead." Far from it, his position was stronger than either Romney or McCain's, relatively speaking. We'll get into the reasons for that below. The days leading up to the election I had many people telling me there was "no way" he would win; I responded that his odds were better than the odds were for the Chicago Cubs to come back and win the World Series when they were down three games to one. The moral of the story is this: there is a reason they "play the game."

The FBI "reopening" their inquiry into Clinton's email was the type of late in the game event that the Clinton campaign wasn't prepared for, whether the FBI's actions were intentionally political or not. As I woke up on 11/9/16, into a world where President Elect Donald J. Trump was a real thing, not a punch line, I shot off a series of tweets, giving my "hot takes." I did that, more than anything, so that I'd have a launching point for this post. Then a month flew by. It seems like it has been so much longer than a month and three days since election day. But here I am, ready to finally lay this post out there for those who care to read it. Before I really delve in, let me tell you a few things.

1. Some of you, perhaps all of you, who read this will get upset. I'm going to call it how I see it. I'm not the smartest person in the world, nor the most "in the know." But my undergraduate degree is in Political Science, and I'm still relatively well connected with that world of study. I understand how news gets slanted, and I understand the difference between an "opinion" column and actual news reporting. You can choose to disregard that if you want to, but I don't pull my analysis from the fake news that infects Facebook and the rest of the internet, nor from the partisan fantasy world of Fox News and/or MSNBC. I follow news sources that 90% or more of the world considers reliable. If you choose not to that is 100% your choice, and I respect that. But realize that if you take the position that news outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal (among others), as well as the academics who study politics for a living, are not real or are "in on the conspiracy" ... well, you are statistically as significant as those people who believe Adam walked in the Garden of Eden with T-Rex, that we faked the moon landing, and that global warming is a hoax. You don't believe in facts, research, or anything that you don't want to. I get it. We all have a choice to make: believe in journalistic and academic ethics or not. I choose to be a careful consumer, but a consumer nonetheless. You can choose to be in a group where most of your peers probably believe we live in the Matrix.

2. I am not a Clinton supporter or apologist. I voted for Gary Johnson and the Libertarian ticket because I couldn't believe that a plurality of  primary voters in this country left us with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as our major party choices. I also voted Libertarian because in the DEEP RED state of Indiana, my vote for Johnson was every bit as valuable as anyone else's vote. We were going Trump no matter what. The majority of this country said that neither Clinton, nor Trump was a good candidate for President and then went out and voted for one of the two. Until we start pushing the envelop and insisting on a third option, we will continue to get these types of choices. So I decided I could afford a protest vote. Had my state been close, had there even been a chance that my state would have been close, I would have begrudgingly cast my vote for Hillary Clinton as the least worst option. But I was perfectly happy to be able to vote for a third party and not have to support either of the flawed candidates that the primary season gave us. And, for the record, I voted in the Republican Primary and supported Kasich. Here is to hoping he will mount a primary challenge to Trump in 2020.

3. If you didn't vote in the primaries, you should have. That's how you can participate in an attempt to avoid a Clinton v Trump catastrophe. But if you didn't vote in the general election, then as far as I'm concerned, you actively decided to give up your right to complain. Democracy is a participatory process. You're not going to find me complaining about the Electoral College; it was the system given to us by our "iconic" founding fathers. Yes, it was because they didn't trust us, the "common white man" to decide on president, let alone everyone else who they didn't want to ever vote. But it's the rules of the game. Complaining about Clinton winning the popular vote and not winning the election is like complaining that your baseball team had the most hits, but still lost the game. You play by the rules of the game: hits, not runs, EC votes, not popular vote. But if you don't play the game, which in this case means you didn't vote, then you have no right to this conversation. You chose to not participate in our democracy and gave up your right to complain. Whatever happens, sit back, enjoy the next four years regardless of what happens, and stop complaining. You disenfranchised yourself.

4. If nothing else, read this article that gives you the full quote of Gregg Popovich's take on this election. This is real; this is where we are at with our country. We elected a guy who says and does things we would NEVER accept out of our own children. Good job America.

With all of that said, this is going to be my analysis of how we got here, what it means, and what my "take aways" are. Let's start with a simple fact, brought to us by exit polling on election day:

More than 60% of people who voted in this election believed that Donald Trump was unfit to be President. 

Hold on, let's get one more fact brought to us by the vote count, as of today:

More than 46% of people who voted for President voted for Donald Trump.

Let's let that sink in for a second. That means that over six percent of people who voted for Trump believe that he is unfit to be President. Not that he was probably a little over his head, or wasn't their top choice ... he was considered unfit, unqualified to be president. Using a little back of the napkin math here, that means that roughly Eight Million, Five Hundred Forty Four Thousand, Three Hundred people who voted for Trump thought that the man was not qualified to be President. Who knows what led those people to vote for a man they felt was unfit to hold the most important position in the world, but boy would I like to know. Because I, for the life of me, can't imagine what logical, rational reason their could be.

Now let's delve a little deeper into the question about how Trump won. I hear quite a bit from Trump supporters that he won because he "brought out" the vote. Or, if they are being a bit more honest with their thoughts, they'll say he brought out the "Reagan Democrats," which is really code for "White Working Class America." You hear a lot about this in places like where my wife grew up, in Macomb County Michigan. Well, let's look at actual data to see if this narrative of Trump "bringing out the base" is reality or fake news fantasy.

As of today, Trump has just under 62,800,000 popular votes; by comparison, Romney had just under 60,800,000 in 2012. Promising in terms of validating this argument. But let's delve a little deeper. What you find when you go state by state is a much more muddled picture. Some states, like Pennsylvania, seem to agree with this narrative to a point: Trump drew out around 2.912 million voters to Romney's 2.680 million. Others, like Wisconsin, go against that narrative; Trump took home around 70,000 fewer votes in Wisconsin than Romney did. The aforementioned Michigan? Pretty close, with Trump having around 150,000 more votes than Romney. In other areas of the country Trump held steady where he should have gained (Texas), made a small margin up (New York) or lost a ton of ground compared to Romney (California). Simply put, this narrative isn't very accurate at all.

A far more accurate narrative, however, and the one I would posit as being the major factor in electing Trump is this: Democrats stayed home. But not nationally, just in crucial areas. Let's look at raw vote totals from the last three elections (keeping in mind that going much further back gets tougher to compare as it doesn't factor in population increases).

• Democrats: 2008 - 66,882,230, 2012 - 65,455,010, 2016 - 65,432,202
• Republicans: 2008 - 58,343,671, 2012 - 60,771,703, 2016 - 62,793,872

You see these totals holding mostly steady for the Democrats, while steadily increasing for the GOP. But the key is where the votes were and were not. As we noted above, Trump had some increases in crucial states, but Clinton had major increases in states that did not matter. In Texas she picked up over half a million votes from where Obama was in 2012. But in Pennsylvania she was down over 150,000 votes from where Obama was. In Michigan she lost nearly 300,000 votes from where Obama was, and in Wisconsin, where Trump did worse than Romney? Roughly 240,000 fewer votes for Clinton than Obama had in 2012. The map didn't break well for her, but she also didn't campaign much in Michigan until the last week, and didn't campaign at all in Wisconsin. She was fixated on expanding the map to states like Georgia and Arizona, and expanding the Democrat's footprint in places like North Carolina. Meanwhile everyone laughed at Trump for campaigning across Clinton's "Blue Wall"... but he knew that his long shot presidency included two things. The first was picking up a small number of more voters in those areas than Romney did. As we've established above, he did that. What was the second thing?

Simply put, he needed Democrats to stay home. With more nuance, however, he needed people who didn't like Clinton to stay home. They didn't have to like him, at least not enough to vote for him, but they needed to not like her enough to not vote ... or to be one of the eight million plus who voted for a man who was unfit in their eyes to be President. In this regard, Trump won. But how did he win? He did it in a number of ways, and in doing so he proved how efficiently and effectively our entire political system could be gamed. 

First, he established early and often who it was he wanted his "base" to be. He actively and aggressively courted uneducated white voters with promises of things going back to how they were before, back when America was "great." This message was particularly powerful behind the curtain, inside of Clinton's "Blue Wall" in the upper mid-west. This area hasn't been "great" since the 1960s, and people still cling to the idea that it can be for the country and the world what it was in the two decades following the end of World War Two. Of course, this is a fantasy of the highest order, equal with believing that spewing CO2 into the atmosphere isn't going to have a negative impact on the world's temperature. But these people don't care. They are desperate for something, anything, and ultimately, anyone who will tell them that it will all be all right again. That the jobs will come back. That the wages will come back. That the "middle class" existence for a skilled laborer who didn't graduate high school will come back. I won't spend too much time delving into this, but simply put this cannot and will not happen, regardless of who is president, because the world is fundamentally different than it was in the decades following WWII. Back then we were the world's lone super power, and the only major nation that had left the previous decade unscathed in our homeland (short of Pearl Harbor, of course). We had the industry, it was already fired up from our war production, and everyone else's economy was in disarray. We had an economic monopoly on the world, and we prospered accordingly. Those circumstances are as far from today's world as transportation today is from transportation in the 1600s. So, in sum, Trump played to his desired base by telling them lies, sweet little lies, that gave them hope for a future that he knows will never come. But, of course, the future doesn't need to come ... the idea of the future simply needed to carry him to the White House. And the upper mid-west, the rust belt, was an area that was particularly vulnerable to this fantasy. 

Second, Trump could only pull this off if his opponents were divided, as they were in the primary. He needed them to be unable or unwilling to call him on his lies and factual inaccuracies for fear of upsetting the very base he was building, who they, too, would need if there were to win in November. After accomplishing this with very little resistance (major kudos here for John Kasich for refusing to budge and give in to Trump), Trump then needed another miracle. He needed the Democrats to nominate someone as unlikable and flawed as he was. Fortunately for him, the Democrats were so thin that the best they could come up with was the second most unlikable presidential nominee in history behind him. And all the Democrats could do to try to avoid this was run an aged socialist against her. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: the two most unlikable, flawed candidates in modern political presidential history. And remember, likability matters quite a bit. Obama was likable; he seemed like a guy you'd shoot hoops with or watch the NCAA tournament with. George W. was likable; he was a guy you'd have a beer with. Bill Clinton? Likable, especially when compared with George H.W. and Bob Dole. Reagan? Likable, because he communicated warmly and optimistically. Likability matters, so when you are considered by the majority of the voting population to be unlikable and unqualified to be President? Well then, you better have someone who is nearly equally unlikable and considered to be unqualified as well. Trump won the veritable lottery here. 

Third, Trump needed to appeal to a portion of the voting public that neither side had appealed to in some time, at least since the 1960s and 1970s, and that was the racist, sexist, xenophobic base. He went after this voting block with extreme intensity, from the day he launched his campaign. Be it the wall to keep out Latinos, a ban to keep out the Muslims, or his routine insinuations that Hillary couldn't do the job because she was a woman, Trump appealed to another block of white voters in a way that they hadn't been appealed to in a generation, since George Wallace ran for President in 1968. This approach helped him in two ways. First, it brought out voters to the polls for him who otherwise were likely to stay home because the major parties didn't buy into their world view. Secondly, it spoke to some Obama voters who were okay with a black man as President, but still had a misogynist view point and couldn't take the jump to a female candidate. Those voters didn't necessarily have to vote Trump, although likely some of them did. They could just stay home as well. Trump's margins didn't need to be big, and they weren't. He was beaten soundly in the popular vote, but he held on to narrow margins where it mattered. A relatively small number of voters voting for him or staying home rather than voting for Clinton benefited him disproportionately. 

Fourth, Trump needed to not be caught peddling in lies, and to not be viewed poorly for peddling in fears. In this regard he won big going away, for one simple reason: every time the media called him on his lies, tried to fact check him, or to hold him accountable for fear mongering, he simply changed the story. Often to make the story about the media's "unfair" coverage of the election. What this showed was how many voters were able to be seemingly held captive by his lies and his efforts to play to their fears. This happened because, sadly, his worldview fit many of their worldviews. When he said incendiary things about Islam and talked of Muslim registries and Muslim bans, it played to a portion of the population's fears. This isn't a new strategy; Hitler did the same thing with Judaism and the Jews, and the US did it in the same era with the Japanese and our internment camps. What was amazing was how defensive Trump supporters got if you acknowledged the stark similarities to what Trump was saying and prior instances of xenophobia in history. Playing to fears, coupled with an amazing ability to lie, gave Trump an edge. His ability to pin it back on the media anytime that they tried to hold him accountable is what should scare everyone moving forward. 

Finally, he needed a miracle. That miracle was something that would pull the polls close enough that they were within the margin of error. Close enough that people who despised Clinton would come out and vote for him, but with enough of a margin for Clinton that people who didn't really like her could talk themselves into staying home rather than voting "because it's alright, she'll win anyways. That death blow was delivered by FBI Director James Comey when he instructed his agency to reopen their previously closed investigation into Clinton's email server. Now, mind you, Comey could have legally and ethically done this quietly, having his team review the new information, and only go to Congress, and therefore public, if there was something new there. Instead, Comey came out and made a big theatrical production about it ... only to later determine that this was nothing new, and that the conclusion was the same: Clinton had done nothing criminal. There is little doubt that Comey reopening the investigation did for Trump exactly what he needed it to do: it closed the polls, particularly in those crucial upper mid-west states, to within the margin of error, firing up Trump's base while leaving enough room for some likely Clinton voters to remain apathetic and stay home. Trump needed to thread the needle, and the Comey letter was the Hail Mary pass that Trump needed. 

And so, here we are. President Elect Donald J. Trump. A man who would be worth more money if he had taken his dad's loan and inheritance and simply invested it, rather than doing what he's done with it. A man who was a Democrat until it became politically advantageous to become a Republican due to the divided nature of the party. A man who quite literally seems to have no real policy position, or interest in learning about policy, either foreign or domestic. A man who does know show business, and uses that to position and stage things like keeping job in Indiana ... by having me, my wife, and countless other Hoosiers pay for a tax break for the company, while having all American's pay for them to have fat government contracts ... and then watches the company still ship the majority of the jobs they already were going to out of the country anyways ... and then Trump declares it victory. 

Simply put friends, much of what Trump said in the election season was complete and utter lies, intended for the simple sake of publicity. That is the likely outcome of this. As he comes into office he will likely come back to the middle; reality is that he already has on things like The Affordable Care Act, the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Muslim Ban and our defense commitments to NATO and other partners. Now, there is a real risk here in that he could, and very simply should, upset his base. But he is banking on something else: that those people will keep listening to Fox News, keep reading fake news on Facebook, and keep going to the Breitbart "news" network for their news rather than going to real journalistic sources. Because if those people do that, they'll hear how it's the Democrats making him not be able to do these things. Or the Republicans. Or both. He's banking that his bread and butter base, the uneducated white person, will stay uneducated. That they'll see Carrier keeping a few hundred jobs here for millions in tax breaks and billions in defense contracts ... and not that Carrier takes all that money and still sends over a thousand jobs to Mexico. He's banking that his base will still see minorities of any type as a part of the problem, not as fellow men and women. He's banking that the Democrats, with a bench so thin that Joe Biden, who would be 77 in 2020, is seemingly the best option out there, will be unable to find anyone capable of dethroning him. He's banking that his base won't notice, or won't care, that he lied to them throughout the primary and general election season ... as he gently drifts towards the middle on many things. 

The alternative, quite frankly, is much more scary. That involves him going through with what he said he would. That alternative is very much in play, as neo-fascists like Steve Bannon continue to have the President-Elect's ear, as anti-Muslim individuals like General Michael Flynn get nominations, and as his cabinet becomes filled with the same Wall Street insiders he condemned during the campaign, and individuals with ties to Russia so strong that you have to wonder if Trump is just going to have a live G Chat with Putin 24/7. If this scenario, that the Trump of the campaign is the Trump who takes the Oath of Office, comes to reality, then there is one hope in the next two years: that the GOP members that have control of the House and Senate do what they didn't have the fortitude to do in the election season: stand up to Trump and force him to stand down. Block some of his nominations if they are unfit for the job or potentially compromised by ties to Putin and Russia. Moderate his policies. Show America that "conservative" doesn't mean "fascist." Prove to America that conservative answers to problems don't have to mean ignorance, fantasy, and putting the top one tenth of one percent's well being ahead of the rest. Needless to say, however, I'm not overly optimistic that the GOP will suddenly find the fortitude to stand up to Trump. They could have done it when he was a weak sideshow. Where are they going to find the strength now that he has become what he has become? 

And so now we see, in plain daylight, the depths of this man and his campaign's ties to Russia. He outwardly encouraged Russia to commit espionage, and then benefited when Russian espionage undermined his opponent. He clearly plans on blowing up US - China relations, starting with Taiwan, and ending with tariffs and taxes (side note: go out and buy your cheap flat screen TV soon ... they may not be cheap much longer!). He is bent on putting the extreme fringe, the radical fringe around him in his cabinet and west wing, and is making it well known that he plans on being a care taker President who generally lets his people do their things and just makes things look good. We've seen this before with Reagan and George W. Bush, but at least they had some people around them who knew what they were doing. Thus far Trump hasn't nominated anyone who has broad bi-partisan support for their nomination. That should scare everyone. 

At the end of the day, I go back to something that a person far more qualified to be President (but far too smart to run for President!) once said about invading Iraq: you break it, you own it. As Colon Powell said then, I say now in a different situation: we the people, because we don't want to honestly work on our imperfect union and would rather be divided and unable to see others as worthwhile, elected Donald J. Trump as the next President of the United States of America. He is unquestionably the most unqualified President-Elect of modern times. As we head into his Presidency, we all need to work together to try to manage to weather the likely storm ahead. We need to work in our communities across the aisle. We need to get past who we voted for, and find common ground. The extreme fringe who voted for Trump needs to be dealt with kindly and empathetcally, but in a way that makes clear that xenophobia, racism, sexism and fear of science and facts is not in any way the future of this country. My high school history teacher once said that he believed this was "the greatest country ever conceived on this earth, warts and all ... and there are a hell of a lot of warts." That statement is true, irregardless of who won this election. But it's time to pull together. If Trump runs to the middle, respects the rights of all people, and moves forward with a modern agenda that acknowledges science and the real state of the world, he should be acknowledged for it. But if he governs as he campaigned then we all have an obligation to do everything we can up and down ballots in 2018 to neuter him, and then to toss him and his government of closed minded, hateful people out of government forever in 2020. Either way, we as a country need to do this together. 

In closing, the best way I could describe this election between two awful choices was this. Hillary Clinton was like playing a lottery ticket. You knew that you were likely going to lose, and not be better off. But you also knew you probably wouldn't lose too much, and there was at least a chance that things would turn out a little bit better. Donald Trump is like playing Russian Roulette. The likely best case scenario involves an empty chamber full of a bunch of hateful rhetoric and bluster, but ultimately our collective heart rate will come down and we'll be all right. But if the chamber isn't empty ... well, none of us will be here to chat about it. Here's hoping the chamber is empty, because a relative handful of people in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are clearly bigger gamblers than I am. Welcome to the Trumpocalypse. This is one of the darkest times in our country's history, that much seems certain. But the beauty of this country has been that we come through the dark into the light of day. Let's go out and do it. 

Why I Don't Write Anymore - Shades of Grey

I've been thinking about this blog post for sometime, but haven't actually had the opportunity to sit down and write it. I have written on this blog exactly once since 11/16/13, and that post, in early 2015, was part book review and ode to Billy Joel. So as I continued to ponder writing this post, making some type of return to blogging, and pondered these things, it seemed correct that my thoughts came back to a Billy Joel Song.

I've thought quite a bit in the last three years about blogging, and why I stopped doing it. I genuinely enjoy the process of blogging. It is something that brings me a sense of accomplishment, it preserves my thoughts in the off chance that someone else wants to know them, and it gives me the chance to work through things in a structured way. So why did I stop? Why only one post in 34 months?

The easy answer would be that life has changed quite a bit since then. I got married in June of 2013. I graduated from graduate school just prior to that, in May of 2013. I got promoted in August 2013 ... and then again in January of 2015. With the promotions came more responsibilities, more work, the usual excuses. My wife and I welcomed our first born child into this world in August of 2014. The little guy has been an amazing blessing that words cannot express, but kids change things. My wife finished her PhD program in 2015. She bounced around a number of part time employment opportunities before landing her desired full time job as a college professor starting this fall. I started teaching at said University last spring, adding teaching a Master's Degree course to my work load. My wife continued doing the part time work she loves on top of the full time work. We found out she was pregnant last fall, with a due date in the late spring of 2016. We then found out we were having twins. In early 2016 we found out that the twins had both died, and we had to go through that. In the last 34 months people have been born, people have died, people have been married, people have been divorced. Simply put, a lot of life happened.

That would all be the easy excuse. I don't blog anymore because I simply don't have time for it. See how busy I am? That's why I don't do it! That excuse would be convenient, and somewhat true, but after really ruminating on this I don't think it's the major factor.

I turned 30 this year, and have also been thinking a great deal about what that means. Generally speaking, it means very little. It's another arbitrary date, in a sea of arbitrary dates, coming from a past that cannot be changed to a future that's guaranteed to none of us. But in another sense, particularly within the context of my marriage, my son's life, and my career, it feels like a defined epoch. Moving from the first "third" of my life (childhood and adolescence) into the second "third," which might be defined as parenting and working to create the world my wife and I want our family and ourselves to live in. It is certainly optimistic to think that thirty years will be only a third of my life; tomorrow may prove that it could actually be the whole of my life, or medical advances might prove that I'm only a quarter of the way through. But this idea, this context feels right to me.

And so, with that context, as I was mowing the lawn the other night on a riding mower that is around 15 years older than me, I came to a conclusion regarding why I haven't been writing. And it prompted me to want to write. This epoch thing isn't just regarding dividing my life into thirds. It's also a very much coming to grips with my changing world view and view on life in general. A few months ago I wrote my annual "Fantasy Football Manifesto." It was harder than ever before to get "ready" for the fantasy football year. When I wrote an email to the league, I simply asked everyone to stay involved, have fun, and remember that it's just a game. That isn't how I would have perceived fantasy football just a few years ago. Why the difference now? The Bears have been KILLED in two straight games, and I'm not sweating it. A few years ago it would have put me in a funk to start my week. Why the difference?

And so, I came back to this: Billy Joel. On his last album he wrote a song entitled "Shades of Grey." So I am going to use his lyrics to better explain all of this: why I've not been writing, why I'm not as worried about things I used to be, why my worldview is changing.

"Some things are perfectly clear, seen with the vision of youth."

So we'll start there. I used to blog a lot, sharing my opinion with whoever wanted to read. That's ultimately what writing in a public forum does. I just finished a book on George H.W. Bush which relied heavily on his own diaries. Now, in a public forum, his thoughts take on a different weight, but they were written or dictated privately. When you post publicly, however, you intentionally putting your opinion out there for others to read, consider, critique, agree with or disagree with.

Bill Simmons, on a recent podcast, was discussing something along these lines. He talked about how he used to write columns driven towards proving a point. At some point he shifted to writing columns to explore an idea, or a sporting event, while giving consideration to multiple points of view. As I listened to the podcast (Simmons is now nearly exclusively an audio/video person, having seemingly given up writing all together), I found his words resonating with me. I may have an opinion, but what makes that opinion valid?

"No doubts and nothing to fear, I claimed the corner on truth."

H.W. Bush is, in my opinion, a completely underrated president. In fact, I think you could make a compelling argument that he was the last great president this country has had. That would be a discussion for another day (perhaps, or perhaps I'll go another long stretch without writing). But one aspect of Bush's legacy that makes me raise that possibility is this: he had his principles, but was willing to work across the aisle to get things done. He knew what he thought was right, but was willing to consider the possibility that his point of view wasn't the only point of view. Bush was the last president from The Greatest Generation; perhaps none of this should be that surprising. But while Bush was, undoubtedly, a man of strong moral and philosophical/political values, he didn't pretend to know it all.

Simmons spoke to the same concepts when talking about his shifting viewpoints on a number of things, from gender rights to concussions in the NFL. I've always been an opinionated person. I like to debate, I like to study topics, and I love to "prove" I'm right. But what makes me right? What makes my point of view the truth? At one point I was able to push through any doubt on that which might have been there, but anymore I hesitate. I know what's "true" to me, but that does not in any way make it "true" for you.

"These days it's harder to say I know what I'm fighting for. My faith is falling away; I'm not that sure anymore."

In some ways, I feel the exact opposite of this line. I know exactly what I'm "fighting for" now, perhaps much more so than ever before. I'm getting up every day, first and foremost, to continue to invest in and nourish my relationship with my wife and child. They are what I'm fighting for first. My job is important to me too; I'm fighting, each day, at work to help improve services for kids in our state. I'm trying to find ways to improve our programs. In either of these cases, I'm fighting to make myself a better man.

Before, I probably felt like I was fighting for something else. To be heard. To be right. To prove to others what they should do. That has begun to fall away. But as it has, the reality is that my faith has strengthened because I've come to a singular reality: I'm the person that needs to improve. If I can become a better man, by extension I'll be a better husband to my wife, a better father to my son, a better supervisor to my employees. Relying on faith is the way that I've found it possible to do that.

"Shades of grey wherever I go. The more I find out, the less that I know."

This is, ultimately, a main reason for my lack of blogging in the last 34 months. I know that I'm "smarter" now than I was 34 months ago. I haven't stopped reading, studying, learning and asking others to help me learn more. But as I've learned more, the more that I've come to the reality that what I know is dwarfed by what I don't know. Put another way, I know just enough about astronomy and astro-physics to know how little I know. Perhaps that's the reality of working with kids, with human beings. We can have the best treatment models in the world, and each person will respond to it differently.

"Now with the wisdom of years I try to reason things out. And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts. Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for. I won't be righteous again. I'm not that sure anymore."

So here is my brief take as well as conclusion. Look at our political environment right now. Look at our ongoing presidential election race. We have two people who are seemingly unable or unwilling to have doubts. Clinton versus Trump. Donald has even gone as far as to say that "only" he can fix what is "wrong" with our country. Hillary simply just lies. I cannot fathom supporting either of them, yet that's the choice that our system gave us. I cannot fathom how anyone could support either of them, yet I frequently hear from people "how could you support x, you've got to support y, what's wrong with you?" That's how standard that is; you can flip Trump and Clinton, Clinton and Trump, and their supporters feel that certain. Trump may be a good man who is running a sham campaign, but if you judge him just on what he's said I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. A devoted Republican friend of mine said one day "I wanted to do it, I wanted to talk myself in to him, but then he said positive things about Saddam and I just can't do it." Clinton? She can't seem to be willing to be honest with people. She takes small things and makes them into huge issues simply because she won't be honest and real. Who knows if there's a big conspiracy behind her? None of us do. But her unwillingness or inability to be real about whatever has gone on makes it look like she's covering something big up. Who can blame people for not trusting her? But our country is so polarized politically that you either line up as a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or liberal, and you better never cross that line or else. We don't allow for real political discourse anymore. We have our handful of priorities, and most of us refuse to consider another person's point of view. And that is sad, and in my opinion it is beyond concerning.

I try to reason all these things out. I don't see how anyone can be totally committed to either side. And perhaps that's why I haven't been writing. The more I find out, the less that I know. I'm not that sure anymore.

2012 NFL Picks Week 4 ***Plus Presidential Polls***

Well, the combination of a poor performance by the Bears offense (albeit with another great defensive/special teams performance), plus my fantasy team continuing to crap the bed from a team that looked great on paper to one that can't function (thanks to my boss, a life long Bills fan for jinxing CJ Spiller for me), plus the awful officiating culminating in the officials blowing the Sunday and Monday night games ... yeah, I'm borderline out on the NFL until the real officials are back. Which, incidentally, looks like it might be soon. Or not. Really, who the hell knows?  (If you didn't take the time to follow those links, ESPN right now says "Deal between NFL, Refs very close" while Sports Illustrated says "NFL, Referees still not close to a deal." I LOVE headlines and the 24 hour a day news cycle.)

So, with that said, I thought I'd take a look at the shocking reality that is becoming this presidential election cycle. If you've read my political breakdowns here before, you know that I looked at the Republican Primary season from a "who is most likely to win" schema. I will view the general election the same way. That said, some general pointers from history indicate that:

- Presidents with economies in recession don't win re-election.
- A President with an economy this poor hasn't won re-election since FDR
- Barack Obama is the President.

Pretty simple, right? The economy has continued an uber slow recovery, barely creeping along at times. The housing market continues to be in shambles. The Congress hasn't accomplished a thing since the midterm elections split the House and the Senate in 2010. Historically, this election would look like 1976, 1980, or 1992. In each of those elections a weak incumbent, hamstrung by issues, faded quickly and ended up being defeated. 1980 (Reagan over Carter) and 1992 (Clinton over H.W. Bush) are particularly pertinent examples. To wit:

- With Carter, the nation's unemployment rate sat at 7.5% when he took office in 1977. It went steadily down, getting under 6% through much of 1979, but in 1980, an election year, the rate went back up into the 7.2-7.8% rate. Carter also faced a major crisis in the Middle East (the Iranian Hostage situation) and high energy (read: GAS) costs. Keep in mind: unemployment actually exploded under Reagan's first term , eventually going over 10% for ten concurrent months between September 1982 and June of 1983. It started declining at that point, however, and by November of 1984 (election time) the rate was at a much more comfortable 7.4%. You know, .1% less than it was when high unemployment helped to undo Carter in 1980. The message, as always? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whereas unemployment was heading in the wrong direction for Carter, Reagan could argue that things were headed in the right direction. Incidentally, they were proven "right" as unemployment continued to plummet during Ronnie's 2nd term, down to sub 6% his entire last year. 

- With Bush, he took over a stable economy that held under 6% unemployment his entire first year. But then those evil economic forces started to creep in and the unemployment rate slowly started creeping up. By 1992 the rate climbed back over 7% (October 1991 to be exact) and stayed over 7% throughout 1992. Although H.W.'s foreign policy was generally (and honestly still is) something to be commended, the economic difficulty brought in Clinton, who saw unemployment rates that Reagan could only dream of, seeing 42 straight months under 5% (and even some months under 4%) to end out his term. During the "Dubya" administration rates held fairly steady, until the end where rates made it to 7% by the time he left office.

Now, if rates over 7% indicate a candidate's doom, Obama's rates above 8% (after three years sitting between 9-10%) should spell certain doom. Of course, if it were that easy, Mitt Romney should be celebrating right now. Right? After all, both Reagan and Clinton were able to breath pretty easy. However, look at the polls right now, and you find a different reality. Every set of polling data that comes out looks better and better for Obama, worse and worse for Romney. Today's Quinnipiac poll shockingly shows Obama up by DOUBLE DIGITS in three major swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. And while this poll shows the largest margins of all polls, it continues the absolute trend among polls moving towards Obama. I won't take the time to break them all down here, but this link gives you a break down of each and every reputable poll. The question, simply put, isn't IF Obama is in the lead, but HOW MUCH is Obama in the lead. Honestly, the more this continues trend this way the more the question becomes: does Romney even have a punchers chance?

So, why is Obama bucking history? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I do know this: Romney needs an unbelievable debate performance, starting next Wednesday, to have even a wing and a prayer of salvaging this thing. Needless to say, I'll try to clear out my schedule to live blog the debate next week. It sure as hell interests me more than the NFL's crappy replacement officials and my awful fantasy football team.

On to the picks:

Last week against the spread: 9-6-1
Last week straight up:8-8

Season against the spread: 25-21-2
Season straight up: 25-23

Thursday Night Game

Baltimore (-13) over Cleveland - Moral of the story: I fully believe Baltimore can blow this line and win by one or two ... but I still can't bet on Cleveland.

Sunday Early Games

Atlanta (-8) over Carolina - Moral of the story: after last week's game against San Diego, is this line high enough?

New England (-5) over Buffalo - no (good) RBs healthy in Buffalo, New England can't lose three in a row... can they?

Minnesota (+5) over Detroit - Moral of the story: I just have a hunch, particularly if Stafford is out.

San Diego (-1) over Kansas City - Moral of the story: I still don't believe in Romeo.

St. Louis (+3) over Seattle - Moral of the story: Bad karma for last week's replacement ref job over Green Bay.

San Francisco (-5) over NY Jets - Moral of the story: Revis out for the year is a huge blow. No offense, struggling defense, and I bet San Fran comes to play.

Tennessee (+13) over Houston - Moral of the story: Houston continues to play like a Super Bowl contender, but this line just feels to high. I'll take Houston to win the game, however.

Sunday Late Games

Denver (-7) over Oakland - Moral of the story: Oakland is confusing me, but I think Peyton is due for a semi-Peyton game.

Arizona (-6) over Miami - Moral of the story: Fool me once, shame on Arizona. Fool me three times (and counting) ...

Cincinnati (-3) over Jacksonville - Moral of the story: I am not glad I ended up with Chris Johnson instead of MJD on my fantasy roster.

Green Bay (-8) over New Orleans - Moral of the story: Good karma for the game on Monday.

Washington (+3) over Tampa Bay - Moral of the story: RGIII can move the pocket; Josh Freeman can't seem to get things done. That said, I need to watch this closely because with all the injuries in Washington I might be missing the bus here.

Sunday Night Game

NY Giants (+1) over Philadelphia - Moral of the story: I'm getting close to out on Philly

Monday Night Game

Chicago (+4) over Dallas - Moral of the story: Both offensive lines are ... offensive. I think the extra time off helps Chicago, and I want this very badly for my Uncle.

Until next time, Thursday night football sucks. Replacement refs suck more!

Week Eight Picks ... Plus some NBA Ramblings

It's that magical time of the week again, when I get to force myself to sit down, make my picks, and see what else comes out in the process. Today, there is the unique situation that is the NBA lockout (A.K.A. the lockout that nobody ever heard of or cared about). It appears that the NBA lockout is coming to an end shortly, and so we're left to determine what that means to us. For the vast majority of sports fans it will mean very little, and that is a huge indicator of how dramatically David Stern misplayed his hand here. The owners well very vocal about their willingness to miss an entire season if need be, yet here they are running back to the table hoping to not miss one regular season game. Why would that be? I would posit that it is because the owners suddenly realized that they were having the proverbial lockout ... about which nobody cared.

To that end, if very few fans were legitimately sad about the lockout, how many could they expect to come back after a year. Hockey has experienced a resurgence recently, years after they canceled their own season via lockout, but Hockey has the same core fans it always had. The NBA has no such luck. Much of their boom in popularity in the 1990s came from general sports fans who were attracted to watching the greatest of all time. The lockout in 1999 gave them a convenient excuse to move on to something else ... baseball, football ... and only recently have some of those fans come back. Now, they see little reason to stick, and with the NFL having resolved their own labor impasse, with baseball rolling along, why would they?

But in the midst of all of this I listened to an interview with Billy Hunter, one in which Hunter misspoke several times, and generally made himself sound like a fool. Still, one concept jumped out at me. Hunter stated rather clearly that the plight of his players was like the plight of "everyman" in that "the MAN" was trying to arbitrarily cut their income. Hunter implied that this wasn't legal, was practically "un-American," and that it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Now, those of you who know me well know that I try to keep my personal life out of this blog, but in this situation I can't help myself. For anyone working in the social service field right now in the state of Indiana what Hunter has said is downright hysterical. No matter how bad Hunter and his cronies feel David Stern is, I can point my fingers at someone much more Machiavellian in his actions, and much more successful. Ladies and Gentlemen, Director of the Department of Children Services for the State of Indiana: Jim Payne



Now, to understand the man, in a short moment, you just need to understand what he did with his budget this year. Director Payne took the budget that Mitch Daniels gave him, then handed it back and said "give me 30% less." He then proceeded to whip all his regional directors into shape to spend even less than that depreciated budget. Then he took the amount saved, and took THAT out of their budget for next year. He has sent memos out threatening discipline for case workers who place in certain programs. This is all fact.

Now, if Indiana was struggling financially this could be expected. This man, and his Governor, are, after all, hard core fiscal conservatives, the kind who cut indiscriminately in order to get the budget right. But, as Mitch is all too happy to report, our state is currently running a $1.2 billion surplus. Hold on, let's look at that with the zeros: $1,200,000,000. So these cuts are on top of that surplus. And when Director Payne sent out his rates for next year, after all this success and savings, he still cut rates by an average of 35-40% next year. Some agencies took a hit of as high as 50% of their rates; the smallest hits were in the 20-25% range. Of course, they can do this because they are the government, and they make the rules. It is estimated that over 80% of agencies will be unable to survive these cuts, and that will lead to a huge spike in unemployment across the state. Of course they don't care, because this fits Mitch's fairy tail: I came to Indiana, I turned the state into a money maker, I left with a great budget on the books.

So to Billy Hunter, I'd like to say this: go to Hell. You think that the NBA owners are being fascist for asking for 3% more in all basketball related income to go to their end? It still ends up with your union being the highest paid union, per person, in the WORLD. Higher than MLB, NFL, or any other sporting unions. Guess what? If they cut the percentage of income guaranteed to the players by 50% your players would still be millionaires if they were smart. The league minimum wage right now? For a rookie (0 years experience) $473,604. For a year. I'm not going to broadcast my salary over the internet, but let's just say it would take me well over a decade to be able to earn that much money. The more you complain about this, and try to make it seem like you're fighting the good fight for "everyman" the more you seem completely out of touch and make me root for ownership. Even if they are suggesting cuts it's nowhere near the type of draconian cuts that I'm dealing with right now. Get a reality check you jack-ass, and get back to playing basketball for the fifteen fans who still give a damn.

On to the picks:

Last Week Against the Spread: 8-4-1
Last Week Straight Up: 10-3

Season Against the Spread: 52-46-5
Season Straight Up: 71-32

EARLY GAMES

Indianapolis (+9) over Tennessee - Is there anyway this line should actually be this high? Both teams got crushed last week, and while the Colts looked much worse they are also the unquestioned worst team out of these two and were playing the better team. A nine point spread? ESPN's insider has the game at a six point spread, but if I've got to pick on the nine point line I'll take the Colts to cover based on this logic: if Jim Caldwell lays another egg he might be fired before he gets a chance to make it to week nine. I'll take the Titans to win based on this logic: they are the better team, and much like Houston last week, they now face a MUST WIN game if they want to stay alive in the playoff hunt. I just can't see the Colts, who played a number of teams tough, getting killed in this one.

Saints (-14) over St. Louis - If Dallas could cover a large spread against St. Louis, and if New Orleans continues to move along at a good clip like last week, this shouldn't be a problem, even considering the game is on the road.

Giants (-10) over Miami - Miami almost blew the "Suck for Luck" sweepstakes last week; they won't make the same mistake twice. In other news, Tony Sporano's house is reportedly up for sale. I'm a little surprised it wasn't up for sale this past summer when ownership was aggressively courting Jim Harbaugh.

Panthers (-4) over VikQueens - Carolina may, in fact, be this year's good bad team. Good enough to beat the bad teams, bad enough to lose to all the good teams. Time will tell, but if they are this game should be easy.

Ravens (-13) over Arizona - Only because it's Arizona (a bad team) coming east. Otherwise I'd go the other way to punish the Ravens for that no-show against Jacksonville. This line is even higher, but I need Flacco to have a great game this week because Aaron Rodgers is on his bye week ... so Flacco is my starting QB in fantasy land. I think that I should still be able to start Rodgers and get 30 points even on his bye: they guy has been so money he should be able to do that as well, right?

Texans (-10) over Jags - I don't like this line at all; it's like they are just trying to screw with me. On the one hand, you've got Jacksonville just coming off of not just covering the spread against Baltimore, but winning the game. Then you've got Houston, coming off a thrashing of Tennessee, but due for a classic Texans let down game. It seems like the Jags will cover this spread, but I can't take Blaine Gabbert on the road, even if he is getting ten points.

LATE GAMES

Buffalo (-6) over Washington - Rested Bills going against a flailing Redskins team ... I like the Bills. Also, the Bills should be pissed because they are the "home" team playing in Toronto. Win it for the City of Buffalo, eh?

Detroit (-3) over Denver - two straight losses, the gloss is off a little, and the scheduling Gods deliver Tebowmania. I think Detroit will be praising Jesus after this win. I wonder if Tim will be doing the same? Also, if Knowshon Moreno has a breakout game I might hunt him down personally to ask him why he waited until I cut him, after a few years of having him on my team, to decide he cares. I promise if I held on to him in my fantasy league that McGahee never hurts his hand.

New England (-3) over Pittsburgh - very quietly the Steelers are 5-2, after looking left for dead at the start of this year. This game will go a long way towards determining if they are the team I predicted them to be (tough, veteran, able to take advantage of the lockout shortened off season) or the team that Baltimore exposed week one. Sitting here right now I'm going to say New England will win by a TD, but Pittsburgh will come out and will get the 6 wins in the second half they'll need to win the division.

San Francisco (-9) over Cleveland - did anyone else look at the box score from last week's Browns game and ask "really? Nine total points?" I mean, when the Ravens and Steelers play they get more than that. That wasn't good defense. That was just really bad football.

Cincinnati (-1) over Seattle - Please get Tavaris back on the field. Football Jesus (Whitehurst) emphatically answered "YES!" to the question "is it possible that Tavaris Jackson was really the best option for this team at QB?"

SUNDAY NIGHT

Dallas (+4) over Philadelphia - fresh off a bye week, Vick's nightmare continues. I like DeMarco Murray, and if the Cowboys are smart they'll ride him hard to get Romo's confidence back.

San Diego (-4) over Kansas City - The Chiefs got lucky last week by catching a reeling Raiders team. No such luck this week: they get a pissed off Chargers team instead.