Only I didn't say fudge...

Two Fox News contributors just got suspended for using words on air that the FCC likes to bleep out, at least on arbitrary channels at arbitrary times.  One of them called the President a pussy, and the other one said that Obama didn't give a shit about terrorism.  There, I told you what they said.  Was that so hard?  Most of the news articles on the subject bleeped it out in print in one way or another.  Many of them kept the key letters in the offending words, with other letters replaced with dashes, such that any discerning reader above the age of three could understand what was said.  Heck, even the article I read from the Huffington Post had some censorship in it, but they decided that it was alright to print the word shit but not the word pussy, probably because they liked the latter word less since so many people have probably called them that.  When I was the editor-in-chief of my college's newspaper and I had to quote someone in an article, I printed exactly what they said.  I didn't bleep it out because someone might be offended by a word that is often bleeped out on television.  That is how you report news when you're not a pussy.

Let me state here that I actually agree with the decision to suspend the contributors.  They knew they weren't supposed to do that, and whether or not you believe what they said was accurate, it was highly disrespectful.  But they were called on the show to give their opinions, so suspension makes more sense than outright firing.  They gave their opinions, and they had the right to say what they said, but Fox also had the right to suspend them.  So why even bring this up?  It's a great excuse to talk about the issues I have with the existence of "banned" words, both in secular society (FCC) and in many conservative churches.

The FCC regulates television and radio for many things, including decency.  They have the power to fine offending broadcasters.  Because who better than a government agency to regulate what is or isn't decent?  Torture, discrimination, abortion, lying, bribery, trillions in debt, extramarital affairs... These things are acceptable from a government standpoint, in certain forms.  But saying "shit" on network television during the day?  They have to draw the line somewhere.  And showing a nipple during halftime of the Super Bowl?  That's what ruined America.  How can you expose young children to a body part that they probably sucked on regularly a few years prior?  Really, it's absurd that we rely on the FCC to determine decency.  Repeatedly showing drug use, promiscuity, and violence?  Decent.  Using one of the magical "four-letter" words?  Indecent.  Taking God's name in vain?  Decent.

We can't regulate decency based on religion, because people within this country have many different beliefs, even within the same religion.  There are some words that a majority can agree should not be said, but then there's a grey area.  Is damn a swear word?  Bitch?  Bastard?  Ass?  What about hell?  Preachers talk about hell.  They talk about damnation.  A female dog is a bitch.  An child born out of wedlock is a bastard.  Ass is another word for donkey.  See, we have no problem with these grey area words when they are used in context, because there is nothing inherently wrong with the words themselves.  Why then do we believe that there is something inherently wrong with any word?  The worst and most offensive word I can think of is the word "nigger" and even that word is generally allowed to be uttered on television and radio, because it often reflects real life incidents and is used to teach a lesson about racism.  What's the worst thing you can call a woman?  How about "Jezebel"?  Look up who she was in the Bible if you're unfamiliar with it, but to me, calling someone that is even more offensive than calling someone a bitch or anything else, yet no one flinches when that word is uttered.  I am not advocating that we all start swearing, but I am questioning societal standards and the existence of words that are somehow assumed to be inherently vulgar or indecent.

I think the reason that certain words got a bad rap is because when they are used, they are usually used in vulgar, indecent, disrespectful, or derogatory ways.  And boy are they overused.  But no one thinks you're cursing when you say you stepped in dog poop.  What's the difference if you call it poop or dung or crap or shit?  There is none.  It means the same thing.  It's not a "curse" word in that context.  I know what you're thinking now, and to borrow from A Christmas Story, you're wondering about "THE word, the big one, the queen mother of dirty words, the F-dash-dash-dash word."  How can THAT ever possibly be alright to utter?  Well, the best example I can think of comes from none other than David Ortiz.  As a Yankees fan, I used to hate Big Papi, being the face of the Red Sox and having likely done steroids, I had little respect for him.  But then, when his career continued long past when we all thought it was over, and he spoke at Fenway Park following the Boston Marathon terrorist attack in 2013, going on to hit .688 in the 2013 World Series that year, I decided that while I do not root for him, I respect and admire David Ortiz, and he would have my vote for the Hall of Fame.  One of the things he said to the crowd at Fenway after the bombings was, "This is our fucking city, and nobody's going to dictate our freedom.  Stay strong."  In this case, even the FCC agreed that this was not vulgarity or indecency, and it should not be censored or punished.  Well said, Big Papi.

For those of you who are Christians, you may be wondering how, as a Christian, I could possibly hold that view.  Well, let me tell you, the garbage that using certain words "is against the Bible" or "ruins your witness" simply is not true.  Repeatedly saying things that actually fall under the category of cursing is, of course, problematic, but that is not what we're talking about here.  If you've ever said something like, "Well, I thought he was a Christian, but then I heard him say the S Word," you are part of the problem.  Let's look at what the scriptures really say.  Ephesians 4:29, no "corrupt communication."  Colossians 3:8, no "filthy communication."  James 3:9-10, Romans 12:14, and Psalms 10:7, no "cursing."  2 Timothy 2:16, nothing "profane" and no "vain babblings."  I Peter 3:10, nothing "evil" and no "guile."  If what you say is not corrupt, filthy, profane, evil, cursing, filled with guile, or vain babblings, I have difficulty finding fault with it from a Biblical standpoint.  What I do find fault with and take offense to is taking the name of the Lord in vain (see Exodus 20:7).  Saying "Oh my God" or "Jesus Christ" or "God damn" in vain, while more accepted in Christian circles (at least the first one on that list) than those magical intrinsically bad words, is clearly a problem in the eyes of God.

The Bible does not sugarcoat things, and just because something is recorded in the Bible doesn't mean that it's acceptable to do.  The Bible speaks clearly of rape and murder, and it records the curses of others (see I Samuel 20:30, when Saul calls Jonathan a "son of the perverse rebellious woman," which you can figure out for yourself what the best term for it is in the modern English language).  Jesus didn't sugarcoat things either.  He was pretty blunt.  He never sinned, but he overturned tables in the temple, and even called Herod a fox in Luke 13:32, which was considered very insulting in that culture.  Paul provides some other good examples of this sort of thing, as he suggests in Galatians 5:12 that there are those who, rather than merely circumcision, should just cut off the whole thing (he's making a penis pun here to make a point), and the way he uses the word "dung" in Phillipians 3:8 is believed by many experts to be equivalent to using the term crap or shit today.

So, a few lessons to take away here...  Words are not bad by themselves.  It's how you use them.  Don't take the name of the Lord in vain, and don't say things that are meant to be vulgar or hurtful to people.  Instead, say things that edify, and build each other up, but by all means, call things what they are.  If something is bullshit, call it bullshit, or at least don't take issue with it if someone else does, just because you don't like that word.

...I am going to get so much shit for this post on Sunday.

Suicide and the Hidden Hurt

As a few of you may know, a good friend of mine recently took his own life.  The shock of it still hasn't worn of, and it probably never fully will.  This is a very difficult subject to write about, and one that is bound to trigger emotions from those who have had a friend or family member die in this way.  But I feel the need to share my thoughts on it anyway, because it is a very important subject that is ignored far too often, both in society in general and in church settings.  So, whether wrong or right, I will share my opinions pertaining to suicide.

In the church that I grew up in, the Pastor used to use a particular phrase every now and then that pertained to those who struggled with depression, anxiety, etc.  If the body can break, the mind can break too.  That is to say that God made all of you.  He made your legs, your arms, your organs, your mind...  everything.  We all accept that someone can break a leg or an arm.  It happens all the time.  We all accept that people can become sick, get cancer, have heart disease, etc.  That happens all the time.  And we have no problem acknowledging that God made these parts of you, yet they can break.  Why then are there some who do not carry over this observation to the mind?  Yes, God made your mind.  But your mind can break too.  You can become depressed.  You can become anxious.  You can have a chemical imbalance.  You can become suicidal.  It happens all the time.  It happens to both Christians and non-Christians.  This does not mean that God is at fault, and it does not mean that the person who is struggling with mental issues is at fault.  If the worst happens and someone chooses suicide, it is important to remember that God gave us free will.  Could He intervene and stop death from happening?  Of course.  There are testimonies of that happening.  But a lot of the time, God allows it to happen.  I don't understand it, but that's how it is.  It is not ever, ever, ever God's will for someone to kill himself or herself (I'm not referring to the falling on the grenade to save everyone else type of suicide here, of course, but the one that comes out of despair), but because God is all-knowing, it is also not a surprise to Him when it happens, and it is something that He is able to fit into His plan.

Now that I have had the unfortunate experience of a friend taking his own life, I've seen firsthand what happens in the aftermath of a suicide.  Family and friends grieving, crying, gathering together, unable to understand, asking why, and sometimes out loud but sometimes just thinking those two words...  What if?  What if I had called him?  What if I had done this differently?  What if I had done better at this or that?  I could have made a difference.  It was my fault that this happened.  What if I had been a better friend?  While this seems to be part of the normal grieving process for some, myself included, it also doesn't actually help anything to obsess over this.  No one is perfect.  We've all screwed things up.  Repeatedly.  But we don't know what would have happened if we had done things differently, and it's not our fault when suicide happens.  The decision ultimately resided with only one person, and it's often not likely that we could have altered that decision, but blaming ourselves or blaming the person who made that decision does not get to the heart of the issue.

I've heard people who have said that suicide is selfish, and I don't believe that to be true.  Yes, the people who suffer are the friends and family of the deceased, and for those who are Christians, if the deceased was a Christian, we know that he or she is in paradise, but that still doesn't take away the pain and sadness for those of us left here.  Yet, I think most people who kill themselves think that they are actually doing a favor for their loved ones.  They're not thinking that they get to go on to a better place and screw everyone else.  They're not thinking that by doing this, they get to punish everyone who let them down and not have to deal with it themselves.  Their minds are usually broken to a point where they are thinking that they just can't deal with life anymore, that they have failed, that everyone is better off without them.  This is a deception from the very pit of hell.  But sadly, like other things of that same origin, we often succumb to it.  Satan wins battles, but he knows that he will ultimately lose the war.

So, with the past being gone, what can we do to help people who are struggling now or will struggle in the future?  A lot.  We can be there for them.  We can tell people we love them more.  We can hug them a little tighter.  But sometimes we can tell who's hurting, and sometimes it's the ones we least expect.  Sometimes the downfall is stark and swift, and other times it is gradual.  When Robin Williams, my favorite actor, killed himself, I was in shock, as was most of the world.  It was the only time in my entire life that I have ever cried when a celebrity--someone I did not personally know--died.  This couldn't be right.  Robin Williams was the funniest guy in the world.  He made me laugh.  He made me feel better.  He did that for millions of people.  He was Robin Williams, live on Broadway.  He was John Keating.  He was Patch Adams.  He was Mrs. Doubtfire.  He was Sean Maguire.  He was Mork.  You mean to tell me that that man killed himself?  But he always made everyone around him smile, and he gave so much of himself to other people.  People didn't even know a lot of his charitable works until stories surfaced after his death.  How could someone like that, who had so much, had brought so much joy to others, and had so many things going for him, have thought that life was no longer worth living?

And then it becomes clear.  Much like the (pictured) hidden rot in the house that was not discovered until the walls were taken down, he hid the hurt.  And he did one hell of a job with that.  I know because I do the same thing.  No, I haven't been suicidal in my adult life, but I've been hurt.  We all have.  And I use the same weapon against it as Robin Williams did.  Humor.  I like to make people laugh.  I like to make other people feel good.  It's part of who I am.  It makes me feel better when I make other people feel better, especially when I'm hurting or not feeling very good myself.  My buddy who recently killed himself was similar to Robin Williams in several ways.  He was funny, he was full of energy, and he was always doing things for other people.  He had a lot going for him, and people didn't even know many of the things he quietly did for others until stories were shared after his death.  Also, much like Robin Williams, he had a lot of body hair.

So what do we do going forward?  We can talk about suicide, depression, anxiety, and mental illness.  We can talk about this candidly in secular society and in church.  We can talk about it and how to take away the stigma from these people.  Yes, we need to do better with diagnosing and treating these people, but we should never look down on them.  Yes, anti-depressant and anti-anxiety drugs are over-prescribed in this country, and they can often cause harm, but sometimes they are necessary, and sometimes they are helpful.  But there are other things that can help too, depending on the situation.  Let's acknowledge this.  And let's talk about all of those uncomfortable subjects, both in society in general, and in church.  These subjects aren't often talked about in certain settings, but they should be.  Yes, let's talk openly about sex and all things sexual.  Let's talk about eating disorders.  Let's talk about rape.  Let's talk about cutting.  Let's talk about depression and anxiety.  Let's talk about suicide.

Whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ as Savior is going to impact a lot of your views, including on suicide.  So, to those of you who have not accepted Jesus as Savior (which I highly recommend considering and making an informed decision), I say that things are never so bad that you should decide to end it all.  Your friends and family will be worse off, not better off, without you around.  And if you and I are friends and you ever need someone to talk to about anything, I am here.  And to those of you who are Christians, I would say the same thing, but also add this: Give over your burdens to God, and watch for Satan's attacks.  He will try to get you to think that you are useless.  That you are a failure.  That you are a sorry excuse for a Christian.  Satan will attack you when you are most vulnerable.  God always provides a way out of making a wrong decision, but we fail God daily.  We need to put on the full armor of God each and every day.

None of us are immune to anything.  Humans are capable of terrible things, individually and collectively.  A few years ago, I was talking with my Pastor about someone we both knew who had committed a crime against a child, and Pastor used the words, "There but for the grace of God go I."  I immediately blurted out, "Well, not that."  But it really made me think later on.  No, not that, but only because of God's grace.  There are other temptations that I struggle with, but I can fall into any temptation, even those actions that can impact people more than other actions.  I was reminded of this conversation about a month ago, when I saw a video of Chris Christie discussing a successful friend of his who ending up getting addicted to drugs and ultimately died from an overdose.  "There but for the grace of God go I."  I looked up the origin of this phrase, because I didn't recall it from scriptures, and it's attributed to John Bradford, an English Reformer who lived (and was martyred) in the 1500s.  Quite apt.  Finally, I was reminded of this phrase once more, less than two weeks ago, when my friend, my Pastor's son, took his own life.  We are all in the same boat.  And I'll quote Christie's version of Bradford here, which includes a second pertinent sentence.  "There but for the grace of God go I.  It can happen to anyone."

Be the light in a dark world.

The Immigration Dilemma and the Emotional Argument

Both Conservatives and Liberals are often guilty of arguing things that are based more on emotion than facts.  We've seen it on both sides of the gun control argument, and now we're seeing it on both sides of the raging debate on whether or not the United States should take in Syrian refugees.  In reality, there is no simple answer.  But there are a lot of very wrong answers.  And in the current landscape of powerful social media sites like Facebook serving the purpose of News, bullshit runs absolutely rampant.

I've seen some pretty offensive posts from both ends of the spectrum.  Some of the Liberal emotional responses?  Well, the best one I've seen really is the one about how the Bible says that we need to help those in need.  That's true.  That's in there.  Several times.  Great argument.  But some of the other arguments I've seen are absurd.  One of them is so emotional over the perceived attack on Muslims that it decides to attack Christians.  I've seen several variations on this.  There's the argument that Christians are more likely to be terrorists than Muslims.  This is a real argument being used, and the folks using it will back it up by pointing to various people who committed atrocities and were Christians or said they were Christians.  There was the guy who shot a bunch of folks in a black church earlier this year (he didn't do that in the name of Jesus--he did that because he was a racist--and he actually killed Christians when he did that).  There was the unabomber (that was done for political reasons and because of mental problems).  Oh, and Hitler.  Yeah, nothing screams Christianity like Hitler, the man who wanted to kill all the Jews.  Has anyone actually read the Bible?  That belief is in direct opposition to the entire book!

Perhaps the argument that takes the cake though is the one that states that we should all change our profile pictures to show the flags of all of the countries that the United States terrorizes.  That one churned my stomach.  Again, I am not making this up.  At least one of the people I am friends with on Facebook posted that.  And that really gets to the heart of the issue, because it exposes two problems.  One is that some people need to check the definition of terrorism.  And the other is that a lot of Liberals, quite possibly including the President, believe that America is what is wrong with the world.  This belief is a grave problem.  No country is perfect, but the United States is not terrorizing the world.  Although we haven't really done a whole lot to stop Islamic extremists from doing so lately either.  The other Liberal tidbit being put out there is that ISIS was created during the Bush administration.  OK.  But no one had really heard of them until recently.  They became powerful during the Obama administration.  Obama has largely ignored them, made Putin look good by comparison on some fronts, made a series of bad deals, released terrorists in exchange for a traitor, and declared that ISIS was contained hours before the attacks on Paris.  Now is not the time to try to figure out who's fault it is that ISIS exists.  It's the time to eliminate them.  Hard.

And now let's talk about the Conservative arguments.  The one that makes the most sense is the one questioning if letting these refugees in is a security risk.  It sounds like at least one of the attackers in Paris came into the country as a refugee.  This seems like a legitimate concern.  Then there's the argument that we shouldn't let more people in our country because we need to take care of our homeless and veterans instead.  Valid point in the second half there, but why are we suddenly concerned about the homeless and veterans now?  Where was that concern before?  Maybe if everyone had that concern, this would not be a problem.  But it is.  And it's a disgraceful problem that we need to do something about.  But that doesn't make refugee lives matter any less.

The argument that does not make sense and is terrible in every sense of the word is the one that all Muslims are terrorists and we shouldn't help them or let them in.  This is a very dangerous statement to make.  The terrorists want non-Muslims to be pitted against Muslims.  That is one of their goals.  Let's not let them win here.  The truth is that there are a lot of peaceful Muslims.  I know some personally.  But yes, there are also those who are not peaceful, and at this particular point in History, there are more jihadists or radical Islamists or whatever you want to call them who are terrorists than there are terrorists of any other religion.  Thousands of terror attacks have been carried out by Muslim extremists since 9/11.  This terrorism is done in the name of Allah.  Massive numbers of terrorists are not killing people in the name of Jesus, Moses, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Joseph Smith, the Spaghetti Monster, or any other religious leader.  I don't care if the terrorists are true Muslims or not true Muslims.  It needs to be dealt with and condemned by all peaceful Muslims.  It's been great to see the Muslims who have been speaking out against the recent attacks.  And if any speak out in favor of them?  Well, frankly, then those particular people SHOULD be counted as terrorists.  Saying that the attacks in Paris were carried out by a handful of crazy people misses the point.  That is only one example of the many, many terrorist attacks carried out by Muslim extremists since 2001.  Don't forget about the attacks in all those countries where people largely ignored the news stories on, even right before what happened in France!  And, as a side note here, whether or not the left wants to be childish and avoid using that wording for politically-correct don't-offend-anyone reasons, while the right wants to be childish and try to get them to use that wording much like me trying to get my high school youth group leader to say the word "fart" does not matter.  It's a fact, and the argument is beyond stupid, because the word Islam is part of the ISIS/ISIL acronym anyway.

With all that being said, I really don't have a clear cut answer here.  On one hand, I feel terrible for the refugees and think that we absolutely need to help feed, clothe, and shelter them.  On the other hand, there's a real possibility that one or more terrorists are disguised as refugees in an attempt to infiltrate the Western countries that they hate.  There must be some way to make sure our country stays secure.  It's 2015, right?  I mean, really, get it together.  Come up with a solution.  But then, we shouldn't be surprised.  Look at what happens when government tries to do anything.  Trillions in debt.  So much red tape.  The IRS.  The DMV.  I bought a car in August and I still have dealer plates on that thing...

Republican Rundown: Top Ten Update

Post Third Debate Edition: Things have changed significantly since my 9/20 Quick Picks post.  Perhaps the biggest development is that Scott Walker dropped out (Hooray!  Is Bush next?).  Jindal, Graham, Santorum, and Pataki remain irrelevant and out of the top ten.  Here are my current thoughts.  Brief two-sentence notes (with ranking I gave them last time noted).  Note: The graphic I've used is once again the 15-day polling average from 2016.republican-candidates.org.

10th (previously 10th), Jeb Bush:  Turns out, it's not just that his last name makes him toxic.  He's actually a terrible candidate who has performed poorly at all three debates and looks completely lost, though he apparently is not lost in the world of Fantasy Football (maybe he should focus on that instead--he needs a better QB anyway).

9th (previously 5th), John Kasich: Bush may have made him look good by comparison, but Kasich had a disastrous (though loud) debate performance.  Also, this is probably an insensitive thing to say, but did anyone else notice that he has some of the mannerisms of Michael J. Fox?

8th (previously 4th), Rand Paul: Paul has continually looked less and less appealing as a candidate and has not performed well in the debates, though he has spouted some memorably questionable lines.  He seems more likely to try to shut down the government that Ted Cruz, and is, at this point, less likeable.

7th (previously 9th), Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has been about average in the debates, and hasn't done anything wildly ridiculous since the Kim Davis incident. But I still don't think he is electable.

6th (previously 6th), Carly Fiorina: I would rate Carly as average in the last debate, though I do agree that seeing her debate Clinton would be spectacular.  But can we do that without having her get the nomination, because our country is already in more trouble than HP under her leadership?

5th (previously 11th), Donald Trump: The prospect of a Trump presidency has become more palatable as many of the other candidates have shown their ineptitude (if you're not top six on my list here, you are one of the remaining eight who needs to drop out of the damn race already).  Trump is still polarizing, questionable morally (though not nearly as much as any of the candidates on the other side) and a loose cannon, but he speaks a lot of truth and conveys his views very clearly.

4th (previously 7th), Ted Cruz: I still think that he sounds like a holier-than-thou preacher much of the time when he talks, but he did well at the last debate.  And for his spectacular smackdown of the CNBC moderator ineptitude alone, I've allowed him a spot in my top four.

3rd (previously 3rd), Chris Christie: Either Cruz or Christie had the moment-of-the-night from the third debate.  Christie did well overall, but saying that the moderator's behavior was considered rude, even in New Jersey, was golden, as was his epic shutdown of the ridiculous Fantasy Football controversy (echoing Cruz's pleas to talk about the real issues!).

2nd (previously 2nd), Marco Rubio: Rubio has looked increasingly seasoned and eloquent as time has gone on.  He's given steadily good performances in the debates and on news programs, while running a positive campaign but still making Jeb Bush look like a complete fool.

1st (previously 1st), Ben Carson: After a less-than-stellar showing in the third debate, I think Rubio has closed the gap a bit in my mind, though having both on the ticket in either position would be fine by me.  The main knock on Carson from Republicans seems to be that he's just too nice, but I still think he could see a lot of success as president, and perhaps help to truly bring the country together again.

When Fantasy Becomes Reality

For those of you who are unaware, Fantasy Sports is when someone drafts a hypothetical team with real players on it and competes against others who do the same thing.  The person whose collection of players performs best in real life wins the Fantasy League they are in with the other competitors.  Prior to the easy-to-manage Fantasy sites online (Yahoo, ESPN, etc), people in Fantasy Leagues actually tracked the statistics using box scores in the newspaper each day.  This was a bit before my time, but I enjoy hearing stories about those good old days.  With the technological advances of the Internet, Fantasy Sports really started to rise to prominence just after the turn of the century, and for many years, groups of friends would create Fantasy Leagues online in which to play against each other.  Sometimes it was just for fun, but usually there would be some amount of money involved.  Congress even passed an exemption for Fantasy Sports to make sure that this sort of thing would not be considered illegal betting.

Fast forward about a decade and suddenly whenever we are watching a sporting event, we are inundated with advertisements for these one-day Fantasy team sites, such as FanDuel and DraftKings.  Huge amounts of money are involved.  New millionaires are made every week.  Hundreds of millions are spent on advertising and endorsements.  And, predictably, there are those who are now calling for the whole operation to be shut down and classified as illegal gambling.  Welcome to America.

Who's trying to shut this down?  It looks to me like the people who aren't getting a slice of the pie.  Government, owners of gambling establishments that view this as competition, people who lost money trying it and are pissed off, and probably some number of people on the far right who believe the Fantasy Sports is immoral, against their religion, and thus should be illegal.

Several states have disallowed these one-day Fantasy Sports sites from operating there.  Not surprisingly, Nevada is one of them.  When people think of Nevada, they think of Las Vegas, and when people think of Vegas, they think of gambling.  I'm sure the gambling lobby is strong there, so why not snuff out any competition they can?  The Nevada Gaming Commission ruled that Daily Fantasy Sports is a form of gambling and would need a license to operate, though these sites have continued to insist that it is not gambling.  It seems to me that this is just the start of a long, large fight on a National level, because it won't surprise me if special interest lobby groups in Washington, D.C. line the pockets of Congressmen in order to get them to outlaw these sites.  Business as usual in the U.S.A.

Here are my problems with this.  Making Daily Fantasy Sports sites illegal would be both hypocritical and government overreaching.  The government is cool with state run lotteries, because they get a ton of money from that, and that is a crystal clear means of pure gambling, where no skill or knowledge is needed whatsoever.  Gambling in casinos is legal in some states if you get a license, and others if you're on an Indian Reservation.  In those cases, some number of influential and already-rich people are continuing to make even more money.  But DraftKings and FanDuel?  It's the startup owners of those sites making moneys, along with some number of regular sports fans every week, and it's become a wildly-popular multi-billion dollar industry.  So clearly, some number of influential and already-rich people want to put a stop to this.

The one thing I agree with in this whole thing is that there needs to be some sort of regulation on it, which would prevent employees of any of these sites from using information not available to the public to their advantage, increasing the chances that they will be able to make money that way.  This is akin to insider trading on the stock market and must not be allowed.  And while I think gambling in general should be legal, and Daily Fantasy Sports is a form of gambling, I DO NOT believe it should be classified as such.  The stock market is gambling too, and it's the closest comparison for Daily Fantasy Sports.  People aren't screaming that, because insider trading can happen, the stock market ought to be shut down.  That's no reason to shut down this industry either.  And the similarities go much deeper than that.  In stocks and Daily Fantasy Sports, you need some specific knowledge to do consistently well.  And that doesn't guarantee that you'll always do well either.  Sometimes someone with little to no knowledge will do better than you, but usually those with more knowledge will do better than those with less knowledge.

If I had my mom pick my Fantasy Football team for me, it probably wouldn't go too well.  If I had my friend's two-year-old pick stocks for me, that probably wouldn't go too well either.  But it might.  You never know.  In the Daily Fantasy Sports world, players ARE the stocks.  And the government needs to leave us, the lay-people, the fans alone.  Seriously, just stay out of it, unless it's to make a law that Daily Fantasy Sports can operate anywhere in this nation.  Because, you know, it's a free country.  At least it used to be.

In the mean time, maybe I'll get lucky and set an amazing lineup, or maybe I'll make some poor choices and lose the entirety of my small deposits, but I'll probably be roughly even.  I started playing several weeks ago and I'm up $13 on FanDuel and down $13 on DraftKings.  That's a difference of $0 to my net worth.  But it's fun.  Play responsibly.

Quick Picks: Democratic Candidates

Well, we've had our first debate for the Democratic candidates, and I actually sat through a solid portion of it (do I get a cookie for that?).  In an effort to fill up the stage rather than just having Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton debate each other, CNN found three random white guys to participate in the debate.  A small percentage of Americans have heard of these other three men before tonight, and they will undoubtedly withdraw from the race soon, leaving the Liberals to choose between Larry David and Doctor Blight.  I mean Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.  My bad there.  But if you fell asleep during the debate and had visions of Curb Your Enthusiasm combined with Captain Planet, that would have been perfectly normal.  As I did with the Republicans earlier, I will rank the candidates, from worst to best, in how good of a choice they would be to represent their party in the general election.  Since there are fewer candidates, I will allow myself a few more sentences for each candidate this time.

6th, Lincoln Chafee: The only thing I can see that qualifies this man to be president, apart from his first name, is that he actually kind of stood up against Hillary at one point during the debate.  He's got to be pretty close to pulling out.  I think the only reason he was in in the first place was because someone asked, "Is anyone here named Washington or Lincoln who wants to be a candidate for President?"

5th, Martin O'Malley: O'Malley actually made some strong statements and had stood up to Hillary at times.  He's also a distant third in the polls, a virtual unknown, and has no chance of getting his party's nomination, let alone beating the Republican nominee.  He also appears to be pretty far to the left and unwilling to compromise.

4th, Jim Webb: Webb sounded intelligent and thoughtful during the debate, and he's not afraid to stray from the mainstream Democratic views on several issues.  On some issues, I agree with Webb, and he appears strong and willing to speak out against what he believes is wrong.  He sounds like the only moderate Democratic candidate, which is why I have him ranked ahead of Chafee and O'Malley, since that may get him some Independent votes in the general election if he had any shot whatsoever of getting there, which he does not.

3rd, Hillary Clinton: Those who are offended that Donald Trump is the leading candidate for Republicans should be offended tenfold that Hillary Clinton is the leading candidate for Democrats.  Hillary is an embarrassment, a criminal, and a nasty person.  I'm not sure which of her many scandals is worse, but she belongs in prison, not in the White House.  Virtually any woman picked at random in America would do a better job than her as Commander-in-Chief, and I would feel more secure too.  The absurd funding from super PACs is sickening, the idea that the type of "change" she would bring would be any better than what Obama has brought does not make sense, and she simply modifies all her views to whatever is best for her politically.  An uneventful moment in the debate perfectly proved that point for me, as she was asked if she was ready to take a stance on whether or not marijuana should be legally nationally, and her response was that she was not yet ready to take a stance and that we need to do more research.  Of course, five minutes of research will paint a pretty clear picture of why marijuana should be legal, if not the results of weed having been legal for well over a year in several states already.  The real reason that Hillary won't take a stand here is the same reason that she opposed gay marriage for so long, and it's not because her views "evolved" like everyone's views evolve on something (heck, even mine have changed over the years on gay marriage).  Once public opinion clearly shows that the issue is trending further toward legalization and that it is no longer a divisive issue for the Left, Hillary's opinion will go the same way.  Oh, and the other candidates all missed a really easy point of attack here when she agreed with Bernie Sanders that people shouldn't be imprisoned for marijuana violations: An obvious solution to that problem is legalization.  I really strongly dislike Hillary, as you may have realized by now, but I also don't think she would do well in the general election, because she is a polarizing figure and a terrible, scandal-ridden candidate.

2nd, Bernie Sanders: I want to like Bernie.  I really do.  Bernie is the one candidate for the Democrats that truly would bring change.  His views on marijuana and super PACs are spot-on, and even a handful of his other economic views make sense.  But the problem is that he is, very literally, a Socialist.  The changes he would bring are Socialist changes.  Many of his views have been consistent though, even when they were unpopular.  Sanders supported gay marriage before I was born, and he's been speaking the same on economic issues for decades.  But there is one important exception here, and that's gun control.  Sanders, once endorsed by the NRA as a candidate for the Senate, pointed out in the debate several times that he now has a D- grade from them.  As he's gained popularity on the far left, Sanders has predictably become less gun-friendly, because pro-gun does not sit well with his far-left base.  But while other candidates are further to the left than Sanders on gun control, nominating him would be a giant lurch to the left, even for the Democratic party.  It would, however, energize the base.  Sanders is likable, and will garner some Independent votes, but he is a Socialist.

1st, Joe Biden: Biden would basically just continue to Obama administration, and is not a particularly strong candidate, or even a candidate at all at this point.  But if he declares his candidacy, it would not be difficult for him to get the nomination and compete in the general election, because, for some reason, people like him.  I don't like him, but I suspect that the reason people do is because he's not Hillary and he's not a Socialist.  The real winner of the debate wasn't even on the stage tonight.  Was it Joe Biden, or was it the Republicans?

Financial Reform Makes Cents

I don't have all the answers on economic policy, and I don't pretend to.  Thus, this is my first post on the subject, and the title even has a lazy pun in it.  But the truth is that something needs to be done about the absurd financial disparity in this country.  And I say that with a stark record of not being a socialist.

Under the Obama administration, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, to the point of epic and disturbing proportions.  The very rich are richer than ever, while a large portion of Americans struggle to get by paycheck to paycheck.  There's no easy solution, but let's take a look at some of the ideas that are being floated around and think about whether or not they would have positive impact on the nation as a whole.

It doesn't seem right that folks making tens of millions of dollars per year pay less of a percentage to the government than folks making tens of thousands of dollars per year.  I can see a flat tax having positive impact.  We just need to figure out what that percentage number should be.  But I also believe that those below the poverty line should not have to pay this same tax percentage.  If a single mother of two is trying to make ends meet with two low-paying part-time jobs, she needs that little bit of money a lot more than the government does.  And while we're at it, there's a lot of talk about how social security is in trouble.  I know that a pretty high percentage of my check goes toward social security.  I also know that a very low percentage of the checks of the very rich go toward social security.  Take a higher percentage from them and put it in the social security pool.  If this sounds like a socialist idea, I don't care.  It makes sense.

A flat tax would simplify taxes and, quite honestly, I would be perfectly fine if the power of the IRS was diminished or the IRS was abolished altogether.  I don't trust the IRS, and the IRS has proven to be untrustworthy and partisan.  And most government organizations are really just terrible and inefficient anyway, and the thing they are best at is wasting taxpayer money.

The idea of raising minimum wage to $15 per hour across the board though is not a good one.  Perhaps that is an appropriate rate in New York City and San Francisco--that can be left up to local governments--but it is not an appropriate rate in most towns in America.  It would actually cause the number of jobs to decrease, or even more small businesses to close because they can't afford to pay that much.  And most of the folks in minimum wage jobs are young people, unskilled labor, etc.  A minimum wage job should not be a long-term life funding solution.  Not everyone deserves to be making $15 per hour.  Sorry.  And if the push for that sort of dramatic hike in minimum wage continues, I would expect to see even more jobs disappear.  Self checkout has been bad enough.  But when your job can be replaced by a computer, you shouldn't be making $15 per hour.

How does one get out of the rut of a minimum wage job?  College is one way, and there are cheaper college options, though the cost of tuition has continued to go up at obscene rates.  Interest rates are very low.  So should they be on student loans.  Student loans should not be predatory.  But they also should not be simply forgiven by the government in a redistribution of wealth.  If you've had a higher education, you should eventually be able to pay off those loans.  Subsidization programs are also often helpful and appropriate.

Finally, what do we do to help the poor?  The correct answer here is not nothing, or that it's their own fault that they are poor.  Do you honestly think that Jesus would have said that?  Obviously not.  We need to do what we can as a society to help feed, shelter, and clothe the poor.  The very rich have an obligation to help the very poor, from a moral standpoint anyway.  If you are a billionaire, and you give no money to charities, you need to do some real soul-searching...

I guess when it comes to Economics, I don't fall neatly into either end of the conservative versus liberal spectrum, but I realize that something needs to change in this country.  The income disparity in this country is truly not a good thing.  I mean, really, some of these very rich celebrities spend more money on pampering their pets in a week than some families have to spend on food for the whole year.  Something is wrong with that picture.  I am in favor of Capitalism and not in favor of Socialism, but what we are doing now isn't fully working.  The middle class is suffering.  The policies under the Obama administration (as well as the Bush administration) have made this problem worse.  Many people believed that Bush was for the rich, but Obama was touted as a champion of the middle class, and he has proven to be very much the opposite of that.  That's part of the reason why Bernie Sanders, who is literally a Socialist, looks like a legitimate candidate for President of the United States.  Of course, the other part is how terrible of a candidate Hillary Clinton is and the apparent disarray of the Republican Party.  But that's an entirely different kind of flying altogether (it was time for an Airplane! reference).

To end, I realize that statistics can be manipulated to appear to show whatever you want them to show, but these graphs look pretty scary.  Partisan?  Perhaps.  But worthy of thought and discussion nonetheless: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-16/obamas-recovery-just-9-charts