I wrote two books which essentially broke down players’ qualifications for the baseball Hall of Fame. I went through a number of different tests and statistical gymnastics to determine whether particular players were a good fit. One of those tests is what has often been called the Player A and B test. I certainly didn’t invent it. I couldn’t tell you who did, but it has come in handy more than a few times. Essentially, you simply look at two players’ numbers and remove their name. From there, it becomes pretty easy to figure out which player was the better player.

Baseball is a peculiar sport where numbers become sacrosanct. Spit out enough numbers and most of us could identify the player anyway. However, the methodology is important. We develop emotional attachment to guys in a positive or negative way. If we can remove that emotion we can make better decisions with the ballot and we can make better arguments in the sports bar.

WWHG stands for What would Hillary Get. Hillary is no longer relevant in our politics. At least she shouldn’t be. She will never run for public office again and so she should not be particularly relevant. Of course, certain people will try to keep her relevant for their own purposes. For our own sanity, you can replace her with whoever you want. Essentially, we can turn our politics into a Player A and B test.

So, when we consider what to do with ex-presidents we can ask the simple question: what would Hillary get? If she (or Bill) had brought home boxes of confidential documents and stored it in their attic what would happen to them? Even more important than what would happen to them is the question of what should happen to them? What would you argue for?

Obviously, this is where the concept of “but the emails…” will come up. Let’s keep in mind, the FBI not only investigated that multiple times but announced less than a week before the election that they were still investigating. Nothing came of it because it was determined that she did not have any secret or sensitive information that she shouldn’t have had on the private server. Was that the right ruling? I’m not an expert on email servers or confidential documents. However, we can easily apply the same test in reverse.

Our politics has become so tribal that we reflexively defend or accuse based on which team we play for. Criminalizing politics has always been distasteful for that reason. However, sometimes you have to do it in order to protect the sanctity of our nation. WWHG needs to plastered on every billboard. We need those rubber wristbands. Some people need it tattooed on their chest. If you are willing to excuse a guy taking home boxes full of sensitive documents that he had no legal right to then you better be ready to excuse the same for those on the other side.

Holy cow, Nikki Haley! Honey, put down that grenade launcher before every Second Amendment fool thinks they have a right to own tactical nuclear weapons.

Nikki Haley just upped the stakes in the politician-issuing-attack-orders game.

Haley has iffy evidence that the New York Attorney General’s office might have leaked the list of donors to her “conservative non-profit” to the news media. Okay, so if it’s a legal non profit, how can it be conservative or liberal or any damn thing other than a charity? I don’t know the answer to that.

She was so mad when she found about it that she wants to re-fight the Battle of Honey Hill with proper weaponry over those muskets.

I mean, there is no excuse whatsoever for this lawlessness, and that’s what we are seeing coming out of these liberal government entities that decide they’ll decide who needs to be blown up and who doesn’t. Well, you know, we are not going to throw cotton balls at them, we’re going to throw a grenade and we’re going to make sure they know enough is enough.

Here’s how I see it. Now, I could be wrong and stuff may have happened way back when I wasn’t paying attention to the law much, but it doesn’t seem to me that nonprofits should be dabbling in politics just to keep their donor names secret. How do we know that she’s not pushing conservative causes with money from Putin? We don’t, and she probably is.

And don’t you think throwing a grenade into the offices of the United States Attorney General is kinda, I dunno, overkill? I mean, if she had said to drop a cockroach in their panties, I still probably would have gone all shuddup, girl but it wouldn’t have been are you insane, gasp, grenade, where you getting grenades, are you trying to grow some terrorists, has you brain lost its snap, holy cow, holy cow, what the hell is wrong with you.

To be honest I’ve had my worries about Nikki Haley for a long time.  Does it bother you that you’ve never seen Nikki Haley and Lindsey Graham together? Yeah.

One interesting upshot to the FBI’s confiscation of stolen government documents from TFG’s residence, is the introduction of the concept of a “Goldilocks Document”.

Like a Goldilocks Planet, a Goldilocks Document is neither too hot, nor too cold, but just right.

The FBI and the DOJ can’t share just any of the stolen documents with a jury. Some of those documents are apparently too sensitive to be shared and known. They’re too hot. And I am guessing that they also are identifying classified papers that, though classified, are so harmless that any given juror will question the harm in TFG’s taking them home.

So the search is on for documents that are assessed as possibly harmful, if released, but maybe not overly so and can be shared with a jury.

Enough to demonstrate how TFG imperiled our national security, but everyone can read it now.

Hard to imagine, but it’s a noble goal

“I can be someone’s and still my own.” — Shel Silverstein

I suppose I have to be a teacher because I find that I repeat myself quite often. The best writers are the ones that offer lines like above. I’ve used it more than once in this space because it packs so much into such a tiny place. It’s simple and yet more profound than probably anything I’ve ever come up with.

We’ve been talking about student loan forgiveness for a few days now. I have tons of responses on social media and here. The negative responses (mostly on social media) usually fall under two different categories. These are categories I’ve addressed before. I keep repeating myself after all.

The main word we come to in all of these discussions is the word deserve. These students don’t deserve to have their loans forgiven. They haven’t done anything to earn that. Either that or we will cite the fact that they willingly entered into this contract, so they should suffer the consequences of that decision. Of course, the mere fact of suggesting that anyone should suffer anything should make us pause. This doesn’t even mention the fact that we are making a pretty heavy assumption that students are making informed decisions when they sign these deals. We assume they know what they are getting into. If they are in dire financial straits it is probably due to the fact that their parents didn’t go to college. So, why should we expect them to automatically understand how these loans work or how to pick a major that makes sense? Middle class kids that have parents that went to college will know these things. They also will be less likely to need larger loans.

As I said in a previous piece, the idea that any of us deserves anything is presumptuous. Certainly, in a philosophical/theological sense that is definitely untrue. We don’t deserve a damn thing. However, one could claim that everyone should get a measure of human kindness. Silverstein’s quote above eloquently points out that we may think we are lone wolfing it, but all societies have a certain interconnectedness that we cannot deny. We can belong to someone else and still be our own. We can support each other and still maintain a measure of self-reliance.

We all acknowledge that the government does not have an infinite amount of cash to spend. So, when we ask the question of whether we should forgive loans we have to look at it as an investment. What do we as a society get for that? Is that enough to justify the investment? It’s a fair question especially when thrust against other opportunities where we can invest in people.

The second argument levied is why these people get assistance and not those people. Someone asked why they should forgive student loans and not cancer patients. Of course, no one bothered to consider that we could conceivably do both. Sure, it means that other things may not be funded, but opponents love to present a false choice.

People often use these two methods to avoid the hard conversations that come with living in a society. Government spending is all an investment. It is an investment that will help some people and not others. These are choices we freely make as a society. We can dodge it as long as we want, but eventually we have to face these hard choices.

Okay, thanks to Fox News and Lindsay Graham it appears that Republicans have taken How Outrageous Can They Get as a personal challenge.

Fox News headlines —

First off, that’s not a warning, that’s a threat.  Graham is standing at the White House screeching for the leftover Trumpers to go riot at the Capitol again.  And, like the rest of the Trumpers in congress, Graham will scamper on little tippy toes to safety.

Just like wayward punks and bullies, if they don’t get their way, they are going to smash your toys.  They can’t smash their own because they don’t have any.

Y’all, I am just sick of them.  Tell ya what, Senator Graham, if Trump isn’t indicted, the rule of law is dead and we might as well just name you  Miss Bo Peep and make you herd those damn sheep the rest of your damn life.

Especially for our friend Deb in DeeCee –