Toeing the Christian Line

 Luke 7: 44

"Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, 'Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.'"

I was clipping my toenails and pondering what it means to be an American.

I'm 64 years old, but my feet, if I say so myself, look decades younger. One toenail, however, gives away both my age and the abuse that my feet have endured. I'm an old distance runner, and most of my workouts over the many decades have involved purposefully wearing shoes a bit too small. Since my left foot, my power foot for both running and basketball, is bigger than my right, that means my left foot has the honor of being half a size too large for my workout shoes. 

The consequence is that the toenail on my small left toe is routinely crushed and broken during workouts. My left small toenail has thickened, blackened, and is a real pain to trim. It ruins the look of my nine other youthful white-as-the-driven-snow toes. 

If you've figured out by now that this is all a brutal, sarcastic, but completely truthful analogy, no kudos for you. It was too obvious. I give you a comment from Laura Hogue, defense attorney for Gregory McMichael in the trial for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery:

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made does not reflect the reality of what brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails."

The three assailants were all found guilty. I find no solace in that, as they were quite obviously guilty, and anything except guilty verdicts would have been nonsensical and accompanied by an astronomical property damage price tag. What I found most striking was that a defense attorney thought the lines she used to be both an appropriate and potentially effective lexicon. Talking heads took her to task for uttering these lines, but didn't question their possible utility.

So my question, dear reader, is what kind of a country allows such things to be said in its legal system, and what kind of populace comprises juries that might be swayed by "long, dirty toenails?"

I can only hope that if I'm shot dead one day that the prosecution is allowed to pull up a pic of my nine lovely pinkish toenails each time the defense attorney mentions my blackish misshapen small toenail, crushed and mangled by miles and general neglect.

John 13:14

"If I then, the Lord and Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet."

Bob Dietz

December 31, 2021

Game Day Coaching Messes: October 23 Edition

If Stepford had a football coach, his name would be Nick Saban. Someone who not only recruits, but judges talent pristinely, as recently pointed out by Mike Leach. Someone who interacts comfortably and humbly with wealthy alumni. Someone who looks ridiculously good from all angles and at all ages on national television. Someone whose face will someday be in Merriam-Webster next to the word "coach." Someone who, on game days, ummmmm. Well, truth be told, even Nick Saban isn't robotically perfect every game day. 

Ah, the game days. Today's rant is in response to last weekend's various inexplicable coaching decisions made in the heat of game day battles. All of the recruiting, superb training regimens, and intricately designed offenses and defenses can't save football teams when coaches go into brain freeze at the most inopportune times. Here for your perusal are game day decisions too unfathomable to have been made by human football coaches with IQs above 60. Yet somehow, they happened.

Steve Addazio -- Colorado State at Utah State

I don't have words for what transpired to end the Colorado State/Utah State game, but I will try. On a night when CSU played badly with half a dozen crucial offsides penalties and multiple strategical screw-ups (like failing to recover a gimmick Utah State kickoff at the end of the first half), the Rams, a team not designed for comebacks, came back.

They cut a nine-point deficit with five minutes left to two, then had a first down at the Utah State 20 with no timeouts and 11 seconds left. All they had to do was spike the ball. It was too much for Addazio, who somehow sent the field goal unit onto the field without first spiking the ball to stop the clock. A clusterfuck fire drill ensued with players running back and forth on and off the sideline, and the kicker rushing his set-up and steps in a mad dash to get the kick away. The kick sailed left as time expired. 

Afterward, Addazio explained that nobody had sent the FG team onto the field. They just went, he said, on their own. Holy hell, man, how disorganized can you be? Then Addazio tried to impose his view of reality on everyone else. The kick missed, he said, so it didn't matter that his team was playing musical chairs for 11 seconds. We are to presume, according to Addazio, that with a normal routine, the kicker would have missed anyway.

And oh yes, the game was for first place in the Mountain West.

Addazio gets the "Idiot of the Week" both for his end game management and his presser. Considering how hard his team fought, his inability to manage his team in crunch time is the most egregious coaching error I have seen in 40 years. It has been my experience that when teams play their brains out, as CSU did, and the coaching staff blows the game, the teams do not recover for a long while, if at all. Penn State took a month to right themselves after last season's Indiana loss.

Evidently, I wasn't the only Ram viewer to note the Addazio mess. Footballscoop.com took note. Liz Roscher for Yahoo Sports did a fine summary with her, "Baffling, chaotic last-second blunder costs Colorado State win over Utah State." She was as critical as me, if somewhat less apoplectic.

I also noticed a rush on twitter to procure variations of www.FireSteveAddazio.com. Already some twitter handles state the same. Good to know it wasn't just me.

Western Kentucky at Florida International

With six minutes left in the game, WKU led FIU 31-12 and had a first down at the FIU one-and-a-half. I suppose the WKU offensive coordinator wanted to pad his personal "I coach this offense" stats. Or he wanted to pad his quarterback's personal resume with another TD. So WKU elected to pass on first down. Just one issue. With six minutes left, FIU was going to almost certainly balls-out blitz, which they did, planting the QB back at the 10. Western Kentucky winds up throwing an incomplete pass, kicking a field goal with four minutes left, and then had to defend for the final four minutes. FIU runs a bunch of plays and goes the length of the field to score. 

The WKU head coach and offensive coordinator get an "Imbecile of the Week" rating for this. They use no clock with a first and goal inside the two, and they force their defense to play a lengthy possession. Not only are their defenders at risk for injury, but they are also at risk for a bevy of meaningless plays, each of which carries the potential for a targeting call, which could bench any defender the following game.

Meanwhile, I'm sure the defensive coordinator appreciated his own OC not eating any clock at all. The OC tried to pad his own resume while degrading the DC's resume. It's as I always say. In college football, offensive coordinators are the root of all evil.

Tennessee at Alabama

And finally, the Tennessee Vols. I just want to point out one strange moment in a strange game. The Volunteers are down 21 on the road at Alabama with seven minutes left. They face fourth-and-five from their own 30. They elect to go for it. Why they do this, I cannot tell you. They are not playing Akron at home. They are playing Alabama on the road. Facing fourth-and-five on their own 30 with seven minutes left, they have less than a 1 in 10,000 chance to win the game. So why do it?

People have volunteered (ahem) various explanations. They boil down to "winners never quit and quitters never win" melded to the Jim Carrey line from Dumb and Dumber, "So you're telling me there's a chance!?!"

I respond to the folks making these arguments with a simple rhetorical question. What do you think is more likely? (A) Tennessee converts fourth-and-five from their 30 with seven minutes left and goes on to win the game or (B) the Vols' starting QB gets hurt in the next seven minutes?

The "winners never quit" crowd tends to shut up.

What earned the Tennessee coaching staff my "Morons of the Week" award is that after Alabama had stopped them on fourth-and-five (of course) and scored three minutes later, the Vols got the ball back and were immediately faced with the identical down and distance from the same yard line. And they punted.

I thought winners never quit?

Conclusion

If coaches don't have a clock management specialist on staff, they risk looking like Steve Addazio, blowing first place because they choked as a head coach.

If athletic directors allow coaches to hire offensive coordinators based on yards and points instead of wins, you get the irrational, team-sabotaging decisions displayed by Western Kentucky and Tennessee.

Bob Dietz

October 28, 2021

Orange is the New Black

"Bad Vols, Bad Vols. Whatcha gonna do when they throw at you?"

The year was 1971. 

Harry sat there, slowly filling an empty dish detergent bottle with pebbles, one small rock at a time. We were at the edge of town, on a chunk of land overlooking a state road cutting through a piece of the mountain. As members of a small town juvenile gang, our little group of 14-year-olds was expert at creating an armamentarium to drop on cars traversing the road below. I didn't have a very good arm, so I stuck to basics -- tomatoes stolen from gardens, Tiny Tarts candies, and eggs. Others of our group used more exotics, like Sugar Babies, apples, or the occasional expired quart of milk. 

Harry, however, had his strange hobby. He collected his household's empty dish detergent bottles and filled them with pebbles. He was very precise and workmanlike about it. He wanted those bottles weighted just right for throwing purposes. Today, we'd call his hobby "psychotic" and possibly "obsessive compulsive." Back then, I thought it was a little bit disturbing. But I would never have said that to Harry.

We were idiots, of course. Our little "bombing cars" hobby could have killed someone. Fourteen-year-old males, however, are generally not noted for their judgement and concern for others.

I was reminded of Harry's rock-in-bottle hobby as I watched the conclusion of the Ole Miss/Tennessee football game Saturday. As Vols fans pelted the field from vantage points, raining down bottles of water, soda, and the occasional mustard, both sidelines were forced to retreat to the middle of the field or to the locker rooms. Cheerleaders, band members, and dance teams ran for cover, holding cheer placards over their heads as shields as if laying siege to a castle. Rebel coach Lane Kiffin showed the officials a golf ball that had been aimed in his direction.

The folks who brought their own mustard bottles disturbed me in the same fashion that Harry's pebble-by-pebble hobby had disturbed me. Who plans for concession stands to run out of mustard? Or were they really planning to pitch mustard at people all along?

The game was delayed more than 20 minutes by fans, which I do not believe I have ever seen before, and I am 64 years old and have watched a helluva lot of football games. The precipitating event was a questionable ball spot on a fourth-and-25 that gained 24. Earlier in the game, a very questionable forward progress call had cost the Vols a touchdown. Nothing like SEC officials to light some emotions afire early, then throw gas on those same emotions at the end. 

Golf balls, water bottles, and the occasional condiment all pelting down on friend and foe alike. The Vol faithful would have been very much at home with our youthful tossing of tomatoes and eggs. Like us, of course, the Vol fans were idiots, as they could have seriously injured someone. Bottles of water are heavy. Golf balls can be wicked.

Vol Nation

There's nothing like 100,000 mask-less Volunteer fans throwing bottles and golf balls to frame the Knoxville faithful as orange-clad maroons (an old Bugs Bunny term). I'm not going to get into the university and SEC response questions. Pete Thamel did a great job asking the proper questions for Yahoo Sports in "Takeaway: What should Tennessee's punishment be for ugly scene in Knoxville?" Instead, I'll ask whatever happened to actual game rules that make it the home team's responsibility for ensuring a game can be safely played? 

Why not penalize the home team for the delay? If the home team can't provide a safe hosting environment for a play, shouldn't the home team get flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct? Just flag the team repeatedly until fans either comply or the game is called. Not a neat, clean response, but it is proper and appropriate. If fans can't provide a safe venue for a play, penalize them. Thirty seconds later, if they still cannot provide a safe venue, penalize them again. 

Yesterday reminded me of what an irresponsible jerk I sometimes was as a kid. It also reminded me that while idiocy and adolescence may go hand in hand, adulthood isn't necessarily a cure for stupid. 

Especially in Knoxville.

Bob Dietz

October 18, 2021

Loose Lips Sink Pirate Ships

Being a free speech advocate, my first instinct has been to defend Jon Gruden. But I have managed thus far to exercise a rare display of discipline and not do that. Gruden did, after all, say some nasty stuff, albeit in what he thought were private email exchanges. 

Instead of defending Gruden, or conversely, piling on with some faux outrage against someone less righteous than me (the new American hobby), I'll talk about the over the top responses to the whirling teacup absurdity of the last few days.

There's actually a bunch of different angles to take and things to consider, so let's start the discussion with the underpublicized obvious, as usual. 

1) The NFL claims it didn't leak the emails. The NFL sat on the Gruden emails for months.

Well, I do buy this. The NFL as an institution sitting on the Gruden emails is zero surprise. I mean, c'mon, be serious. The NFL, as an entity, exposing itself by volunteering emails to the NFLPA or the public? Among the 650,000 non-Gruden emails, there's undoubtedly some worse exchanges than anything we've thus far seen. Why would the NFL leak the Gruden emails? They got religion? They got woke? As they say on ESPN, "C'mon, man!"

2) Somebody hates Gruden and leaked them specifically to torpedo him.

Well, duh. As the Punisher says, "It's not vengeance; it's punishment." Yeah, the Game of NFL Clue suspect leaker list includes some obvious names, such as Goodell himself (never call your boss a pussy in public), DeMaurice Smith (who was up for re-election), and the president of Goodyear (never promote French tires at the expense of American).

3) The NFL will not be releasing more emails.

LOL. No kidding, Sherlock.

Headline Comedy

I have seen some of the most adolescent, ridiculous, fantasyland headlines the last few days. I'll mention just a few.

William Brangham of PBS and William Roden (TheUndefeated.com) want to snuff out "Grudenism" by learning the names of Gruden's "enablers." Mr. Brangham and Mr. Roden, you both need to not just wake up and smell the coffee. You need to douse yourselves with a full pot of scalding joe. A list of "enablers of Grudenism?" Pretty hilarious. You'd wind up canceling half the NFL owners, half the execs, and pretty much hand the NFL over to the players' union, not that there's anything Seinfeldian wrong with that. Yeah, that'll happen.

Next up, and I hesitate because I'm a big fan of USA Today's Nancy Armour, "Opinion:  John Gruden's vile emails will taint NFL until it comes clean about Washington investigation."

Ms. Armour, I'll break this to you gently. The NFL is pretty vile. Vile is as vile does. If Gruden's emails tainted the NFL, the whole batch of emails would smell like an 18-wheeler that just plowed through a surfeit of skunks. As to the NFL ever "coming clean?" I once knew a small town bookmaker who lived a couple of blocks from our house. He was in the shower when the police busted down his front door. He descended the stairs wrapped in a towel and announced, "Hey fellas, I'm clean!" My point is, unless there are warrants, nobody is coming clean.

Carron Phillips from Deadspin's headline, "Jon Gruden is the perfect example of how mediocre white men get to thrive in the workplace."

Yowza. Let me process that for a moment. So, first of all, we are to accept that coaching NFL teams is concomitant with your usual workplaces. Okay, if you say so. The idea is that Gruden has rotated in and out of the 32 highest paying and most expert jobs in football, and was hired for the highest profile football broadcasting job, despite his being "mediocre?" Really? And undoubtedly it was the old white boys' club that was primarily responsible for this as opposed to Jon Gruden's skills or attributes? That's a lot of stretching, a la Reed Richards, one might say. 

Saying somebody is "mediocre" because they were "only barely above .500" coaching in the NFL is like saying that somebody is "mediocre" because they only finished eighth in the Olympic mile with a 4:01. One would hope Phillips read Gruden's biography before proclaiming Gruden's "mediocrity." I have a copy here if he wants to borrow it.

Mr. Phillips, not all events you witness in life teach meta-lessons. I think you've been watching too many of those meta-lesson Disney flicks. My suggestion -- lay off the Disney. And lay off proclaiming unmerited speculative conclusions without real data, and then using them as headlines because you'll garner applause.

Moving on from Mr. Phillips, I saw "racist" used as an adjective before Gruden's name in several articles. Because Gruden referred to a black man's lips as resembling Michelin tires. And that was it. Understand, there were a boatload of Gruden emails, and that was the most racist thing they found. So now "racist" precedes Gruden's name as an adjective.

Gruden is being labeled racist because referring to the size of a black person's lips is considered a trope. I looked up the word "trope," and the definition is "a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression." I don't think Gruden was being figurative or metaphorical. I think he was being nasty. That doesn't necessarily make him racist in the common parlance. I say that because "being a racist" seems to be one of those things, like pornography, that no one can define but that everyone claims they know when they see it. I have issues with this flowing, subjective definition, but we'll tackle that another day.

The Righteous in Judgement

The Righteous judge the Less-than-Righteous. I'm not sure what that accomplishes except to garner standing ovations and maybe sell Righteousness uniforms on the side that one can wear in public.

There's much more to cover regarding all of this, including Adam Schefter being criticized for his handing his drafts to sources for editing. I'll have a bit to say about that. And I wanted to mention that I'll be doing a piece about Lamar Jackson, who played an absolutely brilliant game Monday night. This is two years in a row where Jackson saved me in Last Man Standing contests by engineering fantastic comebacks with no margin for error. What does that have to do with Gruden? Well, Lamar Jackson has a nose like...you'll have to read that entry to see.

Conclusion

Colin Kaepernick was, of course, correct. The NFL is a white man's monopoly, like a Who's Who of modern slave owners. And that's why the NFL settled with Kaepernick rather than allow its executive emails to see the light of day.

But who didn't know this already? And who could possibly be shocked, shocked I tell you, by the Gruden emails? 

Good luck with the NFLPA getting access to those 650,000 non-Gruden emails. I wonder if any of the offshores have a line on that.

Bob Dietz

October 13, 2021

Urban Reviewal

I'm no great fan of Urban Meyer. The bottom line, however, is that the public reaction to his "partying in Ohio" videos has been histrionic and largely ridiculous.

So I'll spend the first section of this entry defending him (sort of) and then explain to what degree and how I think what he did was wrong. Not inappropriate, mind you, but wrong considering his job duties.

In case you haven't been following sports this past week, Meyer's Jaguars blew a 14-0 lead to the Bengals last Thursday (I'm restraining myself from a pussy versus pussy comment here). After the standalone Pussies Galore game (okay, I failed), Meyer did not fly back to Jacksonville with his team, but stayed in Ohio and attended a friend's birthday bash sans his wife. At said bash, attendees filmed a young woman doing a gentle shake as she backed up to Meyer, who was seated on a stool with his legs spread. A second video shows Meyer's hand close to and possibly touching a woman's derriere for about three seconds as they crowd near the bar.

From these videos, Meyer has gotten all kinds of hell. People have said he should resign as Jags coach. Some ESPN reporters have oohed and aahed at Meyer's impropriety. The Jaguars' owner has reprimanded him.

My Take

I'm going to go out on a limb here. As a famous guy, Meyer attended a birthday party. He had a few cocktails. People tried to get him onto the dance floor. He refused, so various young ladies who had also imbibed decided to try to entice him onto the dance floor. Meyer, having likely been put in this situation many times in the past, wasn't going to just shoo them away or walk out of the party. He allowed the interaction to play itself out, and what we saw on the videos is evidently as salacious as it got, or we would have seen anything worse, also on video.

So everyone wags a finger. "The horror, the horror" they say. I find it absolutely absurd.

You think those NFL players turned "reporters" calling for Meyer's resignation haven't done worse a dozen times? The arrogance and certainty of the Meyer condemnations is asinine hyperbole. I mean, really, how do ESPN reporters know that Meyer and his wife haven't been swapping for the last 30 years? They flat out don't. And who are a bunch of reporters to lecture anyone on their own subjective rules, regs, and moral certitude? The noise of moral absolutism tries to drown everything out...again.

If Meyer "loses control of his team" because a woman decided to sway between his knees in public, what is next? He gets fired for watching videos of Meana Wolf? I just do not get it. Cancel culture defends sexual nonchalance unless it's a white power-broker male being nonchalant?

Most of the "horrified" reporters are using moral racketeering as a substitute for content.

What is Meyer's Job?

Being politically correct doesn't win football games. This isn't a Disney movie. Being a Leave-It-To-Beaver "good husband" also doesn't win football games. So getting caught with your shorts near a cookie jar is largely irrelevant if Urban Meyer's job is to win football games. 

Now if the argument is that Meyer's hiring was more to sell local tickets than win games (a reasonable argument), then perhaps Meyer alienated soccer moms, even though it appears that soccer moms were in evidence at the party and may indeed be his weakness. If you want to castigate Meyer for loss of soccer mom sales in a conservative state, well then, to quote Blondie, "Rip Him to Shreds." But I find it rich when former NFL players and coaches chime in as if offended by the moral degradation on display. If anyone thinks today's players and coaches have somehow shed the proclivities of Joe Namath or Ken Stabler or Dennis Rodman, I have a message for you. This is why strip clubs have private rooms and escort services have delivery.

Urban Meyer getting danced at by hot soccer moms doesn't exactly fulfill Anton LaVey's salacious satanic recommendation to "do as thou wilt."

What Meyer Did Wrong

Coach Meyer, however, may have misstepped in ways other than simply getting filmed. The key question, to me, is whether he had pre-planned the birthday bash and had let everyone know weeks in advance what he would do after the Thursday game. 

If his "dial at three" partying was a kneejerk response to a brutal loss, that would not pass muster with me as an owner or assistant coach or player. A hard Bengals kind of loss makes it even more important that Meyer fly back with the team and deal with it. On the other hand, if he had informed everyone weeks in advance that, win or lose, he'd be staying in Ohio for a couple of days off, then if I'm the owner or assistant coach or player, he's in the clear.

I suspect this was not entirely the case, as Meyer came forward on Tuesday and said that he had told the owner "well in advance" that he was staying in Ohio for a brief break. I'm suspicious because "well in advance" is non-specific sleazeball language. Had Meyer told the owner weeks in advance, Meyer would have stated "weeks in advance." Instead, Meyer retreated to non-specific weasel phrasing. Yes, I pay attention to language like that. Secondly, Meyer did not specifically mention "telling the players well in advance." The absence of a statement to that effect is a problem. He really needed to have explicitly told his team "well in advance."

If my suppositions are correct (I'm fairly certain they are), I would have called Meyer onto the proverbial carpet and chewed out his ass. The team should have been informed weeks in advance of the Meyer mini-vacation.

Conclusion

Meyer was absolutely wrong if he hadn't told his team weeks in advance that, win or lose, he wouldn't be flying back with them.

All of the reporters shocked, shocked I tell you, that Meyer didn't run screaming from a soccer mom wiggle should be put on polygraphs and quizzed about their own proclivities. Just for context, of course.

And we still do not know if Meyer and his wife have been swingers for the last 30 years. I prefer to think that they have.

Bob Dietz

October 7, 2021

Sports: Cam, Covid, and the Deepest Cut

I have a long-lived love/hate relationship with Cam Newton. Well, to be completely honest, it's mainly hate, so let me talk about that first.

It all started with Cam at Florida as an undergrad, stealing a student's laptop. Cam wrote "CAM" in chalk on the back of the laptop, then when the police came knocking in search of stolen property, Cam tossed it out of his dorm window. Process that story for a moment. There's a little humor and not a lot of IQ in it. Anyway, I found the whole tale pretty amusing, and I certainly didn't hate or love Cam for it.

Coach Meyer at Florida had a dude named Tebow in the quarterbacks' room, thus Cam decided to transfer. Here's where my hatred was ignited, although I didn't know it at the time. Auburn, not the cops, came a-knockin' for Cam. Wait, let me back up. According to those paragons of virtue, the NCAA, Auburn came a'knockin' to Cam's dad. Unbeknownst to Cam, so the myth unfolds, Auburn alumni stuffed various envelopes with somewhere between 200K and 400K to secure Cam's services. I don't know the exact amount. You might want to check with Charles Barkley; I'm pretty sure Sir Charles can pin it down a bit. 

So Cam's dad packed up the truck and moved Cam to Lee. County that is. Swimmin' pools; undergrads. Well, the first thing you know, Cam is Auburn's starting quarterback and the biggest pain in Alabama's ass this century. He helmed a damned near unstoppable offense. Auburn was running plays my dad ran coaching fifth grade football with a stud quarterback. And nobody could stop the Tigers. Every QB off tackle play garnered five yards, it seemed.

This is where my hate revved up, but not directly because of Cam. You see, I had uncovered a truly awesome sleeper team that year, a team I thought could and would go unbeaten and win a national championship. I thought the team I liked was maybe the best college football team I had seen in a decade. Their team speed on defense was unbelievable. And I could get them at 100-1. So I took them. That team was TCU.

Andy Dalton was the TCU quarterback, and he was not nearly their best player. The Frogs opened with a 30-21 win versus #24 Oregon State, then went on a 384-64, 9-0 rampage before beating San Diego State 40-35. Then they wrapped things up with a 66-17 win at New Mexico.

I waited for TCU's invite to the title game. It never came. Auburn had won by three at Miss State, by three in overtime versus Clemson, by three at Kentucky, and by one at Alabama. The NCAA and its lapdogs chose Auburn and Oregon for its single-game championship. My 100-1 undefeated and beloved Horned Frogs were frozen out through no fault of their own. 

It was then that I realized I needed to hate Cam Newton. Or at least hate Cam's dad. Or something. I missed a huge payday because Cam's dad got a huge payday. The butterfly effect had stung me in the ass.

Covid Cut

Well, it's a decade later, and the New England Patriots cut Cam Newton today. Most people were surprised. I really was not. The way Belichick played Mac Jones so many snaps the last pre-season game, I figured some PR stat-padding was in the works, and that implied certain things.

Theories abound regarding Cam's cut, but most center on Cam evidently being unvaccinated. He had traveled for a medical appointment last week, and some kind of Covid rules required him to miss practice for three days. Since Belichick stated that Cam hadn't broken any team rules, I'm baffled as to what occurred, and no clear cut explanation has emerged.

Media Reaction 

What interests me is the language being used in discussions of why Cam was cut. Many blurb articles say Cam's "stance" on vaccinations was partly to blame. Publicly, Cam hadn't said a thing. He said his decision was private. That's all he said. So how is that a "stance?" Not saying anything is sort of the opposite of a "stance."

Did any of today's Cam articles feature questions regarding Cam's medical history? What about questions addressing Newton family heart issues or auto-immune disorders? Nope, I did not read one bit of speculation. No reporter broached the subject. Did anyone ask Cam if perhaps a family member or anyone he knew had a bad vaccine reaction? Doesn't appear those questions are part of the conversation either.

Look, I'm not defending Cam Newton for being unvaccinated per se. I am castigating media for not asking pertinent questions. As someone who has heart issues, who has a brutal auto-immune family history, and who could have died the last time I took a drug with a "rare" side effect, I can appreciate vaccine trepidation. Media members need to ask the proper questions, or at least frame them for discussion if Cam keep things completely private.

Cam's Future

Well, this is almost ridiculously hand-in-glove, but the perfect fit for Cam is the Dallas Cowboys. If Prescott gets hurt again, Cam fits the stylistic bill for the Cowboy offense. And they may be the least hard-core vaccinators in the most anti-vaccination state in the league. 

That about covers everything...except I did say love/hate. So what do I love about Cam Newton? Well, keep it to yourselves, but I love his wardrobe. I'm not sure it's cool for a 64-year-old guy to love Cam's wardrobe, but I do. I bought a fine looking linen Cam Newton suit at Belk. I put on a few pounds during the pandemic, so I've kind of grown out of it, but it was my favorite suit. And I love the hats Cam wears to pressers.

So Cam, if you're reading this, I've bulked up to a 44 long. And bronze and maroon are my favorite hat colors. I'm not too shy to ask. The way I figure it, you or your dad owe me something.

Bob Dietz

August 31, 2021

Deplorables' Power?

Later in the week, I'll sink my teeth into a debunking of a really poor nationally televised piece regarding Covid. Today's entry, however, focuses on broad questions. My last two pieces have dealt with the pandemic's effects on American media. My argument is that when journalists decide to write and publicly present information so as to generate what they believe will be the greatest public good, they have jettisoned their responsibilities as journalists. They have become advocates for particular actions, and their reporting has shifted into the realm of propaganda.

The example I discussed was the categorization of the unvaccinated as fearful, irrational folk who are creating a drag on the U.S. effort to "solve the virus." An alternative perspective, I wrote, is that not being vaccinated is a political act, and its adherents wield attention and power they would otherwise lack. My problem with American journalists is that the second perspective does not get discussed or even mentioned in most reportage, and I suspect this non-discussion is quite purposeful.

Power or No Power?

Do I actually believe that the unvaccinated have been responsible for bringing Covid control to a screeching halt? Well, not really, at least not since the Delta variant has become the dominant Covid strain. Here's why I think that the unvaccinated have become more scapegoats than power brokers in August, 2021.

While some American studies suggest that vaccine efficacy with Delta has dropped from 90% to between 70 and 80%, a UK study indicates a more severe drop off in effectiveness. The below 40% vaccine efficacy versus Delta (from the UK) suggests that vaccination is no longer a huge factor in whether one gets Delta. The vaccines dramatically reduce the chances of Delta hospitalization and death, but they are only moderately useful in preventing infection itself. We're beginning to see reports of vaccine efficacy drop off being sprinkled throughout mainstream media in the last 72 hours.

Since Israeli and other studies have demonstrated that viral load from the vaccinated infected is comparable to viral load from unvaccinated infected, then the unvaccinated should not really be scapegoated as the overwhelming sources of virus spread. In fact, if vaccinated people tend to socialize more, go to restaurants more, or go to sporting events more than unvaccinated, then the vaccinated may, per capita, spread more virus than the unvaccinated. In other words, if the vaccinated behave differently, and they are being given permission to behave differently via vaccination gold stars, then they may per capita be more responsible for virus transmission.

Reporting Bias

Basically what I'm saying is that Delta has almost completely changed the game. The "deplorables" are no longer the sole virus control villains, and most American media simply does not discuss or even acknowledge it. For example, have you seen any reportage of how many people get Delta from the average unvaccinated, currently infected person versus how many get Delta from the average vaccinated, currently infected person? These stats would put things in direct, stark focus, and yet no U.S. health institution is even hazarding a public guess. Why do you think that is?

The question indeed becomes why. Why has American media decided to interpret reality as if the virus were the original strain with 90% vaccine efficacy? Is it easier to just report reality as if the virus were some monolithic constant? Does that simplify the writing? Do reporters have a difficult time, like the CDC, deciding that good practices in April are not necessarily good practices in August? Are American reporters spinning and framing news because the unvaccinated make convenient villains and, having established them as villains, consistent reporting trumps accurate reporting?

Going Forward

When the original strain was the dominant Covid strain, the unvaccinated bore more responsibility and wielded more political power of a sort, than now. They may have deserved their original casting as villains and fools, but the script has been largely rewritten by Delta. With the original virus, media interpreted reality as a kind of Unvaccinated Walking Dead versus Science Sapiens story. Now, who is responsible for what amount of illness is more along the lines of Murder on the Orient Express.

American media, however, is slow to adjust, as it loves villains and scapegoats. Villains and scapegoats make for easy writing with all kinds of moral imperatives and familiar storytelling. But this easy writing hinders providing a reality-based reportage for Americans. Villains and scapegoats do us a disservice.

I'll get into more of this tomorrow as I briefly examine media coverage of the California teacher who infected half of her class. It will be a warm-up to my deconstruction of a major television piece regarding Covid. 

Bob Dietz

August 31, 2021

In the Name of "The Public Good"

Tuesday's (8/24) "Hillbillies or Heroes?" entry asked why American media doesn't publicly recognize, acknowledge, and explore anti-vaxxing as a rational political act. Since reticence to vaccinate demographically overlaps heavily (but not perfectly) with Trumpism, one would expect serious discussions of anti-vaxxing as a political act with power and teeth. Such discussions would almost seem required.

Why are such discussions not ubiquitous? That question brings me to one of the themes I'll revisit repeatedly in the weeks ahead. I'm sure there are a thousand dissertations being written these days regarding the paths of American pandemic news coverage. I'm a simple gambler, used to dealing with the challenges of partial information, so I'm going to speculate in a decidedly simple way as to why these discussions are not front and center in mainstream media.

Framing anti-vaxxers as rational and political, and as wielding power, may be viewed by American media as making a bad situation worse. The pandemic has decidedly raised our day-to-day stress levels during what has become an unwavering blue/red cultural civil war. Underlining more examples of this cultural war, although entirely justified and reasonable, may be perceived as adding fuel to the cultural firestorm. Acknowledging that anti-vaxxers wield real, significant power seems too distasteful, too worrisome, and too much of a public anti-vaxxing boost. Reporting such would do more public harm than good. American media therefore avoids the topic.

The problem with reporting that edits, spins, and adjusts tonal variations for what it perceives as the public good is that it's no longer unbiased reporting. This kind of reporting is advocacy, and the consequence of advocacy is propaganda. 

When journalists spin stories because they perceive their spin as benefitting the public, they have become propagandists. They may be 100% correct in that honest reporting would make current situations worse, but they are still engaging in manipulative, dishonest propaganda.  It is Propaganda with a capital "P."

Editing for the "good of the reader" infantilizes the reader/viewer. The power of information that should be shared with readers/viewers is instead retained and monopolized by the journalists. That is selfish. It's dishonest. It's a kind of paternal anti-journalism.

In the last few weeks, I have run into some of the most blatant, purposefully constructed examples of propaganda I have ever seen in mainstream American media. Tomorrow, I'll preview the single worst example. Next week, I'll deconstruct that piece of journalism line by line. 

The evolving state of American journalism has really been a surprise to me, akin to opening Dracula's coffin for the first time. Yeah, there's the dude who said he knew what was best for me. Immortality and all that. Like Dracula, American journalism is leaving out a few of the gory details. American reporters have become the story, and they have become advocates for particular actions and particular points of view. In doing so, they are trying to rob us of glimpses of the overall picture. It's time to get out the holy water and stakes and expose their carefully constructed storylines as mirages.

Bob Dietz

August 28, 2021

The Unvaccinated: Hillbillies or Heroes?

Here in Tennessee, with fewer than 40% of the population vaccinated, the unvaccinated might be perceived as political prisoners to their established commitment to the Trump era. Good people, perhaps, but hopelessly naive in their bundling of religion, white nationalism, and a distrust of established institutions. Tied to their biases, their echo chamber anti-science, and their idiosyncratic definitions of personal liberty, Tennesseans may fashionably be considered foolhardy "deplorables" who don't realize they are putting themselves, their neighbors, and their children at Covid risk by resisting the obvious benefits of vaccination.

There are, however, other ways to view the cluster of attributes that have led to vaccine resistance amidst the worst public health crisis in national history. Hillary Clinton's deplorables, whether by accident or choice, are behaving in ways eminently consistent with widespread established traditions. For example, if the U.S. is in fact deeply enmeshed in a culture conflict unprecedented since the Civil War, then it makes sense to refuse to cooperate with what MAGA voters view as an occupying force. Maintaining behavioral autonomy becomes a priority as the occupying force tries to assimilate you. It's a lesson and strategy straight out of the Bible, whether Jews in Egypt or Christians in Rome. People are willing to risk dying to maintain cultural identity. When this blueprint for sacrifice is laid out time and again in the U.S.'s most important religious text, the behaviors are more than understandable. They should have been expected.

The unvaccinated being relatively unmoved by the prospect of loss of life can be viewed as self-sacrifice to continue a cultural identity. Unvaccinated status, if one believes lack of vaccination sabotages the "conquering" of Covid, can also be viewed as an act of death-spreading aggression. Spreading disease becomes a weapon to take down the evil progressives, who currently control the House, the Senate, and the White House. Keeping Covid humming damages the economy, which can be considered a strategy to degrade the occupying power. 

Since the "culture in power" is, at the moment, pushing the narrative that vaccination reduces virus spread, not getting vaccinated becomes a rational revolutionary act. Risking one's life in the pursuit of taking down an incompetent, corrupt, un-Christian occupying force is a reasonable and rational strategy. If one buys the unvaccinated as spewing more death and destruction than the vaccinated, the deplorables wield real power.

A Lack of Discussion

Now that the Delta variant is the dominant virus, I don't much buy into the "unvaccinated spewing death" guilt messaging. In the days ahead, I'll get into that and many other curious messages being promulgated by U.S. institutions and media. For now, the point I want to make as an introduction is that for many of the unvaccinated, their actions have firm origins in American traditions. Bluntly speaking, Pickett's Charge and getting nailed to a cross set high profile, deeply embedded examples of self-sacrifice for cultural identity. The unvaccinated are defining themselves as separate from what they perceive as an occupying cultural force. With that separateness may come, consciously or not, actions that sabotage the occupying force through any available means, including self-sacrifice.

Everything I've just laid out is simple and obvious, but reality is not being framed, or even discussed, using the phrases and language I've used above. I have never seen the U.S. media stringently avoid certain topics and questions as deliberately as in 2021. Future blog entries will discuss the very strange communications mores that have emerged in the United States. What's become increasingly obvious is that Fox News has no monopoly on the "state reporting" propaganda game.

Pivoting Perspectives

One perspective on all of this is that the unvaccinated are indeed the "deplorables" -- the great unwashed who, through fear or sheer ignorance, are holding back the sacred societal effort to defeat the devil, in this case Covid-19. This perspective requires defining the unvaccinated demographic as some combination of willfully irresponsible, evil, and irrational. 

Another perspective is that the purposefully unvaccinated are, consciously or non-consciously, political actors trying to impose their will on a regime in the only way they know how. They are not solely or mainly uneducated hillbillies unable to grasp science.

To me, the fascinating aspect of all of this is that the first perspective is how most U.S. media are defining the situation. The unvaccinated are irresponsible fools gumming up society's Covid battle due to fear and ignorance. Yet I find the second perspective more Ockham's Razor worthy. It requires fewer suppositions and unlikely causes/effects. It puts the vaccinated and unvaccinated on more equal intellectual terms. The second perspective also better explains what I'll explore further in the weeks ahead. I think that the U.S. and corporate framing of the pandemic, the language used, and the topics NOT discussed publicly are best interpreted in the context of the second perspective. 

I'd argue that both the behavior of the unvaccinated, and the framing of the reporting/discussion involving them, is more usefully described by the second perspective, namely that this is an occupying cultural force scenario with the language and reportage used by the state consistent with what would be employed to dampen a revolt.

Conclusion

I don't think I've said anything particularly surprising or erudite. I've just stated the obvious. More than anything, I guess what does surprise me is that these topics aren't omnipresent in the U.S. media. Regardless, however, of how strongly I can or cannot make these points of perspective, I think that this is a rich taking off point for my investigation of propaganda in the Age of Covid.  

In my opinion, we may be on uncharted media ground, with the pandemic providing moral cover for some of the most dishonest and manipulative U.S. journalism I have witnessed in my life. And, as I will demonstrate, it is not subtle.

Bob Dietz

August 24, 2021

When Fantasy Goes Bad

 Note:  This entry does not address my predilection for Sheena Easton and Elizabeth Hurley.

The first week in June, I assembled what I thought was a pretty good FanDuel fantasy golf squad. With the Memorial due to tee off at roughly 6 AM, I did a 3 AM check to make sure that none of my six golfers had pulled out at the last minute. Everyone appeared to be present and accounted for. 

I slept for a few hours, and when I awoke and looked at the standings, I did a "What-the-bloody-hell?" Jason Day had evidently taken some practice swings, his back had flared up, and he had pulled out right before his tee time. Just lovely. That left me with five golfers. Those familiar with FanDuel golf contests know that it's virtually impossible to win, and very difficult to cash, with just five golfers. But that's the situation in which I found myself. 

Fast forward to the close of the tournament's third day, and I was somehow not only cashing, but actually a threat to crack the Top 10. Unbelievable. Through three days, John Rahm has scored more points for me than any golfer I have ever taken. He's been brilliant. He's six shots clear of the field heading into the final day. Then he signs his scorecard and is informed that he has tested positive for Covid, which means he is disqualified.

You have got to be kidding me. Well, the final day comes and goes, and my golfers, although four in number, almost cash for me. But not quite.

Later in the week, I put pitcher Max Scherzer on my FanDuel baseball team. Scherzer is one of the top pitchers in major league baseball, and his salary is high, but I want him. I check before the game to ensure that he's starting. He does indeed start, pitches to two batters, and calls it a day due to some discomfort. 

And thus ended my week in fantasy hell. This was one time my fantasy would definitely have been better served with Hurley rather than a hurler.

My Fantasy Feelings

Those familiar with me know that I'm not a big fan of the concept of fantasy sports. I feel there is something intrinsically antithetical to team sports when individual statistics become the focal point of team sport conversation, perception, and how people watch the games. When irrelevant late-game stats padding is perceived as more important than team play and the goal of winning, then team sports has devolved into a crass narcissistic exercise in personal accounting.

In a perverse way, the primacy of individual conspicuousness as the face of American team sports fits hand in glove with an out of control consumer culture that tries to sell "I" as the crux of all existence. Philosophically, that's why I'm anti fantasy sports. From a practical standpoint, however, I have additional concerns. 

The Slimy Underbelly of American Fantasy Sports

Back in October, 2015, Joe Drape and Jacqueline Williams of the NY Times published a fine DraftKings/FanDuel expose. This piece and previous exposes detailed how employees of FanDuel and DraftKings, while ostensibly not allowed to play at the company for which they worked, basically swapped insider information with each other. The FanDuel employees played at DraftKings, and the DraftKings employees played at FanDuel.

With access to percentages of how many contestants took which players, these employees were able to use insider trading to dominate the contests. Those employees and associates were able to leverage their insider knowledge to such an extent that, using mass entries with an economy of scale, the top 10% of contestants were able to wrangle the majority of the money. And, if anything, I'm understating this.

Nothing has really been solved since then. Any remedies put in place since the exposes can be easily sidestepped.

Just the other day, July 15, I received email notice of a class action suit against DraftKings. I'm eligible because I made a first time deposit prior to January 1, 2018. The email states:

"Plaintiffs allege that DraftKings falsely advertised its product as a fair, 100% legal, easy to win game of skill that players could win if they practiced, studied, or worked on, and falsely advertised that players first deposit of up to $600 would be immediately matched."

Suggestion

I think if DraftKings and FanDuel were forced to publish their prize distribution to individuals while  publicly identifying the players with mega-entries, much of the fantasy bloom would be off the rose. That would be my recommendation. Full disclosure of prize money distribution. Until then, DraftKings and FanDuel are black boxes sucking money from the general public while lining the pockets of insiders and their associates.

Bob Dietz

July 24, 2021

Conspiring: The Realities of Conspiracy Theories

My familiarity with the paranormal, UFOs, and X-Files kinds of stuff has exposed me to quite a few conspiracy theories, but I'm no conspiracy expert. In the last 30 years, academia has launched a great deal of formal investigation into conspiracies, their provenance, and their sociology.

People seem baffled by the how and why of large percentages of Americans adopting what seem to be completely irrational beliefs. Q-Anon claims that a cabal of left-wing wealth and politics is behind massive pedophilia rings, despite the minimal evidentiary strands that could point in that direction. Some 70% of Republicans claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, even though U.S. voting results are the very opposite of a black box. Voting results and demographics are incredibly X-ray-able going down to county and precinct levels. Voting in the U.S. takes place in both a historical and live action glass house. Any aberrations or secrets would stand out with red alert clarity.

I tried to catch up a bit on conspiracies the last few months. I've scanned The Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, and my book recommendations include Jesse Walker's The United States of Paranoia and psychologist Rob Brotherton's Suspicious Minds. After surveying what experts have been saying, I put some of it together. The first thing I have to say is an observation. The second is an explanation. The third is a recommendation.

Conspiracies as American Religion

The definitions of "conspiracy" and "religion" overlap mightily. One could easily swap these words for each other in most common usage, and not much about the sentences would change. 

Both conspiracies and religions feature strong belief systems. The belief systems are not primarily based on evidence examination and evidence analysis. In fact, the canon of each is designed to retreat from disconfirming evidence. Disconfirming evidence is generally attributed to those who are part of the conspiracies or, in the case of American evangelicals, Satan or the tests of a profane world. In Walker's The United States of Paranoia, he talks about categories of conspiracy theories. The first two categories feature enemies within and enemies outside, and the language is identical to "the evil" or "the other" of American religions. At the least, the United States' religiosity provides a fertile ground for non-evidence based beliefs, commitments, and calls to action. 

In addition, conspiracy theories and American religions share an explanatory style. Political scientist Michael Barkun describes the seductive explanatory model employed by most conspiracy theories. He lists the following as conspiracy attributes:

1) Conspiracies explain things when normal historical and political analyses fail.

2) Conspiracy theories divide the world into a Manichaean good and evil, with conspirators labeled as evil. This perspective simplifies an often unfathomable reality and usually suggests clear courses of action.

3) Conspiracies usually feature a type of gnosis. This secret knowledge is either not perceived by the masses or, if perceived, goes unrecognized as hugely significant.

As I mentioned earlier, all of these conspiracy characteristics have heavy overlap with characteristics of American religions. Most people are too delicate to state it, but one commitment to non-evidence based beliefs paves the way for another.

Why Believe?

I think that the most important aspect of American conspiracies is that they are not primarily about evaluating evidence and coming to a conclusion about who is doing what to whom. If you try to dissect a Q-Anon or "Trump Won" conspiracy, it's absolutely crucial to understand that these are not mainly about people surveying their world and using faulty logic or flawed info-gathering. American conspiracies in 2021 did not originate because people were trying to figure out a reality apart from themselves and ways to affect that reality. 

These 2021 American conspiracies are something entirely different. They are the result of vast numbers of Americans feeling a certain way, of having deep-seated emotional and psychological reactions to the reality they observe and the massively changing American demography. The believers are surveying their internal states and feelings, and then inventing a storyline that explains these feelings and reactions. Current American conspiracies are an explanation for stress levels, for what is felt, for insecurities recognized but not understood. 

Conspiracies are inventions that serve as explanations for emotions, thoughts and behaviors. They help explain both the actions of the outside world towards the believer, and the emotional state of the believer. And in 2021, specific instigating influence communication (think Fox News) has helped believers frame everything they see and feel. In a sense, conspiracies serve as agents of reification.

These conspiracies are not the result of an analysis of fact and a search for objective truth. They are means of explaining the agitation and insecurity of self to self via labeling the world in simple, understandable, dualistic ways. They are means to justify, with minimal weighing of actual evidence and minimal self criticism, one's thoughts and feelings. No evidence is disconfirming to devoted Q-Anon or "Trump Won" believers. Evidence is irrelevant, and any such evidence can be labeled as more work of the conspirators, who have replaced the devil (or partnered with him) as the manipulators of a profane world.

Media Responsibilities

Conservative American media that fuels the conspiracy theories is not asking the right questions. But neither are the progressive American outlets.

Instead of trying to treat conspiracy believers as people with bad data or bad logic or flawed critical thinking, journalists should identify the believers as irrational activists triggered by their own life situations and emotional states. The problem in a hyper-religious United States (and bear in mind that evangelicalism correlates highly with 2021 conspiracy beliefs) is that allowing, even promoting, people to believe whatever they like regardless of evidence is an American way of life. It's called freedom of faith. Well, now that faith has symbiotically latched onto conspiracy narratives, no amount of arguing or debate is going to budge the 70% of Republicans who declare that Trump won the 2020 election. American conspiracies work backwards. Discovered evidence doesn't affect feelings. Rather, primal feelings dictate declarations and behaviors.

Wrap-Up

We have reached the point in the United States where sanity and insanity are statistical. Whether declarations and consequent actions are rational or irrational is no longer dependent on the nature of the declarations or the actions. It's dependent on which section of the political Venn diagram in which one happens to be located. Insanity has become more relative in the U.S. than ever before. Your sanity status, once based on what you said or did, is now determined by where you said or did it and who was in the crowd. 

Until the progressive media takes on the problematic religious parallels of current conspiracies, they will be missing key questions. And unless the idea of sanity being increasingly relative is introduced, we will continue to be shocked, shocked I tell you, when the DOJ and other legal institutions are hijacked in the service of unsubstantiated beliefs.

Bob Dietz

June 13, 2021

Trans Wars: More Problems with Athletics

Today's entry continues the discussion of problems associated with allowing transgender females to participate in athletics at the grade school, high school, and college levels.

First, genetic males have an inherent advantage versus genetic females in virtually all American sports. I am unfamiliar with archery, but in all other sports, genetic males as a population will outperform genetic females. Second, I want to point out that participating in and especially excelling in grade school, high school, and college athletics have both material and non-material consequences. The non-material consequences include social networking, boosts to esteem and self-perception, notoriety, and an expanded public footprint in general. Material consequences involve the possibility of securing one of the roughly 200,000 athletic scholarships available to American students.

Unfortunately, higher education in the United States is an expensive undertaking compared to other Western democracies. Roughly two percent of American high school athletes ameliorate costs via athletic scholarships of some kind. I make no argument that the social perks and athletic scholarships resulting from athletic success are the way things ought to be. I am simply arguing that it is the current reality.

While not every family strategy is as cynically bottom-line oriented as The Sopranos, neither are most U.S. families living Disneyesque lives. It is beyond naive to ignore the material and non-material benefits if genetic males compete in women's sports. People can make the case that the social "rights" and mental health of trans children should take precedence over the issues inherent in bumping genetic females down the self-esteem, publicity, and scholarship ladders. I have a hard time, however, viewing genetic males in women's sports as separate from spotlight and financial advantage grabs.

The material consequences of genetic males in women's sports could, in part, be circumvented if all transgender women were disallowed from playing women's college and professional sports. That at least would shut down the most egregious material resource hijacking. But this avenue is highly unlikely to be voluntarily taken by the necessary parties at this time, which means that some kind of legal imposition will eventually be required. This would create a formal two-track system; one for genetic males and another for genetic females. A two-track system would be anathema to the legal and societal goals of the U.S. transgender population.

Malcolm Gladwell, Human Nature, and My Experience

Some might argue that the mental health and lifepaths of transgender Americans are too important for anyone to try to manipulate gender for personal and financial gain. All I can do is roll my eyes. Maybe it's the years of gambling, maybe it's my inestimable cynicism, perhaps it's because I've seen too many cringeworthy reality shows, but I don't view gender choices as above the attention-seeking and capitalist fray. People will do anything for material and non-material gain. 

In his books, Malcolm Gladwell often discusses the effects of age-at-school-entrance. Parents who wait until as late as permissible to enter their children into school systems provide their children with the advantages of size and an edge in athletic prowess. There are consequences.

I grew up in the hardscrabble small mining towns of southeastern Pennsylvania. In the 70's and 80's, Pennsylvania had one of the most expensive state college systems in the United States. I believe when I graduated from high school in 1975, we were the second most expensive state. 

It was routine for working class families with promising athletes to hold back their sons a year and have them repeat a grade, preferably before reaching seventh grade. This provided the families with the chance for their sons to stand out athletically and acquire college athletic scholarships. I've seen the athletic benefits of these familial strategies up close and personal. I've witnessed the older Gladwell examples have crucial successes. I've also seen younger athletes displaced in their athletic cohorts by these Gladwell cuckoos, sometimes with remarkable effects.

My point is that since I've witnessed routine grade-failing by parents in the service of material and non-material gain, don't expect me to believe gender swapping is too noble a pursuit to go unsullied by the same kinds of goals. 

Framing with Numbers

I want to throw some ballpark numbers at you in an attempt to frame the scale of the issue and put everything in some kind of context. The numbers are not hard and fast, but they are useful. Some of these estimates come from statistical modeling rather than direct surveys. The estimates from the Williams Institute think tank at UCLA, for example, used modeling. 

Basically, about .7% of teens in the U.S. consider themselves transgender. That's roughly 150,000 teenagers. There are about 20 million college students in the U.S., a figure that's been steady for about a decade. If we ballpark transgender individuals at .7%, we are once again at about 150,000 transgender individuals who are college students. 

Interestingly, the number of college students on athletic scholarship is in the same vicinity. Between 180,000 and 200,000 students are on athletic scholarship in the United States. Assuming almost half of these are women, we have somewhere around 90,000 genetic females on athletic scholarship who would be at risk of competing against genetic males.

Conclusion

Since laws regarding trans athletes are changing as I write this, I will attempt to survey the most recent legal arguments and latest policy changes as I revisit this topic in the days ahead.

The times, and the genders, they are a'changin'. The challenge will be to keep a rational, even-handed perspective on all this without getting jammed up in any La Brea pit of moral certitude. At this point, on this topic, I think what passes for American progressivism is largely in the muck. 

Bob Dietz

June 2, 2021

I Agree with She Who Was Once Bruce

After months of dealing with the murderous consequences of a narcissistic White House bully and his belly-crawling enablers during a pandemic, I find it a great relief to finally tackle the arrogance that passes for modern progressivism. I'll spend many 2021 days discussing blithering moral absolutism. May as well get things rolling.

I was between my freshman and sophomore years at Penn State when a 6'2", 195-pound icon of masculinity named Bruce Jenner pulverized the decathlon world record at the 1976 Olympics. As a college cross-country runner, I was duly impressed by Jenner's clinching 4:12 1500 meters. Despite being able to run five miles under 30 minutes, I was not able to run a 4:12 1500, and distance running was my thing. Jenner did it as the culmination event after two days of brutal competition involving the hurdles, high jump, long jump, 100, 400, javelin, shot put and (gulp) pole vault. 

Now it's 2021, I look as bad as Will Smith in this week's Instagram post, and Bruce Jenner, he of the decade of Wheaties boxes, is a she. The latter takes some mental adjusting on my part. 

Down the road, I'll devote entries to the pronoun debate and other trans issues. Today, I just want to touch on the legislation being enacted in various red states to prevent genetic males from taking part in women's sports. 

Caitlyn (previously Bruce) Jenner told TMZ last Saturday that she was against genetic males competing in women's sports. I completely agree. Let me repeat that as my progressive friends faint. I completely agree with Caitlyn Jenner on this.

I have my reasons. As always, I'm open to changing my mind, but that change of mind would have to be fueled by new data or my grasping some heretofore unseen flaw in my base logic. So I'm going to lay out my specific reasoning as to why I agree with Caitlyn Jenner. My reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with culture warring. In this post, I'm going to narrowly focus on two main arguments, then expand on them in future entries. 

First, college educations in the United States are not free. They represent enormous financial investments by both parents and students. For better or worse, built into the American educational system are tiers of athletic scholarships ranging from partial tuition to free rides. 

Genetic males have an advantage over genetic females in virtually all American sports. Name the American sport, and genetic males outperform genetic females overall. It's not really close. Baseball, softball, football, basketball, soccer, track and field, cross-country, swimming, wrestling, boxing -- for all of these sports, the average genetic male, equitably trained, outperforms the average genetic female. You can argue all you want for cultural biases working against women and women not getting the hours of training to match men, and to a degree you would be correct, but the fact remains. Given equitable training, the average genetic male outperforms the average genetic female in American sports. If you refuse to acknowledge this, you are as delusional as the 70% of the GOP that thinks Biden lost the 2020 election.

The practical consequences of superior performances by genetic males in sport is that a biological male adopting a female gender will move up the performance bell curve when competing against genetic women. This bell curve shift and enhanced standing is undeniable. What therefore happens is that the heretofore gendered male, when hopping over to a female gender, will receive more notoriety for essentially the same abilities and performance. For example, a genetic male running a 4:40 mile as a male is considered good, but not really college scholarship material. A genetic male running a 4:40 mile as a gendered female, however, is scholarship-worthy for women's track. 

My concern is that when genetic males compete against genetic females at the high school level, the genetic males will slot themselves into scholarship opportunities that would otherwise go to genetic females. A displacement would occur at each scholarship tier. Even the best genetic females risk being displaced from the best scholarships into inferior scholarship slots. If colleges that offer athletic scholarships were to outright ban genetic males from women's sports, then my concern for scholarship distribution would be unnecessary. But if different universities adopt different rules, then the teams employing transgender genetic male "ringers" would have an obvious advantage, no matter the sport.

Now to my second point. The same slotting domino effect would occur when scholarships are not the issue. Simply making high school teams becomes more difficult for women when genetic males are allowed on the same teams. Imagine three genetic males with female gender trying out for a high school basketball team. They would likely take three spots that would otherwise go to genetic women. If a genetic female makes the team, then practice time with the first team would be hijacked by the genetic males. Finally, actual game time would be hijacked by the genetic males. 

So it's not just about scholarships. It's about making the teams or not, and roles on the teams. It's about opportunities to learn, discovering how to shoulder psychological responsibilities, networking, and getting public recognition for athletic roles and accomplishments. Genetic males have the capability to hijack those roles and recognition as assuredly as any cuckoo bird.

I suppose that the pushback questions against what I've argued are, "Shouldn't genetic males living as gendered females have their emotional needs met? Is not their cumulative mental health more important than any scholarship?" I'm a bit of a cynic when these questions are asked. I'll tackle them in my next trans-issue entry.

Bob Dietz

May 6, 2021

Reopening Redux Redux

I must be psychic, or really good at timing the obvious.

The day after my April 26, "Reopening Redux" entry, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee announced that he would not renew any public health orders. As reported by Theresa Waldrop and Gregory Lemos of CNN, Lee announced that "Covid-19 is no longer a health emergency in our state." As I mentioned in "Reopening Redux," just 25% of Tennesseans have been vaccinated, and Tennessee's infection rate was the worst in the country. Lee thus made the classic GOP move of ignoring data and playing to people's emotional preferences. He follows Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in fully opening to establish a faux sense of control..

On Monday, May 3, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law legislation that enables him to override any city or county emergency restrictions. Limitations on business capacity and mask mandates are therefore vetoed in the name of "freedom."

The red state policy failures of 2020 have resulted in no learning curve at all. Repeating past policy decisions while assuming different results is the very definition of organizational insanity. Public health has never been a strong suit of the GOP, and the push for illusory normalcy may result in thousands of preventable deaths by the end of 2021.

Bob Dietz

May 5, 2021

Who Watches the Watchmen?

 And more importantly, who hires them and pays for them?

I've tried to keep tabs on the latest regarding a private company, Cyber Ninjas, doing an alleged forensic analysis of 2020 votes from Maricopa County, Arizona. In today's Washington Post, reporters Rosalind Helderman and Josh Dawsey laid out a comprehensive up-to-date summary of the situation. This afternoon, Elvia Diaz of the Arizona Republic posted a story from the site of the mishmash. Rather than repeating the Post and Republic reporting, I'll recommend you read those articles, then return to my thumbnail summary, which is less about details and more about a warning.

Essentially what's happening is that a private company, Cyber Ninjas, has been contracted by Senate Republicans in Arizona to forensically analyze two million ballots. Cyber Ninjas is apparently both financed and staffed by those championing the theory of widespread voter fraud. Cyber Ninjas is a Florida-based company that is not, I repeat not, accredited by the federal government to test voting systems. 

The Arizona Senate Republicans' PR statement did not state how Cyber Ninjas was given the assignment. Douglas Logan, chief executive of Cyber Ninjas, had tweeted theories pushing 2020 voter fraud. Those tweets have been deleted. Meanwhile, as the "auditors" continue to work, no federal monitors are in Arizona to audit the auditors, so to speak. The Post and the Republic covered all of this today, and they covered it well.

My personal take is that the 2020 election outcomes were not really a first step towards the U.S. regaining its rationalism. Demographic shifting is fueling a greater red/blue divide than anyone thought possible. The cultural wars are likely to worsen dramatically in the years ahead, and the red states will become even more entrenched in their anti-democratic machinations.

Any moneyed, motivated individual or entity has the capability to further undermine what passes for U.S. democracy. The narrative being pushed in Arizona isn't likely to be ameliorated by reasoned arguments or disconfirming evidence. A company hired to find something isn't likely to baldly report that they were hired for nothing. 

More and more red states will begin to install Watchmen organizations and hired-gun private companies. The arguments for reviewing every lost election will have little to do with logic or rationality or drawing conclusions from evidence. The reviews will be a mechanism to find justification for why disappointed voters feel the way they do. The reviews exist to explain the en masse emotions of an electorate that feels itself losing power. In the months ahead, all manner of political intrigue will be employed to pander to these en masse emotions. Logic and the quality of evidence found will not matter. Any evidential port in a storm will be the theme.

Many people want to believe elections were massively rigged, and that their voting cohort wasn't badly outnumbered. All that will matter to them is that they find something on which to anchor their needs during the ongoing demographic storm. And that demographic storm has just begun.

Bob Dietz

April 29, 2021

Reopening Redux

As the United States approaches 100 million fully vaccinated adults, restrictions are being lifted once again. Some states are pushing for full capacity restaurants and sporting events, and for the lifting of mask-wearing rules. As was the case in 2020, the red states are leading the way in the "back to normalcy" push. 

Conditions, however, aren't necessarily rosy red in these red states. Here in Tennessee, for example, fewer than 25% have been fully vaccinated, and Tennessee is one of those states where this week's infection count significantly rose from last week. In fact, Tennessee recorded a 25% increase in cases from the previous week, which places it worst in the country. Oregon, Arizona, Nevada (where casinos are ready to increase capacity levels to 80% on May 1), and Louisiana are also struggling. The United States is registering roughly 60,000 new cases per day overall, which is similar to the counts last summer. The per day U.S. infection count had been at 50,000 six weeks ago.

The surge in new cases may be attributable to the increased transmissibility of variants and the fact that younger people are now both primary spreaders of the virus and increasingly vulnerable to the variants. Also, in a somewhat overlooked study published March 23 in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, investigators laid out the correlation between high pollen counts and susceptibility to the virus. High pollen counts depress immune systems, and increased airborne pollen has been shown to increase infection rates.

Meanwhile, in India, the health care systems have been overwhelmed as numbers have reached more than 300,000 infections and 2,000 deaths per day. India is approaching 200,000 total Covid-19 deaths. For context, the United States peaked at 300,000 infections per day in January, and total U.S. Covid-19 deaths stand at roughly 580,000.

Despite infection numbers similar to 2020's summer infection numbers, the U.S. is staggering into a reopening redux. With polls revealing that 30% of the country would prefer to not be vaccinated, predicting future infection rates promises to be extremely difficult. Tennessee may turn out to be the testing ground for the interaction of reopening and resistance to vaccination.

Bob Dietz

April 27, 2021

Spring Football 2021 -- Best Laid Plans

Sometimes you get something right as rain, and you still don't make any money.

I spent considerable time prepping for the 1-AA spring football season and watching as many games as possible. I had a plan and thought it was a good one.

North Dakota State, riding a 38-game winning streak heading into the 2021 spring season, had won three consecutive FCS national championships. They had, in fact, won eight of the last nine. Much more dominant than Alabama over the same stretch of time, North Dakota State figured to be somewhere between 6-5 and 8-5 to win the 2021 spring title. 

I, however, didn't think North Dakota State was going to be nearly as dominant this spring as they had been since 2011. But I couldn't find any FCS title odds offshore before the spring season kicked off, so I was going to have to wait until the truncated season finished to bet some long shots. With the playoff field reduced to 16 teams from the usual 24, I would have to be patient and judicious in choosing which teams matched up well with North Dakota State. 

And then the roof caved in. For my plan to work, I needed the Bison to go undefeated or lose one close game during the regular season. North Dakota State opened by beating a Youngstown State team with just two returning offensive starters. The Bison went up 25-0, won 25-7, and I wasn't sure if ND State had just laid on them (like a wrestler or Alabama in an early non-conference game) or if ND State had real offensive issues themselves. The second Bison game was at Southern Illinois, which had been drilled opening week by North Dakota 44-21. Southern Illinois was therefore a 16-point home underdog to the Bison.

Unfortunately, the Salukis kicked the hell out of ND State 38-14. Yowza. And it had not an iota of fluke to it.

So my best laid plans of plugging in some live title contenders at 15-1 or better bit the dust hard. All the value of going against North Dakota State drained like hot chili out of Tub Girl (if you don't get the reference, do yourself a favor and DO NOT look it up). All of my prep, pretty much wasted. I had been right, but unfortunately I had been too right.

Nothing ventured and nothing gained, as it turns out. And on we go.

Bob Dietz

March 7, 2021

Trans Wars: Newman vs. Greene

When I first started writing this blog, I promised to offend as many people as possible in the time I have left. This entry should go quite a ways towards doing just that.

On February 24, Illinois Rep. Marie Newman hung a pink and blue transgender pride flag outside of her office. Newman's daughter, Evie, is transgender. That same evening, in response, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene hung a sign outside her office door, which is directly across the hallway from Newman. The sign said, "There are Two genders: MALE & FEMALE. 'Trust the Science!'" Greene had earlier tried to block the Equality Act, which bans LGBTQ discrimination. 

I have neither the inclination, nor the time, nor the omniscience to say who is more correct or incorrect regarding transgender rights. But I am fascinated by the language used and the presentation of this material by (and I despise this phrase) "mainstream media."

As I said, I despise the phrase "mainstream media," so I'll address specifics. People.com displayed the headline "Lawmaker with Transgender Daughter Responds to Colleague's Transphobic Sign Outside Her Office." If Greene's sign had said, "There are Two sexes," then I would have found People's use of the word "Transphobic" problematic. Had Greene said, "There are Two sexes," she would have been technically wrong (chromosomally, there are at least half a dozen), but the phrase on the sign would not have been transphobic per se. Greene, however, with her usual judgement, chose to go full friction by saying "Two genders," which is indeed a clear cut diss of transgender people. Thus, upon review, use of the word "Transphobic" in the People headline is appropriate.

In People's opening paragraph, we then find "by mocking Newman's transgender daughter with a transphobic sign outside her office." The word "mocking" has recently become a default red flag go-to verb to boost readers' blood pressures. And sure enough, another default verb, "slammed," appears later in the piece. Writers can't ruffle readers' feathers without at least one "mocked" and a "slammed" per page these days.

In any event, Greene chose to say "Two genders" on her sign, which was both inflammatory and wrong, Even I know that gender is societally or individually defined, meaning there could technically be an unlimited array of genders.

As usual, what does NOT get said in an article tells you as much as what does. The People piece skipped what seemed to be the most logical of Greene's transgender concerns. A CNN piece covering this skirmish quotes Greene, "Biological women cannot compete against biological men. Biological little girls cannot compete against biological little boys and they shouldn't have to." Greene was referring to physical competition, specifically sports.

I have no idea how the transgender lobby, if there is such a thing, can respond to this. As a male who has been on the track and on the basketball court against females, I see any biologically born male competing in women's sports as completely inappropriate from a competitive standpoint. 

Conclusion

Marjorie Taylor Greene is an out and out nutcase with zero respect for the scientific method. Having said that, the tone of both the People and CNN pieces seemed very Hulk-ish: "Trans good; anti-trans bad." I don't understand why ostensibly neutral news organizations should craft news pieces with such explicit tone. It echoes Fox News.

It's not as if we know that today's moral absolutism will stand the test of history regarding usefulness or humanistic consequences. On topics like transgenderism, both left and right are trying to make arguments by flexing purely authoritarian muscles. 

Newman's daughter is a 19-year-old college freshman. She transitioned five years ago. How many 14-year-olds have the wisdom to choose their life arc or should be entrusted to do so? I have neither the inclination, nor the time, nor the omniscience to know. But, if pressed, I can hazard a guess.

Bob Dietz

February 3, 2021

Articles of Note and Recognizing Statistical Context

Various incarnations of Dr. Michele Gelfand's work examining cultural styles and pandemic consequences have appeared for the last month in assorted venues. I'm recommending a read of her paper in The Lancet (Planetary Health) titled "The relationship between cultural tightness-looseness and Covid-19 cases and deaths: a global analysis." The paper was published January 29. I'm also recommending an opinion piece by Gelfand published in The Guardian on February 1. This brief but informative latter piece fleshes out the implications of Gelfand's work for a general audience and is titled, "Why countries with 'loose,' rule-breaking cultures have been hit harder by Covid."

Gelfand's work provides a broad, expert perspective on the effects cultural personas have had on real world virus consequences. The articles listed above broach the issue of how cultures that have not experienced recent threats fail to react to new threats in a timely, prudent manner.

These pieces by Gelfand make their own arguments clearly, and I'm not going to obfuscate their clarity with my personal prattling.

Simplistic Superficial Stats

I wanted to tackle talking points that have popped up here in the states regarding relationships between Covid-19 stats and shut-downs. The talking points are usually in defense of red-tinged locales' decision-making or lack thereof. These talking points argue against many of Gelfand's conclusions, so I'll address them.

People who are severely critical of shut downs (I'll call them "shut-down deniers") argue that U.S. stats don't currently demonstrate that states' looseness or tightness regarding shut downs and mask-wearing affected infection rates or deaths. The shut-down deniers are saying, in essence, that California and New York had the most onerous restrictions so they should have had lower infection and death rates. I realize that this seems a very naive position, but I have actually encountered professional gamblers (quite fluent in practical statistics) who make these arguments until they are blue in the face. Their political worldviews color their ability to ask the most basic statistical questions.

This is one of those situations where the fact that no correlation exists between more stringent rules and better virus results actually makes the point that the more stringent rules worked. Some of the reasons are obvious.

First, the more stringent rules and longer shutdown areas contain large urban centers. Because urban centers have higher population densities, the transmission opportunities and larger daily virus load exposures should lead to higher transmission and death rates. Shutdowns and tighter regulations have the net effect of creating an environment that mimics lower population density. If locales containing urban centers don't have massively higher transmission and death rates, this demonstrates that the regulations were indeed effective. 

Second, because urban areas are landing points for international visitors carrying the virus initially and now carrying variants, the expectation should again be that locales with urban centers should yield much higher transmission and death rates.

Third, regulations in all of the United States, both red and blue, were quite relaxed compared to almost all other countries, and especially compared to countries rated "tight" by Gelfand. The perception of U.S. rule variation is exaggerated by the very parochial American perspective. Most everything in the U.S. has, compared to other countries, been undisciplined and loose. 

Fourth, the variants are likely embedded deeply in major urban areas and have not yet penetrated much into places like Montana or the Dakotas. 

Fifth and most important, the shutdown deniers here in the U.S. have to forcibly ignore all of the evidence from everywhere else in the world. That's a tough hurdle, but self-absorbed Americans seem to have a knack for it.

All of these points are, again, quite obvious, and actually make a strong case that more stringent rules have been useful.

Conclusion

The lack of overall context inherent in the deniers' position reminds me of a parallel argument in sport science. About 15 years ago, researchers argued against the existence of a real world "hot hand" in basketball and claimed it was all an illusion. The very basic NBA stats used in the analyses were presented without context. A lack of correlation was taken as evidence to prove the position. When context was painted in, however, the lack of simplistic correlation turned out to be evidence for a real world "hot hand," although not for a simple statistical "hot hand."

Sometime in the next month, since it's March Madness, I'll return to the hoops studies and explain their debunking. It's one of my favorite statistical rants.

For now, however, I'll wrap things up by saying that a lack of simple, clear-cut correlations between U.S. city or state regulations and transmission/death rates does not mean that those regulations had no consequences. The lack of simple correlations is actually evidence that the more stringent rules and shutdowns worked. Political prisms are generating arguments without statistical context, and the arguments are largely wrong. 

Bob Dietz

March 2, 2021

Articles of Note and Deep Thoughts

The "Articles of Note" entries are intended to point readers to some insightful pieces of writing that may get lost in the wash of louder, immediate news. My "Deep Thoughts" comments are, as usual, obvious observations regarding the articles. The "Deep Thoughts" moniker is an homage to the SNL skits of the same name.

One remarkably illuminating piece was by Katherine Stewart, "The Roots of Josh Hawley's Rage." It appeared January 11 in The New York Times."  Because of the blooming, buzzing confusion of the January 6 riot, Stewart's article may not have gotten the attention it deserved.

I'll quote a couple of excerpts before offering my deep thoughts. Pelagius (A.D. 354-418) was a British monk. Hawley was giving a commencement address in 2019:

"Mr. Hawley denounced Pelagius for teaching that human beings have the freedom to choose how they live their lives and that grace comes to those who do good things, as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines."

Later in the piece, Stewart quotes from a 2017 Hawley speech,

"That is our charge. To take the lordship of Christ, that message, into the public realm, and to seek the obedience of the nations. Of our nation!"

Stewart was able to connect the Hawley dots for me in a concise and compelling way. Hawley is just another authoritarian psycho in religious clothing. His response to the irresistible U.S. demographic shift is to impose minority (in this case, white evangelical) views on the U.S. population via sanctioned authoritarianism. As such, Hawley is just a thread (albeit a neon one) in the overarching dynamics of a minority trying to impose behaviors on a majority of Americans.

The philosophical "Deep Thoughts" of Hawley and his compatriots are crudely obvious rationales for excusing their attempts to seek raw power over those of not-like mind. And of course, in their philosophical musings, the people who don't do good things aren't required to share the wealth because they believe the right doctrines. 

I think, as we try to understand the GOP and white nationalism going forward, it will be useful to start from the default position that most actions are simply blatant power grabs for a minority group, namely white evangelicals. That perspective clears away many of the rhetorical weeds jamming our analytical mowers.

Bob Dietz

February 23, 2021

Juxtaposition

Last Thursday, February 4, the United States suffered 5,077 Covid-19 fatalities. This was the largest single-day death toll thus far. Although diagnoses of infection have been falling, deaths (which usually lag by a couple of weeks) have not.

Today, February 11, the death statistics again appear to be broaching record territory. I will hold off on commenting about what this implies until final tallies have been recorded and examined. 

Also last Thursday, Donald Trump submitted a letter to the Screen Actors Guild. Evidently he had learned that he was about to be booted from the union, and in his never-ending quest to disallow anyone from dissing him first, he decided to attempt an "I'm breaking up with you first" bit of publicity.

This was the former president of the United States, on a day he knew was the worst of the pandemic, spending time and energy to play spin-master with the Screen Actors Guild. His sense of priorities, his lack of empathy or solemnity for the raw awfulness of the moment, his usual self-absorption and anesthetized sensibilities, were all on display. I present the letter verbatim, so readers can share in the insulated and unintentionally comical wonder that is Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States. 

"Ms. Carteris:

I write to you today regarding the so-called Disciplinary Committee hearing aimed at revoking my union membership. Who cares!

While I'm not familiar with your work, I'm very proud of my work on movies such as Home Alone 2, Zoolander and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps; and television shows including The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Saturday Night Live and of course, one of the most successful shows in television history, The Apprentice -- to name just a few!

I've also greatly helped the cable news television business (said to be a dying platform with not much time left until I got involved in politics), and created thousands of jobs at networks such as MSDNC and Fake News CNN, among many others.

Which brings me to your blatant attempt at free media attention to distract from your dismal record as a union. Your organization has done little for its members, and nothing for me -- besides collecting dues and promoting dangerous un-American policies and ideas -- as evident by your massive unemployment rates and lawsuits from celebrated actors, who even recorded a video asking, "Why isn't the union fighting for me?"

These, however, are policy failures. Your disciplinary failures are even more egregious.

I no longer wish to be associated with your union.

As such, this letter is to inform you of my immediate resignation from SAG-AFTRA. You have done nothing for me."

I had a difficult time, reading this letter the first time, believing that Trump had actually written it. It sounded like something The Onion might have put out there in cyber space as a skewering dig. But no, the former American president wrote it, and then sent it on the day of the worst death toll from the pandemic. 

More than 70 million Americans voted for this man. The wonder and horror of that fact never grows old. It is a bit jarring to realize, at the age of 63, that one has spent the entirety of life in The Asylum. I'm not sure that I prefer having been stupidly unaware of my bunkmates' psychiatric issues to actually being one of the mentally challenged, but one thing is certain. I still have much to learn, even in The Asylum.

Bob Dietz

February 11, 2021

Another Saturday in The Asylum

Just another week of antics and pratfalls worthy of DSM-5 inclusion. First, your favorite and mine, the inimitable Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, proclaimed that she was "just like many regular Americans." See, this is what I've been arguing for months. There's nothing discernibly different about Greene that would set her apart from her northwest Georgia compatriots (and I do mean patriots).Green's not some bizarro American outlier; she's representative of the red-blooded American southern spirit. She's been using her ouster from committees as a fund-raising tool, a la Mr. Trump. This keen entrepreneurial sense is what has made America great...again.

That entrepreneurial energy was even more in evidence with Missouri state representative Tricia Derges, who was indicted Monday for allegedly selling regenerative stem cell treatments without stem cells. Her nimble marketing even suggested that the treatment could help with Covid-19. She made 200K selling her schlock, and yes, of course she's a Republican. Democrats lack entrepreneurial spirit.

Finally, Thursday evening, the Los Angeles Lakers made their pitch for being "regular Americans," as two starters managed to air-ball free throws against Denver. In 20 years of recreational leagues, I never shot a free throw air ball, including the year I tore a ligament in my right hand and shot free throws underhanded, Rick Barry-style. One of the Laker air balls was courtesy of Lebron James, who then decided being a regular American was not for him as he led the Lakers on a 68-35 second half rampage for the convincing 114-93 win.

The Asylum is a special place, my friends. I just hope that the outer walls are high enough to withstand the tsunami that one of the resident physicians, Dr. Michael Osterholm, has warned is on the way. We shall see.

Bob Dietz

February 6, 2021