White People and Their Relationship to Racism

One of the great incorrect assumptions on race in America is that there are two groups- racists and non-racists. While this may be the final outcome of most attitudes on race, it's a misunderstanding of race relations in America. In fact, most white people fit into one of three groups.

1. Outright racists- This group is the smallest of the three, but it's growing increasingly loud. Ku Klux Klan members, white nationalists, and just about any hate group member fits into this group. This group was the most defeated by the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 60's, but it's the most emboldened by Donald Trump.
2. The racially tolerant- This is the second largest group and encompasses most of those who support Civil Rights movements today. This group is currently the weakest though. They are the least loud or growing.
3. The indifferent- These folks don't necessarily hold "hate" in their hearts towards minorities. They are living comfortably though, and don't really feel like discussing race relations in America. Some may realize the gravity of the racial situation in America, some may not, but the outcome of their inaction is continued oppression.

The first group is loud, but somewhat marginalized in today's America. The second group is more numerous, but is the hardest to grow enthusiasm for- it's asking people who don't have a personal stake in fighting for increased Civil Rights for all, to suddenly care. The third group is where the danger is though. It is fairly easy for white people to decide not to care about Civil Rights issues, it doesn't take being racist to do so. It just means resorting to your comfort, your privilege, and ignoring the plight of other people. It means saying that police brutality towards African-Americans, or deportation for the DREAMers is a "distraction." It means those on the left telling the Democratic Party to "forget identity politics." It means centering the issues of one's self over those that are matters of life and death for people of color. This is happening- a lot. It's probably more damaging than even the marches being carried out by the guys with Confederate flags and hoods on.

My Newest Coffee Recipe...

I went into Wawa today. I had a coupon from an Ironpigs game for a free 16 oz. coffee. I decided to get a little bit creative. Here's what I came up with.

-A blast of pumpkin spice
-A blast of hot chocolate
-A blast of french vanilla
-A blast of pumpkin spice, again.

It was very good. Like ridiculously good. Try it. Thank me later.

Some Truths About Campaigns

I'm going to let you in on a few campaign truths for a minute:

1. Hard work doesn't win elections. A common misconception among political operatives, candidates, and activists is that hard work is a good thing. Get to the office early, stay late, have no life, and stress yourself to death, they tell you. They're wrong. I don't care if you knock on 30,000 doors, if they're the wrong doors. I don't care how early you're at the office, if you're not raising money or getting votes. I don't care how many volunteer recruitment calls you make, if you're not having quality discussions that engage people. Quality work beats hard work every day. If that means you worked 40 hours this week instead of 80, so be it.
2. Party rallies and events don't win elections. I love Democratic Party events. I love most activists I meet, even the one's who are "crazy." Let's be clear though, no one at a county party dinner is the median voter in your district. In fact, they're much different than the median voter, they're engaged. They're also decided. They have an ideological political position. They're a committed member of their party. If they're not backing a certain candidate from their party, they have a personal reason why that you can't change. In other words, while I know candidates stress making every county party picnic, it doesn't matter at all. There's no swing voters there, and there's no voters there who might not vote.
3. Knocking doors all Summer doesn't win elections. So you knocked some doors today- that's great. Direct voter contact is pivotal to winning elections. It can make the difference in turning out a voter, and winning. It matters a lot. Here's the problem though- six months before your election, voters aren't engaged yet. You might show up at their door, and they may enjoy the interaction, and they may forget it in three weeks. I'm all for knocking doors, I think it's really important, but it's not all that important super early when no one cares yet. Spend that time calling donors.
4. "The Grassroots" alone, won't win you the election, but money can. Everyone hates money in politics. Guess what though? TV ads cost money. Literature to hand out at the doors costs money. Facebook ads cost money. Mailers cost money. Get my drift? Until you're going to make elections free by forcing media outlets to give you free advertisement time, money is going to be a part of elections- it's necessary for enough people to actually see you and know what you're about. I know that "the Grassroots" makes us feel cleaner, holier, and morally superior to calling people and asking them to give you a check, but it's a much slower, less efficient way to talk to voters. I'd argue doing both is best, but if you can only have one, raise the money.
5. Turning out your party wins elections. If I get a low information voter to the polls, someone who doesn't follow elections very closely, they're likely to vote for the party they identify themselves with. In other words, if I can get someone to vote who is registered in my party, or demographically is likely to support one party or the other, statistically, I will probably win their vote. If I get more people like that to vote than the other guy, I probably will win. In the end, a poll can say anything it damn well wants, if I can't turn out the people who I'm supposedly winning with, I lose. Turnout is one of the few things that actually matter.
6. Winning swing voters wins elections. Competitive elections are decided at the margins. 90% of people are decided at the outset. Voters who cross between the parties when voting tend to be the margin in close races. In other words, independents and moderates still matter. This may seem at odds with point #5, but it's not- if you're making a strong case for why someone should come out and vote for you who might not, it also stands to reason that your strong case will reach someone who is undecided, and convince them that you will be a more successful leader, in office. 
7. Being right sucks, winning doesn't. Your county prison is an inhumane dump and you want to build a new one- great! You may be right on the position, but when you poll the position, the public doesn't care about the issue. The few who do care are negative on what you want to do, and the rest of the public is indifferent. I have bad news for you- this issue is a political loser. Winning an argument on a political issue is completely pointless if the public doesn't want to hear the argument in the first place. You have to talk about issues that the people care about. What are those issues? Taxes, jobs, quality of life issues, safety and security. Those things always poll well, and people want to discuss them. Other issues can crack the list, on a case by case basis. The main point is that you better be talking about something the public actually cares about, and will vote for, otherwise you're wasting your time winning an argument.
8. Endorsements are only as good as the endorser. So I endorsed you. Great. Who cares? Whether you're getting an endorsement from an elected official, a group, or some popular citizen, that endorsement is only as good as the effort behind it. Endorsing someone three days before an election and doing a press conference doesn't do squat for them. Endorsing someone early on, and raising them money, cutting ads for them, knocking doors for them, and getting them in front of your network of supporters can help them win an election. Putting checks and bodies behind an endorsement is what matters in the end- not lending your name to someone.
9. Even Super Voters aren't full-time engaged. Your campaign is your life, you think about it all the time. You think about policy. You think about your local elected officials. You know who they all are. Guess what? Jane down the street who's voted in eight of the last ten elections doesn't do any of that. She's a great voter, but she's not that engaged. In fact, even today, in late September, Jane might not really be paying attention yet to who she's going to vote for in the race for Judge. Jane's civic minded, engaged, and smart- but even she's only going to really engage as the election gets closer. Voters are not political junkies, generally.
10. Candidates don't understand elections. This is actually not the fault of candidates, but they don't know squat about campaigns, usually. If you don't come from a campaign background, why would you really understand demographic movements, or the cost of TV per point, or how/why mail is effective, or what the value of a door knock is? I mean honestly, if you don't have a campaign background, how can we expect you to understand what matters and what doesn't? This is why candidates love the volunteer who works hard for them, or want to run an "all grassroots" kind of campaign, think party events matter, think more people know them than do, don't understand messaging, or all kinds of other things that operatives do. Of course they hate their campaign manager and love the super volunteer. Of course they hate fundraising, but love seeing their name on a yard sign. I get it. I also realize now though that a good candidate listens to the people they hire, and complies with the plan they have for them. That's how you win- not by being smarter, better looking, and just generally better than the other guy. 

In short, what I'm saying is that about 90% of the things that candidates, activists, and operatives treat as important are not. Look back a year- Hillary Clinton had a huge campaign infrastructure, a top notch media team, a huge ground game, lots of well made ads, and tons of endorsements, but she lost to a guy with no experience, barely a campaign team to speak of, very little staff, and a media team with very little to no political experience. In fact, Donald Trump ran through three managers, never had a national field program to speak of, and didn't really run ads until late September in swing-states- but he won. Discipline, wit, realism, and pragmatism win elections, being right does not. It's a strategic game, not one of hard work.

Seeing Black Men as Actual People

Why won't these athletes stick to sports and stop disrespecting the flag?

It's a rather interesting refrain, and most of us saw it somewhere in our social media over this weekend. Some of our friends are entirely appalled that football players, many of them black, would protest during the national anthem by kneeling instead of standing. "How dare they not honor those who gave their lives for this country!" We all saw this kind of talk. If you can listen for a few minutes, I (a white man) can try to make this simple for you.

When Colin Kaepernick started the anthem protests last year, there was a specific purpose to his protest- the treatment of African-Americans at the hands of the law (mostly on matters of police brutality). Now, I do feel the need here to tell you that I'm not a Kaepernick fan really- his comments about not voting, and even some of his less respectful words about cops are not things I can agree with- but him (and his declining football talent) are irrelevant to the situation. Black men in America have a different relationship to the law than just about any other group in our society. They are more likely to lose their life in an altercation with a cop. They are more likely to get a prison sentence for a crime than any other group. They receive the death penalty at a higher rate. They have had a very different experience with "the law" than the rest of us have, statistically speaking. Again, this is not an argument about each individual case where a black man is shot by a cop. This isn't measuring the level of racism in any one instance. This isn't even to say that most cops are racist. This is to say that the statistics say that black men, as a percentage, are more likely to have a negative experience in any interaction with legal authority. This was true 30 years ago. It is still true today. This isn't disputable.

The very first amendment our founding fathers passed was the First Amendment- the freedom of speech. The idea is that you can choose to make a political statement at your own personal discretion, how you want, when you want, without fear of "the state" penalizing you for doing so. In other words, if you are a black man who is unhappy with the statistical bias against you in the criminal justice system, and you choose to kneel during the national anthem, you can. You are well within your rights. You are not causing me any physical harm in doing so. You are making your point. Protest is protected speech, and the point of protest is not to make other people comfortable. The point is to make your cause heard.

When you ask how someone protesting can "disrespect the sacrifice of those who died for our flag," you are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of American history. Many of our troops who have died in wars, died fighting against nations and opponents who did not respect the freedom of speech. If they were defending anything American, it was the difference that we can speak out and air our grievances. From the British to ISIS, a very basic look back at the opponents Americans gave their blood to defeat shows people who did not respect anything resembling our First Amendment. Those troops gave their life and limb to defend the right of those very black men in the NFL who are protesting, whether they knew it then or not. That is quite literally what America is about. To believe that someone protesting for a cause is disrespecting the American flag is to fundamentally be completely ignorant of American history, period. It's also worth noting- American history has not been as kind to us all, without regard to race- so for some, the meaning of the flag can take on different values.

Which brings us to what went on yesterday, and really all weekend on social media- our President trying to incite a race war. Imagine if President Obama had attacked Tom Brady on Twitter for not coming to the White House when he won the Super Bowl. Donald Trump's attempt to insert himself into this debate on the side opposite of the First Amendment ended the option of silence for most players in the NFL, NBA, or anywhere else. His calling protesting players SOB's ended the notion that this President in any way respected the right of these men to voice their grievances. His attack on Steph Curry by name for not wishing to come to the White House ended the notion that he would respect his critics. Donald Trump attempted to reframe the protests from a discussion of a legitimate issue of policy and human rights, and move it into a question of patriotism and national pride. The minute he inserted himself into this debate in this manner, he changed the nature of these protests- from protests over the treatment of black men by the state, to a protest of a national leader who does not respect the right of these men to voice their grievances as people. Donald Trump could not bring himself to really impugn white supremacists in Charlottesville, but he could call black football players "SOB's" for protesting at football games. His motives are clear as day.

White Americans need to have a wake up call on this matter- if black men are good enough to play sports for you, or make music for you, or entertain you in any way that you're willing to buy, then you also have to accept that they are actual human beings, and support their right to act as such. Either black men are people or not- and if we're asking this question in 2017, I don't want to hear you tell me "how far we've come." If you're saying you want these black men to "stick to sports," you're basically saying you don't want to allow them the right to be human beings. These are not 2-D video game characters, these are actual people- afford them the humanity to hear their cause out.

Protests are not supposed to make you comfortable. They are supposed to be inconvenient, to make you think about things you'd rather not think about. They are supposed to invade your Montgomery, Alabama bus system, and also your television set on Sunday afternoons in the Fall. They are supposed to make you contemplate and discuss issues in our society that you don't want to, aren't comfortable discussing, and fear the answers to. Protests are not supposed to be for your pleasure- because those protesting sure as hell aren't deriving any pleasure from having to do it.

Now, as I said above, I'm a white man, and I'm proud overall of my country, problems and all. Do I particularly like national anthem protests? No, I don't. Guess what though? That's not for me to decide. I am not the people protesting. I am not the person who feels their rights are being violated by the very government who is supposed to insure them. As someone who is not oppressed in this instance, it is not for me to tell the oppressed how to voice their concerns. It's not for me to tell them to sit down and shut up. It's not for me to judge. It's for me to listen to, and contemplate. I may not always agree with the protest of an issue, but I should try and give it a fair hearing as best I can. Even if the method of protest has made me uncomfortable.

That's what being American is. That's what this is all about. It's not about disrespecting police officers, they do our society a service every day. It's not about disrespecting our flag, our soldiers, or our history. This is about whether or not we will actually see these modern day gladiators on our TV as actual people, voicing their concerns on issues that impact their lives, or not.

Either you're going to respect black men as people, or you're not. The ball's in your court, America.

Philadelphia Sports Talk Radio is on a Terrible Path

JP Crawford scores on an inside the park homer this Summer. Photo by Richard Wilkins Jr.

The Phillies just won their second straight game over baseball's best team last night behind Rhys Hoskins and J.P. Crawford. The Sixers are about to start training camp with two #1 overall picks making their debuts with Joel Embiid. The Flyers Nolan Patrick, the #2 overall pick in this year's draft, is in his first training camp with the team. What is WIP talking about?

The Eagles. The 1-1 Eagles. Did Carson Wentz play good or bad on Sunday in the loss. Did I mention the Eagles? Is it time for the Eagles to wear black for a home game yet?

If you listen to talk radio in Philadelphia, you might think the only sport played in Philadelphia is football. While there are exciting things happening with all four teams, only one gets any air time on WIP or 97.5. It's just a loop of talk about the last Eagles game, Carson Wentz, and the next Eagles game. Don't get me wrong, I'm very excited about the future of Carson Wentz too, but not to this level. Not to the level of ignoring the historic start by Rhys Hoskins. Not to the level of ignoring the Hakeem Olajuwon clone playing center for the Sixers. Not to the level of ignoring a #2 overall pick starting his career for the Flyers.

The NFL is actually in a decline right now across the country for a variety of reasons (bad labor practices, over saturation, the national anthem stuff, head injuries, racism, etc.), but apparently it's not in decline among the Philadelphia talk radio listeners, right? I at least have to assume they have data that shows them talking Eagles 22 hours out of 24 in a day is good business for them. The problem is that I don't see this being a sustained success for them. Younger people already think the talk radio format can be silly, and now you're talking about what they are moving away from?

Bad move bro.

I'll Tell You What Really Happened Without a Book

I generally don't think like most books about Presidential Elections. They tend to focus on national perspectives, meaningless DC chatter, headquarters nonsense, and the candidate. The other reasons is that generally we can tell most of the factors that decided a race without buying the book. So, you want to know why Hillary Clinton is not President today? Ok, I can basically tell you:

• The Comey Letters (announcing the new investigation and clearing her)
• Russian interference in the election
• Trump embracing white nationalists and racism
• Media coverage
• Sexism
• Double standards
• Bernie's attacks on Hillary
• Getting a private e-mail server in the first place
• Not visiting Wisconsin
• Ignoring Michigan
• Bad hires at the top of the campaign
• Not doing persuasion in the field program
• Continuously campaigning in big cities and refusing to visit other markets

There are other factors, obviously, i'm not the final arbiter on this. I think my list hits a lot of the reasons though. More importantly, I think my list does something that neither Hillary or the Bernie Bros are willing to do- it acknowledges that both sides are not wrong here. Comey, Russia, the media, and Bernie all were major factors in Hillary's loss, and deserve to be called on for such. Hillary also didn't run a great campaign. To only acknowledge half of the reasons for Trump's victory is to lie to yourself, particularly if you only acknowledge the parts that you want. Hillary was treated highly unfairly, and deserved better. Hillary also didn't exactly ace the test here. She would have been a great President, but you have to win the election first.

The Next Step for President Obama

Rhys Hoskins Can Stand the Test of Time

Photo by Richard Wilkins Jr.

In 33 baseball games in the majors, Rhys Hoskins has hit 17 homers. That's... good. In fact, it's the best start by a rookie ever. He has a .310 average, a .434 OBP, and a 1.218 OPS so far. He has 37 RBI's and 31 runs- in 33 games. All of this is flat out amazing, but many people are pausing on passing judgment, because Hoskins isn't the first young player to come up and tear the cover off the baseball. The game generally figures you out, and why would he be different? Besides, unlike a Bryce Harper, the hype wasn't always there with Hoskins. He was the 69th ranked prospect in the last Baseball America ratings, and never was ranked before 2017. He wasn't heavily recruited out of high school, when he ended up going to Sacramento State, and he was a fifth round pick. He's a right-handed hitting first baseman prospect too, not something that generally excites the prospect watching community. He should come back to Earth, right?

I'm here to tell you I don't think so. I'm not saying he's going to hit 80 homers a year, he will have slumps and down times, but I think he's actually going to be a really wonderful player to watch. His track record in the minors suggests a player who can really hit, for the long haul. Consider:

• AAA Lehigh Valley- 475 plate appearances, 29 homers, 91 RBI's, .284 average, .966 OPS, International League MVP and Rookie of the Year.
• AA Reading- 589 plate appearances, 38 homers, 116 RBI's, .281 average, .943 OPS
• A Clearwater/Lakewood- 567 plate appearances, 17 homers, 90 RBI's, .319 average, .913 OPS

Hoskins has shown a consistent ability to hit .280 plus, post a .900 plus OPS, and drive in a lot of runs. What's improved each year is his power numbers. He went from 17 homers in 2015, 38 homers in 2016, and 46 this season between AAA and the Majors. He's a fairly large, strong guy, and as he's improved his game at each level, his power numbers have improved. He posted a .395, .377, and .384 OBP in A, AA, and AAA, which is to say his patience at the plate has been consistently good. He doesn't swing at balls, and he's shown no sign that we should expect him to down the line. 

The Major Leagues are not the Minor Leagues, so let's not try to read too far into his minor league numbers, but they do have value in projecting the future. Based on his professional career to this point, I don't think you should expect Rhys Hoskins to suddenly struggle, so long as he stays healthy. He's shown the ability to adjust to what professional pitching throws at him with each level, so the mental side of the game is there. I think you can safely view Hoskins as a 35-40 homer, .900 plus OPS, .375 plus OBP, 100 RBI player moving forward. He's just 24 years old too, so I feel good about saying he's a huge piece of the Phillies future. 

Never Shut Up, Hillary

Full disclosure on a number of things- 1. I love Hillary Clinton and worked on both of her Presidential campaigns. 2. I basically hate her critics on the left. 3. I probably won't read her book.

Hillary Clinton has had quite a political career. She was First Lady of Arkansas. She was First Lady of the United States. She was a United States Senator. She was Secretary of State. She was the first woman every nominated by a major party for President of the United States. She won the popular vote for President by 2.9 million votes. Other than actually serving as President of the United States, she has done it all. I don't think she will ever be President, but I give her a higher than zero chance, even still. She's an accomplished woman with a lot to say, and I totally see why some people still find her interesting to read.

Now, it is apparent at this time that her new book, out today, is very critical of Bernie Sanders and some of his supporters. Good. I've made no secret of how I feel about Sanders, a 25 year veteran of Congress, lacking many major achievements, and masquerading about as some sort of "outsider" after 25 years of sitting in the back of the Congress and collecting a check. They hypocrisy of he and his wife, hammering Hillary as corrupt while they have plenty of their own issues, is enough for me to want to scream. I would not vote for this man in 2020 for the Democratic nomination, and while I suspect I would vote for him against Trump, I would do so with extreme regret. I do not share his socialist values, opposition to putting Civil Rights front and center, or absolute contempt for the Democratic Party. In short, she was nicer than I would have been.

I probably won't read the book though, or attend the tour, or do anything like that. It's nothing personal against Hillary, I just find these kind of books to be basically useless. I never read "Game Change" or any of the books written about President Obama's wins, in part because I find the perspective to be boring, stupid, and wrong. I don't care what was going on in DC, on the Hill, or in the campaign's headquarters either. None of those places are where elections are won, they can only be lost there (as I would argue Hillary's election was). Even the perspective of the candidate is flawed to me, as they are uniquely unclear about what they saw while out campaigning. When someone who was out in a swing state, or in Iowa or New Hampshire, or basically out where the election was contested writes a book, let me know. I will buy that book, because that book will be the best one written yet.

With all of that out of the way, I must say that the push to "shut Hillary up" from Chuck Schumer, the Bernie Bros, and media members is disgusting. Before you push back at all, let's evaluate the treatment of Hillary right now against the treatment of another person robbed of the Presidency- Al Gore. Gore spoke out against the Iraq War, endorsed Howard Dean, and then released "An Inconvenient Truth" on his way to a Nobel Prize after his 500k vote popular vote victory in 2000, and was rightly cheered all the way. Hillary releases a book, and we have clowns like Chris Cillizza bringing up her emails again, Chuck Schumer telling her to look in the mirror, and the bros on the internet saying she needs to go away. Anyone who dares say that most of Hillary's problems are NOT sexism should never be taken seriously again.

I will say that I don't want Hillary to run in 2020 right now (though I'd consider voting for her again), but I'm tired of the "go away Hillary" crowd. If a woman who served in all the roles she did wants to speak, then speak. If someone of her accomplishment wants to voice their view, voice it. If she has an opinion, she should make it known. Hillary Clinton has earned that. If you're unwilling to defend her doing so, because you think it's bad for the Democratic brand, perhaps you should stop being a Democrat. You clearly aren't willing to defend the party brand, so don't force yourself to.

Money Doesn't Change Most Candidates

Bethlehem is a beautiful little city of about 75,000 people in Pennsylvania. I went to college there and love it. Over the past 25 years, the city has made incredible progress. It was a dying steel town in the early 1990's when Bethlehem Steel left the city for greener pastures. In the time since then, they developed their downtown Main Street area into a collection of restaurants, shops, bars, and historic sites. They re-developed the former Steel lands, using a casino to get the infusion of capital, but then adding a mix of retail, non-profits, the arts, and public leisure space. Now they are talking about re-developing the Martin Tower area, the former corporate HQ for Bethlehem Steel, and making it into the next re-birth in Bethlehem. The building has been empty for 15 years, and it's high time they blow that relic to everything wrong with Bethlehem Steel Corporation right off the map.

Of course there is opposition, particularly from some of the merchants down on Main Street who have been around about 20 years now, and don't want any more new competition to them coming into the city. A new anti-development wing has emerged in city politics, opposing the basic idea of urban growth and re-development. They think the city is too generous with developers, and want it to stop. Of course, they think the developers buy influence through campaign contributions, and so they want to put in place tighter ethics rules than the state or city currently have, so they can force anyone who took a campaign contribution from a developer to not vote on development issues.

Money doesn't generally impact the views of politicians. It's a comforting thought to say that your opponent doesn't have any real values, ethics, or morals, and only supports their position because they were bought off, but it is generally ignorant to why people run for office in the first place. I don't care if we're talking about City Council or Congress, people run for office generally because they support or oppose the government they have. When people enter the race for Congressman Dent's seat next year, they will do so either to support Donald Trump and Paul Ryan, or to oppose them. The same is generally true locally. Every Bethlehem Mayor over the past 25 years has supported a "pro-urban growth" agenda, which is to say that they believe when a property is not productive in any way, they have wanted to re-develop that land. When people entered the race for City Council in Bethlehem, they either generally entered as a supporter of the incumbent Mayor of that time, or against them. They started out generally, philosophically, in support of re-development projects, or not. When developers donated to these candidates that support development, they didn't do so to change their mind- they did so because they wanted that perspective on the council. That is entirely within their first amendment right.

In the case of 99% of campaign contributions, the contributions are a reward for existing views, not a bribe to change them. When Planned Parenthood PAC gives money to Democratic candidates for Congress, or the NRA to Republicans, they do so under the expectation that these candidates already support their political causes, even when the candidate has no government voting record yet to judge from. The support for the political positions the donor wants comes before the contribution, not because of the contribution. There are rare cases where that is not true, such as the whole Allentown mess, and those people typically end up going to jail. Generally speaking though, the overwhelming majority of cases are that donations don't change a person's views on a political issue, they follow them.

I get why people like to believe the concept that money corrupts their political opponent's views- it's comforting to think that you have the moral high ground, and not just a political position that must be argued and defended. If your opponent is just a bought off shill, you don't have to think about the merits of what they are saying, or think about the repercussions of your plan's actions. Saying something like "Senator X only supports industry Y because of the $___ they received from them" makes your opponent seem dirtier and corrupt, but the truth is that 99% of the time it's a pile of pony loaf. Beyond that though, if you have an elected official who has received no money from any industry of any kind, you should be asking yourself what it is they are doing in office? Businesses create jobs, and people having jobs is good. This idea that every business is bad and corrupt is a political idea that should die a quick death- it's nothing more than a sound bite that actually does more harm than good.

In this case, I happen to think Bethlehem is much better off because of the development the city has encouraged over the past 25 years. The city could have went either way coming out of the Steel era, and it's now the jewel of the Lehigh Valley. The city does not have an ethics issue, it simply has a council that supports growth and re-development projects. If there are people who don't support growth and re-development projects, they should run against the council people in place. A woman is doing that this year as a write-in, and one of the current council people even supports her. That's the democratic process in action, which is good. The place to settle these philosophical differences is at the ballot box, not by putting a stronger ethics rule in place. That's solving a problem the city does not have.

Harry Kalas on 9/11

9/11

Gas was $.88 cents that Tuesday morning down the hill from my house, and I had a cross-country meet scheduled for that afternoon. There was not a cloud in the sky that day, and while I had heard of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, he was not nearly my top concern that morning as I picked up my friends for school. I was a senior at Easton Area High School and there were probably a hundred things on my mind ahead of terrorism on the morning of 9/11/01.

I have nothing overly profound to say, 16 years later. There is very little that has not been written already, that can be written. There is nothing new to write about the 3,000 lives lost. There is nothing new to write about Iraq and Afghanistan. There is nothing new to write about the changes in every day American life. There's nothing new to write, so all I try to do is remember each year. I remember sitting next to my friend Tarin, in Latin 1, watching it unfold.

That's all I can do now- remember.

About PA-15...

I was sitting in Coca-Cola Park, having a beer and watching the IronPigs playoff game when I saw the first rumblings of Charlie Dent's retirement from Congress. Within an hour, I spoke to at least four or five interested candidates- i'm not kidding. While i'm not going to say who on a blog, I guess the point is still made- this seat is going to draw a lot of interested candidates, some very good on paper, some not. If we're going to really look at this seat though, it's worth us really getting to understand the seat.

The district is more Republican than it used to be. It's changed a lot since the "competitive" days of 2002, 2006, or even 2010. The Berks and Lebanon County portions of the seat are considerably more Republican than the Easton area that the district lost. Dauphin County has become blue in Presidential races, but the portion of it in the 15th Congressional District is not Harrisburg- it's more Republican. The district is still all of Lehigh County, and the Bethlehem area of Northampton County, which is basically where the Democratic votes are, but let's not confuse those counties with Philadelphia. The bottom line is that Trump won PA-15 by 8%.

Then there's the candidate pool- and it's not very deep. The Democratic bench in this district's Dauphin, Lebanon, and Berks areas is very limited, and doesn't include many people who have won a county or state level race. Add in the scandal in Allentown, and a significant portion of Lehigh is out of play for candidates too. There are four Democratic State Representatives, several Northampton County level officials, and a current and former Mayor in Bethlehem- but no slam dunks to start out with. There is a considerably larger bench of potential Republican elected officials in the district to begin with, and they already have a State Representative (Simmons) running.

Finally, there's the reality of districts like this- Democrats haven't won in places like this very often lately, because they have no idea how to run in districts like this. Network television isn't the way to run this race, and yet it's the biggest piece of most DCCC budgets. There are a few walkable areas to run a ground game, particularly in Allentown and Bethlehem, but it's not an easy district to walk on the whole. Finally, there's the fact that the national party organization loves to pick the candidate who has the best record on fundraising, and the reality is that the candidate who can attract the most Philadelphia area donors is probably the candidate least equipped to connect to voters in this seat. I can see us messing this up as a party, in fact one might call it likely.

With all of that said, the door is open. The opportunity is there. Democrats could absolutely win this seat, with the right candidate. This is probably the best chance we will get to win this seat for a generation, and losing it to someone like Rep. Simmons should be absolutely horrifying for all Democrats. This race will be hard, and I'd give Democrats no better than a 40% chance of victory, but we better convert on this 40%.

Great Ballpark, Great Fans, Terrible Ownership

Pittsburgh is a great city, and their sports teams have been great too. As a result, they have good fans, fans that generally support their teams. The Pirates became a hot ticket, particularly when they were a playoff team in 2013, 2014, and 2015. They had an MVP center fielder and a team around him that was winning 90 plus games every year. In 2015 particularly, they had a team good enough to contend for a World Series. Of course the Pirates didn't do enough to bolster that squad through trades and signings, and they didn't win. They began to drop off in 2016, and it looks like 2017 is a dead end too. Which leaves them here:

The fading attendance at Pirates games isn't just presumably hurting the organization economically. It's hurting low-wage employees at PNC Park.

Dozens of ushers have been told that their services will be required only sparingly for the remainder of the 2017 regular season, as attendance  is expected to plummet in September.

I guess this is the economics of the job, but think about this from the Pirates perspective- they missed the boat! I still believe they should have been in on the big pitching arms in 2015 (Hamels, Cueto, etc.), because they had the prospects to get them, and that could have won them the World Series. They didn't, and now the team is declining. Their owner was simply too cheap to go for it all. I'd be an angry fan if I were a Pirates fan. 

10 Hard Truths About the Democratic Party

Democrats have been fighting since Donald Trump's election in November- and that is good. You'll see a lot of Democratic activists try to say it's time to "stop fighting" about the 2016 Primary season, divisions within the party, and anything that pushes us away from supposed "unity." You shouldn't listen to those people, they have no idea what they are talking about. This infighting is good- it gives us shape as to who we are, it makes us contemplate what each other are saying, and it gives us a better sense of our weaknesses. Eight years ago, Republicans were having these same types of fights, between their establishment wing and Tea Party activists, fights that spilled over into nasty primaries, some of which even hurt their general election cause- and they won north of 60 seats in the House, seats in the Senate, and all the Governorships and state houses they used to gerrymander the map against us for the past eight years. Oh, and they did so after losing every House special election contested in 2009- really. Republicans had no cohesive message, massive divisions, were losing elections like crazy, and even nominated some lunatics- and they still won in 2010. None of this infighting is going to hurt the Democratic Party in 2018. The 2018 mid-term election will be a test of motivation and how the public feels about the Trump era. Democrats are the schleps who happen to be on the ballot. Our job is to get people to run, make them raise money, and turn the volunteer energy into volunteer work- if we do that, 2018 will take care of itself, regardless of this stuff.

So, with that in mind, I think it's time for a little self-examination. It's time for an honest discussion about the Democratic Party, what it is, what it can do, and where we go. So, I offer ten unsolicited, stone cold truths about our party to move forward with:

1. The Democratic Party is a coalition, the Republican Party is a political party- The Democratic Party is a collection of people who arrive at the party because of their issue of interest and then hopefully at least tolerate the rest. Our interest groups don't always agree with, or even like each other. Our coalition partnership all thinks their issue is the top issue of the moment, must be fought for, and is the great moral battle of the day. For that reason, we spend a lot of time talking over each other, and our voters tend to hold our nominees for office to a much higher standard. While there seems to be no intelligent reason that social conservatives and big business acolytes agree with "big military" Republicans, most of their base swallows the platform whole. Republicans just accepted Donald Trump. The Democratic voters struggled to unite behind a former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. It's just a lot harder to manage a coalition than a political party.
2. Our base is not white liberals and college kids- The base of the Democratic Party backed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the 2008 and 2016 primaries. The base of the Democratic Party is African-Americans (especially women), Latinos, LGBT people, and women- not white liberals. This is not to say that one Democratic voter is more important than the next, it's to say that we have to represent our base, and to represent that base, we have to know who they are. This is why civil rights policies are not something we can pick and choose when to support in 2017. This is why we can't "kinda accept racism." It's also why we can't listen to Bernie Sanders, and drop the damn identity politics- that would mean literally putting the base of our party on the back burner. Look, not everything can be fixed by economics- American society doesn't work that way.
3. Democrats win the White House in times of perceived crisis lately, and not any other times- When LBJ left Washington, so did the era of Democratic dominance that had begun with FDR. Since then, Democrats have won the White House with exactly three men. Jimmy Carter won the White House in 1976 in the aftermath of the national crisis that was Watergate. Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992, in the aftermath of a recession. Barack Obama won the White House in 2008, in the midst of an economic meltdown and the Iraq War. See a pattern? Americans elect Democrats when there is a crisis to solve, but don't really gravitate towards their brand in any other times. They don't trust them to, or want them to govern on the norm.
4. The Democratic base is not big enough to win elections, and won't be for years- So remember the part above about who our base is? Our base is not big enough to win national elections. Our base is concentrated in big urban centers, which is the worst distribution of votes possible in our system. They simply don't live in enough Congressional districts to win Congress, which is why we've held the House for four (4) of the last twenty-three (23) years. It's not going to get any better either. In 20 years, 70% of America will be represented by 30 Senators. As long as such a large chunk of our voters continue to live in California, New York, Chicago, and the coasts in general, a base only strategy of mobilization won't win us Congress. It also won't win us the White House. Notice that we have twice this century already won the popular vote and lost the Presidency- that's about to get more common if we don't add new people to our coalition. Democrats must pick some group of voters they don't win now, and bring them into the fold, otherwise we're just going to be a minority party in Congress, and stuck in tight Presidential races forever.
5. Our policies are a lot more popular than they are electable- Just about every Democratic position polls well. Democrats always win policy. People don't care about policy. Trump's Rust Belt voters cited crime and immigration as their top reasons to vote for Trump- two things that don't actually need fixing in 2017. Democrats used to win issue polling on health care, until the details rolled out on the Affordable Care Act. They won on climate change at that time too, until the costs of Cap and Trade were brought into the debate. There's no reason to believe rolling out bold new policies- like single-payer or free college- will win elections. Oh sure, they poll good. So did John Kerry's plan for health care, and Barack Obama's plan, and every Democrats plan- until they were up for debate. Americans want us to solve problems using Democratic principles, but they don't really want to pay more taxes to do it. It is a quagmire that shouldn't make us stop putting forth policies, but should make us consider if we need to really think bigger- as in the role, scope, and actual functions of the government. Democrats need to start making their own case on tax policy, budgeting, and what we spend on- and stop fighting piece meal on each issue, because while we "win" those issues in the polls, we don't turn those into electoral of governing victories beyond those polls.
6. We only win when we're "excited" by our nominee- Barack Obama was exciting. Bill Clinton was cool. They're charming guys, people that excite us in some way. Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton were all boring and smart. Guess who Democratic voters came out in droves to vote for? Look, it's fine that you want a rock star, but Bill and Barack are once in a generation kind of talent. We compare all kinds of up and comers to them all the time, and 90% of them flop. You can't just vote for progress when you're excited by the package it comes in, you have to do it all the time. ALL.THE.TIME.
7. We are not a European Socialist Party- One of the frustrations of progressives is that Democrats don't always support the policy choices they do, particularly on economic policies. The reason for that is simple- not everyone is a Democrat because of economic issues. It's true, this was the driver of Democratic Party goals in the FDR/Truman era, but a lot has changed since then. Some people are in the party because of economic issues, that is true. Some are in the party because of Civil Rights, or the environment, or women's rights, or any number of different issues. They may not be willing to go as far left as economic progressives, and economic progressives may not be as interested in "identity" issues. We're not French Socialists here, the ideological reasons for voters backing us are not that pure.
8. Demographics are not necessarily destiny- In 1960, Catholics were solidly Democratic. In 2016, Donald Trump won them. Electoral preferences change over time, and the basic assumption- that a less white future America is more Democratic- is full of potential pitfalls. While the country is growing less white right now, the elected government is more white conservative than any we have ever seen. Our system is a republic, not a democracy, and weird things happen in republics. Our future actually has to happen, so we have to hold onto our base of voters, while organizing them around our principles and values, if we expect to win future elections because of demographics. A lot can happen there.
9. We vote against our economic interests too- Ok, we bury lower-income whites for voting Republican, but can we be honest a minute? Manhattan is super rich, and super Democratic, and it really doesn't make any sense that they vote for a party that is going to increase regulations on their industry and raise their taxes. Or, at least it makes as much sense as West Virginia voting Republican. People vote their values over their economics, and that sometimes doesn't make sense. That goes both ways.
10. Bernie? Hillary? 2020? Um- I'm on the record up top saying that I think the fights about 2016 are good for the party. I do believe that. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders are likely to be the 2020 nominee for President, nor am I certain either would be good for the future. Both are going to be well north of 70. We'd be re-hashing past battles, instead of fighting future ones. I do expect 2020 to be an election that will be fought more on foreign policy than 2016 was, and many of the names being debated right now don't make a ton of sense in that light. Does this mean neither has a chance, or should be disqualified from the start? No. It does mean to me though that some fresh faces, or even just other old faces, would be good. Put me down right now as wanting a "Plan C" to emerge.

Now, with all of that stated, I have to acknowledge something- I'm the unicorn I say doesn't exist. I'm a white, straight, Catholic, suburban-raised male that votes Democratic all the time. I'm pro-labor, and I believe in raising wages, fighting inequality, and progressive tax reform. I'm an environmentalist, and want to see a new direction in our energy policy and on fighting climate change. I'm probably most driven at this point in my life by being pro-diversity- basically against the nativists and bigots who look like me. I'm ideologically pretty progressive. My main point is that most of the country is not. They live rather regular lives, and aren't so caught up in the battles of feminist Democrats vs. Socialist Democrats. We are a party that is very out of touch right now, and very hung up on our ivory tower debates. Our focus should be on helping people improve their lives. More people in affordable housing, in a good paying job, not facing discrimination and hate in their every day lives, and having access to affordable health care- not worrying about perfect purity with our ideological wants. Progress beats regression, even if you have to compromise with yourself a bit to get there.

Local Politics and Off-Year Elections- The Smallest Big Business

Off-year elections- nobody votes. Literally, like nobody. I was trying to convince people that like 12-15% turnout in the May Pennsylvania primary wasn't bad in most counties- which is insane. If you consider how many people are not even registered to vote, and you then consider that like than one-in-five registered voters do, you understand what a mess we have. It's also why off-year elections are so much more important- they not only impact your life more, you also have a bigger voice in the process.

To say they are run anywhere near as well as the even number year elections though is crazy. They are often times run by locals, which is not really all that bad, but can get petty. The amount of personal backstabbing, fights about nothing, and energy put into territorial battles for credit are ridiculous. Add on the fact that you have to run campaigns on far less resources, and with far less data, and it can be tiring. Locals often times think you can run a 24/7 operation on staffs as small as one, and run them like Presidential campaigns. The reality is that you can't. The reality is that all the petty stuff ends up not helping. The reality is that the territory fights end up meaning nothing.

These campaigns get small. You hear everything, everything gets back to you, and it all is nothing more than white noise. All of this distracts from the reality- you have to have enough money to get your message out in the closing three to five weeks. That's when voters listen and engage, and that's when they make decisions. Elections are not sporting events, there is no scoreboard until votes start getting cast. All this other noise, if it's not about money or getting those votes, is nonsense.

And yet, despite my put downs, let me tell you- the money is going to get spent. There are seven statewide court seats in Pennsylvania, so I will conservatively say $7 million or more will get spent on this election here. This is a big business, these election things- they just feel like Smallville.

Trump's DACA Decision is His Most Recent Cruelty

Donald Trump is a terrible bully. His decision to end DACA, or the Dream Act if it had been legislated, leaves 800,000 people in legal limbo, soon to be subjected to deportation. These people came to the United States illegally, as children with their parents. They have no "home" to go back to, no "other country" to return to, and no identity that is not entirely American. They are Americans. Donald Trump is turning his back on them, to appease a bunch of nativist neanderthals that voted for him last year. Worse yet, he's too cowardly to announce the decision himself, and instead has insulated himself in every way possible:

• Republican State Attorney Generals were threatening to sue his Administration to stop it, offering him a rationalization to make this decision at their imposed deadlines.
• He had his Attorney General announce the decision instead of himself.
• He delayed the decision for six months so that he could push the blame on Congress when (probably not if) they fail to act to protect the DREAMers.
• And finally, he called it a law and order issue, not a values judgment.

All of that is terrible, but entirely predictable. Donald Trump has a pattern of picking on the people who are most marginalized in our society, as he recently did with his ban on transgender members of the military. Meanwhile he won't pick on Vladimir Putin or the Ku Klux Klan. Bigly tough man, right?

And here's the thing- he won't pay a political price for this. Donald Trump picks on people who didn't vote for him. He knows that the 46% that voted for him don't care what he does to many of these people, so he pushes the limits. I'm very skeptical that the election would be a whole lot different if we re-ran it today, despite the fact his approval is down into the mid-30's. You really think that 10% or so that voted for him, but don't approve of him, would vote for a Democratic candidate now? I don't think many of them would. Sure, if even like 1% of them did, he'd lose, but that's still a nail biter. He may even end up benefiting from this behavior.

RIP Uncle Charlie

Yesterday at this time, I got the news that my Great-Uncle Charlie died. He had not been well for months, and really his last functional holiday was Easter. He had been battling an assortment of ailments, and was in a lot of pain. Sometimes death is the merciful ending of a bad situation.

Charlie was married to my Great-Aunt Margie when I was a little kid, and had been a part of my family as long as I can remember. They lived down in Montgomery County, and yet we'd see them almost every other Sunday, first at my great-grandmother's, and later at my grandmothers. They alternated who's church they went to each week, so they came up to Phillipsburg every other week.

He was a good guy. We watched many a Phillies game while the older ladies in the family talked about whatever it is they talk about. Charlie didn't need to tell you everything, he was the type who could quietly wait for the right moment to say what he wanted to say. We're all going to miss him and his company.

Congratulations to Rep. Freeman

For most of my life, Bob Freeman has been the State Representative from Easton. He was elected first in 1982, serving until 1995, then came back in 1999, through today. He's probably the most popular public official in the Easton area, and maybe one of the most popular ones in the Lehigh Valley. He represents Easton how Easton wants to be represented, and he's just an all-around good guy.

Tonight, Two Rivers Brewing Company, on 6th and Northampton Street in Easton, unveiled their new Freeman's Pub Ale Nitro in his honor. They donated $1 on every beer sold to the Easton Ambassadors, who do good work in Easton's West Ward. It was a very nice event, and it was good they chose to honor someone that Easton has such pride in. I believe Rep. Freeman is probably the only State House member and Moravian alum to have a beer named for him.

Doesn't this look good?

The IronPigs Fly, Regardless of How

Photo by Richard Wilkins Jr.

J.P. Crawford is joining the Phillies today. He joins a long list of IronPigs teammates on the big league club. Rhys Hoskins. Nick Williams. Jorge Alfaro. Pedro Florimon. Nick Pivetta. Ben Lively. Jake Thompson. Hoby Milner. Zach Eflin. Mark Leiter Jr. Luis Garcia. Ricardo Pinto. Yacksel Rios. Jesen Therien. Edubray Ramos. Ty Kelly. Cameron Perkins. All of them played for the IronPigs- this season. All are currently on the Phillies.

Somehow though, the Phillies AAA affiliate is in the International League Playoffs after winning 4-3 yesterday. It doesn't seem possible. It shouldn't be possible. It's happening though. Despite having their rotation raided, their bullpen decimated, and their line-up completely turned over, the Pigs swept first-place Scranton/Wilkes-Barre to get in the playoffs for the second consecutive year- even without the prospects this time. Sure, Scott Kingery and Thomas Eshelman are pretty good names to get familiar with, but this team took a beating from the big league club, which desperately needed bodies to get through their season. It's a miracle that this team made up three games in the last week to catch Rochester.

Big shout outs are in order to all of the career AAA players on the IronPigs roster who kept grinding it out to make the playoffs. The Lehigh Valley IronPigs will host game one on Wednesday night against the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Railriders.

Beyond Labor Day...

Yesterday was Labor Day, the day that Americans are supposed to reflect on the struggle of the working class in this nation, and celebrate the achievements of the working man in America. We often use the day as a day to have picnics, and that's about all. I think we may very well be missing the number one issue facing our world today.

We have a more productive society than we've ever had before. GDP grows, consistently. Corporate profits are up. Wealth is being created. Most of the fruits of that success are going to very few people though. This is obviously true in America, but it's true even more so in some other places. Saudi Arabia is incredibly rich, but almost the entire population lives in poverty. Russian profits almost entirely go to the oligarchs. Brazil has a huge problem of wealth flowing up. This is a global problem.

When the masses don't partake in the success of their labor, things don't end well. FDR called the CEO's of major American companies to the White House shortly after becoming President to tell them they needed to support his agenda to end the Depression- or face a Russian style Revolution. Places where the masses have no hope end up being hotbeds for crazy revolutions, terrorism, and war. Part of the reason that American voters turned towards a con-man President and a Socialist Senator last year was that they are not partaking in the fruits of their labor.

The American economy needs some reform. We need unions back, and collective bargaining. We need a rise in the minimum wage to a living wage. We need more access to overtime eligibility. We need equal pay for female workers. We need to invest in our infrastructure in a way that is on par with the 1950's. We need to fight wage theft by employers, and actually bring back the concept of pensions and retirement.

And we need to fight for this every day- not just Labor Day.