Social Media Trolls

Last week I had the pleasure of serving as the guest blogger for a writer for the Cincinnati Enquirer. As a big Reds fan, I've been following the Cincinnati papers for years, and read their Reds coverage regularly. In particular, since the mid 1990's, I've followed Paul Daugherty, who's covered the Reds now for over 30 years. I read his regular writings for the paper, and I've followed his daily blog since it's inception.

Occasionally, Paul -- affectionately known as "Doc" -- will allow a faithful reader to fill in and write the blog. It's a pretty cool opportunity allowed by Doc -- who by no means has to -- for an average Joe to share his thoughts on things usually discussed in the blog. It's Cincinnati fans following Cincinnati stuff. In my case, mostly Reds. You can catch it here, if you want to check it out.

So Doc allowed me to fill the space last week, and I penned a fairly benign piece that introduced a little about me, my thoughts on the current state of the Reds, a little bit about team fandom, and a couple side notes. Nothing major or Earth-shattering. I did have the gall to predict that I believed the Reds would win the National League Central division next season.

And that's where it got interesting. To be fair, the piece itself didn't set off any firestorms and generate thousands of comments. It got shared a couple times and about 20 others commented. Of those, about half were agreeable, and the other half not so much.

One commenter wrote, "ya know, you make a decent point, but I don't agree with it. I just don't think the Reds will have the firepower to win the division next year."

NOT!!!

Instead, here's a couple of the comments:

"Stay off the weed!!!!!!!!" (Exactly eight exclamation points. I counted.)

"Just what exactly are you smoking." (No commas, with a period at the end instead of a question mark.)

A couple others just posted, "lol" Presumably because I'd said something funny. A few others slapped down the crying-tears, riotously-laughing emoji, some even plopping down multiple emojis, as if one wasn't enough to get the point across.

One clearly sunny guy called the Reds "f****** garbage" and wrote there "ain't going to be no f****** winning" (No period on the sentence, and he used the asterisks so as to avoid having to actually write f******.)

He mostly concluded his comments with, "All i see is 💩💩💩💩💩💩 besides geno and Aquino Iglesias I'd keep" (Again, verbatim, spelling intact and no period.)

This guy, who believes the Reds are nothing but copulating trash, and field a lineup of nothing but poo and two other players, follows Doc's Reds coverage so much to actually read a piece by his guest blogger. Mind boggling.

Others attacked the players, calling them "bums" and "washed up trash."

No daggers to the heart, of course, and, again, some were encouraging and agreeable. But now, imagine what guys like Doc have to put up with every day!

Now, multiply and intensify that by about, I don't know, 100 million, and imagine what President Trump has to put up with every day of his life!

This past Sunday, a safety for the Cleveland Browns played particularly poorly in their loss to the Denver Broncos. The vitriol he received was so vile it caused him to lash back out with the same hatred and ultimately cost him his job. Was released by his team just for his posts on social media. I'm not condoning his actions at all. I'm just making a point.

I wrote a guest blog about a baseball team and got accused of being a drug addict. Guys like Doc take heat every day they don't deserve, and a man like President Trump has to deal with lunatics spewing some stuff I can't possibly even imagine. And we wonder why he gets a little testy sometimes.

They go to work, every day, and do their job, in the face of the hatred they get on a regular basis. Amazing.

But here's the thing: Social media didn't create these nutballs. Oh no, they've been around forever. Social media just gave them a platform.

Several years ago, a gentleman I'd never met tapped me on the shoulder one day and basically told me that a show I'd emceed back in the 1990's when he was a teenager had impacted his life so much that he was inspired into his chosen career. Seems I'd made that day so much fun for him that he wanted to make teaching his life work so he could help other kids attend those types of events. It was odd and humbling and flattering. I'd never been gushed over like that. I thanked him and congratulated him on his successes.

All that was before he found out I was a political conservative.

And he might never have known that about me if he hadn't followed me on my social media account and found that everything I valued and championed in life was a full-on affront to everything he has come to believe in his adult life. Now, understand, I'm no different today in my beliefs than I was in the mid 90's. I was a conservative then, and I still am now. But this young man didn't know that, because we never talked about it. He knew nothing of my belief system until I posted it on social media.

He's not such a big fan of me now. Not because I changed, but because he found out something about me he might not have otherwise known. I'm still the same old fun emcee he knew back then. It's just that now he knows I voted for Donald Trump, and he doesn't like that very much. And so now he doesn't like me very much.

All because of social media.

Social media isn't bad in and of itself. In fact, the reality is that there is a lot of good in it, and much usefulness to it. Keeping in touch with a long-distance friend has a lot of value.

But it has indeed brought out the worst in people. Literally. Because it gave them all a voice, a platform. The worms were always there, you just didn't see them lurking underground until the storm hit and they all came out into the light.

People who hate didn't start hating because they got a Facebook account. They've always hated. They just didn't have the avenue, or the wherewithal, or the guts, to go public with it. They still don't, but the difference is that social media allows them to spew their idiocy out to the whole world and yet still hide behind the keyboard in their basement in relative anonymity.

I put my name on everything. EVERYTHING. I do not intend to hurt people's feelings, or insult them, or offend them. But I'm also very confident in my opinions and I don't much care whether people agree with them or not. That being said, rarely do I confront anyone on social media who I have not A) already had an in-person conversation with, B) intend to, or am willing to, have an in-person conversation with them, or C) already have a close enough relationship to know we can have an open and honest debate, even if it's on the interweb for all to see.

I've never called in to a phone-in radio program. I've never written a letter-to-the-editor without putting my name on it, and I've never trolled someone on social media for the sole purpose of attacking them over something I didn't like. Anybody I've debated on social media has been done in an open back and forth. I've never used vulgarity or called them vile names, and I've certainly never disdained someone's opinions without having an open discussion with them where we both had an opportunity to back up our positions.

None of which is to say I'm perfect, or haven't burned a couple bridges along the way. Rather, it's just to point out that the craziness and the ugliness we see on a daily basis has always been there, we just couldn't see it. Social media gave it a face.

The bigger problem, of course, is the reliance we all put on it. I don't mind a healthy debate, but otherwise could really care less if someone agrees with something I post or not. But the traditional media outlets have begun to use social media as a crutch. And they've become very lazy. The days of actual reporting for any news outlet are virtually non-existent anymore. Almost every news story one sees or reads these days is a two or three-sentence blurb about the subject, followed by a smattering of what various social media users think of the story. Even worse, in print, rather than actually write a story, most reporters just copy and paste social media reactions, as though they're actually relevant to the story. And then, to add insult to injury, after they've copied and pasted the post, they actually show a screenshot of the post itself, so the lunacy appears twice in the story.

Someone getting shot in the street is a news story. Broadcasting what Joe Schmuck posted from his Mom's basement about the shooting is not.

Look, I get it: I'm part of the problem. I'm writing a blog at this very moment hoping you'll read it, because I believe my opinion on the matter has some relevance, as though it actually does. Whether it does or not is left up to you, the reader. But at the same time, I don't expect NBC News to pick up my blog and simply repost it as a news story. But that is exactly what they do day in and day out with thousands of social media posts.

And so it makes stories that really aren't stories at all seem a whole lot bigger than they are. Pamela Anderson wore an Indian headdress (and very little else, it turns out) as part of her Halloween costume. Did you know that? You shouldn't, because it's not a news story. But there it was, in my news feed. And sure enough, there was a couple lines about the costume, the obligatory photos wherein Ms. Anderson was half-naked wearing a headdress, and then four or five Twitter posts shaming her for "culture-appropriation" of Native Americans, whatever that means, and four or five Twitter posts applauding how great she looked in her costume, given that she's 60 or 70 years old by now.

It's lunacy. Not because it was so stupid to begin with, but rather because the story makes you believe the entire social media world was in an upheaval over her Halloween costume. And while there may have been dozens, maybe hundreds, maybe even thousands of people who have nothing better to do than follow Pamela Anderson's social media accounts, this was not a viable news story in any way, despite what four or five (or, perhaps, a hundred) haters thought about it.

Did you know that Barack Obama leads the world in Twitter followers? He does. Just over 110 million followers, nearly a third the country's total population. And yet he complains about Donald Trump's tweets. (Katy Perry and Justin Bieber are #'s 2 and 3, so that should tell you something about Twitter.) Notwithstanding that Twitter itself is the absolute spawn of Satan, I don't troll the platform all day and pounce on every single Tweet I don't agree with. I simply don't have Twitter. And even if I did, I still wouldn't do it.

ANALOGY ALERT... I learned something a long time ago: Children are intensifiers for a marriage. If you have a good marriage, adding children to the family will make it better. But if you have a bad marriage, and relationship problems, children will make it infinitely worse. 

Social Media is the same. It is an intensifier. If you're a relatively good and happy person, your social media accounts will amplify that. If you're a putz to begin with, then your social media will make you look like a bigger putz.

So do what you want. Be a follower, a troll, a Tweeter, an influencer, whatever. Just know that we know you were whatever long before you got a social media account. Social media didn't make you a good guy or a putz. You did that long ago.

Looking forward to the comments.

Impeachment!

In the 240+ year history of our country, there has never been a President impeached -- that is to say, actually removed from office. Nixon mostly likely would have been, justifiably so. And I know it's trendy in the media to say there were two other Presidents technically impeached, but that's not really true. The House passed Articles of Impeachment against Andrew Johnson in 1868, and against Bill Clinton in 1998. Neither time did the Senate ultimately vote to remove the President from office.

And so, in the nearly 250 years of America, there has never been a President who's done something bad enough to actually get impeached. And there's been some pretty nefarious characters in the office who have done some pretty nefarious things while in office. It's never happened.

And yet, this -- THIS, a phone call -- is what the Democrats now want us to believe is worthy of an impeachment. 250 years of history, never having a valid reason to remove a President from office, and this is what they want us to believe rises to the level of an actual impeachment.

It's absurd, of course. Bonkers, lunatic, insane, and any other word you wanna drop on it. But they're pursuing it, nonetheless. The Democrats want you to believe that despite some various slime bags who have been President over the past two centuries, this lone act -- a President making a phone call to another country's President -- is an impeachable offense.

Now, before you Liberal's go into a tizzy and try to conjure up things that aren't there, remember that this really is just about a phone call. We know all there is to know about it because Donald Trump himself released the transcript of the call. And despite Adam Schiff's ridiculously fabricated account of what's in the call, there is nothing in it impeachable. The Dems know this, but that isn't stopping them.

Everything else is made up. There's no obstruction, because there isn't an investigation into any formal charges to obstruct. There isn't a quid pro quo because there is no evidence anywhere whatsoever that Trump threatened to withhold any funds from Ukraine in exchange for a favor. The Ukraine President himself has said multiple times that he hasn't been propositioned with anything. The "favor" Trump mentions in the transcript is asking a foreign government to investigate corruption within their government, which Trump is well within his rights to do, and Presidents ask that of other foreign officials all the time. It might be politically expedient, but it is absolutely irrelevant that a current Presidential candidate happens to be at the center of that corruption. Biden's involvement in this whole mess most certainly warrants an investigation. If you wanted Trump investigated for collusion with a foreign country when there was no such evidence to warrant the investigation, wouldn't you also want a Presidential candidate investigated for any potential corruption with a foreign country when there's loads of information worthy of being looked in to?

Please don't try to tell me we all "think we know" what President Trump meant. That's not how it works. Our justice system -- and certainly the impeachment of a President -- isn't about what we "think" or what we "feel." It is based on facts, and evidence, and truth, and what can be proven. Asking a political ally in another country for a favor isn't against the law, let alone impeachable.

Trump not helping in the investigation is not the same thing as obstruction. Legally, he does not have to give them anything, or give them access to anything or anyone to prove his innocence. The system doesn't work that way. The prosecution has to come up with enough evidence to provide a case to try to prove a crime. That's how it works. So please don't try to convince us that if Trump didn't have anything to hide, he'd give them access to this and that. Trump doesn't have to give them squat.

And while we're on the subject, let's look at the other two times the House passed Articles of Impeachment on a President. Both were motivated by political bias, but both had sound foundations of misconduct from the President.

The first time was in 1868. The United States was as divided as ever following the Civil War, and the disdain between the two political parties was at an all-time high. In short, Johnson didn't handle the reconstruction of the Union following the war in a manner that satisfied either side. And when he fell afoul of laws that were passed specifically to trip him up, The House impeached him. Even then, the crimes of which he was accused weren't significant enough for the Republican-led Senate to convict him, as they rightfully understood that you couldn't just impeach a President because you didn't like him or his policies. He actually had to commit a crime.

But the more important thing to remember was, while unliked by both parties by that time, the effort to remove him wasn't self-serving. Johnson stood virtually no chance of winning another term, and the next election was just a couple months away. The Dems didn't like him, and indeed, he wasn't even their nomination for the job. Regardless, there was no way he or any other Democrat was beating the Republican Ulysses Grant in the election. So impeaching Johnson just to get rid of him was pointless, because he was gonna be gone in a few months anyway.

Flash forward to 1998. Bill Clinton was in his final term, with just under two years left on his administration. Defending a sexual assault lawsuit by Paula Jones, Clinton had lied -- under oath -- about his activities with Monica Lewinsky. We know this because he admitted it. Lying under oath is perjury, and it is a serious crime, especially for a President. The House passed the Articles, and then the Senate acquitted him, with all 45 Dems, not seeing perjury as any sort of big deal, voting not guilty.

Again, as with Johnson 100 years earlier, Clinton was on his way out. The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress -- they had for most of his term -- and would until it's conclusion. He couldn't run again and the Republicans pretty much controlled anything he could do anyway. So the motivation wasn't so much in getting rid of Clinton as it was to actually punish him for a crime, which he had openly admitted to committing.

In both cases, as well as with Nixon, when you look at the big picture politically, the motivation for impeachment wasn't so much to rid themselves of someone they didn't like as it was to actually punish them for a crime. All three were guilty of the crime, there's little question to that. The question was whether or not the crime itself actually rose to the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Again, in Nixon's case, it likely would have, but in the other two, it did not.

This nonsense surrounding Trump right now is an entirely different matter altogether. From the moment he took office, the Dems entire existence -- even stated publicly as such -- has been to rid themselves of Donald Trump. On one hand, it has very little to do with him personally. They fear his policies, and mostly, his Federal Court nominations, including his picks for the Supreme Court. The Dems have a lot on the line with their way of life, and a Republican President, no matter who it is, can alter that for them for generations to come with his court picks. We saw this in the insanity surrounding Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. Another four years of a Republican administration could prove devastating to Liberal ideology, and if truth be known, this is likely the primary motivation behind the attempts to oust him.

On the other hand, they hate that a non-politician has come in and shaken up things so much. It tips the balance of power away from the politician and puts it more firmly back into the hands of the people, and that's problematic for them as well. It doesn't help that someone they see as a complete hack came in made them all look like fools by winning the Presidency.

So while it all has very little to do with Donald Trump personally, the moves are regardless centered around removing him from power, rather than actually punishing him for a crime. From the outset, highlighted by the years-long, multi-million dollar investigation of Russian collusion, the Dems sole purpose for existence has been to get rid of Donald Trump, by any means necessary. They've done nothing legislatively since taking over control of the House in 2018. All they've done is launch investigation after investigation.

It's a coup attempt. They can't win at the polls, and they can't launch a military coup. So they attempt a political coup. Attacking him, attacking his policies, attacking his administration and personnel, attacking his nominations, completely fabricating accusations and crimes, labeling him everything from a racist to a bigot to a homophobe to a white supremacist, to now launching an impeachment investigation because of a phone call, the motivations are clear. Get rid of Trump and take back the power.

They panicked with Judge Kavanaugh, because they knew they couldn't prevent his confirmation before the election and a new Congress took over in 2019. So they flipped out and completely made up the sexual allegations, all of which have since been proven false.

Now, they already know they won't beat him in the election in 2020, so they have to find another way to get him out. And even though there's no chance this Senate votes to impeach him, and even though they really don't want Trump to be able to call witnesses and cross examine others for what it will bring to light on the Dems, they are desperate. The hope isn't to get him impeached. They know there's no chance of that happening. The hope is making him look just bad enough that the voters will turn on him.

Of course, the problem in that logic is this: They are clueless as to how he won the election in 2016, and they are still clueless as to his enduring popularity. This impeachment nonsense, as with all the other ridiculous allegations and investigations of the past two years, is not swaying a single Trump supporter. It is doing the exact opposite. It is galvanizing them. The only people we hear screaming about impeachment in the news every day are people who already hated him to begin with. They weren't his supporters in 2016, and they won't be his supporters in 2020.

His supporters, meanwhile, are sitting back and watching this circus play out and being reminded every day of why they voted for him in the first place.

So not only are the accusations themselves bogus, but the reasoning behind making them at all is bogus as well.

I asked a dear Liberal friend of mine the other day how he can wake up every day hating someone so much that they are willing to support false accusations, lies, hearsay, and in the case of Judge Kavanaugh, the potential ruin of other's lives. How sad it must be to be so consumed with hatred for someone that one is willing to resort to illegal activity to see that person gone. I cannot imagine my mind being filled with that much hatred every day, all day.

As he has done with all the other allegations, he'll come through this one, and in a couple months, they'll be on to something else. I mean, heard anything about Russian collusion and Robert Mueller in the news lately? Any Dems screaming about the Wall, or children in cages, or white supremacy lately?

After 2020, you will see a significant change in Democrat strategy. They'll give up on Donald Trump and the attacks will begin on the ideals they believe the 2024 Republican nominee will try to advance, most notably, Christianity and religious freedom.

In some ways, it will be a relief to have much of the insanity we're seeing right now come to an end. But in other ways, the attacks on our freedoms and spiritual beliefs will be much, much worse. Significantly darker and harsher.

You think they're acting badly now...

"How We Lookin'?" Here's to you, Marty.

My story isn't all that much different. Not unlike thousands of others -- probably tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands.

I grew up listening to the same voice. Not every night. Certainly not during the Winter, but most nights, April, sometimes thru October. Many have said he was the "soundtrack" of their youth. That's been said about many entertainers, particularly musicians. We grew up listening to a particular artist or band, or a group of similar acts, and it created a backdrop for many of the important events of our lives. Most of us are reminded of a certain time or event in our lives each and every time a particular song comes on.

That's not untrue for me. I am a musician after all. And since I was a young boy, most of my life's pursuits have involved music in some form or another. So music has played a big part in my life.

But I was good at something else many years ago. Very good, in fact. And have continued to love it to this day.

Baseball.

And more specifically: Cincinnati Reds baseball.

And if you, like me, have grown up a Cincinnati Reds fan, then you grew up listening to Marty Brennamen on the radio. And yes, it was the soundtrack to my youth.

Marty has broadcasted games for the Reds for 46 years. Most of my lifetime. One of only eight broadcasters in the history of mankind to broadcast for a single team for more than 45 years. How long is 46 years? When the Reds hire Marty's replacement, he will have to work until the year 2067 to break Marty's streak.

Where will you be in 2067? Good chance I'll be dead.

Here in my new home of South Carolina, there may be a few people who know about Marty Brennamen, but they don't really know what the big deal is. To many in these parts, Thom Brennamen, Marty's son, is better known for his work on national television with the NFL and college football, when he's not broadcasting play-by-play on TV for the Reds.

But if you're from the Midwest, like I am, then you not only know who Marty is, but you know how much he means to Reds fans.

For the first 31 years of his career, he partnered with Cincy legend Joe Nuxhall, arguably the most beloved man in Cincinnati, maybe to this day. And their record-breaking tenure together as a broadcast team launched them both into the stratosphere of popularity with the local fanbase.

Prior to the 1980's and the advent of cable TV, radio was king as far as baseball broadcasting is concerned. And with the Reds on Radio on the powerhouse, 50,000 watt WLW AM station, nowhere was radio baseball bigger than in Cincinnati.

Know who preceded Marty in the Reds radio booth in the early 70's? Al Michaels. Yes... THAT Al Michaels. THAT'S how big radio is in Cincinnati.

WLW is a behemoth. 50,000 watts is a bunch. The entire Midwest can pick it up. As far away as St. Louis, Wisconsin, deep into Tennessee, and out to the East Coast. I'm not kidding, on a clear night, I can pick up 700AM WLW here in Bluffton... South Carolina! So much so that I have the station programmed on my radio in the car.

Marty's first game behind the mic for the Reds was Opening Day in 1974. Three batters into that first game, Hank Aaron hit the home run that tied Babe Ruth's all time home run record. Over the years, Marty has called them all: World Championships, no-hitters, perfect games, record-breaking hits. He is known as much for telling it like it is -- ticking off everyone from upper management, to opposing fans, to players and umpires -- as he is for his easy going, self-deprecating style. But there is nothing better than Marty's call when the Reds win, and especially when they win dramatically. His enthusiasm -- not maniacal bedlam -- and signature "This one belongs to the Reds!" is something to behold. Over the years, as I watch most games on TV now, whenever there's a big win for the Reds, I will turn on the radio to find Marty's call of the win. Because there simply isn't anything better.

He has a way of pulling you into the action. Of making you feel at home. He makes everyone in the booth better. He gives them space to shine, with no ego. He doesn't plan or script anything, and he doesn't pull any punches. So you know what he's telling you is genuine and heart-felt. It's soothing and calming, especially when the Reds are playing poorly and you wanna throw the radio through the wall. And yet, his calls on a big Reds win can excite you like no other. And I don't have time to cover all things Marty: the Banana Phone, Elvis, tomatoes, wrestling, and so much more. Just know that it's all pure magic, and pure genius.

And Reds country was big. So for over four decades, Marty Brennamen was who we listened to every night... Marty and Joe for 31 years, and Marty and Jeff "the Cowboy" Brantley ever since. And thousands upon thousands of fans, just like me, grew up listening to Marty on the radio, falling asleep to his voice night after night.

Why, you might ask? I mean, what makes the Reds on Radio, and Marty Brennamen, any more special than any other broadcaster with any other team? On one hand, it isn't. As I stated earlier, my story is the same as thousands of others, and most likely not too different from millions of other fans of other teams.

But on the other hand, my story is as unique as all the others. You see, we really don't all have the same story. Each one of us has a story about a deep, personal journey, and yet they're all tied together with a common theme with common memories: The Reds and Marty Brennamen.

I can't speak for everyone else. I can only speak for me. And for me, baseball mattered. It mattered a lot.

If you're reading this, you probably know me. Or at least are familiar with me. You know I grew up in my formidable years without a father in the home. From the time I was 10 years old, and even before that, my brother played the biggest role of father in my life. (I am forever grateful, and love my brother dearly.) When I was about 13 or so, several great young men in my church stepped up and mentored me and helped guide me down the wisest paths. At times when I could have made very bad decisions that would have had awful negative impacts on my life, I was so lucky to have good, loving men who guided me, fathered me, mentored me, loved me, and steered me to wise decisions.

But nothing -- and I do mean, nothing -- can replace a father. This is not written to beat up my Dad. My Dad made the choices he did in life, and so did I, and yet I was so very fortunate to have reconciled with him in my early adult years before he passed and had a wonderful relationship with him. Briefly, only for a few years before he died, but an open, honest, loving father-son relationship with no grudges and regrets, and I'm deeply thankful for it everyday. And I'm so thankful for the relationships that reconciliation spawned with my Step-Mom, and two wonderful brothers and their families. God really does change people's hearts!

But when I was 13, after having spent all day playing baseball with my brother, or maybe playing some guitar with a youth group leader, I had to go to bed every night without a Dad around, and I had to look outside my home for heroes.

The Cincinnati Reds were heroes. And what they did every night mattered to me, and had meaning in my life. Sure, it coulda been any team. But I was listening to Marty Brennamen every night tell me about the Big Red Machine. He was broadcasting to me. He was telling me about the game. He was telling me that Dave Concepcion made another great play. Or that Tom Seaver just pitched a no-hitter. Or that Johnny Bench just hit another home run. Or that Pete Rose just lined a "clean base hit" to break Ty Cobb's all time hits record. More often than not in those days, he was telling me that "This One Belongs to the Reds."

Me. He was telling me.

I didn't know there were thousands of others listening. I didn't care. I didn't know WLW was a 50,000 watt station. I didn't even know what a "watt" was! Oh sure, on the surface I knew others listened to the radio. Of course I did. But Marty had a way of making you feel like he was just talking to you. That his job every night was to make sure you knew how things turned out.

As I grew into an adult, he told my wife and my kids the same stories. Each time we were willing to listen, Marty was there telling us how the Reds were doing. Except now, my children could talk about it with their Dad after the game.

We still do.

Marty is unique. One of a kind. He's not a former player, and he's not a homer. Most former players -- not all, but most -- are huge home fans. Complaining about every call that goes against their team, never criticizing when they don't play well, with over-the-top fanaticism after each lowly single. And the cheesiest cliche's. (Yes, I'm talking to you, Hawk Harrelson fans.) There's a place for that. But I assure you, when you hear Marty and compare him to others, you know instantly why he was inducted into the broadcasting wing of Baseball's Hall of Fame in 2000. He simply is the best.

Vin Scully was a legend with the Dodgers, but he was a loner. The Cardinals' Jack Buck, the same. We can list 100 great broadcasters, but even among broadcasters themselves, Marty Brennamen is considered one of the best. Easily included the top five or 10 names of all time. In Cincy, he's simply known as "The Famer." I know him as The Best.

I met Marty a couple times -- and by that, I mean that I've had the opportunity to say Hi and shake his hand, but that's about it. I've got a couple autographs, and I had the opportunity to see him and offer my condolences right after Joe Nuxhall passed away in 2007. He was genuinely thankful. Which is to say, each time I've encountered him in person, he has come across as exactly the same guy he is on the radio. That's saying something.

Most of my friends and family, and even some acquaintances, know about my Reds Memorabilia Room. My man cave isn't so much a man cave as it is a shrine to the Cincinnati Reds. While it wasn't such a big deal to those who knew me in Indiana, where many, like me, grew up listening to Marty, it's becoming the stuff of legend here in South Carolina, where college football is king. Admittedly, the Room is on another level. Marty Brennamen is a big reason why. Without him, I would have known very little about my heroes.

This past Monday, prior to Marty's last series with the team, he said in a press conference that Thursday -- his last day behind the mic -- will be the "hardest day" of his life.

He has no idea. Regardless of who wins the game, that one will "belong to the Reds," I guarantee it.

And when you hear the 13 year old boy crying in his Reds Room, don't be alarmed. It's just me.

Final Hurricane Dorian Update: Friday, 10/6 at 11:00 am

DISCLAIMER: For many, certainly in the Bahamas, this was a killer storm, with unprecedented damage. Others both South and North of us, and even some here in our area, experienced damage from which they have to recover. This post in no way means to belittle any of that. Our thoughts and prayers have been with all those who've suffered in some way with this storm.

That being said, I'll reiterate that I always have mixed emotions about these hurricanes in being grateful that we dodged the bullet ourselves. Missing us means it has to hit elsewhere, in most cases, and my prayers are never to be spared at the expense of someone else's pain. I wish it'd just blow out into the sea, as most of these do, but that's not always the case. I'm fully aware that one day, we will not be so lucky.

As for us here, this all ended up being much ado about nothing. Were it not for the knowledge that a Category 2 or 3 hurricane was blowing by our coast, what we actually ended up seeing from Dorian was considerably less than some other isolated storms we've seen, both here and in Indiana, and would have been ignored by the local news otherwise. Little bit of wind and rain and that was about it. We're buffered a bit by Hilton Head Island, and those along the actual coast took a little heavier hit, but here in Bluffton, what we got was minimal.

Couple of things to note: 1) How far one is from the center of the storm is critical. As we saw, the Bahamas sat right in the eye of the storm and was ravaged. We, on the other hand, rested roughly 100 miles away from the center in the outer bands and saw little to no damage at all. 2) The paths of these things in some cases waiver literally from hour to hour. 24-48 hours, the forecasters have the path pretty well down, and even then, a wobble of even just a few miles can have a tremendous impact on how much damage one suffers.

Here's the problem: Perhaps it was still being gun-shy from Hurricane Matthew a few years ago, or perhaps being gun shy from seeing what Dorian laid on the Bahamas, or both, but local officials virtually ignored all the data and path forecasts we were getting as it approached us.

Let me explain.

The short background is that Hurricane Matthew in October of 2016 put a direct hit on Hilton Head. They won't typically announce a hurricane landfall on a barrier island, and technically, it didn't really make a landfall on Hilton Head, but for all intents and purposes, it hit us directly. Matthew was a slightly less severe storm than Dorian, but the eye hugged the coastline from Florida to North Carolina and took one of those last minute wobbles virtually right into Hilton Head Island before heading off north. We took a direct hit of 80-100 mph winds, and saw 14-20" of rain in a 24-hour period.

Locally, they were woefully unprepared for it. This area hadn't seen a major hit in 30 years, since Hurricane Hugo in 1989, and simply weren't ready as they underestimated it.

The good news is that they are determined not to make the same mistake again and are now significantly better prepared to deal with a hurricane. The bad news is that they've taken a drastically fatalistic approach to each subsequent storm and have significantly overestimated the impacts we'd see from them. Since Matthew, we've faced Hurricanes Irma, Florence, Michael, and now Dorian, and they've overshot them all.

Florence and Michael we virtually saw nothing from. Missed us completely. Irma brought some wind and rain and some storm surge flooding that caused some problems, but otherwise fizzled before it got here. Dorian has been the first since Matthew to show any real teeth at all, and it turned out to be a little nip at best.

Now, we're thankful for that, but the problem is that local officials were telling us that this storm would be equal to, and likely worse, than Matthew. We were told to prepare for significant damage and flooding, and to be prepared to be without power for days. Mandatory evacuations were ordered nearly 72 hours before it was set to pass us, with no promise at all of when we might be able to return to our homes.

All the while, the data and the forecasts were showing no such thing. Notwithstanding the possibilities of the path changing, even 72 hours out, the forecasted path consistently showed to be considerably off the coast ever since it left the Bahamas, and I never saw a single rainfall estimate above 6-10", and most hovered in the 3-6" range. I saw several broadcasts where the path of Matthew and predicted path of Dorian were shown side by side, and the two never got within 50 miles of each other, most showing them anywhere from 75-100 miles apart. Dorian was a stronger storm -- not by a lot, mind you, but stronger -- but Matthew was significantly closer, almost on top of us. Moreover, there were no significant damage reports coming out of Florida and Georgia as it worked its way up the coast. Some localized street flooding and that was about it. Nothing to hint it packed a heavy punch for us.

I'm no expert, I acknowledge that. And I'll never pretend to know more about hurricanes than the professionals, but I kept asking myself after each local press conference, "How do they keep saying this one is gonna be worse?" I mean, even the lay person after a few go 'rounds can get a general idea of how the weather works, right? And simple physics will tell you that 3-6" of rain is never going to be worse than 14"-20" of rain. There simply was no real reason -- outside of general hurricane unpredictability -- to believe Dorian was going to be any significant problem.

True, we're in a season of King Tides right now. King Tides are larger than normal tides. Adding any level of storm surge during a King Tide is problematic and enhances the chances for inland flooding. EVEN THEN... I never saw a single forecast that predicted the total surge and tide to be higher than the record flooding we saw during Matthew. Every forecast I saw predicted it at well over a foot below. Still potentially bad, of course, but not to the level of Matthew.

They predicted the probability of hurricane-force wind gusts ( 75 mph+) but never predicted the sustained winds to get anywhere above Tropical Storm force (39-74 mph). A Tropical Storm here really is not a big deal. In the end, we barely got even that with Dorian.

Look, I'm not faulting Governor McMaster for the evacuations. He has to put safety and caution above all else, and politically, you know as well as I do that nothing he does will please everyone. But there's also something to be said for not only the financial burdens caused to those who have to evacuate, but also the loss of revenue to local businesses that an evacuation causes, and calling for one unnecessarily can be very troublesome for a local business. Not to mention the sheer cost of mobilizing and utilizing local resources and officials to carry out an evacuation. You know how much it costs to evacuate a hospital?

Last year, an evacuation was ordered a full week ahead of Hurricane Florence's projected landfall, when it's path at that time was several hundred miles north of us, nowhere even in the cone of uncertainty. He rescinded it a day later after much protesting, but the damage to businesses had already been done as people heeded the initial order and customers and the workforce left the area. In the end, we didn't see so much as a breeze from Florence. But local businesses took a hit.

This year, they waited longer, but still issued one when all the data was showing we weren't going to get much. The fatalistic warnings we were getting from officials just didn't jibe with the forecasts, even as there was reason to be cautious.

I don't know what the answer is to all this. I'm really just ranting, as the truth is that it really didn't affect me one way or the other. I have places to go if I choose to evacuate, and we're supplied if we ride it out. If you're Governor McMaster, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. I don't envy the decisions he has to make. I just know that evacuating, in general, is "such a pain in the ass" as one of my local friends so eloquently put it, and that the evacuations and warnings have really hurt some local businesses when in the end, they simply weren't necessary. One can only hope that the officials can use these experiences, as well as the experience from Matthew to make better educated guesses as we move forward.

So I'll end my final update with this: I had hoped to learn some lessons by riding this one out. Given there really wasn't any teeth to Dorian -- at least for us -- there wasn't much to learn and we'll be pretty much back to square 1 whenever the next one comes by, which it is surely to do. I'm thankful for the prayers and grateful we've dodged yet another bullet, but I would urge you to keep the prayers going for those who were not so fortunate. Until next time...

Andrew Luck: To Be -- Upset -- or Not to Be. That is the Question!

In a gazillion years, I would never disparage Andrew Luck for his decision to walk away from football in the prime of his career.

It was shameful to hear the boos that rained down on him as he left the field Saturday night as news of his retirement broke to the fan base. I, for one, admire that an athlete of his stature could not only walk away from the income, but that he told the world, essentially, that his identity is not wrapped up in football. I'm in no position whatsoever to tell anybody how they should live their life.

I honor his decision to want to live a long, happy, and healthy life without the pain and suffering that comes with being a pro football player. I agree with the idea that his own health, both in the present and in the future, should be valued above performing like a circus monkey every Sunday. And I respect that he values his family over the trappings of being a professional athlete.

There is simply no question that Andrew Luck is a good guy, with a good heart, and gave everything he had to the position he played on the field. He is a class act all the way.

However, there is another side to this story, and the truth is that the fans, from a strictly football fan perspective, have every right to be upset, even if we respect the decision he had to make.

Let's face it: The average 29 year old guy doesn't have the luxury of being able to retire and simply walk away from his career, especially with the knowledge that he is ridiculously financially set for life. The average 29 year old, especially one who spent four years in college, is really only just getting settled in a career, and likely has hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt.

Some are entrenched in a career at 29, but many are still finding their way, having floated between various jobs still trying to find the right place to land. Some never find it.

Only Andrew Luck can know if his decision to retire is ultimately the right one or not. But one thing is for sure: It is because of the fanbase of Indianapolis that he is able to do so at age 29.

Luck is a millionaire already, not to mention the millions of dollars he's walking away from in retirement. He's 29 years old. It's not as if he worked 30-40 years in a job, saved and invested well, and is now moving on to his golden years with just enough money to live in a decent retirement community until he dies and go out to eat at 4:30 in the afternoon when he wants to. No, Andrew Luck made nearly $15 million just for agreeing to play for the Indianapolis Colts before he ever took a snap, and, so far, has earned $97 million + in seven seasons with the team, and that's without playing a single down the entire 2017 season.

Who's to say Luck doesn't have other income potential? I have no idea. I don't know what his degree is in. I do know that he's a very smart guy, so the reality is likely that he'd have no trouble finding another good career and earn a good living. Be he'll be hard pressed to find anything else that will pay him nearly $100 million in seven years.

No, Luck is able to retire for one reason: Because he's a good football player and the fans invested money to watch him play. They not only invested their money to watch him play now, but they invested their money in believing that he would one day lead their team to a Super Bowl championship. We're not talking Trent Dilfer here. We're talking about a man who has the skill and the tools that make him perhaps one of the best five quarterbacks in the game. A bonafide star with a history of winning and a legitimate shot at winning it all.

The fans believed in that, and paid their own hard earned money with the hopes of those aspirations coming true. Now, he's gone.

Yes, the fans have a right to feel a little shafted.

Look, no one's life is going to significantly change if one guy plays football or not. No way am I trying to equate that playing football -- or any entertainment endeavor, for that matter -- is as life altering as, say, brain surgery. The sun will still rise tomorrow whether Andrew Luck plays football or not.

But there's something to be said for the entertainment industry in general. Despite most of the boneheads in Hollywood, entertainment pursuits are what keeps the populace from losing their marbles on a regular basis. People gladly fork over their hard-earned income because going to a ballgame or a movie gives them a chance to "get-away," even if only for a few hours. A chance to put the everyday stresses and problems of our lives aside for a bit and just enjoy being.

We get behind a team, and pay our money to support them, so that they, in turn, can give us little respites from our everyday lives. We hope they win it all, and get upset when they don't, but even then, we stay true, because it gives us something to hold onto when life gets a little crazy. We often complain about how much money athletes make, but at the end of the day, if they weren't there, and we didn't have entertainment options, we'd all probably go nuts. When it's all said and done, athletes make the money they make because we -- the fans -- pay them.

So yeah, the fans have a right to be upset with Andrew Luck. Questions about the timing of his decision, how much the front office knew of his feelings for how long, and all the rest, will all have to be settled another day. But the fans invested their time and money in watching Luck throw a football, and they are the only reason he has the financial means to walk away from it all before he turns 30.

I'm not offering a solution. I'm not saying there is one. I'm not suggesting the fans are due some sort of refund from the team. I'm not saying Luck or the Colts owe the fanbase some quid pro quo for the sunken hopes. I'm simply saying that there's justification in the fanbase being upset, even as most of us truly respect his choice. Most of us, faced with the same set of circumstances, would likely choose the same.

It's a dilemma for sure. You don't think the Colts front office is scrambling right now? You don't think the players themselves haven't all been thrown for a loop? You don't think Luck hasn't anguished over this? I don't care how much money a guy makes, it can't be easy to walk away from virtually the only thing he's known in his life since he was a fetus.

But the fans have taken one on the shin as well, and while we all applaud Andrew Luck for his courage and for what he gave us on the field, we have a right to be upset for how it all played out.

We all moved on after Peyton Manning (ironically, in large part due to the play and promise of Luck himself) and we'll all move on after Andrew Luck, and Jacoby Brissett and whoever else helms the team down the road. Tomorrow is a new day, as they say, and who knows? Maybe Brissett will shine given the full time chance to do so. If he does, the sting of Luck's departure won't last long. No pressure though.

We all wish Luck well -- Get well soon, brother.

But for now, the fans deserve the chance to cry a little bit.

It's Not a Gun Problem: It's a Morals Problem.

Like most, I was horrified at the senseless murders this past weekend with the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. I was also horrified when it happened in Columbine and Sandy Hook, and I was horrified when it happened in Orlando and Vegas. The stories dominate the airwaves for days after each.

Unlike many, I'm also horrified at the shocking number of murders every weekend in many of our cities. Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore suffer dozens of murders every week. Mostly, they're ignored by the media.

Yesterday, a friend of mine posted on her social media account this question: Why do we hear so much in the media about each mass shooting, but the daily murders in our inner cities are virtually ignored? She then said she didn't want the comments to turn into a political debate.

I commented that if she didn't want a political debate, then her question couldn't be answered. Because the answer to her specific question -- why so much media coverage for mass shootings and not for daily murders -- is a political answer.

The answer to the problem of why people are shooting each other is, sadly, is much deeper.

First, from a strictly journalistic standpoint, Mass Shootings aren't normal. They're OUT of the normal. That's one reason why the media covers them. Events that are abnormal are inherently newsworthy. That's why you'll see the house on fire in your neighborhood on the news, but you won't see your neighbor mowing his grass on the news.

Mass Shootings, though seemingly on the rise in the last few decades, are still extremely rare. And thus newsworthy. Murders every night in Chicago, on the other hand, are very common. Baltimore alone is on pace to have a homicide virtually every night of the year. Chicago, twice that. The local news might give it mention, but nothing more.

The real answer, however, is political. Or maybe, more to the point, agenda-driven. Today's mainstream media outlets, be it broadcast, print, or internet, are liberally run. They lean left, and in most cases, have given up all pretense of being unbiased. If you believe otherwise, you're simply ignoring reality. They are driven by advertising revenue, and little else. They don't care as much about disseminating information as they do selling papers.

Now, the same thing can be said about Conservative run news outlets as well. But there's a distinct difference, and a reason why, say, Fox News, stands pretty much alone on the Conservative right, but the Liberal Left has CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, et al, most major newspapers, and run Google and Facebook. And the reason is fairly simple: Liberalism ideology doesn't allow for free thinking. Liberalism at its core promotes the idea that most people cannot think for themselves, and therefore are not smart enough to make the best decisions for themselves. They have to be told what to believe, and how to behave, and how to spend their money, and what insurance they should have, etc. Liberalism teaches that nobody is better than anybody else, and therefore, no one deserves to be more successful than anyone else, regardless of how hard anyone works.

In short, Liberalism believes that the government should be in charge of virtually everything, and make all decisions for everybody, because it can do it more wisely and fairly than the individual. And many who get involved in media -- reasons for which we do not have the time to discuss here -- tend to adhere to that belief. As such, most media outlets are Liberal, and their belief is that it is their job to tell people what to believe. Most consumers of mainstream media are fine with that assessment and sadly are quite content to be told what to believe. So liberalism sells to the masses much more than conservatism. While there are far more Conservatives in this country than Liberals, there are far more Liberals who are willing to allow themselves to be told what to think, and so they consume the mass media much more than do Conservatives. CNN is liberal only because that is the audience they can most easily sway. It's simply economics.

Mass shootings are rare, and thus very compartmentalized, and as such are very easy to attach to an agenda talking point. These days, they're very easy to attach to the political rhetoric of their choice, even though mass shootings have been taking place for decades now. And in the case of the mainstream media, they're going to attach it to Donald Trump, even though he is not in any way, shape, or form, the problem. But that's their agenda. Trump is a racist and a bigot, everything he says is racist and inflammatory, even if its true, and so the mass shooters are just following Trump's creed. It's stupid, of course, but easy.

The murders happening in our cities every night are far more difficult to deal with, because, in general, they fly in the face of every Liberal talking point:

• They're not committed with assault style weapons, but rather primarily with handguns, so gun-control is off the table.
• The city of Chicago, for one, has some of the toughest gun-law restrictions anywhere, and yet have massively-high gun crime, so the argument for tougher gun laws is off the table.
• Most of the crime happens in the inner city, and the "less affluent" parts of town, so the idea that citizens who are helped by government welfare are somehow better off is off the table.
• The vast majority of the crime involves inter-racial combatants, i.e., black-on-black crime, so the white supremacy assertions are off the table.
• Turns out, cities like Baltimore really are cesspools of crime and poverty, just like Trump said, so calling Trump a bigot is off the table (even though they still do.)

Unlike the attempts to place a politically-based motive on each mass shooting, the crimes that happen every day in our inner cities come down to little else other than bad people doing bad things. And as this is not a discussion about the plight of our inner cities, we'll just leave it as crime for crime's sake.

That does not fit the Liberal agenda, so the media doesn't cover it.

So the Left focuses on the Mass Shootings. And does everything they can do to monopolize each event so they can push an agenda.

And that's the problem. Everybody gets so bogged down in placing blame -- when the blame lies squarely and solely with the shooters themselves -- that nothing gets done to fix the problem.

The overall agenda, of course, at this point, is to blame Donald Trump for everything. Which is blatantly absurd. Mass Shootings over the past, say, 40 years, have happened at about the same rate under all different administrations. Even a small cursory search of mass shootings will show that while the US leads the world in TOTAL # of mass shooting events, the top 5 criminal mass shootings in history didn't even happen in the United States, and only 2 of the Top 10 occurred in the US.

• Kent State happened under Nixon's administration.
• San Ysidro McDonalds happened under Reagan.
• Columbine happened under Clinton.
• Virginia Tech happened under Bush, Jr.
• Sandy Hook the Washington Navy Yard happened under Obama.

And all without any real rhyme or reason, by racial and ethnically diverse group of people, with diverse motives. The aforementioned shootings were not the fault's of the presidents at the time, and the mass shootings now are not the fault of Donald Trump.

This past weekends shootings are an excellent example: The El Paso shooting was committed by an apparent white supremacist, and the Dayton shooting by a Democrat Liberal fond of Elizabeth Warren. In both cases, the shooters are appear to be certifiably nuts.

ALL shootings are acts of terrorism. Whether by a white supremacist or a radical muslim. But even then, those are just words. Obama's refusal to call terrorist acts by Muslims "terrorism" didn't make it any less terrorism. And even though Trump has repeatedly denounced racism and white nationalism, there are still racists of all colors in this country who want to do bad things to good people.

Gun control isn't the answer. Never has been, and it isn't the problem anyway. Our country has more gun-control legislation on the books right now than it ever has in its history, and yet these events continue to happen. Cities like Chicago prove that more gun laws don't cut down on crime all that much, if any. And most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones anyway. It doesn't get any more gun-controlled than that. Wal-Mart is a gun-free business, and yet a man took a gun into one in El Paso and killed 22 people. Nobody in the store had any chance to defend themselves.

Meanwhile, armed police reacted to the shooting in Dayton in less than a minute and stopped the killing spree at 9. By their own admission, the gunman was trying to get into a night club (a gun-free club) and had he done so before officers shot him dead, the death toll would have been "catastrophic" -- their words, not mine.

Some would say we don't have "enough" gun control. I would counter that we're not enforcing the laws already in place very well, so the need for more is moot. And it is true that the US leads the world in number of mass shootings. But we are the only country that allows our citizens to freely carry guns. And there is a very specific reason for that. It is a reason on which the country was founded: To resist oppression by the government. As such, we enjoy more freedoms in this country than any country in the world because our Constitution allows for it's people to resist. Every other country in the world envies this about us. And the freedoms we enjoy because of it are one of the reasons hundreds of thousands of people from other countries try to enter our country every year.

We have more guns on the street than any other country, and we feature more gun crime than any other country. But the trade off is that we offer more freedom than any other country, and the primary reason for that is because was can resist our government's oppression that would otherwise take it away.

Layer 2 of the gun-control debate is that we should ban assault weapons. Which is also stupid because the human race has proven time and again that it will kill no matter what the weapon. Besides, there are literally thousands -- maybe hundreds of thousands -- of assault-style weapons in the hands of private citizens at this moment that have never harmed a soul. The actions of a few lunatics cannot be reason to take those lawfully-obtained weapons away from law-abiding citizens.

Liberals argue that automatic weaponry allows killers to kill more people in one swing than does a simple handgun, and that our forefathers only knew of muskets and could not fathom assault-style weapons when they penned the Constitution. Each of those assertions may be true, but the Constitution wasn't written for a specific gun, rather, a specific concept. Gun ownership was a means of resisting government oppression (and providing for and protecting one's family.) It doesn't change the fact that a Boeing airliner in the right hands can have a vastly advantageous impact on society, but in the wrong hands can kill 3000 innocent people in one dastardly act. Nobody -- except for that dingbat AOC -- is calling to ban jet airliners.

Besides, I would be more than willing to discuss restrictions on certain types of weapons when the Left can promise me they won't go after all guns in general. If I've learned anything about Liberals in my lifetime, it's that enough is never enough. They scream about AR-15's today, and I guarantee you, if they succeed in getting them banned, they'll be screaming about hunting rifles tomorrow and handguns the day after that. I absolutely refuse to discuss ANY banning of guns until the Left can assure me there is a limit to what they want banned. That, of course, will never happen.

I created a Facebook post yesterday that read, "Blaming Donald Trump for everything racially and politically wrong with this country is like trying to blame the "Stranger Things" [child actors] for all the corruption in Hollywood." It's absurd to think any of this is Donald Trump's fault. He literally has only been on the scene for three years. There are those who want to believe he's not doing much to make things better, or even making it worse. Fine. I won't argue that here. But clearly this is a problem that has been festering in this country for decades, only getting worse with time. Trump may or may not prove to be the answer, but he certainly is not the problem.

The problem is simple if we'd just take the time to look at it logically. And, if the Left had the courage to admit that their ideology is not only flawed, but damaging to the psychology of the country. Ever since the country began edging away from it's Christian foundations -- which, if we're being truthful, really ramped up beginning in the 1960's -- we have seen an overall moral decline in the country that has coincided with a rise in tragic events like mass shootings.

We have demonized everything from prayer in schools to traditional marriage. We've championed the murder of babies, legalized it even, and told our children it is OK to question God when it comes to how he created them. Christians themselves rave about how we should all be more "loving" and yet buy their children video games for Christmas that promote mass killing as entertainment. We've elevated the importance of sporting contests over Sunday church services. Leftists have been telling us for decades now how awful we are to our planet, and that it's all going to come to an end soon. I mean, what's a few dead people in a Wal-Mart if the Earth is going to be uninhabitable in a few years anyway?

Leftists have spent the last 30 years telling us how bad white people are, especially white men. And then they wonder why a white man goes nuts and shoots up a church full of black people.

Democrat liberal policy creates and promotes a permanent underclass. Look at every Liberal-run city in this country and then try to convince me that Liberal policy is actually beneficial. It creates and maintains a class of people permanently subsistent on the government, who are then told that all their problems are the fault of big, bad, white Republicans. And being convinced that the American dream cannot possibly include them, they resort to crime to deal with their poverty.

We've told our young girls they can accomplish anything men can accomplish and then allow mentally-deranged men enter their ranks and destroy their ideas of womanhood. We tell our Sons its wrong to be and act like men. That masculinity is "toxic" (whatever that means). And we've devalued the role of the father in the family. Single motherhood is championed over toxic fatherhood and boys grow up without fathers at an alarming rate. This article shows that a vast majority of mass shooters since Columbine have grown up in broken homes, many without fathers.

Men can't be men, and women can't be women, and then we wonder why they're so confused about life and can't get it all together before they go shoot up their schools.

We don't have a gun problem. If we did, then all these Mass Shootings would look the same. But they don't. We have a morals problem. And it's getting worse. And it lies squarely on the declining moral climate in this country over the past few decades -- a declination that is advanced by Liberal ideology.

God is wrong, mean, or doesn't exist at all. Traditional family values are worthless. All white people are bad, and have an unfair advantage in life. Anything you earn and work hard for should be absconded and given to others. Personal responsibility is pointless. The Earth is going to cease to exist in a matter of a few years, and it's all our fault. Being a woman or a man is meaningless. Lawlessness is a preferred method of dealing with society, and police officers are horrible people who would rather see you dead than protect you. Following the laws of the United States is racist. Killing babies is OK. And you're too dumb to think for yourselves.

And we wonder why people go nuts and shoot a bunch of people.

We've Found Our Dream... and it's from God!

Occasionally, I like to go back and read pieces I've written in the past. For a variety of reasons, but mostly because I write to chronicle what's on my mind at any particular moment. Many people believe I write to elicit responses from others -- and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy that others might get something out of something I write -- but I think any writer, good or bad, would tell you the primary reason we write is for us, and us alone. I write because I enjoy it, and I like to get my thoughts down somewhere. If others enjoy it or hate it, that's just a bonus, but it really doesn't affect me one way or the other.

So I like to go back every now and then and read what I was thinking about at a particular time in the past. The reminiscing can be happy or sad, but I enjoy it when I'm reminded of some experience I've forgotten, and I get a kick out of chuckling over something I wrote that was probably intended to be funny, even if it was only for me. There's something very satisfying in laughing at my own joke.

Today, I went back and read a series of blogs from back in 2012. A vacation we took as a family to Delray Beach, Florida. My Mother-In-Law and her husband own a place down there, and were gracious enough to let us stay there a few times on vacation. It was my first trip there, and I made sure to write a little something about each day. I rather enjoyed the memories.

I was at a crossroads in my life at that time. My kids were getting older, my wife had just had another surgery on her head, and my career was in the balance, on that brink between my self-employment becoming profitable, or closing down the business and having to get a real job.

I remember being very tired and just looking forward to a relaxing couple of weeks, "relaxation" not being something I often pursued while on vacation. And I was in a very reflective mood at the time. My wife and I had been dreaming for years of living near the ocean, for a variety of reasons, and our vacations for the previous few years, and the years that followed, had mostly been to or near an ocean. I was just at a place where I was sorta analyzing where my life stood at the moment, and what direction I wanted to head.

I enjoyed reading through those blogs. Especially now, as so much has changed for me and Ginger over the past few years. As I chronicled my thoughts and experiences on that vacation to Delray, I'm struck by how much the experiences I relished on that trip have now become almost everyday realities for us here in our new home in South Carolina. It's almost as if that trip was the catalyst for Ginger and I making the decision to change our lives. I don't think there's any question, as I read through those again, that they lit a fire in us that lead us to be where we are today.

I reflected on my life in Indiana. Some things I liked, but others not so much. And about how a mundane familiarity about my everyday life at the time contrasted so much with what I was experiencing each day on that vacation.

I talked about being awe-struck by the beauty of the ocean, watching the sunrise with my wife for the first time, experiencing God in new ways, relaxing at the beach, hunting for alligators, and a myriad of other things that almost eerily reflect the lives we now lead here in Bluffton.

I had seen the ocean many times before that vacation, and yet, somehow, it was more magical, and awesome, and wonderful, and beautiful, and inspiring, and even a little scarier to me on that trip than it had ever been before. And it shifted something in me.

When you live by the ocean, you never visit it as much as you think you are going to, and yet, we go, at least to just see it, with some regularity. Sometimes, it's enough just knowing we can go anytime we want. Nevertheless, the moment the ocean comes into view, it still never ceases to take my breath away, in a way it never had before that vacation, but has ever since.

Ginger and I make a point to get up and go see the sunrise. Again, not often enough, but with some regularity. All in the effort to keep this place from becoming mundane to us, not that I believe it could ever become so. Alligators are an everyday reality for us now, and even though it's still super cool every time I see one, I find it almost funny now that we were so stoked about seeing them at all.

I mentioned how Ginger loves seeing palm trees and dolphins, and how the sight of either on vacation would light her up. Today, we have a palm tree growing in our back yard, and the entire downstairs of our home is decorated in palm tree decor. And now we can, at any time, on any given day, drive to the ocean, and if we sit around long enough, we'll see a dolphin swim by. It really is amazing.

God is very real to me here, in a way that had become lost on me in Indiana. It is hard to walk about in a place like this, with glorious weather almost every day, and not notice God's beauty in virtually everything you see. But it's more than that. I've begun to realize a calling, a purpose, on my life in a way that hadn't been there in awhile...

I'll come back to that in just a moment.

I'm not going to lie -- I had tired of the weather up north, not to mention the havoc it wreaked on Ginger's health. But that's the only thing inherent about Indiana I can say I didn't like. And I'm not alone. I know a lot of people who still live there who don't like the weather. But geography is a preference. There's a beauty in the hills of Nashville, Indiana in Autumn you won't find here. The same thing can be said about the mountains of Colorado, or the canyons of Nevada. Some people enjoy the changing of the seasons more than others. I don't.

Then again, the sunshine is different here than in the Midwest. I can't explain it. It just is. And you won't find as awe-inspiring a view in Indiana as there is at the beach. And there's nothing like taking a golf cart ride on a warm, sunshiny day on any given calendar day on which in Indiana you'd be bundled from head to toe in winter clothes. There's a lot to love here. (I've actually heard tell of doctors prescribing a vacation to the beach for their patients to heal whatever was ailing them at the time. I understand why now.)

But this is not a knock on Indiana. Please know that. It's just a place. I can't imagine I'd like North Dakota all that much, but plenty of people live there and love it. So to my friends and family who are still there, I'm not hating on the life I lived there. It wasn't Indiana...

It was me.

I had stagnated. Three dear friends and family members had recently died far too young. That's no excuse for my own shortcomings, but it had brought the realities of our own mortality and the shortness of this life far too close to home. I was growing older (still am!) and I felt locked into a way of life that I had very little choice over. While thankful for my gifts and talents, I felt as though there was very much a "circus monkey" quality to my life. Performing on command often when I just didn't want to. I know people enjoyed the things I did, and deep down, I liked that they did, but that's just how I felt.

Mostly, to my own detriment, I had drifted away from God. Slowly, but surely. Sure, I was still faithfully serving in the church, but my heart felt far away from Jesus. I had a hard time separating the fallacies of human interaction with the church -- especially my own -- from the life-giving grace and the peaceful restfulness of Jesus. I know faith doesn't come through acts, but I didn't feel like I was doing anything worthwhile for the Kingdom. There was a time in my life when I was very much on fire for Jesus. But that had long gone. At least that's how I felt, anyway.

So the time came to make a change. To take back some control -- if that is indeed even possible -- and to stop talking about our dreams and start doing them. As Andy Dufresne says in The Shawshank Redemption: "I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy living, or get busy dying."

Ginger felt the same way, and has been even more adamant than I that God has something significant for us to do here in the Lowcountry. And that's starting to come into focus. The journey is going slowly, but it's going. It's hard to stop the wave as you're drifting away and get it going the other direction. With God's help, I feel like I'm finally starting to do it. And get a sense of what God is calling us to.

And here's the weird part: I think the calling is this: Everything I've just spoken about... Living life to the fullest and enjoying every moment as though it could be your last. God has recently brought me to a place where my gifts and talents are needed. And I haven't felt that need in quite some time. But a few weeks ago, our minister preached a sermon on the last week of Jesus's life, about His authority, the premise being that God calls us to living life to the fullest. Living a full and satisfying life in Christ has nothing to do with prosperity -- and sometimes, even personal happiness -- and everything to do with grasping the gift of life in Jesus and making the best of it.

I was emotionally moved by that sermon in a way I had not been in a very long time. And hit it me: THIS is what God is calling me to. At least in part, anyway. It's hard to reconcile God's Biblical call to everyone to go to the ends of the Earth and preach the Gospel, and that he places on some hearts to go to, like, Zimbabwe, and others to be an example in good ole' sunny Bluffton, SC, but I feel more strongly about this than I have in a long time. I certainly hope and pray I'm not just trying to justify my own selfish desires, but as I read back on those previous blogs, I realize this has been welling up in me for many years.

God wants Ginger and I to be examples. I'm certain of it. We have a unique testimony. He in no way wants us to abandon our inherent gifts and talents -- mine as a musician and Ginger's talent for working with small children -- but rather to incorporate those into a testimony about overcoming adversity and seeking and living out this Great Adventure of life through Jesus. And setting an example that it's never too early or too late to chase your dreams and better your life. He's brought us to a church home where we can do that, and into a community of like-minded individuals to be able to show others it's not only possible, but doable.

The drift back has been slow too, with setbacks along the way. But we're sailing in the right direction. And I feel good about it for the first time in a long time.

So here we are. Living our dream, and showing others that they can too. There's nothing stopping you from doing the same thing. Just remember, there is no right or wrong. There are excuses, true, but you have to make the choices that are best for you, and sometimes even for those who depend on you. But God is bigger than any obstacle. Geography, money, adversity, career, other's needs... He's bigger and stronger than all that. The decision you make might not be the right decision for someone else, and vice versa. But if you make a decision based on God and rely on His muscles, He'll work it out.

If you focus on allowing God to use your talents in service for the Kingdom (and yes, you have talent!) then I believe you'll find a calling that aligns with your passions and dreams.

Through social media, I watch friends of mine all the time who vacation not just to the ocean, but to lots of great places. I watch some who are very content with where God has them, and very much enjoy their lives back home, and are merely taking a little break to refresh. And that's OK. We all need a break from time to time, and I rejoice with you!

But I watch others who are getting away, or dreaming to, and are yearning and searching for the very same things we were. Unsettled, and perhaps hanging in that balance I spoke of earlier. You need to know that that life you dream of is not only possible, but doable! God has a way to use you! You just have to make the choice. It can be tough, and scary, and nerve-racking, but you can do it! I tell everyone all the time... you can do this, or you can be sitting around 10 years from now still talking about doing this. It's up to you.

Come and see us. Our home is open. We have a room for you (for free!) Take that vacation to the beach (at least close to the beach!) for a few days. You can share with us and we'll share with you. You'll find no condemnation here. Just encouragement and hopefully, and uplifting word from God.

And we'll head out together and see a dolphin and an alligator!

I Am Still Sad.

If you watched and listened to the mainstream media, you would have had no other choice than to conclude that President Trump was guilty of a myriad of things, let alone Russian collusion.

However, if you used common sense, paid attention to not only how the American political system works, but certainly how the modern Democrat party functions, how the mainstream media really operates, and relied on your life experience and heeded historical lessons, then it was clear well over a year ago that Mueller and the Dems had absolutely nothing on Trump.

Just like the Kavanaugh situation, which was clear from Day 1 was a sham, and has since proven to be nothing but a Democrat set up, this investigation was a witch hunt and political hit job on Trump from the very beginning. Anyone with an iota of common sense could see that. Anyone can see that the indictments it has produced against Trump associates were petty and pointless and nothing more than attempts to squeeze them into making up something against Trump to save their own skin (I would LOVE to see the same investigation into Hillary's campaign and the people it would snare under the same pretenses.) Mueller knew after about six months there was nothing on Trump, and therefore was ordered to extend and broaden the investigation and go after Trump associates in the hopes of finding something -- anything -- to bring him down. There's no real teeth to any of those convictions (one guy got a whopping 4-day prison sentence for his "crime.") Roger Stone got indicted on things he's been doing for 40 years, and no one cared about it until he started working for Trump! And not a one of them would ever have been charged with a thing if Mueller hadn't been trying to nail Trump on something. And that's why you started hearing the Dems crying about obstruction about a year ago, because they too knew there was nothing to the collusion malarky.

And now, the Dems reaction to the results of the investigation only prove it all further. They want Trump taken down, plain and simple. They were not interested at all in getting to the truth. They were interested in destroying Trump.

I, for one, am thrilled to find our President did nothing against the law -- certainly nothing that hasn't been done in probably every other Presidential campaign in the last 40 years or so. Every American should be thrilled. We should be absolutely over the moon that the most expensive, extensive, exhaustive, thorough -- and, I should add, partisan -- investigation into a President's activities ever conducted by our government found that he did absolutely nothing wrong. Moreover, it doesn't just conclude he did nothing wrong, it concluded that Trump had ample opportunity to do so, and STILL did nothing wrong. Every American should be proud.

But I am also sad. Sad to see that so many Americans have nothing but hate in their hearts for a man who so far has done nothing but try to make things better. They hate a man who claims to want to make America great again. While they scream for redemption, forgiveness, tolerance, and love, they hate a man who indeed has a checkered past, but has spent the last several years of his life running successful businesses, being a good family man, raising good kids, and by all accounts has tried to make a better person of himself. They hate a man who chose as his running mate a good, kind, loving, upstanding, Christian man. They hate a man who has vowed to protect their constitutional rights. They hate a man who has lowered their taxes, and created jobs, lessened the burden of the welfare system, all to virtually record levels, and refused to take any pay for it. They hate a man who has not taken a single civil liberty away from anyone, nor threatened to do so, and yet champion his opposition who vows to do those very things. They hate a man who has virtually destroyed the single most dangerous terrorist group on the planet. They hate a man who wants to protect our borders, and who insists that those who want to come to our country for a better life do so legally. They hate a man who wanted to take children away from criminals, and try to protect them from child sex traffickers, drug dealers, and murderers. They hate a man who likes to use social media to bypass a biased mainstream media, and they spew that hate on their own social media accounts. And they hate a man who has been vetted, investigated, prodded, harassed, slandered and libeled more than any President in our history, yet has stood strong, withheld under the pressure, and has now been proven to have done absolutely nothing wrong.

And why do they hate him so? Because he stands in the way of what is truly an evil and vile agenda. An agenda that involves killing babies, up to and even after they are born. An agenda that takes away our Constitutional rights to protect ourselves, takes away our Constitutional rights to freedom of religion (well, if you're Christian anyway.) An agenda that rigs the election system so it can be controlled and manipulated, and opens our borders, allowing illegal immigration -- primarily to rig elections. And agenda that forces us to give away our own hard earned income not only to the government, but to others who simply choose not to work, and to illegal immigrants who broke our laws to enter the country. An agenda that promises to raise our taxes. An agenda that encourages racial divides by promoting special treatment rather than equality, and forces us to believe that anything Caucasian is bad and evil. An agenda to force us to not only accept, but also believe that natural biology isn't natural at all, abusing our children to believe they can actually choose their gender, and championing demented and deviant sexual behavior. And the worst part of it is, they've given up any pretext of trying to cloak that agenda in what would otherwise be considered wholesome and beneficial policies. Rather, they've come right out and stated it. This is what they want, what they stand for, what they believe. An outright promise to trample on our very Constitution if only they are elected to power again.

They hate a man who abided by the law, won an election fair and square, and has promised to rid Washington of people who want to do otherwise.

Think about that for awhile.

Yes, this is a day to be happy. But I am still sad.

The Shutdown is Donald Trump's Fault!

This government shutdown is Donald Trump's fault.

There. I said it.

Of course, to believe that -- which I do, kinda, but more on that later -- then one must believe that the government shutdown in 2013 was Obama's fault as well.

It is not possible to believe one without the other, and if you're trying, then you're being disingenuous at best, and flat out hypocritical at worst.

Forget, for a moment, because we'll circle back around to it, what issue you support or don't support, and look at what played out. In 2013, Congress had done their job and created a budget, passed it, and sent it along to Obama to sign. He refused to sign it because it did not include funding for Obamacare. The bill otherwise included funding to completely keep the government open and operational, fully and wholly. It simply did not provide the dollars to launch Obamacare. So Obama refused to sign it, and let the government shut down because he didn't get funding for his health care legislation. He then proceeded to build walls around all government installations, parks and monuments. (Weird his love of walls and gates.)

In our current situation, it is slightly different. A bill was created, having the support of both Democrats and Republicans, that did not not have funding for a border wall, and Trump indicated he would not sign it. After Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi notified the world that the House of Representatives did not have the votes to pass a bill that included such funding, the House nevertheless reworked the legislation and indeed passed a bill that included the funding. That bill subsequently died in the Senate, so, as such, Trump does not have a funding bill in front of him to sign, even though he's made clear he won't sign one without border wall funding anyway.

That's the long and short of it. The bottom line is, both Presidents campaigned on a promise, and both Presidents stuck to their guns when times got tough. Obama, of course, among the Liberals and mainstream media is hailed as a hero for doing so. Trump, not so much.

The difference, of course, is that in 2013, as Republicans are wont to do, they bent over for the Democrats and caved, and gave Obama his funding, even though their constituency was clearly against it, and even though all the predictions of the legislation have come true, and Obamacare has proven to be an utter disaster, plunging the country into further longterm debt and dramatically raising the costs of healthcare across the board. (And kicking middle class people like me out of the system.)

In this case, everybody -- and certainly the Democrats -- are fully expecting Trump to cave, as most any other Republican politician would have surely done by now, despite the fact that Trump, from Day 1, has shown time and again he doesn't act or behave as traditional Republicans do. Not only are the Dems once again stunned that he hasn't performed as all the other GOP show ponies usually do, they simply don't know what to do at this point as it becomes clearer and clearer that Trump isn't going to budge.

I did not support the Obamacare legislation. Not because I'm not for affordable, quality healthcare, but because that particular legislation was bad, and way too costly. I'm not going to go into a long diatribe as to why I believe that. I'll just say that it was never created to fix the healthcare issues in this country. It was specifically designed as a political tool to create election-time issues ("The Republicans want to take away your healthcare!" Sound familiar?) As such, I didn't support it (which is why I voted for representatives who promised to oppose it, who ultimately lied to me and all their other voters when they did no such thing.) So, I blamed Obama for the shutdown, and didn't support the cause behind it.

Regardless of how you feel about a border wall -- and regardless of how you feel about Trump, for that matter -- the question must be asked: Why do we want a wall in the first place? It certainly isn't because we're all racists and bigots, which is just absurd on its face. The US welcomes more foreign immigrants into our country legally every year than every other country on the planet. It's not even close. And we've done so virtually since our founding. So to say we don't want immigrants coming to our great country is just stupid.

It's because our immigration system is horribly broken. Dems and Pubs alike agree on that, even if they can't agree on how to fix it. The Dems, of course, want open borders to create more liberal voters. There simply is no other logical reason to oppose a secure border wall. Republicans want to stem the flow of illegals who bring drugs and crime along with them, and causing a financial burden on our country that just makes it harder and more difficult to support those who want to be here legally.

Neither side, however, can agree on how to fix the problem. Meanwhile, thousands of illegals cross the border every month. A wall would stem the tide, for sure, as we then attempt to fix the problem legislatively, although I don't see the Democrats ever compromising on cutting the flow of potential voters.

If it's the cost that's got you down, you might have a point. But then, our government spends money all the time on things it shouldn't be. Certainly on things you or I don't agree with. Our federal government literally gives away our tax dollars every year to literally thousands of projects that should never be funded by our government. Planned Parenthood comes to mind, which, if it is so important, ought to be privately funded. There's enough Hollywood liberals, who support murdering children, who have enough money to keep that organization open indefinitely without ever touching a tax dollar. MY money shouldn't be used to fund abortion.

But then, who gets to decide? Should the government spend more money on cancer research, or autism? Ask the family with an autistic child, and then ask the family who lost their father to lung cancer and I'll bet you'll get two different answers. The point is, if you don't like how your government officials spend our money, then vote for different officials. I know... I know... you didn't vote for Donald Trump. I didn't vote for Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama. I had better luck the next time. My guy won this time, and I want him to build a wall.

For those of you who earn your livings on government income, I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I truly am. But when you go to work for the government, you have to understand how it all works. You can't make money off the government -- which is to say, off my tax dollars -- and then get mad when the government does what it does. Personally, I'd like to see some of the rules changed. I believe military and other essential government personnel should be paid no matter what. And some actually do during a shutdown, and others don't. There's certainly ways to ensure that those who need to be paid still get paid during a shutdown, but I don't get to make the rules. I can only vote for people who do. I do the best I can.

If you don't want a border wall, fine. You have every right to believe that. And if you have a better idea, I'm all ears. But you have to decide why you really don't want it. Because it can really only boil down to three reasons:

1) If it's because you don't think there's an immigration problem, then you need to wake up and smell the cocaine-laced roses. Every single immigration official will tell you there's a HUGE immigration problem, and we better get it fixed pronto or we're gonna start seeing some real trouble.

2) You want illegal immigrants and non-citizens voting in our elections. If that's the case, shame on you.

3) You hate Donald Trump. If that's the case, you're just being a baby and you need to grow up.

As for me, I'm on your side. I blame Donald Trump for the shutdown, and I support him fully for it.

President George Herbert Walker Bush

1988 was the first presidential election in which I was of legal age to vote.

I voted for George Herbert Walker Bush.

Growing up in the 80's, it was nearly impossible to be unaware of the popularity of Ronald Reagan. For those who are too young to remember his presidency, and have only heard tell of it as a history lesson, believe me when I tell you, yes, he was that well-liked. Especially after the assassination attempt. The first year of his presidency consisted of most people poking fun that we had an actor as a president, and the doldrums of a lousy economy compliments of one Jimmy Carter. But after John Hinkley tried to kill him with a pistol outside of a D.C. hotel, and the subsequent courage and bravery showed by Reagan to recoup from the attempt, his popularity shot through the roof, and was cemented as his economic policies brought prosperity back to the country.

It wasn't until I was in high school in the last half of the 80's, however, that I began to really get interested in politics in general, and became aware that there was a political left, and many who resided therein who didn't like Ronald Reagan that much. And I watched as a good deal of the media mocked Reagan's occasional public gaffes in the last two years of his administration, unaware that he had indeed began to suffer the onset of the Alzheimers disease that would ultimately take his life.

I wrote an opinion column for my high school newspaper. Our newspaper teacher at school had recognized a style in my writing that lended itself to opinion writing, and thankfully invited me to do just that for our school publication. It was my only job on the newspaper staff for the two years I was on it. And as I became interested in politics, and began reading other national opinion writers, my column would occasionally forage into the political world. Leading up to the 1988 presidential election, there was a lot of political fodder about which write. For those of you who'll recall, you'll remember the likes of Gary Hart and Donna Rice, Joe Biden (yes, THAT Joe Biden) and his plagiarism ordeal, televangelist Pat Robertson, Jack Kemp, and, of course, Michael Dukakis.

And yes, George H. W. Bush.

Bush, Sr. was Reagan's Vice-President, although as the 80's wore on, despite Bush's vast political career, the average American citizen didn't have a clue who he was. I distinctly remember watching a television segment wherein a news reporter randomly stopped people on the street and asked them who the VP of the United States was, and not one person could name George Bush. It wasn't until the primary season approached and candidates started announcing their intent to run that anyone began to take notice of Bush. Only then did people remember that Bush had very nearly received the GOP nomination for President instead of Reagan in 1980, and that he was indeed a very serious political heavy hitter.

And it was in front of that backdrop that I voted for Bush for President in 1988.

While more interested, and more versed, in politics than many my age at that time, I was still a novice. In the days before the internet and social media, one truly did have to largely rely on the mainstream media to get their news. Cursory research in a library and through periodicals of the day could provide valuable information, but more or less, one had to watch the news and read the papers to get the info one was looking for. And it was clear from day one that the mainstream media didn't like George H. W. Bush all that much.

He was labeled a wimp by the media, largely due to his playing second fiddle to Reagan for eight years, but mostly because he was a genuinely nice guy. And in the media's attempt to destroy anyone who isn't a liberal, they literally stooped to mocking the fact that he was just so nice, and questioned whether his kindness would allow him to be tough when needed. He had a very nasty, and very public spat with CBS news anchor, Dan Rather, who disliked Bush so much he literally made up and broadcast outright lies about Bush.

But in the end, his political savvy, and know-how, won out, and he won the Presidency in 1988. And were it not for Ross Perot in 1992 (a subject we can discuss another time) he would have won again in 1992, likely in a landslide, and we very likely would not be talking about any Clinton political dynasty today.

I liked George Bush, Sr. very much. I still do. Even more so today, it could be said. I could see from Day 1 that he was a good guy. It cannot be said about every President in our history that he was an authentically good person. But it can be said unequivocally about George H. W. Bush. He was honest, forthright, kind, smart, a loving and devoted husband, and a doting father. His kids are good kids, and proved to be solid leaders themselves. Even his political enemies don't have a bad word to say about him. His presidency was a success, even as a cyclical recession his the country near the end of his term; a recession that gave rise to Ross Perot and ultimately doomed Bush for a second term. A tax increase that famously went against a campaign promise didn't help either. (See: "Read My Lips... No New Taxes!)

His leadership, courage and stoicism was inspiring as he led us through the first Gulf War, foreshadowing the same from his son, George W., following 9/11 a decade later. His only mistake being that he didn't finish the job and remove Saddam Hussein from power when he had the chance.

After his presidency, not only did he not criticize subsequent administrations (unlike a certain former president making the media rounds these days) but he did not attempt in any way to influence his own son's administration and decisions. He was a source of advice and counsel to subsequent Presidents, even forming a unique bond with Bill Clinton that ultimately led to a great deal of global good.

What we learned about Bush during his retirement years was that he was a prolific note and letter writer (and later, as technology allowed, an emailer) sending letters of love, sadness, encouragement, congratulations, and sympathy to virtually everyone with whom he ever came into contact. Friend or political foe alike, it did not matter. And he had a prolific sense of humor.

Several years ago, a book was released that compiled letters, notes, and emails written by Bush over his entire lifetime. Personal letters written over the years with no intention of them ever being made public. Some written long before he was a famous politician, and others long after he was out of office. To friends, family, political foes and allies, and foreign dignitaries both friendly and hostile to the US. He's a brilliant writer, and they're funny, sad, poignant, happy, congratulatory, vulnerable, and very real and open. I laughed and cried reading his notes to others. A particular note he wrote to his Mom about the loss of his daughter is the most tender thing I've ever read, and perhaps the best piece of writing I've ever seen.

And given they were never intended to be seen by anybody other than to whom they were addressed, it shows his true character. It only served to confirm what most of us already knew about him: He was genuinely kind, caring, honest, and full of integrity. A good man. And his love for and his devotion to his wife and family is something we all should aspire to. I highly recommend you pick up a copy of that book. If you didn't vote for him back then, you'll regret not having done so after you read it.

I wish there were more men like him. Especially among our public servants. There are some, but not many. It would be nice to have a few more.

It is a source of pride for me to know I got my first attempt at a Presidential election so right. I, for one, am honored to have called him my President.

May he rest in peace.