Suck On This

It's hard to believe that someday we are going to look back at the time you would get a plastic straw with your beverage at restaurants as "the good old days".  The new trend is for restaurants to no longer provide you with plastic straws--unless you ask for one.  Some eateries are taking that even farther by not stocking any straws--but most of those are not "to go" type of places.  The rationale is that by not distributing so many straws, there will be less plastic in the oceans and Great Lakes someday.

My wife and I recently ate at one of those "no more straws" places here in Oshkosh.  I ordered an Arnold Palmer--a mix of sweet tea and lemonade.  It came in a tall glass with plenty of ice.  As I got close to finishing the drink, I realized a problem of physics that threatens to derail the "no straws movement".  You see, the closer you get to the bottom of a strawless drink, the greater the angle you must tip your glass to get what's left to pour in to your mouth.  But as you do that, you reach that critical angle where all of the ice in the glass also releases and threatens to come spilling out--all over your face and your lap.

That leaves strawless consumers with a choice: end up wearing your drink--or leave some of it in the glass every time.  As someone who believes in getting everything that he paid for, I cannot accept the latter--so I have will to run the risk of dumping out ice into my lap to get those last few ounces of soda.  However, this also provides yet another opportunity for an enterprising person with a gift for engineering to develop new drinkware that addresses this issue.

One option would be adult sippy cups, featuring reusable plastic lids that allow liquid to pour out and for the ice to stay in the glass.  But how many adults are going to drink their Old Fashioneds like that?  Another option would be to develop artificial ice with a greater surface friction that wouldn't suddenly go sliding down the side of the glass and into your face.  But that would also have to contain nothing that could poison us.  Or we could go European and just not put ice in any of our drinks.  It's not particularly refreshing--and it would force bars to buy very small cocktail glasses since most drinks are 85% ice.

Eventually, diners leaving restaurants with soaked shirts and pants will decide that a little bit of plastic in the ocean is a small price to pay for being able to drink with their meals--and straws will make a glorious comeback.  But until then, you may want to ask for a bib.

Why 2016 Really Mattered

The incredibly high stakes that were at play in the 2016 election were revealed again in two ways on Wednesday.  First, the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy will provide President Trump with a second Supreme Court nomination.  And instead of replacing the most hard-core originalist on the court following the death of Antonin Scalia, this time it will be the justice seen as the 'swing vote" that has decided nearly every important case since Sandra Day O'Connor retired.

The importance of this appointment was also borne out by the dissenting opinion written by Justice Elana Kagan in the Janus vs AFSCME that was handed down yesterday.  When asked if the Government--acting as an employer--has the power to require someone to join a union, the Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 decision (with Kennedy being the deciding vote again) that nowhere in the Constitution is the Government provided with that power.

In her dissenting opinion Justice Kagan argued that "The First Amendment....was not meant to undermine but to protect democratic governance--including over the role of public sector unions".  I had to read that three times yesterday after I first saw it to make sure that I hadn't mistaken some of the words because the First Amendment says the exact opposite of what Kagan writes. 

Unions have long argued that the phrase "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" as the basis for making Government work a "closed shop".  What was argued--correctly--in the Janus case is that while the Government must recognize organized labor, it does not have the power to compel someone to join that union (or assembly if you will)--no more than it has the power to compel you to join the Foxconn protests today in Pleasant Prairie or to stand and cheer as veterans walk by in the Fourth of July parade.

And yet Justice Kagan argues that somehow, the Government can compel you to join the assembly--and more importantly--pay that assembly to "speak on your behalf".  And therein lies the danger that was never really addressed in the 2016 campaign.  Save for the Electoral College, two seats on the Supreme Court almost assuredly would have gone to Justices that would look for any and all ways to expand government power--in direct opposition to the constitutional tenets put into place to always limit the power of the Government--and to expand the rights of the individual.

Of course, that's what a lot of conservatives thought President Reagan was doing 30-years ago when he appointed Justice Kennedy to the bench.  To paraphrase Forrest Gump, the Supreme Court is like a box of chocolates--you never know what you're gonna get.

Identity Commerce

Do you know where the "Republican" restaurants are in town?  Which stores are "LGBTQ friendly"?  What bar is "committed to providing its employees a living wage"? 

No longer is the main reason to patronize a business the quality or price of the service or products they provide to you the customer.  Now, a determining factor in how people spend their money is the political and social leanings of those that operate the business--and those of looking to do business there. 

The precedents are now set.  If my religion is offended by your lifestyle choices--I am not going to offer my services to you.  And if your political leanings offend my core beliefs, I am going to ask you to leave.  "No shoes, no shirt, no service" is going to seem very quaint from now on.

Working in an advertising-driven business, I'm interested to see how businesses will choose to "brand" themselves--so their potential customer bases know that they will be catered to--and which customers will not be welcome.  Names could become very important.  "Ayn Rand Restaurant" should send a pretty clear message to the clientele.  "The Cake Savior", "Rainbows and Unicorns" and "It's Complicated" should make it clear whose "team" those business owners support.  Radio and TV ads for everything would resemble those for prescription drugs--with ten seconds of actually describing the product--and 50-seconds worth of disclaimer.

Or, stores, restaurants and bars could post placards in their front windows and doors with lists of those who are welcome--and those who are not.  Associations could be formed with companies proudly proclaiming to be members of the "Conservative Business Association" and the "Liberal Business Association".  Guess which one will likely have the lower prices.

This actually is not an original idea.  In the days before World War II retail and commerce was often divided along ethnic lines.  Cities had "Italian" groceries or "German" bars or "Jewish" delis--and that is where you felt comfortable spending your money.  But then along came A&P, Piggly Wiggly and the national department store chains that realized you could make a lot more money by appealing to--and marketing to--everyone regardless of background, language spoken or personal beliefs.

And that has to be our hope now as we head into "Identity Commerce 2.0".  Simple economics usually trumps (pun slightly intended) politics.  Just ask the failed socialist regimes of Eastern Europe.

Not the Best

One thing about the World Cup that is difficult for Americans to understand (besides how supposedly top-notch officials can be fooled by flopping time and again, or why the time on the clock isn't really how much time is left in the game, and why you would decide elimination games by using penalty kicks) is that the biggest event in soccer doesn't even feature the best teams in the sport.  I'm not saying that because the United States failed to qualify (if you can't beat Trinidad and Tobago to make the big dance, you can't even call yourself "good" at soccer)--but rather the fact that whichever team hoists the Cup in a few weeks wouldn't even be favored to beat one of the top-tier club teams in Europe.

Knowledgeable soccer fans know that the "best of the best" are the teams in the English Premier League, La Liga in Spain and the Bundeslega in Germany.  Clubs like Manchester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Barcelona FC, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich are veritable all-star teams compared to the national squads competing in the World Cup.  Nothing bears that out like the fate of Lionel Messi--considered to be one of the two best current players and one of the greatest of all time--but who has a very pedestrian World Cup record.  Playing with the powerhouse Barcelona squad he's unstoppable.  Sharing the pitch with his fellow countrymen, he has appeared less than spectacular.

That is the opposite of what we see here in the US with our major sports.  No one would pick the Golden State Warriors to beat the Team USA that would be assembled for the Olympics every four years.  That squad would be LeBron James and 11 all-stars from the other Western Conference teams and they would stomp the "Dubs" in as many games as you would want to play head-to-head.  Only the most delusional Washington Capitals fan would pick his team to beat Team Canada or Team USA--and probably Team Russia or Team Sweden--in head-to-head competition.  Even in baseball, Team USA would have an incredible pitching staff and Team Dominican Republic would be unstoppable at the plate and would beat the Houston Astros in any 7-game series.

So while the World Cup may get all of the hype, anyone wanting to watch "best on best" is better off tuning into the UEFA Champions League every year--as that actually allows the European powerhouses to face off and determine the Best Soccer Team in the World.

Living on a Leash

When my wife and I thought we would be having kids we would see other parents out in public with their children on what I called a "kiddie leash".  It was a harness with a leash like you would use on your dog--but it allowed kids a small amount of room to roam while Mom or Dad held on to the other end.  I notice that there is an adult version of that now--but instead of a harness on one end a handle on the other, the "adult leash" has a USB plug on one end and a lightning charger on the other.

When you travel--as my wife and I did last week--you notice the "adult leash" everywhere in the airport.  When this first became "a thing", you would see people sitting on the tile floors of the concourses between gates.  Then it became common to see folks on the floor along the walls in the gate areas   I couldn't figure out why people would rather sit on the floor backed up against the wall than in the chairs near the gates--but then I realized, they were trying to charge their smartphones and tablets.  The three-foot length of their charging cords was as far as they could go away from the precious outlet along the wall.

Airports likely noticed this--and the bad reviews people would give them for "not having enough places to plug in your phone" on travel sites--and they put in "charging stations" near the gates--posts with a few regular outlets and a couple of USB ports.  That led to groups of people huddled around these ports--again, all three feet away--along with the people still sitting on the floor next to the standard outlets.  Now, airports like the one we flew into and out of in Cleveland--have put charging stations between every other seat.  And as we flew out on Sunday, nearly every person waiting at gates B6 through 12 had something plugged into them.

The desperate need to "charge up" has created a cottage industry at airports now.  There are stores with entire sections dedicated to "charging solutions"--whether they be large pre-charged batteries to longer charging cords that might give you six feet of "freedom" rather than the three you get from a standard cord.  There are even "charger exchanges"--where you can purchase a loaded charger from a dispenser--and exchange that for another model when it is exhausted--sort of like propane tank exchanges at retail stores.

I would like to a see a study conducted on electricity usage at the nation's airports over the past decade.  I'd be willing to bet that the switch to more efficient lighting and signage has been more than offset by having thousands of people plugged into every outlet in the building trying to charge their electronic devices.  I'd also like to know if that extra cost is being passed right back to the fliers in the form of higher gate fees--because we all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch--or a free charge.

Of course, people would find that their devices would charge up faster--and stay charged longer--if they weren't continuing to use them while they were sitting on the floor three feet away from the outlet while they were plugged in.  But then you wouldn't be able to upload all your photos from your trip to Instagram on the "free" wi-fi that is now the "expected standard" when it comes to going anywhere in public.

Conditioned For Isolation

We hear all the time about how our technology has led to "isolation" in our society.  We ignore each other while sharing rooms or dinner tables--staring at our phones and tablets.  We head off to separate rooms to watch different television shows every night.  We play video game versions of sports and other activities rather than get out and physically exert ourselves.  We get everything delivered to our homes, so we don't have to go out to eat or shop.  But the technology that really causes us to isolate ourselves from each other--especially at this time of year--is air conditioning.

For centuries, Americans escaped the heat by getting our of our houses.  That is why so many of the oldest homes have big covered porches and huge, old trees in the front yard.  People would spend their evenings on the porch or in the shade enjoying the cooler temperature and maybe a breeze.  And because houses were close enough, neighbors could talk to each other from porch to porch.  Or they would share a cool drink and conversation about the day.  Now, we go from our air conditioned offices with windows that don't open into our air conditioned cars with the windows rolled up and pull into the garage of our air conditioned home with every door and window closed because Dad "isn't paying to cool the entire neighborhood".  And there we sit, because it's "too hot to go outside".

And speaking of vehicles, whatever happened to convertibles?  I was at a small car show a couple of weeks ago and was reminded that back in the 1950's and '60's it wasn't just exotic sports cars you could get with a drop-top, it was the family vehicles like Bel-Airs and Impalas that came in convertible options.  And for kids, there was no greater thrill than when the Old Man would drop teh top on a road trip.

When I had my Jeep CJ's and Wranglers, the top was never up at this time of year--except when it was raining (and a couple of times when I had left the hardtop back at home--not even then).  Now I see all of these Jeeps and the handful of other convertible vehicles with the top up on the most beautiful of days--and all the doors on and the windows rolled up tight while the AC blasts inside.  What the heck did you buy the vehicle for if you aren't going to enjoy its greatest feature?

And when you have the top down and you roll up on another convertible at a stop light, you can't help but look over and acknowledge the people next to you.  Being "exposed" if you will, makes you more outgoing like "Hey, check us out driving around so everyone can see us".  And since I'm usually rolling with great oldies cranking on the stereo, it puts a smile on your face too.

So the next time a heat wave rolls through, instead of barricading yourself in your personal meat locker, try mixing up a pitcher of Arnold Palmers and enjoying the shade in your yard or on your porch--and actually talk to the people in your neighborhood.  You'll probably find yourself not sticking all of the other "isolating" technology in your face either.

Red Herrings

The Winnebago County Board will be voting tonight to clutter up the November ballot with non-binding referenda meant to increase Democratic turnout in a very contentious election year.  Two questions, one dealing with creating a non-partisan commission in Wisconsin to draw up legislative maps, the other to decriminalize and tax marijuana could go before voters this fall.  That is in addition to a question approved earlier asking if people think the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling should be overturned via an amendment to the US Constitution.

Keep in mind that the results of the referenda mean absolutely nothing.  100% of the voters could say "overturn Citizens United, let me smoke pot, and challenge a group of un-elected people to come up with "fair districts" in Madison and Milwaukee" and not a single thing will change the day after the election, the year after the election and likely a decade after the election.  But that is not the way the referenda will be marketed.  "Vote 'Yes' on question three and make marijuana legal!", "Vote 'Yes' on question two and make sure that your vote counts!" and "Vote to end corporate control of politics" will be the misleading statements supporters of the measures will use to fool low-information voters into thinking they are participating in something other than a glorified survey.  And that push to vote in the referenda will be accompanied by the reminder to "vote for the Democratic slate of candidates while you are there!"

This is not to say that Republicans haven't used this same tactic to increase their turnout--but when they've done it, the stakes have been for keeps.  Constitutional amendments barring the state from recognizing same-sex marriages and ensuring the "right to hunt and fish" were ballot measures sure to draw GOP support in very important election years.  The difference there was, those votes had actual consequences--creating new law--not just "gauging public opinion".

It's also why supporters of these measures--and the Democratic Party--are using the County Board route to get those questions on the ballot.  They could circulate petitions and get a statewide referendum on any of these issues--but that requires a lot of work.  Instead, you can get a handful of supervisors in each county to vote to put a question on the ballot and save yourself the hassle.  Then you add up the results from the individual referenda and you can claim that "56% of Wisconsinites want legalized pot!!"

I refuse to vote on non-binding referendum questions.  Yes, that may skew the results in favor of those who think they are "sending a message" with the vote--but like I have said, it's not going to make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things.  I save my precious vote for candidates that actually have their own stances on issues and don't need a taxpayer-funded survey to determine how they should vote on things.  It's why we live in a Representative Democracy--and not a "true Democracy" where the mob rules.

When Your Heroes Let You Down

I've noted here before that Phil Mickelson is my favorite golfer.  His go-for-broke style on the course and the time that he makes for fans off the course endears him to millions of other golfers.  I've defended him in arguments that he is a phony and is just as snobbish as Tiger Woods--but that he puts on a public persona that has made him as popular as Tiger--without the same amount of success.  He even skated on an insider trading allegation that sent one of his best friends to Federal Prison.  But Phil's actions over the weekend at the US Open make me question his integrity as not only a player, but also as a person.

In case you missed it, Phil was having a horrible third round in brutal conditions at Shinnecock Hills when he struck a putt on the 13th hole too hard.  When it became clear that the putt was going to roll off the green and back down the fairway, Phil ran after the ball and hit it while it was in motion back toward the hole.  It was the kind of thing that you see a four year old do at the mini-golf place with the waterfall and the windmill--not in the middle of a major championship.

Social media immediately went insane--demanding that Mickelson be disqualified from the tournament--and once again questioning his integrity.  Phil made things worse in his post-round interviews by playing off the incident as some kind of joke, claiming he had thought about doing it in the past and knowing that it would only cost him 2-strokes--instead of the three or four he faced having to chip back onto the green from a very difficult angle.  He smiled and called it "taking advantage of the rules"--rather than the egregious breaking of the rules that it really was.

The United State Golf Association--the so-called "Keepers of the Game" that develop and enforce the rules of the sport--added fuel to the fire by assessing Phil just the two-stroke penalty and not disqualifying him.  Those officials twisted their interpretations of the rules in a way that made it clear they were not going to DQ one of the most popular players in the history of the game--even though he clearly deserved it.  That decision just compounded an ugly situation that started earlier in the day with multiple player complaints about the near impossibility of the course due to the USGA setup.

When I got up on Sunday morning, I expected to hear that the USGA had changed it mind and had disqualified Phil.  I also thought that Phil would issue his own statement, saying that after further consideration, he realized that his actions were a serious breach of the rules, hurt the sport and embarrassed his fellow pros--and that he was withdrawing from the tournament on his own.  But, none of those statements were ever issued.

Golf is a sport that prides itself on being a game of honor.  Players are expected to police themselves, calling penalties on themselves for rules violations that perhaps no one else saw.  The USGA has promoted that in some of its promotional videos and commercials.  We have lauded pros like JP Hayes of Appleton that DQ'ed himself from PGA Tour qualifying a few years ago because he used a prototype ball that had not yet been approved for play by the USGA--costing himself his career.

But Phil Mickelson's actions--and the USGA's gutless decision not to send him home immediately--have sullied the sport's reputation.  And it has proved yet again that all of our idols have feet of clay.

Please Stop "Innovating"

Fox Sports like to be "innovative" in its presentation of games and events.  They are the ones that created the "Fox Box", the graphic that started out in one of the corners of the screen that always showed the score and the time remaining for football, or the inning for baseball.  That score bug was then expanded to include the down and distance.  Eventually dots were added to represent how many timeouts were left in football--or where runners were positioned in baseball.  Then the box could be switched to show team stats, or player stats or pitch counts or the last pitch speed.  It has evolved in such a way that you don't have to pay attention to the game at all--and just glance at the "Fox Box" and you can get all the info you need.

Then came the "yellow line" for football.  Thinking that fans had no idea where the first down was, Fox decide it was going to overlay a bright yellow line on the field.  Just in case the down and distance in the Fox Box, the chains on the side line, the orange flag that is placed on the sideline at the first down yardage and the announcer saying "They need to make it to the 39 to get a first down" didn't clarify the "line to gain".  That led to imposing a "field goal line"--letting us know how far downfield the team needs to get for their kicker to attempt a career-long field goal.

And who can forget Fox's "glowing puck" innovation?  The National Hockey League was forced to use special pucks that produced a glowing effect on the TV broadcast--ostensibly to make it easy for viewers to see.  When the puck was passed or shot it would leave a fake red streak across the screen, like an asteroid entering earth's atmosphere.  Unfortunately, if the puck came along the near side boards, it would look like it was glowing in the stands.

Now that Fox has broadcast rights to the US Open golf tournament, they have brought us another "innovation": microphones in the cups.  I thought the sound effect was fake, like Fox thought maybe viewers didn't know the ball disappeared because it went into the cup.  But analyst Brad Faxon insisted in Twitter exchanges with frustrated golf fans last night that it really is the sound of the ball going in.  He claims the special "cup mikes" are supposed to pick up conversations between players and caddies as they read the greens.

But I was thinking what it would have been like if the stupid sound effect had been used by other networks during some of the greatest made putts in history.  Like when Jack Nicklaus drained a birdie on 17 during his miraculous win in the 1986 Masters, with Verne Lundquist's iconic call:

"Maybe......(clink, clink, clink) YES SIR!!!"

Or Gary Koch's famous call of Tiger Woods' double breaking long putt on the island green 17th hole in the Players Championship:

"That's better than most........better than most......(clink, clink, clink) BETTER THAN MOST!!!"

Every once in a while, you get to see a classic sports broadcast of an historic game and the screen is wonderfully clear of graphics, score crawls, floating strike zones and far less piped-in noises.  It's refreshing--almost like watching the game in person--even it it's not in 4k hi-definition.

We Choose Not To Do These Things Because They Are Hard

It's real easy to be "outraged" about politics today.  It's easy to post a scathing tweet or a Facebook update.  It's easy to retweet a link to a Salon.com article or to troll the social media account of the NRA or Fox News Channel or a lawmaker.  It's easy to grab an Uber with your friends and go down to a protest--standing on a corner holding a sign that was printed for you and yelling chants.  It's easy to talk about your beliefs in a group of people that all agree with you and cheer for your every statement.  It's even easy to do a TV interview with sympathetic reporters about how you were "inspired by the injustice of our society to be 'part of the change'".  It's easy to do all of those things and yell "This is what democracy looks like!!!".

You know what's hard?  Actually becoming part of the democratic process.  It's hard to approach total strangers and ask them to sign a nomination petition.  It's hard to cold call people that you don't know and ask them for campaign contributions.  It's hard to give up your evenings and your weekends for six months to walk through neighborhoods and knock on doors.  It's hard to spend nights researching budgets and existing laws so you can answer questions about more than just the one or two things that interest you.  It's hard to have people challenge your beliefs face-to-face--outside of "safe spaces".  It's hard to debate someone on a range of issues in front of an audience judging your every response.  And it's hard to accept that what you believe to be the right thing for your community and country can be rejected by the majority of your neighbors.

That is a lesson that erstwhile Assembly candidate Charisse Daniels learned this month.  Daniels gained some national notoriety when she was featured in a CNN report on female candidates "inspired" to run for political office by President Trump's victory in 2016.  Like others in the story Daniels claimed that she "woke up" the next morning to find herself in a country that didn't "share her values".  She was perfect for that storyline: a young, African-American woman living in a solid red district in the state that effectively put Donald Trump over the top in the Electoral College.  CNN likely planned follow up coverage of her race against incumbent Republican John Jagler--and they likely hoped--a major upset in November representing the "major shift" in American politics.

But then came all of those "hard things" that I mentioned before.  Actually, just the first "hard thing": getting a minimum of 200 nomination signatures to appear on the ballot.  Daniels apparently wasn't willing to put in the work to get that done--so she took an illegal shortcut, she just forged and made up signatures.  The fact that neither she nor her attorney chose to testify before the State Elections Commission this week--and that the Democratic Party of Wisconsin isn't claiming racism in the challenging of her petitions--leads me to believe that everyone knew that no effort was made to do things the right way--and Daniels just happened to get caught.

It's a good thing that the "Greatest Generation" was in charge of things in the 1960's when we put a man on the moon--because President Kennedy's challenge "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard" would fall upon deaf ears today.

Controlling the End

Just a warning, this My Two Cents is probably going to result in the greatest outrage of any I've ever done because it takes a non-emotional look at a very emotional issue: suicide.

We are being told that we need to have another "national conversation"--this time about suicide.  A couple of celebrity deaths last week and a report that suicides are up 30-percent in the last couple of years have everyone using the term "epidemic" for yet another issued.

I find it interesting that while traditional Judeo-Christian stances on all other types of social issues have been torn down--like homosexuality and divorce--our views on suicide remain deeply rooted to beliefs developed 3000 years ago.  After creating the idea of Heaven, early religious leaders must have realized they had also developed a conundrum: now that you have promised people idyllic eternal life, how do you keep them from wanting to go there immediately?  Therefore it was decided that suicide would have to be a grave sin--for which you would lose the opportunity to go to Heaven--leaving your soul to spend eternity in Purgatory or Limbo instead of paradise.  And so ending one's life became taboo--and all efforts were made to keep people from doing it.  

It was finally in the 1980's that the idea that people should be allowed to control their lives--and how they would like them to end--finally gained some momentum.  It took an unknown former physician in Michigan--Jack Kevorkian, jokingly called "Doctor Death"--to bring physician-assisted suicide into the mainstream.  And while Kevorkian went to prison, a couple of decades later states started legalizing the practice.  And what do those who know people that choose that route always say?  "I'm glad they didn't have to suffer anymore".

But that desire not to see someone suffer does not extend to those with emotional or psychological turmoil.  Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain "had so much to live for".  We are certain that all they needed was the right mind-altering drug or the right counseling program or to "think about everyone they would leave behind" instead of thinking about themselves and they would still be here living perfectly happy lives.

Maybe its my Libertarian streak or my atheistic beliefs, but I am not going to wring my hands or demand widespread interventions over this "crisis".  For me, it will be their choice--and I will choose to respect it.

Leaving No Doubt

The old adage (often mis-attributed to Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain--it's actually from the Bible) holds that "Tis better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".  Someone at the White House needs to hang a poster with those words in the Oval Office as a reminder to President Trump to not only think--but verify--before he speaks.

There were a couple of incidents last week that proved the President gives absolutely no forethought to what he says.  The first was his claim that he is considering a pardon for the late boxer Muhammed Ali--just like he pardoned another boxer this month--Jack Johnson.  The only problem is that the 1971 Supreme Court ruling that found Ali had a Constitutional right to claim conscientious objector status to avoid the draft during Vietnam overturned his conviction.  Therefore, there is nothing for the President to "pardon".

That statement leads me to believe that the President had not discussed his pardon plans with anyone in his administration.  And if he did, then someone failed miserably in the research department or they would have told him "Sir, Ali is not a convicted felon anymore."  I tend to think the President came up with that idea just minutes before his impromptu press conference.

The second statement--and certainly the scarier of the two--was the President's claim that he was not going to take part in any preparation for the summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.  Instead, he would use his "experience as a negotiator" to broker a de-nuclearization deal with the rogue nation.  One would think that you would want the President to be well-versed in what North Korea has in terms of nuclear technology and a weapons arsenal so that you could craft a deal that doesn't allow them to "hide" a few things from inspectors somewhere down the line.  The President would later add that he would "know in the first minute" if Un is "serious" about negotiation.  This raises the possibility of the shortest world leader summit in the history of civilization.

I realize that much of President Trump's appeal to his supporters is that he does not have a polished political persona that results in non-descript, pre-approved by consultants answers to all questions.  But off-the-cuff, misinformed answers are acutally worse--as they undermine public trust in the institution and lead more and more people to wonder if the President has any idea what is going on. 

Another suggestion: replace the portrait of Andrew Jackson--the racist, anti-government Democrat--that the President ordered hung in the Oval Office with one of Calvin Coolidge--the Republican known as "Silent Cal"--who knew enough to keep his mouth shut.

More Potty Talk

First, a My Two Cents Update:  The Wisconsin Broadcasters Association has decided to just cancel its planned Democratic Gubernatorial Debate, rather than try to come up with a way to make it palatable with 10-candidates demanding to be on the stage.  The WBA says it now wants to focus just the general election--when the field of candidates will be just two.  Personally, I think they found out that the venue I suggested for the ten person debate--Circus World--wasn't available on July 27th.  Ironically, now that the debate is canceled, those candidates will have to pay us WBA members to get out their message.

Now onto today's My Two Cents topic: More potty talk.

The Milwaukee Bucks were very proud to announce yesterday that their new arena will feature "gender neutral" bathrooms.  Officials were trying to pass this off as some gesture of acceptance and tolerance--but in reality, it's no different than the single bathrooms found in many small businesses and offices around the country.  All they did was put a sign out front with a traditional male figure, a female figure and a figure wearing half a dress and suddenly it's a statement of social justice.

Now don't worry guys, there will still be plenty of facilities labeled Men's Rooms--with lines of urinals allowing us to "splash and go" and make it back to our seats before the end of the TV timeout.  And ladies, you will still have your gender specific facilities--with the long lines outside--no matter how many stalls they put in there.  But more than likely, the inclusion of "gender neutral" potties will not be good enough.

"Separate but equal" will not satiate those who believe they are "gender fluid".  They will still want to use the gender-specific facility with they are identifying at that time.  So that will mean people with female genitalia using the men's rooms and people with male genitalia using the women's room.  Guys won't care--unless they are in there with their sons.  But someone with male features in the ladies room is sure to generate complaints--which will be answered with accusations of bigotry.

As I've suggested when this issues has been raised in public schools, engineers should now create what would basically be indoor lines of Port-a-Potties--hallways filled with narrow doors opening to single stalls and small sinks thereby guaranteeing that nobody sees something they don't want to see.  Yes, it will slow the process and leads to lines for all genders--but that is the price we will have to pay for "progress", I guess.  Or as I have suggested before, "go before you go" and avoid the controversy altogether.

The Over-Accommodated Generation

While millennials are correctly labeled the "Entitlement Generation", they can also bear the title of "Most Overly-Accommodated Generation" as well.  Their expectations go beyond just getting a trophy or verbal praise for everything they do to a belief that their every need must be met not just by the government, but by the entire private sector as well--no matter how rare the request.  That attitude explains the one-star on-line review for the best restaurant in town because "they don't have free wi-fi" or "there was only one gluten-free, non-lactose, low-soy entrée on the menu--and I'm not eating fish right now". 

The latest example of this is Chris Mau--a father whose angry on-line rant about a fast-food restaurant not have a diaper changing table in the men's room is going viral.  For those that haven't heard about this, Mau was taking his 8-month old daughter for a walk when she got a dirty diaper.  Mau then went into a fast-food restaurant with an indoor play area assuming they would have a changing station.  When they did not, he put paper towels on the floor, laid the baby on those and changed her diaper--snapping photos for his angry post.

My parents have been traveling this week, so I haven't been able to verify this with my mother--but I can pretty much guarantee they never changed my diaper on the floor of a fast-food restaurant.  And do you know how I know this?  Because my parents never took me to a fast-food restaurant as a baby because they knew they would likely have to change my diaper on the floor of the bathroom.  You see, parents in those days didn't take infants everywhere they went--and they didn't expect private businesses to provide them accommodations to take care of babies.

It should be noted that Mr Mau wasn't even a paying customer of the restaurant that he and thousands of others are now taking to task.  He was just walking by and assumed that they would have accommodations for him.  In a USA Today version of this story I saw on-line he called it a "social injustice" that the men's room wouldn't have a changing table (because it's sexist to think that men don't change diapers).  I fully expect that restaurant chain to now close all of their locations for an afternoon next month to teach their employees to be more "sensitive" to fathers with infants that just pooped their pants.

Actually, the cyber-bullying that will accompany this story will result in this restaurant chain ordering its franchisees to install changing tables in all men's rooms--even though there is no guarantee that it will ever be used--just to avoid any further bad publicity.  And, those changing tables had better be available to people just walking in off the street--and not just to paying customers.  Because if you don't, you can expect an entire generation to cry and throw a fit until they get their way.

Bread and Circus--Minus the Bread

I'm not sure after how the 2016 Republican race for President turned out why Wisconsin Democrats are demanding that all ten of their candidates for Governor be allowed to take part in the state Broadcasters Association debate coming up next month.  It was those circuses in late 2015 and early 2016 that produced the eventual nominee and President Donald Trump.

I can understand why each of the individual candidates want to be on the stage.  The debate will provide essentially free advertising on dozens of radio and TV stations across the state.  And I'd be hard pressed to remember the GOP candidates from '16 that got shifted to the "JV Debates" that preceded the "Varsity contests" when the field was still about 15 or so. 

But consider the logistics of a ten-person debate.  The event is supposed to last an hour--so if you give everyone a minute for opening statements, a minute to answer questions and a minute for closing statements you will have time for just four questions of the candidates--each of whom will get a grand total of six minutes of microphone time.  If each candidate goes over by five-seconds in opening statements and the first two questions, you will only have time for three questions.

All of that will leave each candidate barely enough time to answer every question with "I think Scott Walker is bad--and Foxconn is bad too".  With the second candidate saying "I think Scott Walker is worse than bad--and Foxconn is worse than bad too"--until the final candidate is answering every question with the tenth degree of "badness" for Scott Walker and Foxconn.  (Although, the Wisconsin Public Television folks in the post-debate wrap up will tell us "All the candidates made some great points tonight!")

Think back to those Republican debates in 2016 again.  How did Donald Trump emerge as the "winner" in pretty much all of them?  It certainly wasn't by making great points about public policy or referring to nuances in international relations.  He was simply the biggest clown in the circus every night.  CNN and Fox News dedicated a camera and half the screen to Trump's reactions--even when every other candidate was talking.  And he mugged for the crowd, interrupted everyone else and insulted his competitors to their faces--and the TV audience loved it.

So how then do the ten Dems for Governor capture everyone's attention?  Well, I guess Kelda Roys could bring her baby on stage with her and breastfeed in the middle of the debate like she did in an on-line campaign video that would garnered zero views if she hadn't done that.  Tony Evers can use profanity in every sentence while answering questions.  Mahlon Mitchell could tell dirty jokes.  Paul Soglin can wear his favorite Che Guevara t-shirt while standing next to Mike McCabe in his blue jeans.  Kathleen Vinhout can conjure up crocodile tears while making up a story about a single mother she "met" who's "working three jobs", all of which only pay minimum wage.

So if you want a ten-person debate, consider moving the venue from a high school auditorium in Wausau to Circus World in Baraboo.  It would certainly fit under the big tent.

How a Gay Wedding Cake and a Big Mouth Killed Immigration Reform

While the Religious Right and the talk show hosts that cater to them were celebrating yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that found a wedding cake baker is not required by law to provide services for a same-sex wedding ceremony, they were missing two very important aspects of that decision.  One, that it very narrowly applies to this one case only--and two, it all but kills any chance that immigration reform will happen during the Trump Administration.

On the first point, the 7-2 majority found that it was not a matter of anti-discriminatory laws governing protections for same sex couples unfairly violate another person's First Amendment rights to practice their religion.  Instead, the judgment is based solely on comments from two members of one of the three committees that reviewed the baker's case.  Those commission members called the baker's religious views "despicable pieces of rhetoric"--comparing them to beliefs that led to slavery and the Holocaust (Godwin's Law!!).  To the Justices, that represented unfair bias in the decision-making of the commission and allowed the baker's objections to stand.

Those high-fiving each other over the ruling and thanking God for "delivering his justice in this case" should know that yesterday's ruling does not mean that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage has free rein to deny services to gay people.  So long as non-elected commissions and committees designated to hear and issue rulings upon such claims of discrimination don't engage in the blatant bias displayed in this one case in Colorado, their decisions still hold the power of law.

So how does this affect immigration policy?  Just review the speeches and twitter comments of President Trump in reference to people attempting to immigrate--legally and illegally--to this country.  Any change designed to limit the numbers of immigrants from any country the President has already labeled as "s%#$les"--or that have large percentages of Muslim populations--will be met with a legal challenge that should be able to use the same arguments laid out in the gay wedding cake case.

Even if the immigration legislation was conceived by a member of Congress and approved through the legislative process before going to the President to sign, Trump has already laid the groundwork for arguments that its enforcement will be based on racial and religious bias--even if the President is the only one that may hold those beliefs.  To borrow another legal phrase, by running his big mouth with no filter, President Trump has "poisoned the well" of immigration reform for the rest of his term.

As CNN learned when it mistakenly reported that the Supreme Court had struck down the Affordable Care Act because somebody only read the summary pages before going on the air with the "BREAKING NEWS!!!!"--it pays to read through entire Supreme Court rulings before declaring "victory".

Slow to React

I hope everyone enjoyed what will likely be the last Green and Gold Charity Softball Game.  In case you missed it over the weekend, Packers linebacker Clay Matthews took a line drive to the face while pitching early in the game at Fox Cities Stadium.  Matthews left the field bleeding profusely from the nose.  He was taken to the emergency room--where doctors temporarily set a broken nose.  Matthews will undergo surgery to correct the damage.

Having seen the video, I have to say that I'm a bit concerned by the reaction time of what was once a Pro Bowl linebacker.  I played fastpitch softball for years and had balls hit at me faster than that and I never took one in the kisser--and I'm just Joe Average.  Clay Matthews is a finely-tuned professional athlete that should have cat-like reflexes.  He didn't have to catch the liner--but at least get your glove up faster than that to protect your face.  Perhaps that explains Clay's difficulties in covering tight ends or running backs in space or making open field tackles.

One guy who likely won't react so slowly is Packers Head Coach Mike McCarthy.  He is not going to be very happy that one of his key defensive players is getting hurt in a non-football-related athletic endeavor.  Imagine if the ball had hit Matthews a little to the left or the right of his nose and instead got him in one of the eyes.  Or if it had caught him square on the jaw and required it to be wired shut for a couple of months--putting a guy that requires tens of thousands of calories a day to stay fit on a liquid diet.

Yes, Saturday's game was for a good cause and Matthews' injury was a freak occurrence (although, I do remember a few guys pulling hamstrings trying to beat out plays at first or scoring from second on singles to the outfield).  But the coaching and front office staff of the Packers see a lot of investment out on that field and as was shown on Saturday, that investment is put at risk whenever balls and bodies are in motion.  So don't be surprised if the Packers brass holds a meeting soon to discuss their "involvement" in the Charity Softball Game and they decide that a nice check presentation to the same charities during halftime of a home game is just as nice--and less risky.

Besides, Donald Driver will be holding a similar game a couple of weeks from now at the same stadium.  Let the old, retired guys hurt themselves.

The New Shock Jocks

This week's national crisis?  How coarse our political discourse has become.  The country is "reeling" according to one news network from the Twitter comments from Roseanne Barr and the on-air statements of Samantha Bee.  "Is it even possible to have a civil discussion about politics any more?!?!"

My question would be "Since when are Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee considered part of the 'political discourse'?"  The last time I checked, neither of them were elected officials.  Neither have ever worked for an elected official.  Neither have run for public office, worked on a political campaign or have been employed by what we like to call "political think tanks".  They are comediennes--paid to make people laugh, not to provide educated or insightful commentary.

Bee's "status" comes from being a fake "correspondent" on the fake "news show" The Daily Show.  She didn't actually cover Congressional hearings, sit in on Capitol Hill or White House press briefings or develop sources within politics.  Just like you and me, she watched legitimate news operations' coverage of actual news and then had the writers on the show (also not reporters or political insiders) write some funny lines for her to say as she stood in front of a green screen and humorous footage was shown behind her.

And the same goes for others that have been lumped into this "political commentator" category: Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Jimmy Kimmel, John Oliver and Dennis Miller.  All of them are comedians--who are pretending to be political experts.  Because he is on HBO, Oliver gets away with being even more profane in his references to people he doesn't like than Samantha Bee was in referring to Ivanka Trump--and nobody has said "boo" about those comments.  And thanks to his vast knowledge of obscure references, Miller could have put out a Tweet with the same exact sentiments as Roseanne's--alluding to a 17th century Chinese regional rebel group and a 1935 French fantasy film--but it would have taken everybody a half hour to determine the context and nobody has time for that.

And back to Bee's comments, she did her job in that moment.  The audience in studio laughed and cheered--which is exactly what TBS is paying her to do.  Just like the crowd at the White House Correspondents Dinner laughed at Michelle Wolf ripping on Sarah Huckabee Sanders.  It's called knowing your audience--and good comedians do that.

Now, Martha Raddatz or George Will or Paul Ryan start referring to women as "feckless female body parts" on the Sunday morning talk shows or on the floor of Congress, I'll start worrying about the "political discourse".  And if you would like some intelligent criticism consider following Senators Ben Sasse or Jeff Flake on Twitter.  They aren't trying to be "shocking" for ratings.