Don't Be Mad About Inflated NBA Salaries

I have to admit, seeing a guy averaging less than three points a game get $48 million is annoying. I have to admit that seeing Evan Turner get $75 million is infuriating. I have to admit that seeing Mike Conley become the highest paid player ever is downright funny. The first day of NBA Free Agency was amusing at least. For some, it was infuriating.

Don't be mad at these high salaries, this is how a rational and fair economy works. The salary cap is a result of a collectively bargained contract between the players and teams that insures a percentage of the profits goes to the players, the actual product you pay to watch. It rises because the revenue, created by the on-court product, rises. The salary cap is going up from $70 million to over $90 million ($94 million is my understanding). The increase in salaries is due to a better league. The "salary floor" of 90% of the cap insures that the players receive their chunk of the revenue that they create. Those producing product should get a larger share of what they create. This is true in sports as much as anything else.

Does this seem ridiculous- yes. Is it wrong? No. The NBA's increasing salary structure is a good thing, and represents how a rational, fair economic system works. That this means the Sixers will have to pay out $84.6 million is totally fine by me.

The UnReported Story of Hillary's Strength

Hillary Clinton knows better than anyone else that four months is an eternity in politics. She also probably knows that she's ahead. Polling shows her crushing Donald Trump in Iowa of all places, a state that has never really warmed to her like some others. But that's not all:

According to Ballotpedia's battleground poll, Clinton leads Trump:

• 51% to 37% in Florida
• 45% to 41% in Iowa
• 50% to 33% in Michigan
• 48% to 38% in North Carolina
• 46% to 37% in Ohio
• 49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
• 45% to 38% in Virginia

Her leads held at nearly the same margins when Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson was included in the poll. And Clinton led Trump 48% to 37% when all states were factored together. With Johnson included, Clinton led Trump 44% to 34%, with Johnson at 13%.

Yes, Quinnipiac did show the race closer, but the ABC/Washington Post and the NBC/Wall Street Journal Polls both found her comfortably ahead.

Hillary Clinton's common ground in all the polls is that she leads. She hasn't trailed in a national poll in well past a month now. She doesn't trail in any swing-state polls either. Some show the race closer, some show it further apart, none of them show Trump ahead. Maybe this is about Trump's relative weakness. Maybe it's all about Clinton's campaign. Either way- she's strong right now. The argument that Democrats couldn't nominate her because she'd be sure to lose is basically dead. While she's not a lock to win at this time, FiveThirtyEight sets her odds at 79.2%. What should be more telling is that they are setting current state margins for South Carolina, Mississippi, and Kansas inside of 5% for Trump. That is really not good for him.

Obviously you won't read about how Hillary might win a blowout victory. If it's over now, why would anyone care about future coverage, which hurts the media outlets. They won't spite themselves to report the facts, so you'll just have to wait until November 8th to hear about it.

The Over-Hyped, Faux Story of Pennsylvania's Competitiveness

In 2000, Tom Ridge refused to believe Al Gore had won Pennsylvania. In 2004, George W. Bush ran the same campaign model that won him Ohio and Florida, but John Kerry carried Pennsylvania. In 2008, John McCain tried to resurrect himself as the floor fell in by doing so in Western Pennsylvania. Mitt Romney seemed to have the good sense in 2012 to get the point, but Republicans are saying it again- Donald Trump can win Pennsylvania. They even cite the registration changes above. This will end up like the others.

Pennsylvania is won in Philadelphia's suburbs. Yes, the Western part of the state has trended Republican in recent years, but the population there has dropped. Running a "guns and God" appeal to those voters out there does not win the state for a Republican, in fact it hurts them worse in the Philadelphia region, where people are still moving. While the map above should not make a Democrat feel "good" about things, it's worth noting that most of the registration change is just "Reagan Democrats" actually registering as Republicans, like they vote. It's not new registrants switching. Those people were already in many cases voting Republican. There's no beef in this argument.

In short, Pennsylvania will be competitive, maybe even close, as it always is. One of these days, maybe the Republicans will win it, but if that happens, they probably already won the election. It's worth noting though that elections have actually become more lopsidedly Democratic at the state level. In 2002, Governor Rendell won a large victory. In 2004, Democrats won two out of three state row offices and the Presidential race, only losing for Senate and Attorney General. In 2006, Governor Rendell and Casey won blowouts for Governor and Senator. In 2008, President Obama won a blowout and the Democrats won two out of three row offices. In 2012, President Obama and Senator Casey won fairly comfortable wins, and the Democrats swept the row offices. In 2014, Governor Wolf won easily. In 2015, in a relatively new outcome for off-years, Democrats swept all the state judicial races handily. The only exception in which Republicans did well in Pennsylvania statewides recently was 2010, which was a year they did well everywhere. In other words, the PA GOP hasn't done so well in recent years. Donald Trump is not a particularly strong candidate according to polls, and he doesn't have a really strong campaign. In other words, I don't see him flipping Pennsylvania right now. I don't see why people are giving this story legs.

Check back in November.

And When the Sixers Get Good, Give Sammy His Statue...

Young talent. Top of the board picks. The most cap room in the NBA. A ten win team. That is what Sam Hinkie left the Sixers when he left as general manager in early April. Obviously the first three of those things were all good, and the Sixers are better off for it. To hear it be told, it was the last piece that made change at the top of the basketball operation. We don't believe the company line though.

Sam Hinkie got run out by the NBA, guilty of exposing their terrible collective bargaining agreement for what it is. He understood that from the fifth seed to the worst team in the conference wasn't much different, except that the worst team had a shot of getting a super talent in the draft that would make them good. While the Nets and Pacers of the world try to compete and put a second-tier playoff team on the court, Hinkie understands that his team needs to be absolutely terrible- to insure that top three kind of pick that can change the franchise, and free up the cash to go out and actually sign a star that gives them a chance to compete. Hinkie understands that the step before contending for a championship, or at least being in the second round, is to be really bad. He played that system perfectly. The other GM's and owners hated that. They need interest in their second tier teams to be real. Hinkie exposed to the world that there is no reason to be interested in them.

The league hates Sam Hinkie for doing his job right. They hate him for gaming the system they created. They hate him for understanding basketball better than the "basketball guys" do. You need stars to win, and you only get them through lots of salary cap room to sign them, and from drafting them. No one in the league did a better job at lining up those two things. All he did was put a completely unqualified, incapable of winning team on the court. This infuriated the league. I guess they prefer a mess that stays in purgatory, like the Knicks.

Things are about to change for the Sixers. They have not one, not two, but possibly three Rookie-of-the-Year contenders in 2016-2017. They have a ton of money, and as of today can start spending it on free agents. They have a very real shot of going from ten win this past season to a playoff contender no later than next season. From there, they will only grow. As we all enjoy this product, let's not forget how we got it, even if the league is going to try and credit others.

New Jersey, A Gift From God

A lot of people say a lot of nasty things about New Jersey, and I don't get why. To me, New Jersey is in the discussion for the greatest state in the union. Consider some things:

1. They gave us Bruce Springsteen. That alone should make them great.
2. We're talking about a state that has bridges and tunnels directly into New York City, the capitol of American culture.
3. They gave us Shaq. Yes, he's from Newark.
4. They have bridges into Philadelphia, the city that birthed our nation.
5. Atlantic City is amazing. The boardwalk and casinos are all lit up every night, the beach is clean, and there's no shortage of entertainment. Sure, in town a bit is a little rough, but that's life.
6. They gave us Bon Jovi. Yes, the dude that owns the Philadelphia Soul.
7. The Hamilton-Burr Dual took place in New Jersey.
8. Rutgers, and New Brunswick in general, is a place every 20 something should party once in their lives.
9. You can take trains to New York and Philadelphia from most of the state. Yes, real, live trains.
10. Miss America is here, where it should stay. Who doesn't love Miss America?
11. From Gateway National Park to Cape May, the Jersey Shore is as much a part of Summer's fabric as fireflies and hot dogs.
12. Princeton- go there. What a cool little town.
13. Naughty By Nature. If you actually like hip-hop, you know who they are. Jersey proud.
14. Games and Concerts in the Meadowlands are a good time.
15. I was born in Warren County, so of course I love New Jersey.

Is Global Trade for the 1%, or the Global Poor?

Provocative stuff from Jonathan Chait:

The argument for restricting this trade rests on protecting the interests of the working class in rich countries at the expense of the global poor who are taking their jobs. In an interview last summer, Ezra Klein pushed Sanders into more or less conceding that his trade plans would look out for American workers at the expense of poor workers overseas. “I think what we need to be doing as a global economy is making sure that people in poor countries have decent-paying jobs, have education, have health care, have nutrition for their people,” Sanders replied, when asked how he would balance the two. “That is a moral responsibility, but you don't do that, as some would suggest, by lowering the standard of American workers, which has already gone down very significantly.”

This is the meat of the debate between free-trade Democrats and protectionist ones. On the one side, free traders arguing that trade lifts up the global poor and reduces barriers to exports. On the other, an argument that we need to lift foreign workers up to our standard of living for their labor. It's a rather straight-forward debate.

Chait goes further in though:

Sanders argues that the correct response to the system that is allegedly failing rich and poor countries alike is “real change,” stripped of nativist sentiments: “we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign’s rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump’s message.” But Trump’s message, for all its demagoguery and racism, is at least connected to a factually coherent analysis of how trade works, as Annie Lowrey points out. Trump is arguing that trade deals have helped foreign countries and screwed American workers. He’s straightforward about his intention to screw over foreign countries.

Sanders, on the other hand, wants to pretend that a policy that screws over the global poor can be undertaken not only without overt bigotry, but that it will also benefit the global poor themselves. Between the two, Trump’s case is the more realistic one.

And here in lies the provocative part of this- Trump at least gets global trade, while Bernie and his supporters don't. I don't know that I buy it- a certain amount of rhetorical ignorance has to be allowed to any policy point. With that said, Trump's appeal does get the zero-sum nature of this issue- he casts it as "American workers vs. the global working poor." Sanders is trying to cast this as a "workers of the world vs. the rich" debate. Trump's case is the factually accurate one. It is also the factually dangerous one. It promotes xenophobia, hyper-nationalism, and frankly, racism. Bernie's perhaps does over-simplify who should be aligned with who, but nails the fact that really, no worker should be exploited just because of where they live. I think Chait hits on some important points here. I just also think he's boiling the issue down further than we really should.

This is Not For You...

I've spent the past couple of days in Atlantic City, which has been nice and refreshing. I brought my grandmother here for the Greek Catholic Union's conference, held once every four years. She's a lodge President in Phillipsburg, so she's here to represent them. She's off at the conference most of the day, so I have time to myself while i'm here.

The only thing I did go to at the conference was the liturgy at the beginning, mostly because my grandmother asked me to. I met some nice people from other areas of the country, and it was a good time actually. In the course of it, something hit me:

This is not for you.

Not that this isn't for me in the sense that i'm not for the conference, because I am. This is not for me in the sense that I am witnessing what is a real milestone to my grandmother, now all of 88 years old, and I kind of just came along for the ride. This is something my grandfather deserved to be at, but he left us ten years ago, and so I am reaping the rewards of he and my grandmother's long life. They were good churchgoing people, active members in the GCU, and now at 88 years old, my grandmother was getting the honor of representing the church and lodge that had been at the center of her religious and social life since she was born in 1928. I was just here as a bystander to a milestone in her life.

And that's pretty cool, quite frankly.

Donald Trump Cannot Win the Election, Hillary Can Only Lose It

What one calls arrogance, can simply be stated truth. In American national elections, at this point in our history, the country leans to the left. Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections. They haven't finished below 48% in any of them since 1992. Republicans increasingly rely on an electorate that is male, older, and whiter than the country on the whole, which leaves them with less wiggle room to win. Republicans can win the election, but it is less likely than not. In other words, as of 2016, Presidential elections lean towards the Democrats, in generic terms.

So, let me state my point- Donald Trump cannot "win" the election. I'm not saying he won't be the victor on November 8th, I'm saying he will only be so if Hillary "loses" the election for herself. I completely discount the theory that Trump will pull out such a massive bigot vote as to win, unless you convince me that Hillary wildly underperforms President Obama. Is that possible? Sure is. Probable? Your guess is as good as mine.

A few points here:

1. Hillary hasn't basically been ahead since the end of the primaries. She has certainly been ahead since her blistering speech attacking Trump on foreign policy. The size of her lead varies from a point or two to double-digits. The point is that the most common outcome right now in the polls is she is ahead.
2. There are even more state-level polls than national ones, because there are 50 states. She does not lead every single swing-state poll- but she leads the solid majority of them. Right now, Trump does not hold a consistent lead in a single state that President Obama won. Not one. There is time obviously for that to change, but as is, expect her to win over 300 electoral votes.
3. Donald Trump really should not do any better amongst any non-white group than Mitt Romney did. Not African-Americans, not Hispanics, not Jewish-Americans, not Asian-Americans, not LGBT people. His "Make America Great Again" line has no real appeal to people who have traditionally been marginalized. Given that Trump has gone out of his way to insult Hispanics, Muslims, women, and lots of other groups in this campaign, I don't think he has a way to really improve on Romney's numbers here.
4. The idea that Trump will win because he will turn out droves of non-traditional white voters, or that Democrats are suddenly switching sides to vote for him, is basically all bunk. The white "lazy voter" theory has been run before, and did win- most recently in 2004- but President Obama has shown that strategy to be inadequate in winning a national election. Don't forget, Mitt Romney's margin amongst white voters in 2012 was virtually identical or better to President George H.W. Bush's 1988 margin- which resulted in a blowout win- but Romney lost. It's also worth noting that Romney saw huge white-Democrat crossover in the "Rust Belt" states- but he lost them. 
5. The idea that a catastrophic world event, such as a terrorist attack, could help Trump, doesn't seem to be in the cards. The Orlando shooting seemed to help Clinton, not Trump, in the polls. She consistently wins on national security questions. I think this issue is inverted on what we're used to.

So, with that in mind, Donald Trump cannot win the 2016 election. He may be the victor though. What do I mean? Hillary Clinton can lose the election. How?

1. Hillary can make a mistake. What is that mistake? If I knew, I'd stop her from doing it. She could say something damning though, a gaffe that ends the race. Is it likely? No. Possible? It always is, for any candidate.
2. The Bernie wing of the party could become enraged and not back her. By my math, we're only really talking about two or three million voters who are up for grabs, after accounting for those on board and those who will never be, but that's a point or two in the polls. How the next three weeks heading into Philly go is critical, but they should certainly be seen as working for his support in the lead up to the convention.
3. Turnout, turnout, turnout. A lame Vice-Presidential nominee, too hard of a rush to the center, or an insufficient outreach campaign to the varying groups in the Democratic coalition could end up leading to Hillary underperforming President Obama sufficiently. That could cost her.
4. The economy. I'm less worried about terrorism than a market crash in the closing months of this race. Events like Brexit are beyond an American President's control, and can lead to a global slowdown. Something like this could dampen enthusiasm for the sitting President, and flip even the small sliver of the electorate that is up for grabs.

One other thing you should note- I do believe Republicans will show up for Trump at levels rivaling or even slightly exceeding Mitt Romney. I do believe his hardcore base will vote. I do not believe the "Trump coalition" would be enough to win though, unless Hillary Clinton proves to be considerably weaker than President Obama was. Remember, his cushion was 63 electoral votes, while Romney fell 65 electoral votes short. Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan all going to Trump would not win him the election alone, and he will have to hang onto Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia, all of which aren't easy.

What I am saying is that Hillary Clinton should win the 2016 election and be the 45th President. What I am saying is that her built-in advantages, and Trump's weaknesses as a candidate make that clear. What I am saying is that I don't fear Trump's strengths as a candidate. What I am saying is that her substantial financial advantage is important. Even a three or four point win, which the polls basically suggest she should get to right now, equates to a Democratic win with over 300 electoral votes. Clinton should win a relative electoral landslide, at least under the terms of political landslides in America after the Cold War.

I'm not saying Clinton will absolutely win though. I am afraid of the left eating itself alive in disputes about ideology and purity. I am afraid of complacency amongst an electorate that has been "fat and happy" with our incumbent President. I am worried about external market pressures souring Americans on the Obama era. More so than anything though, i'm nervous about Democrats beating themselves. Donald Trump does not scare me at all. Progressives, liberals, Democrats, or whatever else you want to call us, killing ourselves is what worries me. Our inability to ever be happy with our success and strength is what worries me. To me, this election is an "in-house" fight.

This Ignoramus Might be the Next British Prime Minister, Sooo.....

There is a belief amongst some on the left that there is no way for Donald Trump to be elected President. In truth, under even 2012 turnout (leaving out 2008), there's not. That doesn't mean that Trump can't win though. Just knock down Democratic turnout and if Trump continues to push out Republicans, he may win.

This may seem implausible, and hopefully come October, it will be. Don't discount it though. The man above, Boris Johnson, the outgoing Mayor of London, was not only elected Mayor of London, but is in line to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He wants to stop immigration, disassociate with Europe, and "take back" his country, not unlike Donald Trump. He stood against Prime Minister David Cameron (of the same party), and won the Brexit fight.

Don't sleep on this.

Can the Post-Industrial West Work?

A major political party has nominated a white-nationalist with no experience to be President of the United States. A major western power just voted to leave the European Union over xenophobic fears about immigration. Another major western power might just hand the Presidency of France to an openly nativist candidate.

Something is not right here.

In the post-industrial west, the formerly white working class voters have increasingly gravitated towards answers to their problems that are grounded in identity politics. Immigrants, the poor, general "others" must be the reason the good paying, low skill jobs left, and why we simply can't keep up with our standard of living moving forward. The "solution" to our losses was cheap credit, and now that's not even as plentiful, and clearly the issues we're facing are simply not being addressed by anyone. Not Democrats, not Republicans. Neither ideological pole has a solution to their problems.

In that space of no political solutions, it is easy for an ignoramus like Mr. Trump to rise, blaming all the "others" out there for our problems, or an opportunist like Ted Cruz who simply says anything the government does is bad. Once a Boris Johnson emerges out of the political abyss and has some level of success, like possibly being the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you can't put that back in the bag. It's not as though the Trump voters will think they are wrong, just because they don't win in November. You can't shut down the Tea Party, Rob Ford, UKIP, or anyone else in this vein. Their victories reinforce their message. Their defeats reinforce their message. It is always the fault of the elites.

The scary thing here is that some of this has crept into a left-wing in the western world that increasingly can't sell it's victories, it's agenda, or it's vision for our way of life. Our victories are married to demographic trends, and even when we achieve them, we end up fighting against our left flank to defend whether or not they were "good enough." The left in America and Canada is at least capable of winning a national election. Increasingly in Europe, that is gone. They are no match for the xenophobia and hyper-nationalism that is rising.

In a few decades, all of the industrial era people will be gone, and some of this will hopefully dissipate. In the meanwhile, we're in for some hard times, hard times that might just end up pushing us down the rabbit hole of bad policies and permanent changes. If that happens, all bets are off. Either way, the post-industrial West is not looking good in it's prospects. It's possible that it just won't work.

St. Paul is a City, Not a Speaker of the House

I have to credit Paul Ryan for one thing- compared to his party, he sounds sane. He says we should help the poor. He says we try to come together and solve problems. Paul Ryan really doesn't sound at all like Donald Trump, and he even admits that Trump says racist stuff. Paul seems like a fine fella'.

Not to burst everyone's bubble, but St. Paul is not our Speaker. Paul Ryan has indeed endorsed Donald Trump for President. He did indeed write budgets in the House that scrapped Medicaid and Medicare, privatized other programs, and cut funding for lots of need based programs. Paul won't even allow a vote on gun safety measures as Speaker of the House. While he may be "more" reasonable and sane than his colleagues, Paul Ryan is a Republican, firmly within his party's version of a "mainstream."

The 2012 Republican nominee for Vice-President is vastly overrated as an intellect too.

But Speaker Ryan’s reputation for wonkitude is not deserved. Indeed, his proposals typical follow a familiar pattern — a pattern Ryan repeated on Wednesday with a package of health reforms Jonathan Cohn and Jeffrey Young described as a plan to “replace 20 million people’s health insurance with 37 pages of talking points.” Ryan offers sweeping, ambitious ideas that would radically transform the fundamentals of America’s social contract. Then, when genuine policy wonks point out that Ryan’s numbers don’t add up, or that his ideas would have absurd consequences, Ryan often responds with a new proposal that is just like the first — only vaguer.

If details enable Ryan’s opponents to discredit his ideas, then Ryan defends himself by refusing to offer details. As Tara Culp-Ressler notes, Ryan’s latest set of health care proposals “doesn’t include information about exactly how many people would be covered, exactly how much the proposal would cost, or exactly how much assistance Americans would receive in the form of tax credits to help them buy insurance.”

Paul Ryan’s ambition, in other words, is matched only by his innumeracy. He builds cathedrals to dyscalculia, and fills them with a worshipful press corps. But his is a false faith, resting upon ideas that do not withstand scrutiny.

Let's dispense with the pleasantries- Paul Ryan is a nice guy, but he's not some sort of Republican savior.

More on my Liz

A few days ago, I wrote about the passing of my beloved first dog, Lizzie. At that time, I said that would probably not be my last post, and indeed, it's not. In fact, it's almost impossible to say when "the last" time i'll reminisce on here about her will be, because anyone who spends 14 years with you is going to leave a lot of memories, and a lasting impression.

This is a lot less sad post than the last one was, in no small part because time has passed. At the time of this posting, it will be a week on the dot since she passed, and I've had to function as a person a few times since then. My other two dogs are coping- they still seem confused a little bit about why she's not around, but they are eating and playing and generally going about their routine. Normalcy is settling back in, and at least there are two of them around to keep each other company. Everyone's coping good with the loss of a family member, all things considered.

So, some random things about Lizzie:

• Her favorite holiday was Christmas. She loved wearing her bells and getting presents, which I guess is understandable. When she was younger, her presents would be things like chew toys. As she got older, she got the good stuff- beds, blankets, and other things that made her feel good. She also liked that we'd eat breakfast most years, often salmon, and that she could beg away some food.
• This is not to say that she didn't love Thanksgiving, which was always at my family's. She would spend most of her time under the table begging, and my great-aunt Mary was caught a few years ago giving them sweets and stuff. That was a tough Thanksgiving.
• When Lizzie was a baby, my family had a pool, so I took her in and she loved swimming. We got rid of the pool though, and for many years she really didn't swim much. Last Summer, we took all three of them down to the sandy beach in Lower Mount Bethel Township for a party, and sure enough, even with her old, arthritic legs, she still loved being in the water (though I did hold her up as she swam).
• Liz never had puppies (I thought she should have), but young Nugget sort of became her kid. She would yell at him, get in his face, and yet leave him a little bit of food in her bowl at the end of breakfast, knowing he'd come and eat it. She was quite good to him.
• Sleeping in a bed with Liz was amusing. Though she never reached 25 pounds, she would literally push against you and move you throughout the night so she could have the space she wanted. She eventually wanted a pillow. That was a bit much for a dog.
• Liz got along very well with other dogs, especially as she aged. She was just so chill that they would sniff each other and just hang out then.
• If you wanted to know when dinner was ready, you just listened to the tapping of her feet. As she aged, Liz would literally tap the feet to let the people around know that she wanted some food. We generally obliged.
• She really liked to pose for pictures. She was quite the diva.

As I said, a week ago at this moment, Liz passed on to the next life. Hopefully she's running and playing by the Rainbow Bridge, and someday we'll meet again.

Crazies By Every Political Angle, Will Kill America

Last night, I was out to dinner in New Jersey with a friend of mine. It was a good time, but during it, my phone kept going off. It kept going off with this gentleman from a previous post, who wanted to let me know that my Presidential candidate of choice "will be indicted," and that his candidate is clearly the future of politics (even though he lost, and mostly got white votes, but who cares about details). Why did he do this? I'm not sure, we're not eve Facebook friends, but I guess he wanted to let me know anyway.

He wasn't the only example of that this week, as you can see by the first picture above, a deranged right-wing nut that was mad that I dared say the former Secret Service agent who pedaled this garbage was out for money, and money alone. The second picture is just an insane one that I came across on Facebook, and found very amusing. This is what passes as political rhetoric with the lunatics in both parties in 2016. We actually have a group calling for a "fart in" during the Clinton nomination speech in Philadelphia- basically because they aren't happy that they lost, and want to be disruptors. They absolutely swear their guy could not have lost, it must, must, must have been rigged. Really!

We're seeing the rise of an ignorant class of active voters in this country, people that swear they can absolutely get their way on every issue, and swear that the people involved in politics must be criminal because they can't deliver their stated, insane goals- whether they be giving away free stuff the Congress won't approve, getting rid of immigrants, or isolating us from the world, science, and reason. Our politics are going off the rails because of this ignorance:

Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death. For decades, well-meaning political reformers have attacked intermediaries as corrupt, undemocratic, unnecessary, or (usually) all of the above. Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick. 

We now have people who have no meaningful connection to politics, just anger and emotion, running around and actively taking part in politics. This is not the way we want the system to run, unless we want to fight a permanent battle of identifying and demonizing the enemies, but never solving the problems. Yes, the Tea Party loons on the right are scary because they are willing to shut down the government and destroy their own political party before compromising, but what is really different on the left? At the point that the Affordable Care Act is taking on attacks from a nominally-Democratic Presidential contender because it's imperfect, we have a real problem. We have reached a point where compromising to get most of what you want is unacceptable. We have reached a point where heated rhetoric is the expectation, even the demand. In fact, this might be the only way to win now:

Was the switch to direct public nomination a net benefit or drawback? The answer to that question is subjective. But one effect is not in doubt: Institutionalists have less power than ever before to protect loyalists who play well with other politicians, or who take a tough congressional vote for the team, or who dare to cross single-issue voters and interests; and they have little capacity to fend off insurgents who owe nothing to anybody. Walled safely inside their gerrymandered districts, incumbents are insulated from general-election challenges that might pull them toward the political center, but they are perpetually vulnerable to primary challenges from extremists who pull them toward the fringes. Everyone worries about being the next Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader who, in a shocking upset, lost to an unknown Tea Partier in his 2014 primary. Legislators are scared of voting for anything that might increase the odds of a primary challenge, which is one reason it is so hard to raise the debt limit or pass a budget.

Do the extremes get some things right? Yes. LGBT Marriage was "extreme" in 2004, and in 2016 it's settled law. De-segregation was "extreme" in 1948, and today it is the expectation. The difference in those cases though was that the "extreme" was towards a tangible goal, not the shut down of negotiation, the demand of one's way, or the destruction of the other side's agenda. Right now, we're facing a dangerous group of extremists who believe that everything must go their way, and have an extremely distorted view of politics and governance:

Using polls and focus groups, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that between 25 and 40 percent of Americans (depending on how one measures) have a severely distorted view of how government and politics are supposed to work. I think of these people as “politiphobes,” because they see the contentious give-and-take of politics as unnecessary and distasteful. Specifically, they believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country’s problems are out there for the plucking. The reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt, or self-interested, or addicted to unnecessary partisan feuding. Not surprisingly, politiphobes think the obvious, commonsense solutions are the sorts of solutions that they themselves prefer. But the more important point is that they do not acknowledge that meaningful policy disagreement even exists. From that premise, they conclude that all the arguing and partisanship and horse-trading that go on in American politics are entirely unnecessary. Politicians could easily solve all our problems if they would only set aside their craven personal agendas.

This is dangerous. These people insist that their solution is common-sense, and everyone involved won't do it because they are corrupt. That is horrifyingly wrong. It's how you get to ignorant electorates nominating Donald Trump, or the Brits voting to exit the UK and go isolationist.

The truth is, the extremists are convinced they are right, and they are not afraid to tell you so. Their ignorance is their confidence, the idea that they could simply get their way on everything, if those damned insiders would step aside and let the true believers in. We've seen it on both sides this year. It is ugly. It is not a good thing for the future of our country, or our world.

With Simmons, the Sixers Draft, Comes Hope

There was no drama to the 2016 NBA Draft, particularly at the top. The Sixers were going to pick Ben Simmons, everyone knew it, and they did. In Simmons, the Sixers get the top ceiling in the draft. They get their small forward for the next decade, a player who absolutely can change the franchise's fortunes. Now, it's a waiting game to see how he does, but we know he's our's moving forward.

That was where all the drama started last night, and amazingly, where it ended. In a shocking turn of events, the Sixers only chose at the spots they had- #1, 24, and 26. There was no trade, no roster shake up, nothing for the 10-72 team from this past season. Amazingly, i'm fine with that.

The Sixers picks at #24 and 26 both seem like steals to me. In Timothe Luwawu-Cabbarot, they get an athletic Frenchman who will run the floor with Simmons and create transition points. In Furkan Korkmaz, they get one of the best two or three shooters in the draft, something they desperately need. Korkmaz was an teammate of Dario Saric, who is hopefully coming over as well this season.

The Sixers will add Simmons and 2014 #3 pick Joel Embiid this year, and will hopefully add fellow 2014 lottery pick Dario Saric as well, giving them absurd depth in a front-court that already had 2015 #3 pick Jahlil Okafor and 2013 lottery pick Nerlens Noel. They talent is gushing from the front-court. I'm actually glad they did not trade Okafor for another pick yesterday, as I envision the best front-court in basketball in a couple of years including Simmons, Okafor, and Embiid, with some combination of the other talent coming off of the bench. Things could get exciting really quick for Sixers fans.

The Lesson of David Cameron for American Politicians

United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron risked everything on the BREXIT Referendum. Whether it was the bare-naked politics of appeasing his own right-flank, or an attempt to finally silence them, allowing this vote is now Cameron's legacy. His loss forced him out of office, like it or not.

The impact of Cameron's mistake (calling this referendum), will be felt far and wide. The market will suffer badly. Scotland and Northern Ireland will seek independence, and to join the EU. The EU will probably see other countries try to leave. The next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is likely to be a much further right, anti-immigration MP. This will be painful.

How we interpret Cameron's motivations is key to what lesson we learned. Was he trying to silence the crazy-right by holding the referendum, thinking he could beat them? Or was he appeasing them by giving them a reckless vote in an effort to win a second term as Prime Minister? If you accept the first, the lesson is that you increasingly can't predict that voters will do sane things, and leaders should not assume that the views of the connected and the general public will match up at all. If you believe Cameron is a panderer, well, you are seeing the dangerous consequences of appeasing the loudest and least thoughtful voices in your own coalition.

You can make your own assumptions about Cameron's rationalizations for this- it's clear either way there are lessons to be learned for American political leaders. In an era where voters in both parties simply seem to want change for change's sake, this should be a big caution to all political leaders, regardless of how you view Cameron.

Thanks For Nothing, United Kingdom

As you wake up on this Friday morning to a global market in free fall, and morning news shows talking about economic chaos in general, sip your morning coffee and damn the United Kingdom for the chaos. The UK's voters chose to leave the European Union yesterday, with just over 17 million voters voting to leave, and about 16 million voting to stay.

It is fair to say that the European Union kind of sucks. Germany essentially runs it, economically at this point, and their support for austerity has probably done more to push countries to leave than anything else. I can understand why a half-way intelligent person may think that leaving makes some level of sense. I can't actually argue this is all about bigotry, no matter how much i'd like to.

With that said, a lot of this is about immigration and bigotry. UKIP, the party most identified with this, is purely a hyper-nationalist temper-tantrum against diversity. This push on the British right-wing to leave the EU now threatens global markets with instability, and paves the way for many other nations to leave the Euro. We could be looking at a global recession as a result, and it's at least plausible now that the United Kingdom might just break up with Scotland and others seeking to leave. A new British government, a Euro in crisis, a UK in danger of breaking up, and a potential market crash are just some of the things this vote will give the world.

We wake up this morning in a world where the idea of Boris Johnson as UK Prime Minister and Donald Trump as U.S. President are actually possible outcomes. The United Kingdom's vote could set off a chaotic domino effect. I am not one to defend the European Union, but this is not the outcome that brings global stability. Thanks, voters of the United Kingdom- for nothing.

If I Ran the Sixers....

Finally, the nightmare is coming to an end. That's what the Philadelphia 76ers want us to believe. Finally, with the #1 overall pick, and currently two others, the Sixers will have that big draft that begins to build the next great basketball team in the city. It's finally here.

The Sixers will pick Ben Simmons with the #1 pick in the NBA draft, at least according to every source that knows anything about basketball. He did work out for them today, reports say they told him they will be picking him, and he's #1 on every big board. Seems simple enough, right? It actually is in this case. The easy part for the Sixers is who to pick at #1. Ben Simmons is exactly the right player in this draft for the team picking first. In Simmons, the Sixers get their small-forward of the future, the kind of perimeter athlete who can get to the basket, shoot the ball, and grow into a plus defender. You can see him fitting together with some of the other "assets" the Sixers possess to make the best front court in basketball in a few, short years.

That is where the easy stuff ends. The Sixers possess picks at #24 and #26. If they stay there, it's a crapshoot guess, though one mock draft has them selecting Demetrius Jackson out of Notre Dame and DeAndre Bembry out of St. Joseph's. I doubt that happens. I would bet on one or both of those picks being traded to move up. That though, is also kind of the easy part.

The ultimate question of this draft is how much the Sixers are willing to move and how far they need/want to move up in this draft. My personal opinion is that there is no guard in this draft I would be willing to move Jahlil Okafor for, Kris Dunn included. In other words, I'd have to get a top ten pick, plus in an Okafor trade. Less than that does not work for me. I'd also be very hesitant to move more than the two picks in this year's draft together to move up, unless it was into the top ten, so i'm not dying to trade either of next year's picks. I could be high on moving Nerlens Noel, under the right circumstances, but i'm not dying to give him away. Faced with either trading him plus either Covington or Stauskas for Teague from Atlanta is not ideal to me, but it is preferable to a straight swap of Okafor for #3. I still believe Okafor can be an All-Star power forward for many years to come.

Let the games begin.

On Bernie's Proposed Changes to the Process

It's kind of fascinating what a candidate will fight for at the end of a Presidential campaign. Is it the policy lines in the platform? Process changes? Removal of personalities? The Vice-Presidency or a cabinet post? What ultimately makes them tick, when the top job is off the table?

So Bernie Sanders has reportedly put out a list of things he wants, and they tend to focus on process- complete open primaries, ending the super-delegates, removal of the DNC Chairwoman and several other party leaders, and same-day registration in every state. Open primaries and same-day registration is not a decision of the party, while the super-delegate process and the party leaders are. I only support one of these four proposals, and am open on one. Here's why:

• Same-Day Registration- I support Bernie on this one. There should be same-day registration everywhere. We should make it as easy to vote as possible. Voting is a right. The problem with this, of course, is that state legislators need to approve this. They won't all be very excited to do this.
• Super-Delegates- I am certainly open to changing this system, but elimination would actually have negative consequences. If we eliminated super-delegates for 2020, members of Congress and Governors would be running for delegate slots against every day people who run. We would have a convention that would end up full of elites, and no one else. Now, I agree that super-delegates should not be allowed to over-rule the pledged delegate count, but 1.) they never have, and 2.) that's the only reason Bernie is still in the race. I don't think the super-delegates are a big problem, but i'm not totally opposed to making them pledged based on the results either. I don't see it as a priority though.
• Open Primaries and Caucuses- No. Absolutely not. I'm with the Congressional Black Caucus here, I want Democrats picking the Democratic nominee. If you can't join the party, why should you pick it's nominee? If you want to make registration easier, i'm fine with that. You still should join the party, if you want to make decisions regarding it.
• DNC Leadership- No. Absolutely not. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has her flaws, but she's done a good job. You do not reward people who are ignorantly claiming that she rigged the system. She did not. You don't reward sour grapes and misinformed statements.

Those are my thoughts right now. There's some things to work with, and some things to dismiss out of hand.

Donald's Implosion, Why He's Still Dangerous, and Why He's Still Here

Donald Trump is not doing very well right now. He's losing by double-digits in some national polls, but losing outside of the margin of error in just about all of them. To be clear, that is odd in recent political memory. At this point in 2008, for instance, John McCain was still very much alive, and even leading in the polls some times- and he lost by a lot.

That he's losing isn't the end of the world though. Donald Trump may be behind by an alarming amount in the polls, but it is June, and he has months to move the public. The problem he has is that he's stone-cold broke. He doesn't have the money to advertise and change minds. He doesn't have a ground game out there in the battleground states either. Top all of that off with the fact that he just canned his manager, and you see why Trump's White House hopes are dimming.

Let me touch on something being missed though, particularly about his manager- that may be the most dangerous piece to him of all. Corey Lewandowski was not "qualified" to run this race. That's precisely why Trump succeeded in the primaries. A more established manager would never have allowed Trump to go out and gin up white supremacists, the angry, and hillbillies. Lewandowski did. This is why Trump won. Let's be clear, no policy won him this race on it's own, the general idea that Trump stood with those people brought them out. The idea that he would say exactly what those folks felt was what made him attractive. Lewandowski was the perfect manager for Donald Trump, the manager who allowed him to function at "peak Trump."

So, in the midst of all of this talk about Trump's current implosion, it's important to not get caught up in it. The same people that nominated Trump, and many more like them, still exist. Donald Trump will probably continue to try and reach them. As long as those two things are true, Donald Trump remains dangerous. Should he be able to win with the message he has? Of course not. MOST of these people voted for past Republican nominees, and obviously they've won the popular vote one out of the last six times. Even so, the fact that Donald Trump understood what the Republican electorate really wanted to hear (note here: it's not "limited government"), shows just how dangerous he can be. The man is actually not a great businessman (he bankrupted many companies), he's a great marketer. He showed us his marketing prowess in the primaries. He still has that in him. Sure, every metric shows him to be in big danger, and he is, but I wouldn't get over confident yet.

The only question that I can still not answer about Donald though is his motivation. Why is he doing this? I suspect that a few years from now, we'll find out that he felt slighted by another candidate (probably Jeb), or the party didn't treat him with respect when seeking his donation, or some other personal motivation drug him into this, which is also why he doesn't seem to have the same fire right now, when he's the presumptive nominee, like he did during the primaries. He certainly didn't plan this out like a campaign, and he clearly didn't take the advice of major political consultants. Getting into his head on all of this would be fascinating.

Regardless, Donald Trump has some major issues right now, but he's not "dead" politically. People would be foolish to read too deep into his issues in June, and assume that we will defeat him easily.

To the GOP, The Gun Manufacturers Matter More Than 49 Lives

It isn't the slightest bit shocking to me, but it's just as repulsive as ever to know that the U.S. Senate doesn't give a damn about it's citizenry. When a madman mowed down a bunch of little children at Sandy Hook, we couldn't get them to vote to vote on universal background checks. I'm hardly shocked that another madman shooting up a night club didn't move them now.

Even so, 53 Senators voted last night against such things as preventing suspected terrorists from buying guns. They voted against preventing people who aren't allowed on an airplane, because they're a terrorist, from buying a gun. They would rather allow Omar Mateen to be able to buy a gun, or the next version of him, than protect the public. Let's be clear, this man was a known potential problem, but there was no legal way to stop him yet. Those 53 Senators voted against things like alerting the FBI that people like him bought guns. That's where we're at.

I'm sure that many of you who are repulsed will end up in an argument with a good ole' fashioned "gun nut" over whether or not these bills should have passed, and you'll probably tell yourself it's amazing that these people get their way. We're talking about people who think arming everyone will keep us safer, or that we can't have licensing and registry of guns because the "guvmint'" might come take them. Let me be clear though- the lunatic that argues with you that he needs an AK-47 in case he has to fight the government is not the kind of person that convinced those 53 Senators. Oh sure, those Senators will accept their support and take their credit, but they did not vote against gun safety measures because of your local "gun nut."

What happened on the Senate floor yesterday was clearly the work of the gun manufacturers' lobby, which is basically now the NRA. While the NRA pretends to represent their members, it's worth noting that most of their members support universal background checks and preventing terrorists and criminals from buying guns. The NRA does not really represent their membership though. They represent big companies that produce guns, and fund the NRA. They are nothing more than a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers, as are the other groups like them. In this case, money talks.

And so it goes again- 49 dead humans are no match for the cold, hard cash of a gun manufacturer. Human life, the anguish of the families, and the sadness of a nation are all no match for those who fund the "Big Gun" machine in Washington. Take note America, one party voted at the behest of the NRA. The other one didn't. Recognize who runs one, but not the other. As long as the Republican Party runs the Senate, expect more of this. Expect the same in the House. When you say "they are all the same," this is just the latest example of why you are wrong.

Aging

It was just a Sunday or two ago, there I was- walking into a bar in Allentown to meet up with three wonderful young women. Now, before you think I have some kind of "game" to kick, I wasn't there for that. I was there to give advice to younger organizers who were hitting the ground to work their heart's out for Pennsylvania Democrats. I actually made it long enough doing this stuff that I'm the "elder statesman" figure to be called. I actually, surprisingly like that too. At least, I like it in theory. I know it has meaning though.

I've hit a number of milestones over the past month or two. I was elected to my alma mater, Moravian College's alumni board. I was elected President of the Lehigh Valley Young Democrats, which I guess reflects that i'm the "elder statesmen." For the first time since October of 2002, I weigh under 200 pounds. I even reached 33 years old, which is funny, because I used to joke I'd never last as long as Jesus did on this Earth. All of this is great, but it has meaning.

As previously noted, I lost my dog on Friday. That would be the dog who was with me since I was in high school, or my entire adult life. Two months ago, I lost an uncle. People and pets that were important in my life are starting to pass on. When those who were a part of your life start to pass on, that has meaning.

The athletes who were coming of age as I was coming of age are starting to fade out. The 2008 Phillies will all be gone after this season, and the great Eagles and Sixers teams of my high school and college years are just about gone. There's a little bit of carry-over in hockey, but the Flyers of today have nothing in common with 2004. When the stars like Jimmy Rollins and Ryan Howard are starting to fade out of baseball, and they've been in it your entire adult life, it has meaning.

What it means is that my youth is over. I'm not "old" yet, out of respect for people who actually are, but i'm no longer young. I'm starting to be "accomplished," which is more a product of age than greatness, achieving things I used to want to achieve. I'm no longer young.

And in the great words of New Jersey's finest, Bruce Springsteen, "so you're scared and you're thinking that maybe we ain't that young anymore." Scared's not the right word in my case, that would require me caring a little bit more, but perhaps i'm just starting to notice. I'm noticing that I haven't settled into a family life, I haven't settled into financial stability, I haven't settled onto a path towards one specific thing. In short, I'm not "adulting," and haven't decided if the wife, kids, and house thing is for me yet, so "adulting" isn't going to start tomorrow.

I'm not necessarily scared or worried about where i'm at in life. I've lived exactly how I wanted to through my younger years. I guess i'm just recognizing reality a little bit. I'm honored at the recent milestones in life, I really am, but I also am totally mindful of what they mean for me.