We Peaked Too Early

Do you ever get the feeling that politically, the United States peaked too early?  Is it possible that the greatest political minds and leaders vied for the Presidency shortly after the founding of the nation--and that we have seen a long litany of progressively worse and worse candidates seeking the position?

Consider that in the first Presidential election of 1788, voters had to choose between George Washington and John Adams.  It was a contest between the leader of the Revolutionary Army--who was laying down his arms and asking to be democratically elected to lead the country--and one of the greatest statesmen who ever lived.  The two met again in 1792 as well.

The elections of 1796 and 1800 featured contests between Adams and Thomas Jefferson--perhaps the man most responsible for shaping the nation that we have become.  And their campaigns--done mostly through writing and hardly any face to face debate--focused on what role the Federal Government would play in our lives--and what duties were to be conducted by the state governments.

The election of 1808 saw the last two framers of the Constitution battle it out--with James Madison defeating James Monroe.  And in 1820, Monroe defeated John Quincy Adams in the first election where the potential abolition of slavery was a campaign issue.  All elections with profound impact on what the United State of America was going to be going forward--with arguments presented on all sides by educated people.

It must have been more difficult for voters to feel their decisions were as important when the races involved Rutherford B Hayes and Samuel Tilden in 1876.  Or Warren G Harding and James Cox in 1920. Or even George HW Bush and Michael Dukakis in 1988--because none of those candidates challenged our thinking about what it means to be American.  And quite honestly, things were a little boring at those times.  Sure, we've had some bright lights occupy the White House--but none of them were challenged in the election process by those of equal mind and stature.

Now consider the contest before us next month and the absurd discourse that we need to have about these two candidates.  How many Americans in 1788 went to the polls thinking "Well, Washington is the lesser of two evils"?  Was the election of 1808 decided on comments about female body parts?  From the new depths that we reached in last night's debate--it's becoming almost impossible to see the amazing heights we scaled on the start of our American Journey.

On the Long Way Down

Theories abound as to why the NFL is seeing a precipitous drop in ratings this season.  Some blame the player protests during the National Anthem.  Some think that it is due to the election and debates being scheduled on game days.  Some believe it is backlash for Tom Brady's suspension for Deflate-gate.  And some point to the non-TV ways to watch the games now--which wouldn't be counted by Nielsen ratings.

While all of those may contribute in small ways to a ratings dip, I like to think that the more Americans are exposed to the modern NFL, the more they realize it's a lousy product.  All you had to do was try to watch last night's game between Arizona and San Francisco to figure out that quarterbacking in the league has never been worse.  And yet, coaches keep going with offensive systems that require the quarterback to carry the load--dooming us to games featuring 12-punts in the first half.  When you consider that there are really only seven or eight QB's in the league right now that would rank as "above average" in historical comparison--that means a whole lot of crappy games--just like America "enjoyed" last night.

That's not to say that there weren't bad teams, bad quarterbacks and bad games in the 1970's and 80's--when football was at its best in terms of quality of play.  But back then, Arizona-San Francisco would have just been a score on the "Ten Minute Ticker", or a box score in the Monday newspaper--and maybe one play from the game would be featured in Howard Cosell's halftime highlight package during Monday Night Football.  It would not have been a "primetime matchup".  There was no Red Zone Channel to switch to it if either team had actually made it across midfield in the first half.  And ESPN wouldn't have a five minute highlight package to play all night and the next day.

And you cannot underestimate the impact fantasy sports has on the NFL.  As you can tell by rules that only benefit scoring, the league has sold it's soul to the nerds that play in four fantasy leagues and bet weekly in Draft Kings.  Fantasy sports used to mean that you would watch stink-bomb games because "your quarterback" or "your receiver" were playing--and you wanted to see if they were scoring points.  But as I witnessed in the stands at the 16th green at the Ryder Cup last Sunday, everyone now gets those stats sent as "alerts" to their smartphones.  That means no more watching Blaine Gabbert throw nine consecutive incomplete passes just to know if Larry Fitzgerald caught a touchdown.

Will the NFL have to worry about their ratings falling to the level of Women's World Cup qualifying matches?  No.  But unless someone in the tower in New York takes a look at the product  on the field instead of all the billboards and TV ads surrounding the games--more and more viewers will start tuning out.

Begun the Clown War Has

Forget ISIS, hurricanes or Russian hackers, the greatest threat facing our nation today is creepy clowns.  Across the country, people are reporting guys dressed up as scary clowns (yes, I realize that is being redundant, as all clowns are scary and creepy) stalking neighborhoods.  Some clowns are trying to lure children into the woods with offers of money.  Some clowns are peering into people's windows.  Some carry weapons, some are covered in fake blood.  Nobody seems to know exactly why creepy clowns are the hot thing right now--but I do know how to put an end to it: justify the killing of said clowns as an act of self-defense.

If we are allowed to shoot wild animals in our backyards out of fear they may attack us.  If elderly women can gun down people trying to break into their homes.  If police officers are allowed to assume that all black males are armed and looking to kill them--then the rest of us should be able to kill any clown that scares us.

I can pretty much guarantee that it will take just one justified clown killing to put an end to this national trend.  It doesn't matter what perverse pleasure you derive from dressing up in a jumper, putting on Kabuki makeup and donning a rainbow-color wig, once you find out that it is open season on you--those urges will likely go away.  Might I consider learning how to play average guitar and join a KISS cover band instead (that will certainly give you a better chance of scoring with the ladies as well)?

There is no greater justification for clownicide than former serial killer John Wayne Gacy.

 

 

Before killing dozens of young men and keeping their bodies in the crawl space under his house, Gacy worked part-time as "Pogo the Clown"--terrorizing children at fundraisers and birthday parties.  There is no proof that Gacy donned his makeup and jumper during the murders of his victims--but you really can't put that outside the realm of possibility.  Just imagine how many lives could have been saved if a fearful adult who spotted "Pogo" had been allowed to take him down before he acted on his homicidal desires.

 

 

So the time has come for America to take matters into it's own hands.  If you see a creepy clown--or any clown for that matter--in your neighborhood don't drive away from the suspect.  Instead, head directly at them--at a high rate of speed--and run them down like a rabid dog in the road.  Then back up and run over them again--just to make sure they are really dead.  THEN call police and tell them that you spotted the evil creature and feared for your life.  Believe me, a jury of your peers won't even have to go into deliberations before they acquit you.

She's Not Really a Follower

The main selling point that Hillary Clinton has been pushing for all of those young voters that supported President Obama in the past two elections has been that she will "continue his legacy" if they vote for her.  And while polls show those young voters aren't buying it, you really have to wonder if she is the type that is going to continue down a path set by someone else.  You don't establish your "own legacy" by just doing what the guy before you was doing--and so Mrs Clinton has to veer away from what President Obama has done in order to be seen as "her own woman". 

Former President Bill Clinton is already laying the groundwork for that effort.  This week he took the Affordable Care Act to task calling it the "craziest thing in the world"--and citing the 50% premium increases that people enrolled in the state-run health insurance exchanges will be facing next year as "proof" that it isn't working.  (In Minnesota, the state performed a world-class "news dump" of that information just before 5:00 on a Friday afternoon--ensuring little media coverage of the announcement).  Clinton also called "ObamaCare" bad for small businesses.

Now before you go calling Bill Clinton a "neo-Conservative", consider that he has to make "ObamaCare" look as bad as possible now--so that version 2.0: "HillaryCare" is seen as this great improvement upon a rudimentary system set up by her predecessor.  In reality, it will be another step in the "failure by design" scheme intended to establish government-run health care so that we can all enjoy the quality of such services as seen in the Veterans Administration health care system.

There may be some Obama Administration legacies that Mrs Clinton will continue--like killing American citizens abroad through the use of drone strikes.  Julian Assange claims in a WikiLeaks release that Clinton asked if the US couldn't just "drone him" while he was releasing classified and sensitive documents--and being hailed as a national hero by the Left.  Clinton says that if she actually said that--she was just joking (like Donald Trump taking away the guns of Clinton's security detail--right?)
While some Republicans try to sway voters that electing Hillary Clinton "will be a third term for Barack Obama"--don't believe it.  This is a shrewd, manipulative candidate who doesn't want to share credit with anyone--and she will do everything she can to NOT be Barack Obama--whether it be good or bad for the country.

The Death of the Classics

The Sunday edition of the St Paul Pioneer Press had a very interesting article on theater and opera companies struggling to find classic musicals and plays that they can present in these "modern times".  It's not like South Pacific, The Taming of the Shrew or the works of Wagner are technically difficult to produce or incredibly expensive to stage.  The problem is that nearly every classic piece of performance art contains some element that will "offend" someone in our ultra-sensitive society.

Plays and operas that for centuries were hailed at the high points of human culture, creativity and emotion now contain characters or themes that are "socially unacceptable"--according to the very narrow lens by which we now judge all things.  Greedy Jews, uneducated "native peoples", effeminate gay men, white colonialism and even characters in drag are considered too "toxic" to be presented in modern performances.

And it's not just the theater that suffers.  Hundreds of classic novels are being purged from reading lists for students of all ages.  Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are out due to the use of language pertaining to African-Americans at the time of their writing--and reference to slavery.  Heart of Darkness is unacceptable for portrayals of African cultures and white domination of said cultures.  Even the works of Shakespeare can not be presented to modern youth because Romeo and Juliet features multiple teen suicides that could "trigger" those who are being bullied or have lost someone to suicide already (although the implication of underage kids having sex is "okay").

Beloit College always makes a big deal about the list they publish for their staff every fall that lists all of the things that incoming freshman would have never experienced in their lifetimes--like not having IPhones, or having to set a VCR or using a rotary phone.  Perhaps the college should start working on lists for the rest of us detailing the classic literature, film, stage production and even songs that today's college graduates have been "shielded from" in order to protect their fragile self-esteem. 

The Voice of the Game

Before I head off for the Ryder Cup, I want to thank the legendary Vin Scully for an entire lifetime of sports memories.  The Los Angeles Dodgers play-by-play man will call his final game this weekend--ending a 67-year career.  I'm a San Francisco Giants fan--so I hate anything associated with the Dodgers--but I love Vin Scully.

Unlike today's sportscasters, Vin doesn't script his comments for big moments in games (a lesson for Jim Nantz).  He doesn't yell at the top of his lungs for the most common plays (I'm looking at you Wayne Larivee and Gus Johnson). Even at the age of 88 he still follows the action and calls a nearly flawless game (unlike John Sterling of the New York Yankees--Google some of his blown calls).  And despite never calling a game from the bleachers or doing TV commercials or opening his own restaurant, he is beloved by not just his hometown fans--but baseball lovers everywhere.

So strong is LA's devotion to Vin Scully that when Frank McCourt bought the Dodgers back in the 1990's and tried to put Vin out to pasture, there were near riots.  McCourt has come and gone--and Vin Scully remained in the booth.

Think about the history this man has seen.  He called games while Jackie Robinson still played for the Brooklyn Dodgers.  He was on the mike for Brooklyn's only World Series victory.  He called perfect games pitched by Sandy Koufax.  He was on hand for the greatest moment in the history of baseball--and managed to put it in perfect perspective:

He also called one of the most dramatic home runs in the history of the World Series:

Vin Scully's greatest talent was to weave all of the history that he had gathered in his time around the ballpark into the call of today's modern game.  When he would talk about "Jackie" or "Sandy" in stories that always seemed to perfectly fit into the length of a half inning, it took us all back to the greatest time in the greatest sport.

The one good thing about losing this legend is that we actually get to thank him and enjoy these final few moments together--and to honor him while he is still here to enjoy it--unlike so many of our other heroes that get such praise only after they have passed.

Thanks for all of the memories, Mr Scully.

If That Guy Can Find a Mate....

I feel sorry for single people this week.  The People Magazine report that Steven Avery is getting married really has to have them questioning their desirability--and if they will ever find love.  Consider that a man found guilty by a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt of kidnapping, raping, torturing, killing, dismembering and burning up a woman convinced another woman to marry him--despite the fact that he will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars AND the bride-to-be has actually met him in person just once.

Really, the unattached shouldn't feel that bad.  Do you really want to be with someone that insane?  There is a subculture of people who are obsessed with high profile convicts.  The Menendez Brothers had all kinds of suitors during their trial for brutally murdering their parents--and both got married while behind bars.  Ted Bundy certainly had his share of female followers while on death row for killing dozens of other women for decades.  Even Charles Manson had fiancés and girlfriends during his life sentence.  Those guys take "killing it with the ladies" to a whole new level.

As in the Avery case, the "murderer's girlfriends" are all positive that "their man" was wrongfully convicted.  Their delusional belief makes them feel a bond with the killer before even trying to make contact.  And when the jailhouse letters talk about how much their "belief in him" means to them, the manipulative murderers draw in their unwitting "victim".

And all of that stays fairly non-threatening.  The Menendezes, Manson and Bundy are/were never going to get out of prison to be with their "wives".  But Avery's case may be different.  More and more, justice is becoming about "feelings" and "social justice"--and if enough people watch the one-sided documentary "Making a Murderer", they might convince a judge someday that Steven Avery is a "victim of an unjust society" that saw multiple law enforcement agencies, the State Crime Lab, a special prosecutor, a judge and 12-people picked off the street all take part in a giant conspiracy to frame an innocent man and set him free.

Then what does the new "Mrs Avery" do?  Does she move from Nevada to live in the "family compound" in Mishicot?  Does she live in that same trailer?  Does she put the garbage in the same burn barrel?  What crosses her mind the first time there is a heated argument?  Or she notices a look in her "innocent husband's" eyes that you don't ever see in prison letters or short conversations in a visiting area?  Or he let's slip--maybe after a night of too many cheap beers--details of the killing that only someone there would know?  I bet at that moment, being single would be a lot more attractive.