The Rematch of the Rematch of the Rematch That Nobody Wanted

If you had told me in the mid-1980's that the Lost Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics were going to meet in four consecutive NBA Finals, I would have been more than happy to hear that.  The 1986 Celtics are generally considered to be the greatest team in basketball history--with their Hall of Fame frontline of Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish and Hall of Famer Bill Walton coming off the bench as their sixth man.  And the '87 Lakers are considered the 2nd greatest team of all time with their Hall of Fame trio of Magic Johnson, James Worthy and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

That matchup had everything sports fans love, legendary players, contrasting styles--with the Showtime Lakers looking to run and the half-court, grind-it-out Celtics trying to slow them down.  Even the venues were great--with Hollywood stars that actually were Lakers fans (not the stars of the latest Disney movie or ABC television show) sitting courtside at the Fabulous Forum--and steamy, ancient Boston Garden with the parquet floor that produced strange bounces only for the visiting team and the "Beat LA!" chant echoing off the rafters holding the team's dozens of NBA Championship banners.  There was even a certain racial undertone as the "flashy African-Americans" battled the "gritty white guys".  It was the high point of NBA basketball--before Nike and Michael Jordan turned it into a giant marketing platform for shoes.

Actually, we got Lakers-Celtics three out of four years between 1984 and 1987, with Magic getting the better of Larry in 2 of the 3 series.  But ask any fan from back then and they would have been happy to see those two teams play six or seven times because it was just that good.

Now fast-forward to today, as we get ready for the fourth consecutive matchup between the Golden State Warriors and the Cleveland Cavaliers in the NBA Finals.  I'm calling it the Rematch of the Rematch of the Rematch That Nobody Wanted.  Yes, Golden State has a lot of guys that can shoot lights out--and LeBron James is a singular talent unmatched in league history--but we pretty much know how this one is going to end, again.  Take away a choke job by Golden State--and a Steph Curry ankle injury--up three games to one two years ago--and the Warriors would be going for the Four-peat over LeBron and his cast of misfits and has-beens.

Sadly, ratings for this gross mismatch will be high enough to make the NBA think this is good for the league.  But mostly, everyone will be tuning in to see if Golden State can make 50 3-pointers in one of the games--and if LeBron could match that by scoring 150-points all by himself while grabbing every rebound and passing himself the ball by bouncing it off the backboard.  It's a good thing that LeBron is a free agent after this series wraps up in four or five games--because his switch to another Eastern Conference team would at least guarantee he and some guys in different jerseys will take on Golden State in the 2019 Finals.

The Right To Loiter

Congratulations to African-Americans on gaining the "right" to loiter at coffee shops and to use business bathrooms without buying anything.  Starbucks actually closed their shops across the country yesterday afternoon (not during their prime morning sales windows) to "teach" their employees "racial sensitivity".  This follows the highly-publicized incident in Philadelphia where two black men waiting to meet someone at Starbucks tried to use the restrooms but were told to leave--and then were arrested by police when they refused.

In their defense, the Philadelphia men were trying to do the same thing Starbucks' hard-core white, Millenial customer base does all the time: to use what is a restaurant as a living room or business office--without putting any money in the till.  Personally, if I was running Starbucks, rather than telling my employees "Let the minority people stay without buying anything" I would have ordered all non-customers to get out--regardless of race, creed and financial status.  The purpose of a coffee shop is to sell coffee--not to be a "hangout spot" with free wi-fi.

The Starbucks "right to loiter" continues a pattern of societal changes that proponents claim are "improving" the lives of minorities and the poor.  Those would also include decriminalization of marijuana use and low-level sales of weed, no longer citing people for public urination, not rounding up the homeless and getting them off the streets, heroin needle-exchange programs and "sanctuary city" status.  Such moves do not improve the lives of those who are now "free" to do things that used to be illegal--nor do they improve the quality of life for everyone else in society.  But they make a certain segment of the population feel better about themselves--and I guess that is all that counts nowadays.

In the meantime, if I'm on the road and need to answer an urgent "call of nature" at a gas station or a restaurant, I'll continue to buy a small item like a soda or a snack--even if they don't have a sign that the "bathrooms are for customers only"--because I still feel like I owe them something for the use of their facilities.  And I wouldn't want to be accused of exerting my "white privilege".

The Line Forms Here

Because I plan to be cremated and have my ashes thrown off the cliff from which I fell in Maui, I likely won't have a grave marker.  I've always told people that if I did have one after I die I'd like it to read "He never wore a mullet"--which for someone that lived in Green Bay during the Don Majkowski/Tony Mandarich era is quite an accomplishment.  But now I think I may go with "He was never the lead car in a huge traffic backup".

I thought about that while I was in the wagon train that is Highway 45 in Northern Wisconsin on the final day of a holiday weekend.  At one point north of Antigo, I counted 23-cars ahead of me stuck behind one vehicle alternating between 52 and 57 miles per hour.  I can honestly say that I have never had that many cars held up behind me in any driving situation.  I've completed passes on the interstate and had three of four car go blowing by me doing 80+, but never two-dozen.

I wonder what the driver of that first car thought when he or she looked in the rearview mirror and saw that many cars stuck behind them.  I can tell you they certainly weren't thinking "Wow, I need to really pick up the pace here".  It was probably more like "Stupid Illinois and Milwaukee people in a big hurry to get home--I'll teach them a lesson".  Or perhaps "The speed limit is 55--and I'm going to make damn sure that nobody will be breaking that law today".  Most likely, they never actually check their rearview mirrors to see what is going on behind them.

Of course, such a backup leads to some thrilling maneuvers from other drivers--like trying to pass all 23-cars in the backup at one time in a passing zone that is about a quarter mile long leading into a blind hill.  That usually leads to a sudden veer back into the line--filling a space about six inches longer than their vehicle0--and forcing the rest of us to slam on the brakes to avoid a chain-reaction crash. 

Reaching one of the few passing lanes on the highway turns into the start of the Indy 500--as cars go three-wide and floor it trying to pass each other and get to the front of the line.  In one such passing zone, I was doing 72 and didn't pass a single vehicle--as everyone stayed in the left-hand lane.  Then we all hit the brakes as the road returned to one lane--and the pace went back to 52.

With the 4th of July falling on a Wednesday this year, there won't be another holiday Northwoods road trip for me until Labor Day.  So that is one less backup to plod along in for this year.  But I can flat out guarantee, that I will likely be the last car in the line--and not the first.

Standing With the Fans

A new line of scrimmage has been established in the National Football League.  On one side of the ball you have the players and members of the non-sporting press.  On the other, you have the team owners and fans.

This delineation was established by the new National Anthem policy put in place by Commissioner Roger Goodell.  Those who choose not to stand for the Anthem before games will have to stay back in the locker room.  Anyone choosing to protest on the field will be fined.  Goodell believes this will put to rest two years of contentious debate over players protesting police violence against African-Americans.

Goodell and his owner/bosses sided with the fans on this issue.  NFL attendance and TV ratings were both down last year--in the case of TV ratings, ten percent.  And when the vast majority of the revenue derived by the league comes from the TV networks paying an above-premium price to televise games--you need to keep those numbers up. 

Fans made it clear--they do not care about players' stances on political or social issues.  To paraphrase Laura Ingraham (heard 9-11 weekdays on WOSH) "Shut up and play".  Consider that the player likely most-beloved by his fan base--Aaron Rodgers--asked fans at Lambeau last year to join arms like he and his teammates did on the sidelines for the Anthem as a "show of unity" before a prime-time game and few, if any, did so.  Those not in line to purchase beer or go to the bathroom during the Anthem instead stood with their hands over their hearts and sang--because that is what they believe to be right in that situation.

I've heard a lot of arguments that the NFL is "restricting the first amendment rights of the players".  This is 100% incorrect--as the Constitution protects free speech from limitation by the Government--not private businesses.  And let's not forget this is the league that enforces uniform codes and will fine players for putting the names of cancer victims or deceased family members on their shoes or their hand towels.

As he has throughout his tenure, Roger Goodell has completely mis-read this situation and is fumbling it badly.  The Anthem protest movement was pretty much petering out by the end of last year.  The game broadcasts weren't showing guys taking a knee anymore.  The only person that seemed to be talking about it was President Trump and players themselves admit they were questioning if the effort was worth the backlash.  But now that the Commissioner has decided to draw this line on the field--he has only given renewed vigor to the debate and the movement.  Like a Brett Favre interception late in a playoff game, the Commissioner and the owners are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Of course, if the fans decide to take the ball and go home--the game is over anyways.

If It Wasn't For Those Stupid Humans

Oshkosh Police will be stepping up their patrols in the areas of the city's roundabouts again.  This time, officers will be watching for drivers failing to yield the right of way to pedestrians and bikers using the crosswalks at the traffic circles.  City Manager Mark Rohloff all but admits that those on foot are taking their lives in their own hands when they try to cross streets at the roundabouts.  It's hard to believe that the orange flags didn't make a difference.

The clear and present danger to pedestrians is just another element in the growing list of failures endemic to roundabouts.  Officials have finally given up trying to argue that they don't cause more accidents--falling back on the "at least the injuries sustained in the crashes aren't as serious" claim.  Now our "progressive engineers" are pushing for "diverging diamond intersections" as the new panacea for car crashes--because forcing all traffic to cross itself twice in a couple hundred feet should definitely make things safer.

The fatal flaw in roundabout design is that it relies on three human elements to succeed: Judgment, Patience, and Respect.  And as the numbers and empirical evidence bear out, most drivers lack as least one--and in some cases all three--of those elements.

An intersection controlled by a stop light presents three simple options: Red means stop, Green means go, Yellow means gun it.  But at the uncontrolled roundabout, every driver needs to make the decision: "can I beat this next vehicle into the circle?"  Also, because "failure to yield" isn't considered as serious in many people's minds as "running a red" some choose to not even slow down or look to their left before entering the roundabout.

And then there is patience.  Unfortunately, traffic from a couple of directions can dominate a roundabout--leaving people in the less-busy directions frustrated that they don't get to go.  That leads to more drivers risking a high-speed entry in an effort to "finally get through".  Of course, most people are running late and any delay to their trip creates great stress--which affects the aforementioned judgment component of safe roundabout usage.

The biggest source of failure though is the respect element.  Plain and simple, most people on the road today believe that they are the most-important person on the road--and all others must yield to them.  As George Carlin perfectly summed up: "Anyone driving slower than you is an idiot.  Anyone driving faster than you is a maniac!!"  I can almost see on the faces of those who regularly cut me off in the Witzel Street roundabouts that they are thinking, "Why is the person approaching from the left given preference in this situation?  I'm in a hurry here!"  And the idea that a pedestrian has the right of way in a crosswalk not even in the intersection--and with no flashing yellow lights or control signal is completely foreign to them.  "They should only cross when there is no traffic coming" is their thinking about that.

I admit that I have come close to hitting people in the crosswalks at roundabouts.  You can't see them as you enter the roundabout to go straight or to turn left.  And since you have to keep a very close eye on the people trying to gun it in front of you from the other entrances--you can't always keep an eye on what's ahead of you as you exit.  And that is why I don't ride my bike to work anymore.

Keeping Things in Perspective

Based on TV coverage, you might think that the volcanic eruption on the Big Island of Hawaii is a major natural disaster.  Video of what looks like giant rivers of lava are destroying houses, swallowing up cars and meeting the ocean to produce clouds of toxic fumes.  It looks like hell on earth has been unleashed and that residents of the island are battling for their lives.

In reality, life on the Big Island has been relatively unaffected by the latest Kilauea eruption.  To put things in perspective, the area affected by the lava flows is just a couple of square miles in what was already a relatively-remote area.  The Puna district--site of the destroyed houses and the swallowed car--has just a couple hundred residents, since it wasn't that long ago (geologically speaking) that these same types of lava flows went through the area.

But what about the clouds of toxic fumes?  Don't those threaten the lives of everyone living in Hawaii?  Well, that has been greatly overstated as well.  The Big Island is divided by two of the largest mountains in the world.  Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa both rise more than 10,000 feet above the surface of the ocean--and they prevent wind currents from sweeping much of anything produced by Kilauea (which comes off the southern flank of Mauna Loa) into the populated areas of Hilo or Kailua-Kona.

The main threat to Hawaii from the eruption is that "doomsday" coverage by our friends in TV News will dissuade people from traveling to the islands.  It should be noted that the 2 main airports on the Big Island are still in full operation.  Aside from the couple of sub-divisions in Puna that I mentioned before, nobody has evacuated.  If you were sitting on the beach in Kona today you would have no idea that there was an eruption going on--because you wouldn't be able to see the plumes or smell the sulfur.  The only place you can't go is Volcanoes National Park--which is the biggest tourist draw on the island--and is certainly hurting the local economy.

No photo better illustrates what is really going on on the Big Island than that of golfers playing with a giant ash plume behind them last week:

Do these look like guys that are fearing for their lives?  And I would note those are Natives playing in the picture--not ignorant tourists who don't know any better.

So don't feel guilty about being mesmerized by the video of glowing hot lava flowing in all directions or the column of gray ash billowing into the sky.  It's not nearly as bad as it looks--or as reporters competing for air time for their stories are making it out to be.

Aloha and mahalo.

What an Honor

What is the best way to honor a man who dedicated most of his adult life to ensuring equality for all Americans?  Who fought to break down barriers to quality education for all kids?  Who demanded that his government provide the assistance necessary to move out of generational poverty and gain economic security?  Well, for a group of parents and students in Appleton, that way is to keep kids out of school and spending more time playing video games.

That group is using an on-line petition to pressure the Appleton School District to make Martin Luther King, Junior Day a day off for students and staff every year.  It probably surprises some people that MLK Day isn't necessarily a scheduled off day in many area public schools.  Oshkosh did not have off of classes this year.  In fact, the next Monday had no classes--as the Friday after MLK was the last day of the Third Quarter--and the in-service day would allow teachers to finalize grades.

I understand why the parent and student group is pushing for the day off--a number of other Federal holidays are observed by the Appleton School District--so are a few Christian holidays.  So to not "recognize" Martin Luther King, Jr Day in the same way "diminishes his importance" and represents yet another example of "institutional racism".

But if they were to just get past the "same means equal" mentality, they would see that being in class better exemplifies what Dr King hoped to accomplish.  The Reverend certainly did not advocate for less education for African-Americans--so why would he want those kids out of the classroom on a Monday in the middle of January?  Especially after spending more than a week off just two weeks prior for the Christian holidays?

And what about the impact on low-income and single-parent families we hear about when kids are out of school for bad weather, bomb threats or just summer vacation?  Will parents that cannot afford to hire baby-sitters have to take time away from work that they also can't afford to watch their children?  There won't be the before-school programs or the after-school programs to provide what is essentially free day care. The school breakfasts and lunches won't be available to provide two meals that day for those kids.  The school nurse won't be there to dispense behavior-control drugs at the proper times and in the proper dosages.  And the structure provided by the class-day will be lost--so kids will have to come up with ways to entertain themselves--some of which likely will not be very positive for themselves or the community.

What the "day off" group should be advocating is for MLK Day to be a "day of action" instead.  Take kids to a traditionally-black church in their area and hear the words of Doctor King in the setting where he delivered many of them.  Take them to the Museum in the Castle to explore the history of minorities in their city--or to learn about the state's role in winning the Civil War.  Or perhaps the best way to "honor" Dr King is to provide them with the math, science, spelling, vocabulary and historical knowledge they need to be successful adults in our society--regardless of their ethnicity.  I'm pretty sure MLK would be "honored" by that.

The Monsters Among Us

Here's a bit of advice for parents: Instead of worrying that your children are about to be the next victims of a school shooter, worry that your children will be the next school shooter.

The question needs to be asked, "How did we raise a generation of homicidal maniacs?"  The styles of weapons made have not changed in decades--and their availability has only become more difficult--and yet more young people are killing their classmates in very public ways every year.  So why are today's kids so much more inclined to seek violent resolution to what they perceive to be personal slights?  And if your answer to that is "not enough gun control", "vaccines" or "toxic masculinity", then you are part of the problem and not the solution.

There is almost a "hold harmless" clause for the parents of school shooters.  Media outlets easily discover previous on-line postings of threats or neo-nazism interest, or videos of weapons use immediately after an incident--and yet no one ever asks if the parents were aware of that and if they just chose to ignore it?  Police investigators find journals filled with disturbing writings and graphic illustrations or additional weapons in the bedrooms of the shooters--but parents never noticed that stuff just laying around inside their own house?  Or were they "giving their teenager space to become their own person"--without the kind of guidance and oversight that parents had provided for nearly all generations of non-school shooters before?

And now it is time for parents to look at themselves and ask are they doing all they can to keep their child from becoming the next school shooter?  (And it isn't just the parents of boys that need to consider this, it's just a matter of time before a teenage girl decides she wants to be famous like the boys).  Do you know what your child is reading on-line?  Do you know with whom they are communicating--in all forms, both digital and in-person?  What do they have in their rooms?  Have you allowed them to experience failure, rejection, frustration and anger without immediately satiating them or allowing them to blame others for their problems?

And if you detect signs of trouble, are you prepared to take the steps necessary to keep everyone else safe?  Are you willing to seek professional help for a disturbed child?  Are you ready to take away internet access and cellphones, or to limit gaming time involving first-person shooting games?  Are you able to confront your child about dangerous habits, disturbing political interests and checking everything that they post on-line on all accounts?  Are your willing to remove all access to weapons in your home?

Abdication by parents of their duties to monitor their children and to teach them the skills needed to cope with everything that life will throw at them--especially the unpleasant and difficult stuff--is the underlying current that continues to feed the school violence threat.  And if you think the school districts that take kids as young as six months away from parents for much of the day to make sure they are "ready for school" are going to do that for you, you are now seeing the results of that belief. 

Parent your kids--and maybe they won't want to kill everyone else's kids.

I'd Rather Have the Social Experiment

Right after the Milwaukee Bucks were eliminated from the NBA Playoffs, fans were promised an "aggressive search" for a new head coach.  There is a belief among some observers that with the right coach--that can instill discipline, intensity, consistency of effort, better defense and a desire to rebound in a team lacking all of those things the past few years, that the Bucks could be a threat to win the weak Eastern Conference as early as next year.  And after that "aggressive search" what Milwaukee is ending up with is Mike Budenholzer.

I doubt that yesterday's confirmation of Budenhozer's hiring sent many fans down to the Bradley Center to sign up for season tickets.  I don't think it led to many high fives between fans or excited text message exchanges.  I would imagine the main reaction was "Who?"

Budenholzer may be vaguely familiar to Bucks' fans.  He was head coach of the Atlanta Hawks for five seasons--but how many fans could name the current head coach of the Atlanta Hawks?  During that stint, Budenholzer won the Coach of the Year award his second season--getting the Hawks to the Eastern Conference finals with such stars as Joe Johnson and well, I really can't name any other players on that team.  Of course, they were swept by LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers.  Which is the same thing that happened to the Hawks the next season under Budenholzer--except this time, the sweep was in the Conference Semi-finals.  So his playoff record against LeBron is 0-8.  The good news for the Bucks is that LeBron may be taking his talents to a Western Conference team next year--so that record can't go to 0-12.

My main beef with hiring Mike Budenholzer is that he is a "Triangle Offense" guy.  The Triangle was made famous by Phil Jackson (really his assistant Tex Winter) who won 11 NBA Championships running it.  Of course, it should be noted that six of those titles were won with Michael Jordan and Scotty Pippen and the other five with Kobe Bryant who teamed with Shaquille O'Neal on three of those championships in Los Angeles.  But other than that, the Triangle hasn't really won a whole lot.  The two best coaches in the NBA right now--Steve Kerr of Golden State and Brad Stevens of Boston--run motion offenses with a lot of ball movement--not a two-man game on one side of the floor.  But that is what the Bucks are about to become--with one very good player: Giannis Antentekoumpo and a bunch of guys that can't shoot worth a darn.

Since no effort was even made to talk to highly-successful college coaches like Jay Wright of Villanova, Shaka Smart at Texas or Mark Few at Gonzaga, I have to question how "aggressive" the search really was.  I'd almost prefer that Milwaukee had gone in the direction Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel writer Gary D'Amato called a "social experiment" and hired Spurs' assistant Becky Hammon.  At least that would be more interesting to talk about than Giannis and Khris Middleton playing catch on one side of the floor while everyone else on the team just looks at them--and the team slogs along to a barely-above-.500 record to lose in the first or second round of the playoffs every year.

The Coverage It Deserves

Despite being up early this Saturday to get work done here at the Radio Ranch, I had no plans to watch a single second of Royal Wedding coverage--until I found out that HBO will feature Cord Hosenbeck and Tish Cattigan hosting their live broadcast.  In case you missed it, Cord and Tish won great accolades for their coverage of the Rose Parade last New Year's Day--giving it exactly the amount of respect it deserved.
For those of you unaware, Cord Hosenbeck is actually Will Ferrell and Tish Cattigan is Molly Shannon--both alums of Saturday Night Live--and their "coverage" of the Rose Parade was a project of Funny or Die and Amazon Prime.  What made it all the better is that thousands of people didn't realize that and contributed comments during the on-line coverage that demanded the duo be taken off the air because they were so stupid.

And that is exactly why Cord and Tish are pefect for Saturday's royal nuptials--as it is almost impossible to take the amount of time, money and attention being paid to it seriously.  My sincerest hope is that they are able to land someone like John Cleese or Eddie Izzard to be their "Senior Royal Expert" to rip into Monarchy as an institution--and then maybe have Rowan Atkinson as a bumbling "on the ground reporter".  Although, Kevin Kline could reprise his role as Otto from a Fish Called Wanda to provide the best insight:

When Paying More Requires Paying Even More

The Seattle City Council is learning a very hard lesson about how free market economics works.  Seattle is one of those cities that instituted a $15 an hour minimum wage based on the argument that it would be a "living wage that would eliminate poverty in the community".  The only thing that the higher wage has created is an explosion of homelessness in the city. 

Low-skill workers hoping to capitalize on artificially high compensation are flocking to Seattle in hopes of landing one of those "living wage" jobs--but are finding that there is no demand for their limited services--as companies looking to manage expenses are getting by with the fewest employees necessary.

The homelessness is then exacerbated by more people making more money who can then afford to rent in the city--tying up more of the housing stock.  And today's millennial worker is supplementing their income by offering up spare bedrooms on sites like AirBNB--allowing them to rent places that have more space than they need--but provide them with a nice source of income.  Big companies like Amazon and Starbucks have brought more people to the city who are looking for that "urban lifestyle" leading developers to replace what had been low-income housing stock with fancy new places on bus routes and near their jobs in a process that used to be called "urban renewal" but is now known as "gentrification".

But don't worry, the Seattle City Council has come up with a grand scheme to fix all of these problems--they are instituting a "head tax" on workers.  Not all workers, mind you--just those who work for the largest corporations in the city: the aforementioned Amazon and Starbucks.  For every employee that they have, those companies will have to pay the city 275-dollars a year--with the revenue ostensibly to be used to "address homelessness".  Amazon and Starbucks will not be allowed to take this extra tax out of employees' checks--instead it must come from net profits.

Seattle officials sprung this head tax after Amazon had committed to expanding their corporate operations in the city.  It will be interesting to see if owner Jeff Bezos--a known liberal who is always demanding that government "do more"--goes through with those plans now that he is the one footing the bill for government "doing something, or if he decides to take his billions of dollars of business (and thousands of employees) somewhere else.  If he did, the Seattle City Council will have addressed their homelessness issue--not just the way they expected--as the young professionals leave, urban renewal dies and those looking for an easy ride move onto the next city with Democratic leaders that require employers to pay $20 an hour or mandate health care coverage or allow legal public urination, drug use and sanctuary city status.

It's simple supply and demand.  Not that today's "New Socialists" would understand that.

Wanna Bet?

There were no doubt plenty of guys ready to plunk down bets on last night's Golden State-Houston NBA playoff game or the Brewers-Diamondbacks game after hearing that the US Supreme Court had struck down the Federal ban on sports gambling (except in Nevada).  However, sports betting remains illegal here in Wisconsin thanks to provisions in the State Constitution.  All yesterday's decision did was allow individual states to decide it they want to allow sports gambling--a process that in some cases (like New Jersey) will take a couple of weeks--while others (likely Wisconsin) could take years.

Before you imagine all of the current tribal casinos adding sports books or five different betting houses opening up within walking distance of Lambeau Field, consider how expanded sports gambling will actually be done.  The major casinos in Las Vegas opposed this possible nationwide expansion--but they wisely were preparing for it at the same time.  Most of those betting houses will have smartphone apps ready for download on all platforms--not to mention easy to use websites for those that still prefer desktop computers.  Bettors will create accounts linked to credit cards and no hard cash will ever change hands.  There will be more (legal) gambling--but it really won't feel like there is more gambling.

Some of the sports leagues themselves are pushing this agenda.  NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has long said he would welcome betting on all of his games--because he knows it will boost interest in the sport (not to mention TV ratings).  The only reason that the NFL has enjoyed unprecedented growth in ratings and revenues over the past thirty years was the rise of "semi-legal" fantasy football and daily fantasy sports--not to mention numbers pools and illicit betting on spreads.  Americans don't love football--they love gambling on football.  Now, every other sport can enjoy that added draw.

Expect detractors to sound the alarm that nationwide gambling will lead to game-fixing, points-shaving and other assaults on the integrity of the game.  Much of that concern is based upon the Black Sox Scandal of 1919--when White Sox owner Charlie Comiskey was underpaying his players, giving gamblers an opportunity to rope in players that felt they weren't getting their "fair share" to throw the World Series.  But now, professional athletes in all sports make millions of dollars a year.  What could gamblers possibly offer in payouts that would entice someone like Mike Trout or Kevin Durant to throw games like Shoeless Joe Jackson was wrongfully accused of doing?  Elevated coaching salaries should also limit the possibility of another Pete Rose situation where gametime decisions would be influenced by what managers and coaches have riding on contests.

The one area that would concern me is college sports--where such scandals have been most common.  With players being told they deserve to get paid for their efforts, many would feel entitled to a kickback from gamblers to make sure a win wasn't by too many points--or a meaningless non-conference game results in a "minor upset".  But if Las Vegas casinos and major on-line gambling operations control nationwide sports betting, those transgressions will likely get caught.  There is not a Federal regulatory body as vigilant in catching cheaters as casinos are--because they actually care about losing money.

It's unlikely that come September you will be able to put a couple hundred bucks on the Packers beating the Bears by at least 6 1/2 points.  But you can bet that it will happen eventually.  I didn't even mention the additional tax revenue the State would allowed to collect on your legal winnings.

Why July 4th, 1776 Still Matters

As the US news networks gear up for a week of breathless Royal Wedding coverage--with continuous updates on the status of the dress, the guest list, the cake and what unnamed sources inside the castle are saying about the Queen's feelings about this, I can't help but wonder what our Founding Fathers would think about our continued fascination with British royalty.

Those men risked everything to fight the most powerful army and navy in the world at that time so we wouldn't have to worry about succession to the throne--or pay for the pomp and circumstance surrounding the marriage of in-breds.  And yet here we are, 242-years later planning to get up super early on Sunday morning to watch a guy that will never sniff the throne marry a B-list American actress and think it's "a fairy tale come true"!

If Benjamin Franklin had his way at the Constitutional Convention, the US would have had a king too.  He believed that a monarchy would have produced greater stability in government than the constant turnover of democracy--and it kept the uneducated from ruling over the elite.  But most of the Founders sided with George Washington, who warned his fledgling country about the dangers of getting involved in European affairs.

In his farewell address after his two terms as President, Washington suggested that all ties be cut with the Old World--and that the US set its own course free of the constant war that had besieged the Continent for centuries.  At that time, Washington referred to the threat of monarchy and colonialism limiting freedom.  He could not have known about the eventual European rise of Fascism, Communism and Socialism that would plunge the entire world into not one but two global conflicts, genocide, despair and terrorism.

The new European threat is Socialism 2.0: greater Government control of every aspect of your life disguised as "promoting the greater good", eliminating borders, challenging the sovereignty of independent nations, redistributing personal wealth and promotion of "group think".  The newest generation of Americans is enamored with ideas coming from a collection of nations that has failed miserably with governance for 2200 years--but now should be seen as the perfect example of what a society should be like.

So dive into details of how many jewels will be on the bride's dress, whether Elton John is on the invite list and how much luggage the happy couple will be taking on their honeymoon all this week.  The rest of us will wait until July 4th to celebrate the fact that we don't have to give a rat's behind about this.

A Higher Standard of What?

You know what term Oshkosh residents are going to tire of quickly?  "A higher standard".  That will be the buzzword that city officials use to justify their decisions on what development will be allowed in the area around the Oshkosh Corporation headquarters. 

City Manager Mark Rohloff used "a higher standard" in his reaction to news that Casey's Convenience Stores is looking to locate on Oshkosh Avenue.  Rohloff questions if the appearance of a gas station can meet the "higher standard".  That led me to go on-line to see what a Casey's location looks like since I've never been to one myself...............


 

 

 

I'd have to say I find nothing offensive about their standard look.  A brick façade, covered gas pumps, plenty of parking for in-store shopping.  It certainly looks better than the existing Marathon station a few blocks from the Oshkosh headquarters site or the two gas stations on Sawyer Street not far away.

 

Similar cold water was thrown on a proposed Dunkin Donuts/Kentucky Fried Chicken development on Oshkosh Ave.  That too was met with an "Ehhhhhh, we'll have to see" response from City Manager Rohloff when I asked him about that during one of his monthly shows here on WOSH.

 

In previous Common Council discussions on this "higher standard", developments like medical or legal offices were offered as examples.  And everyone is showing enthusiasm for a proposed extended-stay hotel on Oshkosh Ave.  But if you are a guest of said hotel--or you are an employee of Oshkosh Corp--or you just live in the neighborhood, how often do you have a use for a medical office or lawyer?  But coffee from Dunkin or a $5 Fill Up from KFC or a pizza from Casey's and a quick fill up of your tank at the pump is something that you can use every single day.

 

And these are enterprises that aren't turning over ever couple of years.  Since we have moved into our building a decade ago, the main tenants downstairs have gone from a bank, to a law office to medical clinic. 

 

So if you want prettier buildings built to a "higher standard" to surround Oshkosh Corp's vanity headquarters that's fine.  Require certain colors of bricks and tree-lined parking lots so that four blocks of a street look like they were dropped in from Evanston, Illinois instead of the working-class neighborhood that surrounds it.  But don't be stiff-arming what would be successful developments that would be used my a lot of people here in town just because you think Oshkosh is the new Whitefish Bay.





Give the Guy a Break

Has anyone needed a summer vacation more than UW-Oshkosh Chancellor Andrew Leavitt?  This year has just been another in a series that have seen one crisis after another develop on campus. 

One of the first things that Leavitt had to deal with when he arrived here in Oshkosh a few years ago was budget cuts across all programs.  So he decided to eliminate men's soccer from the Athletic Department.  But then at the press conference to answer questions about that decision, the soccer coach showed up and hijacked the proceedings--undressing Leavitt and Athletic Director Darryl Sims (verbally) before our microphones and the cameras of the Green Bay television stations. 

Then came that winter weekend when Mid-Year Commencement had to be canceled due to an anticipated blizzard--that didn't turn out to be that bad.  Rather than be happy with getting their diplomas mailed to them while they went to work and started their careers, the newly-graduated snowflakes demanded to have pomp and circumstance and to be told one final time how "special": they are--so Leavitt had to reschedule a graduation ceremony for them a month later to appease them.

Then came the UWO Foundation scandal--as the Chancellor learned that not only had his predecessor made illegal guarantees on loans taken out by an independent agency--but that he had also been making secret payments that were covered up by both the school and the Foundation.  I'm still looking forward to the details of what that discussion with former Foundation President Art Rathjen when all of this came to light sounded like.

Then UW System President Ray Cross decides that all of the two-year schools are going to "merge" with the four-year schools to cut costs.  So now Leavitt has to oversee two satellite campuses--nearly doubling his workload--with a plan that really hasn't been finalized yet.

Then the UWO Foundation--despite having the assets to pay off their debts--decides that it is going to go into bankruptcy--so the banks owed that 11-million dollars or so decide they are going to sue the school to make good on the illegal guarantees made by Leavitt's aforementioned predecessors.  The UW System initially says it will make good on the debts--but then Republican Legislators come to the aide of taxpayers who had absolutely nothing to do with this financial mess and put the kibosh on that--so that those responsible for the debt are the ones forced to pay it back.

And then revisionist historians in Madison find out that the man for whom UWO's student theater is named may have been tied to the Ku Klux Klan.  I'm sure that 40+years ago when the decision name the theater was made it seemed like a safe one--as Fredric March was a Hollywood star from Wisconsin that was also a huge supporter of the Democratic Party.  Who would have ever thought he would be a militant racist?  So now the Chancellor has to decide how to get rid of a monument to a bigot in the middle of campus.

I think after Saturday's commencement ceremony is over at the Kolf Sports Center that someone put an arm around Chancellor Leavitt's shoulders and tell him "Andy, find yourself a nice quiet beach somewhere this summer, plant yourself in a comfy chair with a coolerful of beer and watch the sunset every night.  Don't even think about this place.  Take as long as you want to come back.  You've earned this."

What Happens When You Don't Follow the Rules

As a wordsmith and Constitutionalist, I paid very close attention to how other media outlets referred to President Trump's actions on limiting Iran's nuclear weapons program.  The most common term was the "Iran Nuclear Deal".  The second-most-popular was "agreement".  Several referred to it as a "plan".  There were a few "accords" and even a couple of "frameworks".  To avoid being repetitive, most articles mixed and matched those terms throughout.

But some news sites--and a good deal of opinion pages--will be issuing corrections today as they referred to it as a "treaty".  The Iran Nuclear Deal is not a treaty.  President Obama never brought the agreement to the US Senate for ratification as is required by the Constitution.  Instead, President Obama acted unilaterally, essentially making nothing more than a "pinky promise" and lifting sanctions on Iran that had been approved by Congressional action.  Negotiators went into the bargaining room with no intent of ever drafting a "treaty" that would hold the full faith and weight of the United States.

Had President Obama gone the Constitutional route and negotiated a treaty approved by the Senate, yesterday's action by President Trump would have been far more difficult.  Pulling out of a treaty also would have also required Senate approval--including public hearings by the Foreign Relations Committee.  There would have been public discussion of the merits of the treaty, whether Iran was really in compliance--or just doing a good job of hiding weapons development from hapless UN inspectors--and if the treaty was actually providing some stability to the Middle East.  It would have been an open and transparent process.  Instead, President Obama opened the door to allow President Trump to just talk with his hard-line advisors behind closed doors in the White House--using who knows what intelligence information (if any was used at all)--and conducting the entire withdrawal process in his head. 

A lot of talking heads claimed that the US is "damaging its credibility around the world" by backing out of the Iran Nuclear Deal and talking about dropping out of the Paris Climate Accord.  But what they fail to grasp is that the United States Government never approved of either deal through the process spelled out in our Constitution.  Those were merely one guy in the White House saying that he was going to do something--followed by another guy in the White House saying he is not going to do the same things.

Maybe if those we elect to represent us would follow the rules, we wouldn't have this flip-flopping.

Saving the Wrong Things

As much as I love history, I'm not a big fan of 'historic preservation".  That is mainly because people choose to save stuff just because it is old--and not so much because it is "historic".  Here in Oshkosh we have a lot of houses that are designated as "historic"--not because anything of significance happened in them--but rather because they were the first to be built in the city in a certain style, or they are the last in the city that was built in a certain style.  There are entire neighborhoods that have been designated as "historic", meaning owners need to get approval from state and local bodies before doing any major renovations or changing the appearance of the home.  That often leads to no changes being made and those houses just looking older and run down.  And yet, there is nothing in those neighborhoods that explains why they are "historic".

Winnebago County taxpayers are getting stuck with a higher bill for updating the Courthouse to modern standards for security and energy efficiency because it is considered to be an "historic" structure.  The state Historical Commission has decided that only windows looking just like the old, inefficient ones can be put in the Courthouse.  The only problem is, nobody makes energy-efficient windows that look like that--so the County has to have everything custom-made--just so we can "preserve a piece of history", that nobody can really explain why it's historic in the first place.

If you ask me what "history" we should preserve here in Oshkosh I'd tell you we can start by figuring out a way to staff Ardy and Ed's Drive In so they can stay open this summer.  For those who have grown up in Oshkosh or who have lived here for a long time, we have a greater shared history with Ardy and Ed's than we do with the Winnebago County Courthouse or some home on Washington Street.  I didn't grow up here, but I still had drive-in experiences during my childhood--either with my grandparents at an A&W in Green Bay or with my Mom at The Penguin in Manitowoc--which was usually a treat for good grades on a report card.  And going to Ardy and Ed's reminds me of those great times--like an historic landmark should.

That's the kind of history we should be preserving (and if you were a Northsider--the same would go for Leon's Frozen Custard--which can boast visits by Presidents during its tenure.)  It's also why I was disappointed that nobody from the Landmarks Commission made a single comment about the City's decision to sell Lakeshore Golf Course.  100+ years of first rounds with your Dad or final rounds with your Grandfather?  Not worth saving.  A dumpy, old church behind the northside Burger King?  That needs to be "preserved" at all costs!

The sad thing is that if the Davises decided to shut down Ardy and Ed's--or Mike Schraa decided to close Leon's--only then would our "historic preservationists" step in and want to do something--and by that I mean keeping the empty building from being torn down for re-development.  But I think having a living, breathing piece of history is far better than something that just stands as a museum piece--not providing new memories for anyone.

Making a Difference

We have won a number of awards here at WOSH during my nearly 18-years at the station.  Many are for News Coverage.  Some are for Best Newscast.  And My Two Cents has won a number for Best Editorial Commentary.  But this weekend, we picked up an award of which I can say I am the most proud.

The Wisconsin Broadcasters Association honored WOSH with an award in the Best Significant Community Impact category for our program "Community Connection".  If you are not familiar, "Community Connection" is our monthly visit with Tracey Robertson of FIT Oshkosh--featuring issues affecting Oshkosh's minority population.  The show stemmed from an introspective look at the programming we have been providing on WOSH.  To say that that voices heard on our station are predominantly white and male are an understatement.  And while that may represent our core audience--it is not representative of our community as a whole.

Unfortunately, the majority of the time you hear the names of people of color on our station it's part of a story on crime.  We certainly don't identify people racially here on the radio--but names are commonly a dead giveaway.  Sometimes, you might hear a Black or Hispanic voice in a non-crime news story--but then it's usually tied to something about low-income families or fear of immigration enforcement.  It's not often that we feature people of color in stories about business, education or community development.

The episode of "Community Connection" that we submitted for this WBA award featured an African-American woman, a gay man, and Hmong woman.  That's likely not the group of folks you share drinks with before your Friday Fish Fry dinner--but they are the people who are increasingly making up the population of Oshkosh.  The topic was the "Color Brave" photo exhibit now on display at the Paine Arts Center featuring the growing number of black and brown faces in our city--and is certainly worth checking out.

I'm incredibly proud of this award--Best Significant Community Impact--because quite honestly, doing good news stories or calling a good game of basketball or providing insightful commentary every morning is just a small part of what we do here at WOSH.  But impacting our community--for the better--gets to the heart of what being a local radio station should be all about.

Our New Socialist Workforce

At a time when many states are at or near record-low unemployment, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is rolling out a plan for a guaranteed Government jobs program.  Sanders believes the Federal Government should give a $15 an hour job and full health insurance benefits to anyone who wants them.  His announcement comes as companies across the country complain that they cannot find enough qualified workers for the jobs they already have open.  Which leads me to wonder what kind of jobs Sanders plans to give those who can't handle careers already available to them?

Chronic unemployment--and that is really what we are dealing with in those not already working in the current economy--is due to a number of factors.  Drug use, alcoholism, disability, lack of education, lack of job skills, mental health issues, criminal records and just plain laziness make a certain percentage of the population unemployable.  And it is from that pool of candidates that Bernie Sanders wants to build his Government jobs program.

Sanders envisions these grand public works projects--"rebuilding our infrastructure"--as the base for his "employment for all".  But that plan is based on Depression-era workforce requirements.  Today, highways and bridges are built by giant machines operated by a handful of people--not thousands of men wielding pick axes and shovels.  Running supplies to work sites requires commercial drivers licenses--which are difficult to get if you have five drunk driving convictions or you can't pass a drug test.

Sanders also plans to greatly expand the education and health care systems to employ those without the ability to do manual labor.  But what do you do with the ever-growing number of registered sex offenders?  Those convicted of other violent felonies?  Embezzlers and petty thieves?  Are those the people you want working around your kids or your elderly parents?

And what type of attitude will these workers bring to their new Government-guaranteed jobs?  Most of us would still work hard even if we knew that we could not get fired.  But when Uncle Sam is basically required to keep you in the job you have, you know some people will put in little to no effort--and be downright insolent to their superiors.  Just look at tenured professors on college campuses across the country.

All of this assumes that the Sanders plan would actually pigeonhole people in specific jobs they may not want to do.  What's to keep this from morphing into a "taxpayers will fund whatever job you want" program?  Sanders believes in Government-supported arts, will painters, poets and singer-songwriters basically become wards of the state?  Will universities be required to hire philosophy, women's studies, and social justice majors right after handing them their diplomas--since there is little for them to do in private sector? 

As with all of his grandiose Socialist plans, Sanders is "still working on the costs" of his Government Jobs Program.  Might I suggest all $15 an hour those folks make just go right back to Uncle Sam?

Accepting Failure

Remember when you were a kid in Little League or softball and how embarrassing it was to strike out?  In a game predicated on failing more than 70% of the time, striking out was the worst of the failures--as you couldn't even make contact to put the ball in play.  Well, today's players have apparently gotten over the fear of failure and the sting of embarrassment that comes with a "K".

In the month of April there were more strikeouts in Major League Baseball than there were base hits.  It's the first time in the sport's history that has happened.  But I get the feeling it will not be the last--as the way hitting is taught at all levels of baseball now has sold out completely to our old friend, Advanced Analytics.

Gone are the days of teaching a young hitter to concentrate on making contact and putting the ball in play as much as possible.  That has been replaced by the two new metrics of hitting: Launch Angle and Exit Velocity.  In a nutshell, batters are expected to bring the bat through the hitting zone on a specific angle that will produce the best chance of launching the ball as far as possible.  And to create as much speed as possible through the hitting zone.  The obsession with these metrics is so great that scoreboards in MLB ballparks are now including that as part of the stat package in games and the networks covering the games provide that info on every swing as well.

The problem with that is not every pitch is in the same spot--or thrown at the same speed.  Yet the modern swing still attempts to produce the same speed and lift every time--even if that means missing the ball more often.  The expected tradeoff is that when contact is made, homers and deep shots to the gap are more likely--making up for the lack of production in the other at-bats.  It's a little bit like the movement in basketball to attempt the most 3-point shots that you can--because the extra point makes up for the lower shooting percentage.

So that means no more hitters choking up with two strikes, or trying to hit balls to the opposite field to move runners along--even if that means losing an opportunity to score runs through what we old-timers like to call "small ball".  And you may want to stay off social media whenever a manager decides to have a batter bunt to move runners into scoring position because the Analytics Guys are going to go off. 

So for all you Little League parents out there forget the advice of "keep your eye on the ball!".  Instead, teach your kids to concentrate on that key 20 to 35-degree launch angle that is most likely to produce home runs--and reaching the MLB-expected minimum of 95 miles an hour exit velocity.  Even if they can't hit a lick, Statcast-obsessed scouts will still be drooling all over them.

The Excuses Will Keep Changing

When your report on--or comment on--controversial subjects, there are always people that will oppose what you have to say.  "You are wrong, Jonathan." they will say.  "You misunderstand what's going on, Jonathan." they will argue.  And my personal favorite, "The whole truth will come out eventually, and then you will see" are comments that I will get from folks not happy with what they hear on the radio.  But in the vast majority of cases, as "more facts come out", I never hear from those people again--or they change their excuses--"Well that's just one version of the facts" or "We'll never know the whole story" becomes their new comments.

I can tell you that there is now a change in the responses to our coverage of the UW-Oshkosh Foundation financial scandal.  What started out as "They didn't do anything illegal!" and "There was no personal financial gain--so how could they be accused of fraud?" is taking a different direction.  The new excuse that I'm hearing now that former Chancellor Richard Wells and former Vice-Chancellor Tom Sonnleitner are facing criminal charges is "Well, the people in the UW System and the Board of Regents knew all along what was happening".

Now that is a pretty serious accusation to make--that those who oversaw Wells and Sonnleitner were aware that they were filing documents that would bind Wisconsin taxpayers to debt accrued by a private organization AND then allowed those administrators to work with Foundation officials to hide transfers from the school budget to cover those initial debt payments.  To me, that sounds like grounds for Conspiracy to Commit charges.

Of course, there are a lot of holes in that excuse.  For starters, why were red flags raised and investigations launched after new Chancellor Andrew Leavitt was presented with details of this "special arrangement" and brought it to the attention of the UW officials that allegedly "already knew about it"?  Wouldn't those same people open themselves up to investigation and scrutiny--and basically be "blowing the whistle" on themselves?  They could just have easily told Leavitt, "Yeah, that's okay--just don't let anyone else know about it".

And why wasn't this same practice found anywhere else in the UW-System?  Education is a copycat industry if you will.  If one school finds a way to spend more money every other school wants to do the same thing in the name of "progress".  And yet an audit of all college budgets and all foundation operations could not find similar letters of guarantee from chancellors or payments going from the schools to the foundations--instead of the other way around--like it's supposed to be.

I can guarantee that as the case continues and "all the facts do come out", that those trying to defend the wrong-doers will continue to amend their complaints and excuses.  Next will be "They just wanted to do good things for Oshkosh" and then finally "It's time that we just move on".

Throwback Night

Those who watched the end of the Milwaukee Brewers/Cincinnati Reds game last night must have thought they had been transported back in time.  Reliever Josh Hader--who has become the de facto closer for the Brewers following the hamstring injury suffered by Corey Knebel--was brought on with one out in the 7th inning and the Crew nursing a one run lead.  The Reds were sending two lefties to the plate in their batting order, so it made sense for Manager Craig Counsell to go to his best southpaw to shut down the inning.  And Hader did just that, striking out the next two batters.

Under the "new rules of baseball"--which are governed by Advanced Analytics and are solely based on individual matchups--that should have been the end of Hader's night.  The Reds had three right-handed hitters coming up in the 8th inning--and "the numbers" tell you not to throw lefties out of the bullpen against righties late in games.  But Counsell sent Hader back out there to start the 8th.  "Well, if anyone gets on, he'll pull him" everyone thought.  However, after another strikeout and a walk--putting the tying run on base and the winning run at the plate--Counsell still didn't pull Hader, who proceeded to strike out the next two right handed batters and get out of the inning.

Surely that was going to be the end of Josh Hader's night.  "The Book" says you don't even think about sending a reliever out for a third inning of work!  "His arm is likely to fall off in mid-delivery and then you will have lost him for the rest of the year!"  But imagine everyone's surprise as Hader came back out to start the ninth.  Concern had to be building among the "Analytics" as his pitch count exceeded 25 and then 30.  "What could Counsell be thinking?  Doesn't he know how many pitches Hader has thrown?"

But with no one else warming up behind him, Josh Hader struck out all three Reds in the bottom of the 9th--becoming the first pitcher in modern baseball history to record an eight-out save by getting eight strikeouts.

While younger "seamheads" go ga-ga over Hader's performance last night, those of us who watched baseball in the pre-Tony LaRussa era remember closers regularly going multiple innings to get saves.  Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter and Rollie Fingers were often called upon in the 7th inning of games--often with runners on base and one-run leads to hold.  It's why those guys came to be known as "Firemen"--because they usually were called in to rescue the team from a tough spot.  But once LaRussa found success using his closer Dennis Eckersley for just one inning a game--and always bringing him in to start an inning with no one on base--every other manager started to copy that formula.  Advance Analytics were developed and soon, every guy in the bullpen had a certain inning or batter or two in the lineup that they were only allowed to face--even if it meant throwing two or three pitches.

Might Craig Counsell's new approach to bullpen management signal a return to real "closers" in Major League Baseball.  Could other managers think "I'm not sure why I'm limiting my best relief pitcher to just one inning a game a few nights a week"?  That remains to be seen.  I'm sure if Josh Hader gets rocked in his next appearance--or goes on the Disabled list with elbow problems in a couple of weeks the Advanced Analytics crowd will be howling--and no other manager will dare "risk" his bullpen like that ever again.  But for one night it was a joy for us purists to see old-school baseball make a comeback.