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.

What I Learned From Junior and Senior

Yesterday was Father's Day, but I decided to take some extra time to write anything about the men who are featured most prominently in my life- my father and my grandfather. Like me, they are named Richard Wilkins, and like me, they grew up in the Easton-Phillipsburg area. Beyond that, we're all kind of different in our own ways. We look similar (whether that's good or bad is on you), maybe sound similar, and have similar backgrounds. Beyond that, we're all rather unique.

My grandfather taught me a lot of things. Loyalty, service, and commitment to his community all were traits of his. His life was in many ways routine by the time I knew him- church on Sundays, Phillipsburg games on Fridays, and even his meals were pretty much routine. He was loyal to those in life, especially me it seemed, and stuck by me through everything. His life of stability is probably something I can never quite match. I'm not sure I can match the service he displayed either, whether it was to the Navy, his community, or his church. I will certainly try though. His sense of loyalty to us all is probably why I still miss him on the regular. It's hard to trust people, but with my grandfather, it was easy.

Then there's my dad. We're similar in a lot of ways, from our musical tastes to our sports teams. The thing that stands out most obvious about him is his ability to have fun. The guy just enjoys life. He's 59 years old, still works, and yet has time for baseball games and his bands. He figures out a way to enjoy things. Now, it's worth noting that he has faced some serious challenges in his adult life, and yet still has found a way to laugh and enjoy things. His fun-loving nature and his ability to solider-on through the challenges stand out to me. I definitely try to emulate them. I don't really succeed as well though.

We all have flaws, and they both have their's. I have mine. I have seen the good traits in them though, and tried to copy them. I think my success is a mixed bag. I just wanted to share a few words on them for you, in light of this past weekend's holiday, and give you an image of the people I come from.

Is Our Time Coming?

Last night was quite a night for Cleveland. The city waited over a half-century, but they got their championship. With that hex gone, the two most recognizable droughts in sports are the Chicago Cubs and the Philadelphia Eagles. In fact though, Philadelphia is now at eight years without any championships, while the Flyers are reaching the four decade mark, the Sixers are at 33 years, the Phillies have two in their 133 year history, and the Eagles last won a title in the Eisenhower administration. In other words, I'm happy for Cleveland, but Philadelphia has had it tough.

It's very tough right now. The only team in the city to reach the playoffs in the past year are the Flyers. The Eagles were 7-9, the Phillies 63-99, and Sixers 10-72. The Phillies are mired in a long run of futility this June, more than erasing a good start. With all the teams so bad, the question is, is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Maybe. And it may be closer than you think. We are probably right in the midst of the most important stretch if we're going to emerge from this funk.

The Eagles:

• The Pro Argument- Carson Wentz. If the Eagles are going to win a Super Bowl in the next decade, he is probably the piece that decides it. No disrespect to Fletcher Cox and the other guys who got extensions this off-season, but you don't win championships in the NFL without either a franchise QB or an air-tight defense. I have hopes for the defense, but you can't project something like Denver's defense of last season. You have to hope that getting rid of the village idiot and replacing him with a new coach and QB will result in a title. We'll see.
• The Con Argument- Well, for one, they last won a championship when my dad was three. That's not good. Carson Wentz, like all top five QB's, has about a 75% chance of not living up to the hype, Doug Pederson wasn't high on many coaching lists, and Chip Kelly utterly destroyed the roster by trading away all the fire power. The receivers and running backs stink, and the defense is unproven. Oh, and we don't have a first round pick next season.

The Flyers:

• The Pro Argument- Ghost, Giroux, Voracek. It's an exciting young core. Some potential goaltenders in the minors. A GM who knows what he's doing, and is transitioning them away from "The Bullies" brand of hockey. A team that surprised us this season by being a playoff team at a very young age may continue to progress. A core of skilled, young defensemen could finally make the Flyers capable of facing down elite competition.
• The Con Argument- They lost in the first round. Their division will be stacked for a while. Giroux and Voracek aren't really stars. No goaltender has emerged yet as "the guy." They lost in the first round. Other young squads will not be getting out of their way anytime soon.

The Phillies:

• The Pro Argument- A series of top ten picks, several major trades for young talent, an immediate future of some high picks, a GM that now uses sabermetrics, and the end of the 2008 team's contracts this off-season. There are some young talents on the MLB team that may blossom. The top three teams in the minor leagues are all really, really good. A huge TV deal, and an owner who wants to spend money to win. A great ballpark and recent success make the city a destination for potential mega-free agents. Success at signing draft picks.
• The Con Argument- Two titles in 133 years. A team that has barely won any games this month. Injuries and poor performances by the starting pitchers. A line-up that can't hit at all. A new GM who has made some questionable promotions and draft picks recently. Poor history in the international market. Concerning performance by some of the young talent on the MLB team.

The Sixers:

• The Pro Argument- Joel Embiid, Dario Saric, and the #1 pick in this draft. Three first-rounders this year, two next. Either you keep Okafor and Noel, or you trade them for premium talent. A front office no longer committed to tanking. Plenty of money for free agency. The Colangelos have relationships with stars through the USA Basketball angle.
• The Con Argument- Who is going to sign with this team. They won ten games last season. They are about to trade a talented front-court player just to do so. Embiid and Saric have never played a game. Two of the picks this year are later in the first round. The Colangelo tandem specializes in creating borderline playoff teams that sit in purgatory.

So, are we close? I feel best about the Phillies and Flyers at the moment, and worst about the Eagles. At some point in the next couple of years, we may finally get to taste success again from some of these young talents excelling. Our collection of high picks might finally make us competitive again. Only time will tell. Congratulations to Cleveland, but it's our turn.

Congratulations Cleveland, Congratulations LeBron

Fitting.

That's the only way I can describe the ending of the NBA Finals. It was fitting. The best player won. The team with the heart to come back from down 3-1 won. The city that had been tortured won.

Cleveland is a great American city. It's history is rich, and filled with stories of hard-working, blue-collar people. Their fans had not seen any championship since 1964, not by the Browns, the Indians, or the Cavaliers. LeBron had once left them, and won two titles while away, and their other teams had tortured them with let-downs in big moments throughout their history. A city that had taken such a hit from the end of the industrial age in our country, people in Cleveland truly knew how to suffer. In fact, I'd venture a guess that most of them thought the Cavs would let them down, somehow, in game seven. I couldn't be happier to see a city that had been tortured so often finally get to call a team of their own CHAMPIONS. Enjoy the parade, Cleveland.

As for LeBron- redemption is a powerful thing. After he bolted Cleveland for Miami, he was one of the great villains in all of sports. I cheered against him, every chance I got (including boo'ing him every time he touched the ball once at a playoff game in Philadelphia). Even when he won titles in Miami, his detractors noted that he was playing with first-ballot Hall-of-Famer Dwyane Wade and regular All-Star Chris Bosh. The only way he could right his legacy was to come back to Cleveland and win a title. In his first year, he played out of his mind good in the Finals, but he lost. When his team fell behind 3-1 in this series, a lot of people began criticizing him for meddling in personnel decisions, coaching decisions, and everything else he could get his hands on, in regards to the Cavaliers. LeBron was facing failure, and he stepped up to the plate and pushed it back. He won the last three games of the finals, seeming to will his team to victory. He won twice in an arena that the Warriors were 39-2 in this season. He won three straight games against a team that went 73-9 this season. He dethroned the reigning champions. He broke a 52 year curse on Cleveland. He did all of this as the young man who grew up in the shadow of the city, with all the expectations in the world. I'm done calling him very good, or even being mad at him for his younger-years' arrogance. LeBron James is an all-time great, an epic athlete that we should all enjoy.

So, people of Cleveland, enjoy. You earned this moment. LeBron, bask in the praise, you earned it. Respect is a hard-earned thing, and the Cavaliers of 2015-2016 should get it, from all of us.

Rest Easy, My Lizzie

Not much is left of 2002 Rich Wilkins. I was a senior in high school when my mother and sister brought home our first puppy, Lizzie, on Good Friday of that year. The number of things that have happened since then are staggering. I graduated from both Easton Area High School and Moravian. I've said goodbye to my grandfather, a couple of great-aunts, a couple of great-uncles, and an uncle. I watched the Phillies win and lose a World Series. I cast my first, second, and third votes for President of the United States. The Iraq War came and went. I've lived in New York, DC, Harrisburg and Iowa (twice). I've been on the payrolls of four U.S. Senators' campaigns. I could keep going at this all day and night if I wanted. The world is a very different place than it was then. I'm a very different person.

I have not had a happy moment since Friday afternoon. That is how sad I am to have put down my first dog. They say if you want a loyal friend, buy a dog, and I can now vouch for that forever. Lizzie had debilitating arthritis in her back legs, and the reality was that her ability to function was going, and yet I still am debating with myself if it was the right move. There's just something very unsettling about watching an animal that trusted you with it's life pass in front of you. It's something that I absolutely had to go with her to, but probably will be very different forever after. I'm definitely struggling right now.

Friends, girls, troubles, and thrills came and went, and yet I had one very, very loyal friend. She was virtually my last link to high school me. We aged together, and even when I was a shitbag of a person, she at least wanted to be around me. Obviously, an 18 year old person will outlive their dog, so this was always part of the deal. I knew that. In a sense, i'm at least proud of myself that I was with her to the bitter end. In another sense, I do wonder what she thought of me at that end. Did I live up to being the person that my dog believed I was? I'd like to know that.

What should you know about my eldest dog? There's lots of funny stories. Here's a few of them:

• There was a huge party at my house during Musikfest of 2002. Her and one of my friends (RIP GR) answered the door with me when the chief of police in Palmer Township knocked on my door. She also drank a spilled beer off the floor during that week long party. At least I knew she had my back. 
• Of my three dogs, she's the only one who ever kind of tried to wonder off. Our neighbor once found her around the corner, sitting on the street corner by herself. She didn't go far, but she definitely liked to explore.
• Much of my family was happy to see me when I came home from Iowa, but no one was happier than Lizzie. She would not leave my side during both my one visit home in 2007, or when I came home in 2008. 
• She used to love morning pancakes, just like her people. Coincidentally, I love pancakes too.
• As a young dog, she loved her "greenies" (a green, chewy toy that she would chew on) and her "sock ball" (literally a tennis ball in a tied off sock). As she aged, she didn't care as much about toys, but did like to run after the younger dogs. Even as she lost her speed, she outsmarted them by cutting off their angles in hallways and out in the yard. She knew every turn better than anyone else she raced after. As she aged, her Christmas present of choice were beds that she could lay down on and stretch out, and sleep. 
• For much of her life, she loved to sleep with me in bed. On her final afternoon, I brought her back up to lay with me on that bed. You can see the smiling picture above. 

I could tell a lot more about her, but I'll save that. I doubt this will be my last post about her, at least this week. I've been a bit quiet the past few days, and that's about where my mood is. I guess i'm just thinking a lot about the past 14 years, and my most loyal supporter over that time. Rest easy, Lizzie, I hope you have a nice spot in heaven where you can run and play.

Thoughts on the Phillies Draft

If there is one difficult draft to grade immediately after, it's baseball's. The Phillies had the number one pick in this year's draft, and ended up picking someone who was almost never #1 on any mock draft boards before the final week, but are getting high grades for their draft. If that makes zero sense to you, it's okay, because you are not alone. This one is a tough one to grade, for me.

First, let's start with every caveat in the books. Cole Hamels, Chase Utley, J.P. Crawford, and many other former greats or current top prospects were not taken #1 in the MLB draft. Moniak certainly possesses many gifts as a baseball player, and a lot of people are excited to have him. He projects out as able to play center for his whole career, and his offense will develop into a more complete game in time. He also seems easily signable, and that will allow the Phillies to spread out a larger signing pool of cash to players they drafted in later rounds. There's some good strategy to it.

Now though, i'm not happy with the pick. Moniak projected out as the fifth best player in this draft on both ESPN and MLB's big boards. When you pick at #1, picking the fifth best talent just isn't good enough. Sure, he's good for your bonus pool of money to sign guys, but that's because he's not as big of a talent. Sure, you can say there wasn't a clear #1 in this draft, but Moniak was a clear #5. Now, it is true that the best player in every draft does not come out of the #1 pick, and Moniak may have turned into the best player in this draft even at #5. If you watch his highlight films, he's certainly got a good ceiling. I just struggle to get excited when his "ceiling" equivalent in the majors (again, according to alleged experts) is Christian Yelich. Yelich is a nice player, but not the kind you dream about at #1. Despite his inconsistencies, I would like to have enough faith that our player development guys could have taken A.J. Puk and his "stuff" and made a #2 starter out of him, at least, or that we could have taken a talent like Groome, Ray, or Lewis and made more of them. With the projections as is, I think the Phillies probably have two to four better centerfield options within the major and minor league systems, and I don't think Moniak has the potential power to move to a corner slot. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I'm not grading out the draft as a failure. Moniak could be our #1 prospect in a year or two. He could be our best player in ten years. The picks we made after him, particularly Kevin Gowdy and Cody Stobbe, are very intriguing players with high upside that we are going to be able to sign because we picked Moniak. They picked a pair of college hitters on the final day who had 33 and 20 homers this season. They picked 17 pitchers. They picked 21 college players, which should move up faster. In fact, you can look at this draft and say they got a nice haul from it. My personal philosophy though is that you pick the highest ceiling. You pick the top player on the board with the top pick. It seems to me that the Phillies over-thought this pick. Hopefully I'm wrong, and ten years from now we're all wearing Moniak jerseys to games. Right now though, i'm starting as a skeptic.

Even 37% is Too Much

Hillary Clinton leads in a Bloomberg Poll 49-37% over Donald Trump. But consider:

Meanwhile, Trump has shown no sign that he plans on moderating his tone or policy proposals now that he will top the Republican ticket. He drew the condemnation of top members of his party over his claims that a federal judge presiding over Trump University lawsuits is biased because the judge is of Mexican descent. More recently, since the mass shooting at an Orlando LGBT night club, Trump has doubled down on his proposal to ban Muslims, while insinuating that President Obama was somehow connected to the attack.

A man who is spewing outright racism is getting 37% of our voters. That's over one out of every three voters you see. How? How can that many people think that this know-nothing racist is capable of being President. This bothers me:

It also said that it was "troubling" for Trump that 63 percent of women polled said they could never vote for him. For decades, female voters have made up a majority of the electorate.

Trump is leading Clinton among white men -- 50 to 33 percent -- according to the poll, but he still has work to do to catch up to the 62 percent of white men who supported Mitt Romney in 2012 exit polls.

A majority of likely voters -- 64 percent -- said they expect that Trump will keep saying things that upset Republicans, while only 30 percent said they believe the presumptive GOP nom would tone it down.

Trump did lead Clinton, 50 percent to 45 percent, when likely voters were asked who would better combat terrorist threats here and abroad.

As a white man, I'm disgusted with those like me. As someone with a brain, i'm disgusted that 50% of the public thinks he could fight terrorism. I'm kind of just disgusted that anyone supports this. This man is a clown, and not a funny one. He's an ignoramus on an unmatched level, and fits the stereotype of that ignorant relative who just spews Rush Limbaugh's one-liners at you during Thanksgiving Dinner.

I really hope Gary Johnson somehow beats this clown.

Terminology Won't Beat ISIS

Hillary Clinton did call it "Radical Islamic Terrorism." President Obama did not. Donald Trump insists failure to call it that should be a disqualifier. To listen to this arguing about a term, you would think the term was actually a substitute for a strategy to handle ISIS. Of course, that's laughable- ISIS won't disband just because the President does or does not call them "radical Islamic terrorists." It doesn't work that way.

To be clear here, Donald Trump would not know the first thing about how to handle ISIS if he were President. He has zero experience in dealing with terrorism, and his talk of being tough with them would simply create more ISIS. Calling them "radical Islamic terrorists" won't do anything either, at least if your goal is to actually defeat them. In fact, it will feed into their narrative- that this is a war between Islam and America.

About the only net effect of the term that I can think of is to divide us here at home. To make non-Muslims view Muslim-Americans as an "other," as someone different, as an enemy within. It will serve Trump's purpose of dividing Americans and bringing the most ignorant ones to his side of the argument. It won't help us defeat ISIS though, no matter how hard he says it. If that worked, we would have been saying "radical Christian terrorists" for a long time in America.

The Democratic Party of Today is a Great Political Party

This primary season, we heard a lot about what is wrong with the Democratic Party. They take donations from the wealthy. They haven't tried to end all war. It took time for many of their leaders to come around on some social issues. Twenty years ago they weren't progressive enough for today's standards. Their primary system is stupid. So on and so on.

I have a very different read on the party. The Affordable Care Act. The first African-American President. Investments in solar and renewable energies. Support for an increased minimum wage. The first female Speaker of the House. Dodd-Frank. The Violence Against Women Act. Marriage Equality. The first female Nominee for President. Protecting a woman's right to choose. The first Latina Justice of the Supreme Court. Climate Pacts around the world, and with the major players like China. Normalized relations with Cuba. An anti-nuclear weapons deal with Iran. The Consumer Protection Bureau created by Dodd-Frank. I could go on and on, and these are just things that have happened in the last decade.

We have a great political party. If your only goal is perfection, and never having to compromise, you should probably stop caring about politics, because you will be a very unhappy person. If your goal is progress, the Democratic Party has lived up to every reasonable standard imaginable.

Orlando

In the early hours of Sunday morning, Omar Mateen opened fire and killed 50 in an LGBT club called "Pulse" in Orlando, and injured another 53. He used an AR-15 and killed people on a whole new level- the worst mass-killing we've seen in this country. It was horrific, and meant to scare people. In that sense, my guess is that it worked.

There's so much to unpack here. This is just the latest act of terror on the LGBTQ community, and happening in a club, during PRIDE month, has added meaning for them. There is his use of a military-style gun, and the controversy over whether or not he should have been able to buy it. There is his self-radicalization, and his pledge of allegiance to ISIS. There is the fact that the FBI was watching him, and he still pulled this off. There is the insane debate over Donald Trump's proposed "Muslim ban." This is not a simple shooting.

For the LGBTQ community, this is simply a reminder that not all hearts and minds have yet been opened to them. There remains bigotry in our world. At a time of year when LGBTQ people are happy and coming together, they are reminded about the dangers of our world. This should make America collectively sad. This was the definition of a "hate crime." This is why we have that legislation.

Should you be able to buy an AR-15? Some people would say yes. Some would say no. For me, it is obvious and clear that some people should not be able to buy a gun like this. If you can't fly on an airplane, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. If you're under FBI surveillance, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Now, to be fair, it is not clear that this would have stopped Omar Mateen. The conversation about gun policy is not limited to any one case and incident though. 90 people are killed in America by guns every day. We'll never get that to zero, every day. I'm not sure we can accept 90 though.

Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS. He did so here in America. This is the new reality of ISIS- you don't have to do much more than say that you are ISIS, and then act on it. Lone wolves, not organized groups of hijackers, are the new reality. That is a terrifying change. It also means that we need leaders who are thinkers, and come up with new ways to fight this group. "Bombing them into the stone age" in Syria won't work. "Fighting them there, so we don't fight them here" won't work. Travel bans and racist policies to target Muslims, won't work. In fact, that kind of rhetoric created ISIS. They feed off of it. Self-radicalization is the new enemy. Inflammatory rhetoric makes it more possible.

The FBI did have their eyes on this man. Should he have been stopped earlier? You might say yes, in hindsight, but what crime had he committed? That is the terrifying problem here- we are a nation of laws, we should not abandon that out of fear. We should have some fear of this though.

Finally, there is the backlash, and people like Donald Trump calling for policies that will further help ISIS recruit. To be clear, a "travel ban" won't stop attacks like this as long as self-radicalized "lone wolves" are a real threat. In fact, his "Muslim ban" will create more of them. Trump is so ignorant to the problem that he faces, and so dead-set on being a "tough guy" with his ignorant rhetoric, that it would create a much worse problem at home for us. We need to work with Muslim-Americans, not demonize them, if we're going to defeat these guys.

All in all, the best way to summarize the Orlando night-club shooting is sadness. It's a sad event. It's an event that shakes one's faith in humanity. How someone can decide that killing 50 people is the right thing for them to do is beyond my comprehension. Unfortunately, the combination of issues above insures this won't be the last of it's kind.

Hillary Folks- Stop Telling Bernie People to "Unite"

Eight years ago this month, Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race for President, conceding the nomination to then-Senator Barack Obama. During that campaign, I had worked for her, and at that time I was very, very disappointed. It took me a little time to accept the result and move on. I did, and I voted for President Obama, and I'm proud that I did. I can't lie and say it was easy though.

Right now, supporters of Bernie Sanders are in a similar situation. Hillary is about to be nominated in July's convention in Philadelphia. Bernie Sanders, after a long and hard fought campaign, is going to come up a little short of victory. His supporters, some of whom have put their heart and soul into the race, are now forced to come to grips with that, and make their decision about how to move forward. It's tough. I wasn't with them during this campaign, but I feel their pain. You don't come around over night, despite pledges to do so every time.

I have complete and total faith in most of the Sanders supporters. Are there some "Bernie or Bust" people who can't be reached? Sure, and I have made my opinions clear about them in the recent past. The overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters are smart and decent people, with whom I share many values- a commitment to combatting climate change, a living wage for an honest day's work, support for public education, a desire to see universal health care, a belief in common-sense gun laws, and many more progressive positions. We may not agree on the details to do it, but we share the goals. I believe that 85-90% of the Sanders supporters are good, decent people who will come to the responsible decision about moving forward in this Presidential race, in part because of our shared values, and in part because of Donald Trump.

The Sanders supporters don't need my advice on what to do, they're adults and can figure out what's right for them. They also don't need me to tell them "it's time to unite." They should work on their time line and come to their own decision. The folks who need my advice are my fellow Clinton supporters. We need to win with some level of decency. Stop telling Sanders people what they need to do right now. It's June. They can think and come to their own conclusions. Do they need to accept the reality of the race at this time? Yes. Do they have to "get on board" with it today? No. Give them time.

I have faith that things will work their ways out. Give them time to do so. For my fellow Clinton supporters, put your energies into positive things, working hard to talk to voters and donate to the campaign. Don't put your energies into badgering Sanders volunteers into supporting us.