What Time Does My Team Draft?

Late. Your team's first round draft pick will be late. Attempting a return to normalcy, I'll be watching the first round with a couple of friends. Which, on the East Coast, means an eight pm start time (that's when the draft starts, tbd on the wings and beer).

Fans of the hapless Jaguars and Jets need not concern themselves with this issue, but as a Chiefs fan, my wait will be long. How late must I put off sleep to immediately learn of a personnel decision to complain of the following month? If my calculations are correct (a rarity), 1:10 in the morning. Brutal.

While the draft is slated to start at 8:00 pm, the question is whether that's the official time Jacksonville goes on the clock or if we're subjected to the pomp and circumstance of Draft Day first. Teams are allowed 10 minutes to make their picks in round one, and universally utilize their entire time allotment (the first couple picks being the potential exception). So assuming Jacksonville submits their pick at 8:10 in the evening (Eastern), and we roll every ten minutes after, we get to learn the next rookie to win a Super Bowl (calling it) a full five hours from then. 

Sorry work, but my ability to be in on time Friday, April 30 is a hard maybe.

Pick	Team	Pick Due By
1	Jacksonville Jaguars	20:10
2	New York Jets	20:20
3	San Francisco 49ers (from HOU through MIA)	20:30
4	Atlanta Falcons	20:40
5	Cincinnati Bengals	20:50
6	Miami Dolphins (from PHI)	21:00
7	Detroit Lions	21:10
8	Carolina Panthers	21:20
9	Denver Broncos	21:30
10	Dallas Cowboys	21:40
11	New York Giants	21:50
12	Philadelphia Eagles (from SF through MIA)	22:00
13	Los Angeles Chargers	22:10
14	Minnesota Vikings	22:20
15	New England Patriots	22:30
16	Arizona Cardinals	22:40
17	Las Vegas Raiders	22:50
18	Miami Dolphins	23:00
19	Washington Football Team	23:10
20	Chicago Bears	23:20
21	Indianapolis Colts	23:30
22	Tennessee Titans	23:40
23	New York Jets (from SEA)	23:50
24	Pittsburgh Steelers	0:00
25	Jacksonville Jaguars (from LAR)	0:10
26	Cleveland Browns	0:20
27	Baltimore Ravens	0:30
28	New Orleans Saints	0:40
29	Green Bay Packers	0:50
30	Buffalo Bills	1:00
31	Kansas City Chiefs	1:10
32	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	1:20

‘Defund the Police’ Concerns

(Editor's Note: Choosing this topic to write my first entry in over a year is stupid and probably going to block me from some future dream job. I should subtitle this something awful like, "A Few Bad Apples May Spoil the Bunch, but We Still Need Apples to Make Apple Pie!")

While ‘Defunding the Police’ has become the popular action to cry/thing to decry across the nation (it's simultaneously edgy and en vogue), most rational people agree that it’s a bad slogan because at their core, most people don’t believe in eliminating police departments. Some sort of explanation is then necessary to relay the individual’s nuanced interpretation of the slogan (which probably differs from the next person, who may sincerely believe in abolishing the police). Slogans that need clarification are bad slogans, which is why it appears Joe Biden’s advisers said until the movement gets it together, he won’t back defunding the police. (Honestly, as he caters to the white suburbs, it's unlikely he'll ever back it). Anyway, the basic consensus on meaning appears to include a reduction in forces while providing a corresponding increase in social workers and other professionals to handle some of the duties police officers are currently tasked with.

Is this a good idea? Probably in theory, but I have little faith in how it would be executed. I’m sure the majority of cops would love to get bullshit such as marriage mediation off their plate, and generally don’t enjoy responding to overdose calls. And there’s some good from diversification in how societal ills are treated – the same argument for why we have family court, drug court, and a bifurcation of civil and criminal processes.


Are Social Workers Effective Replacements?

Here’s a Twitter user's perspective, who I have decided speaks for everyone:

You want to know what defunding the police means?

It means that Wendy’s could have called a tow truck instead of 911 and Rayshard Brooks would be alive tonight or a social worker could have been called if they suspected he was under the influence and/or homeless.

— WashSpinDry (@spin_wash) June 15, 2020

This in response to the police shooting of a black man in a Atlanta Wendy’s parking lot. And while an amount of investigation remains necessary, the basic facts appear to be:

• Rayshard Brooks fell asleep in the Wendy’s drive-thru; 
• Two responding officers administered a sobriety test, which he failed; 
• In attempting to arrest Brooks, he resisted arrest, stole an officer’s Taser, and ran from the officers; 
• While running away, Brooks turned and pointed the Taser at the officers, at which point one officer fired two shots that struck Brooks in the back and killed him

The situation sucks, and I have little desire in speculating or ruminating on how it should have been handled. And maybe if a social worker and tow truck driver were deployed no one would have died. Indeed, it's likely everyone would still be alive. But it's not guaranteed - consider the alternative scenario: social worker determines Brooks is intoxicated and shouldn’t be driving. Tow truck attempts to hook up to car. Brooks decides he doesn’t want his car towed (who does?), and assaults one or both people to get his car unhooked before driving off. Drunk.

Now you have 1-2 people who have been assaulted, and a drunk driver back on the road. And if not Mr. Brooks that night, then a Mr. Smith, or Mr. Jones, or Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. White, etc. Because this same thing happens every night across the country. And yes, I’m 100% in favor of criminalizing the act of driving after getting so wasted you’re apt to pass out in the drive-thru. 

Before viscerally reacting, understand that this doesn't serve as a counterargument to "driving drunk and resisting arrest is not a capital offense in America." A discussion should be had as to how the criminal system subsequently handles the case, but that behavior gets people killed, and is unacceptable. Those are my values.

So maybe there are instances in which law enforcement officers aren’t the individuals best equipped to respond. But they often are when the law needs to be enforced. And they’re infinitely better equipped to respond if a situation escalates. Is the presence of police officers more likely to cause the situation to escalate? Do they cause the escalation? Now there's where the nuance of ‘Defund the Police’ movement can serve a purpose.

Negative Externalities

There’s a world wherein we just slash police department budgets and redirect funding for social services, homeless outreach, affordable housing, drug treatment, etc. That world could suck for black Americans. NPR’s Planet Money did an excellent piece on this yesterday, outlining how police departments often utilize ticketing to subsidize their expenses:

The easy example of this was Ferguson, Missouri, where black citizens were hammered with 85 percent of tickets (95 percent of jaywalking tickets). We know which cars get targeted (I remember being pulled over in my shitty G6 with a busted bumper and scraped rear door because “my license plate wasn’t properly illuminated.” And then getting an unnecessary field sobriety test. I have a sneaky suspicion that doesn’t happen to Audi drivers). And we know which drivers get targeted. Squeezing departments without removing the incentive to increase ticketing will only increase the economic pain on those least able to afford it.

Someone making minimum wage can’t pay a $500 fine (let alone the damn court fees once a sympathetic Traffic Court judge drops the ‘no turn signal’ charge). Not that person is under additional stress and more likely to do something erratic. Like crime to pay their bills. Or abuse substances to temporarily escape their situation. Or take out their frustration on a domestic partner. Or child. Or all of the above. Poverty is a cycle that we do little to help the lowest rung escape from. Incentivizing additional burdens is a bad idea.

Traffic fine reform is another issue ripe for reform - probably before defunding the police - but make no mistake: in a vacuum, defunding the police by reducing general fund support will absolutely result in an increase in special revenue funds by way of increased traffic tickets. And the burden will fall disproportionately on minorities and low-income drivers.

As an aside, quotas suck. No officer wants to face a minimum number of tickets (though each accepts the task with a different degree of willingness). Quotas drive unnecessary wedges between officers and the communities they're supposed to serve. Budgetary pressures incentivize quotas.

My Alternative Prescription?

Not sure, but I’m not so disillusioned to believe I can fix institutionalized problems that will take years (and honestly, decades) to fully address with some simple budget amendments. Sometimes incrementalism is bullshit. Sometimes it’s necessary. We can’t create utopia in six months, but we can make 2021 better. Maybe just make everyone unhappy by doubling police pay in your city and see if that doesn't help recruit/retain the best employees, using a massive property tax increase to pay for it? 

COVID-?? Symptoms?

For record-keeping purposes in the highly unlikely it proves informative someday. Typing this one week after initial onset of symptoms, so caveats re: accuracy abound.

Background medical information: 
Susceptible to strep (potentially relevant to initial response). It's just something I come down with occasionally, typically exacerbated by lack of rest and accompanying impact on body's immune system.
Chronic sinusitis - For about six years have followed a medicinal regimen of morning sinus irrigation of salt and 0.5 mg liquid Budesonide, evening dose of Flonase. Admittedly only conduct irrigation approximately five times/week, but consistent with daily Flonase usage. Have been declared a candidate for surgery to address this, but have not pursued as am largely asymptomatic (albeit I've lacked sense of smell for years with diminished sense of taste; experience onset of sinus headaches approximately once/year, particularly exacerbated when flying - presumably caused by cabin pressure changes. In extreme cases, cocktail of antibiotics and Prednisone are very effective at combating headaches).
Allergies - I experience mild seasonal allergy symptoms, and would rank my symptoms around the bottom 25 percentile. Last fall we moved to a new house 2.5 miles from our prior house, potentially introducing a new allergen environment. I went through the allergy test battery about six years ago and no plant exposures reacted more than mild. While the onset of spring is causing plants to bloom, I assume the impact on my body is marginal at most.

Context: 
Fitness: while not in amazing shape, have been following a running regimen the past three months. Four days before any symptoms, ran 12 miles at between 7:00 and 7:30/mile. Two days before symptoms, ran easy four miles at around 7:30/mile. Both runs came easy, no indication of irregular stress.
Physical stressers: in conducting budget work for the NY Senate, awoke at 4 am Monday morning for work and did not leave office until Wednesday evening, achieving only sporadic sleep and leaving self susceptible to experiencing sickness not uncommon when body is stressed from tiredness.
Leading Indicators never experienced a cough. I don't own a thermometer, but at no point did I feel as though I was running a temperature or experience chills

Day 1 of potential symptoms (Wednesday, April 1): Onset of sore throat in the afternoon, progressing throughout the day. Leave work around 7 pm and immediately sleep for three hours at home. No other symptoms.

Day 2 (Thursday, April 2): Sore throat worsens, unable to communicate. Moderate congestion. No other symptoms. Only six hours of sleep overnight, as additional budget work coming in.

Day 3 (Friday, April 3): Sore throat present but waning, suggesting I just needed a good night's rest. Moderate congestion. No other symptoms.

Day 4 (Saturday, April 4): Sore throat almost entirely gone. Experiencing fatigue for first time. Slept approximately 11 hours. Took dog to golf course, ate lunch, and walked approximately one mile. Slight tightness* in chest develops towards end of walk. Went back home and slept another three hours. Entirely possible the past week's lack of sleep finally caught up with me. However, chest was still tight upon awaking from nap. Went into self-quarantine at this point in unfinished bedroom at other side of house, out of abundance of caution. Pursuing isolation felt very precautionary, as breathing issues only mild. Congestion now only mild.

Day 5 (Sunday, April 5): Chest slightly tighter. Similar feeling to broken ribs. Activity such as climbing stairs or doing 10 push ups difficult to recovery from. Congestion back to moderate.

Day 6 (Monday, April 6): Chest tighter. Worst when waking in the morning. Can go an hour without noticing, but other times it's constant. When irrigating nose, the most productive expulsion of mucus I have ever experienced. High in quantity and viscosity. Despite only mild to moderate congestion (I probably blow my nose 10-15 times/day), the shit that's not draining is incredible. My body is ineffective in discharging mucus (see above: chronic sinusitis), so weighing the lack of congestion versus what's actually being produced. Was unable to fall asleep until around two, though not sure if it was connected to anything.

Day 7 (Tuesday, April 7): More intense chest pain in the morning. Feels like entire rib caged is bruised. Particularly the sternum. Previously used the word 'tightness' to describe sensation, but graduating to 'pain.' Breathing ability is akin to having a cinch around my chest and tightened.

Attempted light yoga prior to bed (my lower back sucks from just sitting in a beanbag chair or lying in bed all day, so I needed the stretching. Plus I'm antsy from this goddamn room while it's 65° outside.) Was able to complete 15 minutes, but it kind of sucked at the end due to chest tightness. Still feel better than when I woke up in the morning. Nose irrigation is again massively productive. Haven't experienced anything like this in my life before. Tiny bit of blood in stool - could be the result of emotional stress, as this has happened before.

Day 8 (Wednesday, April 8): Chest pain slightly less than prior day, closer to return to the sensation of tightness rather than pain. Hoping that I've plateaued/am over the hump and recovering.

Day 9 (Thursday, April 9): Continued improvement, chest tightness continues to alleviate. Nose irrigation results in "normal" production of mucus. Following an incident with the dog that involved him vomiting everywhere, ventured outside late in the evening to walk him two blocks and expunge the rest of the badness from his system. Fine the first half - some tightness in chest upon turning around to walk home. Previously neglected to mention dryness, but could be relevant. Cannot recall when (probably Monday, Day 6), began having very chapped lips. Bottom lip splitting open on Day 8. Also have extremely dry, itchy skin. This despite drinking copious amounts of fluids (≥ 32 oz of water daily, plus 1-2 mugs of tea). Have been taking longer than average hot showers which could contribute to skin dryness, but chapped lips are very out of character, not something I typically contend with in the winter.

Day 10 (Friday, April 10): No noticeable improvement from the prior day, chest tightness not improved. However, because symptoms are largely diminished, any improvements from here on out with likely be marginal. Two hurdles left to clear: 1. no chest tightness when not in motion (feels like I'm closing in on this goal); 2. no chest tightness after activity (absent dramatic improvement, I assume this doesn't come for another week). Had a conversation on the phone for about ten minutes and was out of breath by the end of it.

Day 11 (Saturday, April 11): Will likely be doing only sporadic updates, if any, this point forward. Improvement is marginal everyday, and I assume there'll just be a slight bit greater ease of breathing everyday until I'm good again. Have tickle with my heart (if that sounds ambiguous, exactly, because I can't really describe it).

Saturday, April 18: Went for a jog today. Just two slow, easy miles. Feels like I'm training at an altitude of 10,000 feet. My heart sucks.

Sunday, April 25: Jogging every other day. Got almost four miles. Assuming there's not a second round, I've fully kicked this thing and am just trying to recover back to the physical fitness level I was at a month ago.

*I differentiate b/t chest tightness versus shortness of breath, which I'd characterize as such: Shortness of breath is when you sprint up stairs or try to run a mile fast. There is no restriction to breathing, the lungs are just being forced to work harder to overcome oxygen depletion from exertion (as my limited grasp of physiology understands it). The chest tightness I have is more akin to lightly jogging a mile but the lungs being unable to increase oxygen intake. The nuance may seem peculiar, but it's markedly different. As opposed to forcing the lungs to work harder to perform their necessary function (shortness of breath), it's like there's a governor on them so that they can't perform the function to their maximum efficiency (tightness). Possibly like trying to breath in atmosphere with a low ratio of oxygen (frankly I'm not interested in locking myself in an airtight container and waiting until I deplete enough oxygen to do a compare/contrast).

The first week of sickness I assumed that the primary symptoms (sore throat and congestion) and lack of symptoms typically associated with COVID 19 (dry cough, fever) meant there was basically zero chance I was experiencing the coronavirus, particularly in light of the lack of sleep. I had probably just come down with some cold while my body's defenses were weakened, even though the job often requires greater sleep deprivation and I come out the other end just fine.

The breathing issues have caused me to turn a 180°. While it's entirely possible I've contracted some other lower respiratory infection, at this point I'm just assuming I'm a carrier. We'll see whenever they can get a test to market measuring immunity. I'm thankful my lungs are in decent shape though - otherwise this past week would've suuuucked.

June 16: ten mile run today. Absent sudden stroke, all signs indicate full recovery and lung function at same level as it was three months ago (I hope). I'm signed up to run a marathon in December. It's a good goal.

July 12: 15 mile run. Feel great. However, got the anti-body test last week and it came back negative. Three possibilities: test didn't work (testing accuracy still an issue in the US); have already lost immunity (increasing evidence that this is an issue); or I never had it and am just a big baby.

On Elite College Admissions

The college admissions offices at several elite institutions were rocked, shocked, and supinely mocked this week as the FBI revealed a widespread conspiracy involving over 50 rich parents buying their children's way into college. To which I say: meh.

Obviously this is something that shouldn't happen. It's unfair to the kids that actually earned their way into Georgetown and USC, when the student sitting next to them had someone else take their SAT exam and the rowing coach was bought off to 'recruit' them (just kidding, these kids aren't actually going to class - they'll buy their grades just like they bought their acceptance letters). Then again, life isn't fair.

I'm not saying life shouldn't be fair, it's just that it's not. Donald Trump probably shouldn't have been able to attend an Ivy League university, but a massive donation from Fred Trump coincidentally preceded his son's transfer from Fordham to UPenn. Because that's how the ultra rich have always done it. You buy a building, and secure posterity's ability to also attend such schools.

The big problem is that these people didn't have Fred Trump money, so they couldn't engage in honest graft and had to resort to smaller, under the table bribes. These remain a no-no in today's society - institutions may be bought openly, but it's a scandal if it's done in private. Sorry if I don't see much more than semantics.

You know what's also unfair? That these kids had every opportunity to get into great private schools in the first place. They grew up in homes absent food insecurity, so there was no distraction caused by hunger in elementary school. Their classrooms were well-staffed with excellent teachers and full of students with similarly successful and likely educated parents. They had every opportunity to learn and had access to the resources that would boost their chances of college admittance. And, when they were accepted to college, they could go because their parents had the money to pay the tuition.

There may be a scandal in this story, but the anger is probably misplaced. Everyone hates these parents for doing what a bunch of other people would do if given the chance. They just don't have the chance.

(insert final rant about economic mobility or something because why not)

(follow rant with some weird defense of capitalism, because apparently we don't believe in capitalism in 2019?)

(poorly formed conclusion)

I Feel Bad for Steve King

All he did was get in trouble for the same thing he's been allowed to do for years.

Three Baskets of Voters

Someone said there were two, but really it's three.

1. The Ignorant
Probably the most respectable of the three, honestly. Politics are confusing, puppies on Instagram are more entertaining, and it's all just so frustrating that throwing up your hands turning your attention to ESPN or Buzzfeed is the more satisfying action. Can't say I blame you.

2. The Dumb
Dumb isn't the right word, but it's easy to throw around. Lacking in critical thinking is the apt descriptor. Sheer inability to look at X and understand the correlation with Y. Inability is the crux of it - refusal is linked to #3.

3. The Nihilist.
This is the most tribalisc of the three. The tribe just wants to win. Facts don't matter. Codes of ethics, logic, and reason don't apply. Blinders are donned in the event of malfeasance by members of the tribe, and spotlights shown on the most minor slights of the other tribe. Lies are willfully concocted and accepted, because winning is the thing that matters. Everything else is a double standard waiting to be constructed.

The three may overlap - often they do. But these are the three. Ignorant, dumb, and nihilistic.

When it Comes to Disaster Aid, be a Good Person

As the Houston, Texas area  continues to be inundated with what may surpass 50 inches of rainfall, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people are being forced from their homes with nowhere to turn. The devastation will be tremendous. Hurricane Harvey may be the costliest natural disaster in US history. And in response, if you're a policymaker, you should be a good person.

We're not a bunch of libertarians, there's a role for the government to play in rebuilding, and it should. And although it wasn't budgeted for, there's no reason to hurt someone else in order to provide the relief that people will need.

Would people actually do that? It's hard to believe, and assuredly they're few and far between, but I heard some would be inclined to do so. Obviously such shitty people are lost to the footnotes of history, but at one time they commanded enough power to prevent assistance to other people in need. Like I heard a story about some asshole who held relief funds for Katrina victims hostage because he said that they would become a "catastrophe of debt for our children and grandchildren." One of his solutions was to cut Social Security and Medicare to fund assistance. He was actually willing to accept zero assistance package if it wasn't tied to cuts to Social Security benefits! Now, obviously someone this inane is so obscure I couldn't figure out the bastard's name, but I found a photo:

Or take for example a more recent natural disaster that was a little closer to me in Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The second most devastating hurricane in US history, it caused $71.4 billion in property damage. 50 people died in New York, in addition to the loss of life in other states on the Atlantic seaboard. Over ten percent of the State was without power, and over 100,000 residences were destroyed.

Once again, only a very minute minority of politicians (errr, the majority of Republicans in the House) opposed direct assistance without strings. They did exist, however. Rumor is that a different asshole voted for flood insurance program relief in 2008 when his area of the country was hit, but defended his no vote in 2013 by saying the flood insurance program didn't work (one works for geese, not ganders). Couldn't find this man's name either, but also dug up his photo:

I'd also like to note that not everyone who voted against the Hurricane Sandy was being an asshole. For instance, one man voted against it because he thought 66% of the package was for unrelated spending. It was recently clarified that this was not the case - 2/3 of the spending was not in the form of immediate assistance but rather long-term rebuilding. His office recently clarified that he simply didn't understand how the bill works. See, he's not asshole, he's just a fucking idiot! Once again, wasn't able to find his name:

My point isn't to point out the rank hypocrisy. It's really not. We understand. These men are hypocrites. They're not good people. Need proof? Track the moral courage they've displayed over the last year playing sycophants to their leader. Just be better than them. Help the people of Houston. Don't muddy the aid package. 

Ok, my point is a little bit about pointing out hypocrisy. But see how they're treated now!? Don't be a Mike Pence, nobody wants to be that guy!

How A Small Man Got His Way With Cuba

It was announced this morning that Trump will be revisiting the new approach to Cuba that was rolled out at the end of the Obama administration. While complicated, the new rules governing the relationship between U.S. and Cuba boil down to this: expanded markets and belief in development theory.

At least they did. Everything is about to blow up because a small man named Marco Rubio who needs to placate a constituency stroked the ego of a man who couldn't give two shits about Cuban relations, but the small man said that the man with small hands had hands that weren't so small after all, so everything is ok.

How News Becomes Bad (It's All About Clicks)

A dumb headline was introduced to the internet today, but because it's clickbait, every whore of a media outlet ran it. It involves false accusations, politics, and quotes taken out of context. And surprise, it's about Trump.

The Washington Post headline proclaimed that "Trump says Obama is helping to organize protests against his presidency." So did Fox, CNN, et. al. And of course he did. That's the narrative, so I believe it. Trump whines, lies, blames, and obfuscates - he doesn't fix. Of course he blamed Obama for the protests. 

Except, he didn't. And no one cared to point out that Trump didn't go on tv intending to blame Obama for inciting protests. Even though he didn't.

Trump isn't without blame here, but it was clearly Fox New's fault. Trump went on Fox and Friends this morning (AKA, the network's morning trio of hackery), and one of the hacks (I'm not going to bother learning the guy's name) floated that Obama's organization (and thus, the former President) was behind the large crowds at Congressional town halls. Hack #3 then goes on to talk about how it's not fair because all Presidents agree not to attack their replacements once they leave office.

At this point a reasonable person just shuts down the hack by saying they haven't heard that, but we need to squelch these rumors unless we have evidence; saying things for the sake of blaming our problems on the other side only hurts our democracy. Of course Trump doesn't - he just nods his head and agrees because he's incapable of resisting the power of suggestion. And that's a major failing on his part. But the headline there is "Trump Fails to Correct Accusations that Hacks at Fox Made Against Obama." Problem is, that doesn't have the same ring as "Trump Blames Obama." So rather than point to the source of the initial problem (Fox and Friends), CNN gins up a different but more intriguing problem guaranteed to get more clicks. And that's how the media loses credibility among a disenchanted independent.

I don't blame a guy for trying to make a buck. But that doesn't mean I won't judge him for how that buck is made. 

Edit: also in the news today: mass hysteria because KellyAnne Conway sat on a couch. I'm not even joking. This actually happened. Jon Stewart used to call Fox the fake outrage machine - I think Salon.com is trying to claim that mantle now.

The Lesson of Donald Trump that Art Briles Failed to Heed

Art Briles is a jackass who shouldn't be allowed to coach football again, and any school that hires him should receive the death penalty, or at minimum a loss of scholarships and ban from postseason competition. His transgressions were at best turning a blind eye, and more than likely shielding players from sexual misconduct allegations at Baylor in order to keep them on the field (lawsuits against the school detail instances of victims being told to keep quiet by coaches and possibly being threatened to prevent them from going to the authorities). As such, a scarlet letter should be branded on the members of his coaching staff that were aware/participated in this as well. But the damnedest thing that happened when Briles was released from his position; turned around and filed suit against Baylor.


There's a lot of gumption involved here, and it went even higher. Ken Starr (yes, the same asshole you're thinking of) was Baylor's chancellor and eventually forced to step down due to his complicity. But back to Briles. A Philadelphia law firm hired by the school's Board of Regents concluded that Briles was responsible for creating essentially a black hole of accountability in which "reports of misconduct such as drug use, physical assault, domestic violence, brandishing of guns, indecent exposure and academic fraud disappeared." Delightful. Briles apparently didn't think this was fair, and sued the school for over $1 million because libel because his feelings got a sad.

Funny thing about suing someone for libel, and this is the lesson Trump (may have?) learned about a couple decades ago: your claims become open to investigation and that which you don't want to come out in discovery, comes out. For Trump, he sued an author who claimed Trump wasn't worth much money. Lo and behold, Trump was asked to prove the claim was false, and during discovery it was revealed Trump had grossly inflated his wealth. And this information became public as a matter of court record. (And Trump lost. Because lying.) The lesson: if you're suing someone for contradicting your version of the truth, make sure your version is right. And if your lies will be embarrassing when contradictory evidence comes out, you should probably just stop filing frivolous lawsuits.

Once again, back to Briles. So this fucktard sues Baylor because the school said they couldn't keep a coach that was shielding his rapist players. (And if the media accounts are to be believed, we're talking over 30 rapists in the program, with Briles having personal knowledge of at least one gang rape.) And guess what happens next: the man who sued the school for claiming he shielded rapists has to prove that the school's claim amount to libel, only to have the school provide the evidence that he shielded rapists. Briles dropped his lawsuit today after a small number of text messages and e-mails were released to the public that demonstrated his complicity. Good job: you got what you asked for by having the Regents defend themselves. So once more: if your lies will be embarrassing when contradictory evidence comes out, you should probably just stop filing frivolous lawsuits.

This rambling diatribe is mostly about calling people names to make me feel better about myself, but it also underlines a non-germane point: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. After one of the gang rapes, Briles commented, "those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?" This is the type of victim-blaming comment that fosters a rape culture, and you've fucked up on so many levels:
1. This completely deflects from the problem at hand. We've all put ourselves in dumb situations that, in hindsight, we shouldn't have. Lock your car doors, don't walk down that dark alley, keep your wits about you, etc. This is advice that should be dispensed. It shouldn't be considered a lesson learned. It's not 1900, and you don't get to blame the woman for being raped. You blame the rapist for being a rapist, and then you put him in jail. It really is that black and white.

2. The rape culture you've now fostered. Collegiate football players already have a certain expectation of leniency, begging the question, "how much can I actually get away with?" You protected rapists from being punished. Which sends a signal to those rapists, as well as their teammates, that you will protect rapists in the future. Unfortunately, legal repercussions are required to deter shitty behavior in some people, and you've removed such deterrence. You've now created an environment that allows rape. You may (acknowledge, may) be directly responsible for any future sexual assault that your players perpetrate. 

In sum, I'm glad this additional information just came out, I'm saddened that the news means victims must continue to relive the trauma they incurred, and I consider Briles lucky that there's no father with a shotgun pissed off enough to eliminate the life of someone who has no further value to provide society. That's not something I'm advocating. Just making the observation.

Also, the Board of Regents considered reinstating Briles last summer before the lawsuit. Those on the reinstatement side are also shitty people.

Should Government Pick Winners and Losers?

An interesting contradiction took place yesterday, and the next 4-8 years promises a whole slew more of'em. The specific one here is Trump claiming he's negotiated to keep almost half of the jobs at a Carrier plant which Carrier had previously pledge to move to Mexico, in Indiana. There are a number of reasons to dispute his claims, principally the fact that Indiana put up $7 million to pull this off. That's a state action, not a federal one. (Note that once he officially takes office, the number of governors Trump will be able to force to put up millions of dollars for manufacturers will dwindle from Mike Pence to zero.) But say Trump was actually responsible for negotiating this "deal" - can Republicans of principle defend him?

When I lived in Michigan during the financial crisis, the state was hemorrhaging jobs as the auto industry and everything around it looked like it would crumble. Governor Jennifer Granholm promoted various tax incentives meant to attract businesses to Michigan, and Republicans dismissed the efforts as a shell game (you give tax breaks one place, but tax another. Then in four years you'll repeal those tax breaks and put them somewhere else. Shell game.) The larger point was that the government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. And when Solyndra failed as part of the larger, largely successful Clean-Energy Technology program, conservatives said, "hey - why is the federal government picking winners and losers?" And when the State of New York put up close to a billion dollars to support the building of a solar plant in Buffalo, I said, "hey - should we be spending all this money picking winners and losers?"

The point is, Trump has signaled a willingness to get his hands dirty and pick winners and losers. We can expect a presidency full of similar stunts, claiming to save every manufacturing and coal job in America, regardless of the actual circumstances. And as he claims to pick winners and losers, will Republicans be consistent in pointing out that they don't believe it's the government's place to do so?

That's a rhetorical question.

Could Liberals' Hope in a Trump Presidency Lie With Mitch McConnell?

The Democratic Party anointed a candidate that couldn't beat a clown (apparently). While the Dems lost the White House, they also couldn't convince anyone to vote for a Democratic Senate, and obviously lost the gerrymandered House. That leaves the Presidency and both chambers of Congress in Republican control, and liberals chasing nightmares every time they close their eyes. With a conservative agenda ready to go and at least one Supreme Court seat to be filled in the coming years, could Mitch McConnell give Democrats their best hope of slowing down the upcoming onslaught of Republican policies?

McConnell has been a reclusive man this election, hiding an assumed disdain for Donald Trump in favor of a prototypical candidate. He avoided the cable news circuit and campaigns alike, utilizing his time to privately fundraise for Congressional Republicans. But now that he raised enough money to buy the Senate, he faces a problem: being responsible for governance. While the Senate leader never demonstrated an interest in working to develop smart policy or pass a responsible budget, he succeeded wildly in obstructing President Obama and running against his objectives.

McConnell seemed happy to play the role of obstructionist, and fundraised well doing it. Unfortunately, the goalposts have moved. Trump has demonstrated zero interest in policy development, suggesting he'll sign whatever Congress sends up as long as it can be sold as a big idea. If something goes wrong, or there's something McConnell doesn't want to do (fully repeal Obamacare?), there's only one place America (as well as Trump, assumedly) will point the finger - at Congress. Unless, that is, McConnell can create an alternative place to deposit blame. Whither the obstructionists?

Democrats eliminated many filibuster rules regarding Presidential appointments out of necessity, after Republicans in the Senate minority refused to allow anyone to be confirmed regardless of their merits because partisanship. It'll be hard for McConnell to sell his conference on reinstating that power, but filibusters of legislation will remain. So Senate Republican will to confirm Trump appointees (maybe a couple Republican will demonstrate the courage to oppose those appointees that refuse to uphold the constitution, but we'll see), but Democrats will retain the power to impede controversial legislation. And though the filibuster can technically be eliminated, McConnell would be strategically smart not to infringe on the ability to use it.

Democratic opposition via filibuster is important to both sides. Democrats need small victories and the ability to claim they're fighting the machine. Republicans need an opposition to fundraise against (expect this e-mail in your inbox soon: "We could fix healthcare if only those dastardly Democrats would stop trying to shove their death panels down our throats! Won't you donate $25 today to help America show those liberals we won't stand for their bullying ways?") McConnell has shown himself as a politician first. A smart politician would open the system to Democrats to obstruct a legislative agenda, and give Republicans something to run on in 2018. We'll see if liberals are (un)lucky enough for this to happen.

Alex Gordon's .219 Batting Average Is Zero Cause For Concern

On January 6 of this year, the Royals announced free agent Alex Gordon would remain in Kansas City. Kansas City, a franchise with a grand history of drafting and developing players to be traded for cash every July. Kansas City, the proud owners of a 29-year playoff drought. Yes, Kansas City was resigning a franchise player following a World Series victory. And how has the man repaid the Royals thus far? With a .219 batting average through August 18 and a stint on the DL earlier this year due to a fractured wrist. So KC fans, how's that $72 million, four-year contract looking now? I say it's still worth it.

I watched my first Royals game in about a long time on Monday, and in Gordon's first at-bat he was walked. People who follow the team should know where I'm going here. After first taking a called strike, Gordo sat back and watched three straight balls go by. And when a 90 mph fastball came in, he watched that strike slide by as well. Sitting now at 3-2, Gordon fouls off two more pitches before taking a base on the fourth ball of the battle. An 8-pitch gem of an appearance, and the start to just another day at the office for Alex Gordon.

Gordon had an otherwise decent night with two hits and a run scored, but that second inning battle is what makes him the player the Royals need. While historically low enough to believe he'll bounce back, the .219 batting average is bad. How bad? Gordon hasn't played enough games to qualify for statistical comparison in the MLB, but if he did he would rank second to last in the AL - only Chicago's Todd Frazier is worse and currently sits at #77 among qualified batters with a .210 average. Yet Frazier and Gordon aren't comparable, and it's not even close.

Despite the abysmal batting average, Alex Gordon has an on-base percentage of .321 - a full ten percent greater. He ranks 37th in walks with 38 this season despite missing June. (That's 38 walks in 86 games - a walk in almost 50 percent of games played.)

Walks aren't just important because they get a player on base. Unlike a single, they don't advance a player from third to home. However, they WEAR PITCHERS DOWN. Alcides Escobar can secure the occasional first pitch hit (if you recall, the very first pitch of the 2015 World Series was a fastball over the plate that resulted in an inside-the-park home run). However, in this era of micromanaged pitch counts and overburdened bullpens, an 8-pitch at-bat is one of the best weapons a team can have.

After Gordon hit a double in the sixth inning on the sixth pitch of the at-bat after taking three balls, and Detroit's pitcher was lifted. Daniel Norris had only thrown 88 pitches, and Gordon had seen 16 of them. If you're counting at home, that's 19 percent of the team's time in the box with Norris.

Alex Gordon can snatch the occasional home run, will steal a base or two (six so far this year), and be a smart baseball player. As a four-time gold glove winner and 2014 platinum glove winner (an award whose creation I remain dubious to), his defensive skills are beyond reproach. Yet he can't be valued as just a great defensive player. His lifetime batting average is .265, and as a 32-year-old we know that number isn't going to finish anywhere close to .300 at the end of his career. Yet Gordon is not a replacement level bat. Gordon takes pitchers out of the game because he makes them tired. He doesn't jack home runs regularly, but creates the conditions under which Moustakas and Hosmer can. And that's why he's still worth every penny he's getting paid.



Oh yeah, here's that lead-off, inside-the-park home run that Escobar jacked off Matt Harvey in the World Series when the Royals beat the Mets in five games and were the best team in the world and made everyone happy.




September 9 Update: Out of curiosity I looked up Gordon's stats this afternoon. In the past thirty days he ranks seventh among all qualified outfielders (and first among left fielders) with a .394 on-base percentage. He's also 10th in both batting average (.305) and slugging (.547) among outfielders. Not MVP numbers, but certainly indicative of a player on the right track. Once again, Gordon's BA of .219 as of August 18 was zero cause for concern.

Do Running Quarterbacks Have Greater Value in 4 Point Passing Touchdown Leagues?

About once a week I listen to a fantasy football podcast, and inevitably an observation is made about Mobile Quarterback X being preferred in a league that only allows four points per touchdown pass because some of their touchdowns will come on the ground. This comment always sounded ridiculous to me - why would anyone draft according to this difference in the point system? You shouldn't be drafting one quarterback over another quarterback based on the potential that you could win by two points in a given week - you should draft the quarterback that consistently nets you the most points. And two points here or there in one system that you don't accrue in another shouldn't be enough to change that, right?

My assumption was this was the case, but the truth is a bit murkier. For my analysis, I used the basic scoring system (0.04 points per passing yard, 0.1 points per rushing yard, -2 points per interception)*, and opted not to include any bonuses for certain milestones (e.g., no extra points for exceeding 300 yards passing).

*I had a hard time pulling fumble data and ultimately left it out, but hopefully this shouldn't change things too much.

Here are the season and per game point totals for the top 34 quarterbacks in a 4 point per passing touchdown scoring system:

Quarterback	End of Season Rank - 4 Pt Per Passing TD
	Total Points	Season Rank	PPG	PPG Rank

Cam Newton	397.1	1	24.8	1
Tom Brady	344.1	2	21.5	2
Blake Bortles	324.1	4	20.3	5
Russell Wilson	342.3	3	21.4	3
Carson Palmer	313.2	5	19.6	8
Drew Brees	310.5	6	20.7	4
Philip Rivers	295.5	8	18.5	11
Aaron Rodgers	294.4	10	18.4	13
Kirk Cousins	295.4	9	18.5	12
Eli Manning	284.5	12	17.8	15
Ryan Fitzpatrick	289.2	11	18.1	14
Matthew Stafford	301.2	7	18.8	10
Jameis Winston	276.8	13	17.3	17
Derek Carr	275.3	14	17.2	18
Andy Dalton	260.5	17	20.0	6
Ryan Tannehill	241.9	19	15.1	27
Tyrod Taylor	267.2	16	19.1	9
Matt Ryan	270.2	15	16.9	20
Alex Smith	248.1	18	15.5	26
Jay Cutler	234.5	20	15.6	24
Ben Roethlisberger	212.2	21	17.7	16
Sam Bradford	200.9	24	14.4	29
Teddy Bridgewater	204.4	23	12.8	30
Marcus Mariota	205.9	22	17.2	19
Joe Flacco	163.9	26	16.4	22
Brian Hoyer	170.6	25	15.5	25
Blaine Gabbert	130.8	29	16.4	23
Andrew Luck	140.2	27	20.0	7
Josh McCown	131.7	28	16.5	21
Brock Osweiler	118.8	30	14.8	28
Nick Foles	91.4	34	8.3	34
Peyton Manning	98.1	33	9.8	33
Johnny Manziel	110.2	31	12.2	31
Colin Kaepernick	101.0	32	11.2	32

Here's that same table, with six points per passing touchdown:

Quarterback	End of Season Rank - 6 Pt Per Passing TD
	Total Points	Season Rank	PPG	PPG Rank
Cam Newton	467.1	1	29.2	1
Tom Brady	416.1	2	26.0	2
Blake Bortles	394.1	4	24.6	5
Russell Wilson	410.3	3	25.6	3
Carson Palmer	383.2	5	24.0	6
Drew Brees	374.5	6	25.0	4
Philip Rivers	365.5	7	22.8	9
Aaron Rodgers	358.4	9	22.4	11
Kirk Cousins	353.4	10	22.1	12
Eli Manning	342.5	12	21.4	15
Ryan Fitzpatrick	351.2	11	22.0	13
Matthew Stafford	363.2	8	22.7	10
Jameis Winston	320.8	14	20.0	20
Derek Carr	339.3	13	21.2	16
Andy Dalton	308.5	16	23.7	7
Ryan Tannehill	283.9	19	17.7	27
Tyrod Taylor	307.2	17	21.9	14
Matt Ryan	310.2	15	19.4	21
Alex Smith	298.1	18	18.6	25
Jay Cutler	276.5	20	18.4	26
Ben Roethlisberger	254.2	21	21.2	17
Sam Bradford	238.9	23	17.1	29
Teddy Bridgewater	232.4	24	14.5	30
Marcus Mariota	243.9	22	20.3	18
Joe Flacco	191.9	26	19.2	22
Brian Hoyer	208.6	25	19.0	24
Blaine Gabbert	160.8	28	20.1	19
Andrew Luck	164.2	27	23.5	8
Josh McCown	151.7	29	19.0	23
Brock Osweiler	138.8	30	17.3	28
Nick Foles	109.4	34	9.9	34
Peyton Manning	112.1	33	11.2	33
Johnny Manziel	122.2	31	13.6	31
Colin Kaepernick	115.0	32	12.8	32

If you waded through that for more than 30 seconds, good on you I guess. I can't/hate doing tables in html and simply copy/pasted those into blogspot's unforgiving system (when I was publishing regularly we used Wordpress, which was actually user-friendly on this front). Here's one more table for you, which is the one you want:

Quarterback   Differential  Season Points  PPG   Season Rank   PPG Rank  Cam Newton 70 4.4 0 0 Tom Brady 72 4.5 0 0 Blake Bortles 70 4.4 0 0 Russell Wilson 68 4.3 0 0 Carson Palmer 70 4.4 0 -2 Drew Brees 64 4.3 0 0 Philip Rivers 70 4.4 -1 -2 Aaron Rodgers 64 4.0 -1 -2 Kirk Cousins 58 3.6 1 0 Eli Manning 58 3.6 0 0 Ryan Fitzpatrick 62 3.9 0 -1 Matthew Stafford 62 3.9 1 0 Jameis Winston 44 2.8 1 3 Derek Carr 64 4.0 -1 -2 Andy Dalton 48 3.7 -1 1 Ryan Tannehill 42 2.6 0 0 Tyrod Taylor 40 2.9 1 5 Matt Ryan 40 2.5 0 1 Alex Smith 50 3.1 0 -1 Jay Cutler 42 2.8 0 2 Ben Roethlisberger 42 3.5 0 1 Sam Bradford 38 2.7 -1 0 Teddy Bridgewater 28 1.8 1 0 Marcus Mariota 38 3.2 0 -1 Joe Flacco 28 2.8 0 0 Brian Hoyer 38 3.5 0 -1 Blaine Gabbert 30 3.8 -1 -4 Andrew Luck 24 3.4 0 1 Josh McCown 20 2.5 1 2 Brock Osweiler 20 2.5 0 0 Nick Foles 18 1.6 0 0 Peyton Manning 14 1.4 0 0 Johnny Manziel 12 1.3 0 0 Colin Kaepernick 14 1.6 0 0

The top four QBs last year were ranked the same regardless of the scoring system. This is unsurprising - Newton, Brady, et. al. were putting up such gaudy numbers that a couple points here and there didn't matter. As the seventh best quarterback, Philip Rivers was ranked one position lower over the season, and two positions lower in points per game played, in a four point scoring system. Rivers did not have any rushing touchdowns, so a QB with rushing touchdown potential had a marginally better shot at surpassing him. Kirk Cousins, with his five rushing touchdowns actually finishes a tenth of a point behind Rivers in this system. However, in a six point per touchdown league, Rivers finishes 22 points ahead of Cousins.

Among the largest changes, Matt Ryan is ranked five spots higher in a six point per passing TD league (however, you should still never draft Ryan). Derek Carr and Andy Dalton both drop three spots in this system. This underlines a more important aspect that's never discussed: four point leagues don't simply place a premium on rushing touchdowns, but overall yards also become more important. Both Carr and Dalton had a low passing yards:passing touchdowns ratio compared to other quarterbacks, and their low yardage made them less valuable in four point leagues.

So should the scoring system impact your draft strategy? Possibly, but only on the margins, and not like you may think. It should only used to differentiate similar quarterbacks in the same tier (you can use it as an excuse to give Tyrod Taylor a bump over a Jay Cutler. Not a Drew Brees). And while mobile quarterbacks may be more important, equally if not more so is a quarterback that projects for a lot of yards (possibly QBs on bad teams that won't necessarily get you touchdowns, but will pass a lot trying to overcome deficits, a la Blake Bortles last year).

More important than those points is when you should draft a quarterback at all. QB1s scored 50-70 points more in six point TD leagues over the course of the season. The question isn't whether you should draft Brees or Newton based on the scoring system - it's whether you should draft a QB or snag a running back. Because in a four point per passing touchdown league, that question pushes both players back about two rounds for me.