It's been awhile.

A lot has happened since last we met.
I have clients, friends and family that I attempt not to infuriate because we have the need to remain civil and interactive with one another. This is not an easy time for people in this country to remain civil and decent. We have a complete void where there ought to be leadership. We have a cancerous government that is eating itself and all we hold dear. We have by far the nastiest, most vulgar, most wantonly ignorant and corrupt man in the White House in history, but unlike previous bad presidents, we have a near cult that believes he was somehow ordained by God himself. It is impossible to discuss things rationally with people who believe that bad people are tools of God. As a life-long practicing, church-going Christian, this appalls me. My upbringing taught me that we are free-will agents who select our own leaders without the interference of divine providence - for better or worse. To believe otherwise is to believe God also picked Hitler and Stalin and Franco and Saddam.  Hard no. There is nothing that will ever make me believe God selected this man to be the president. We did this to ourselves, and we alone are responsible for the outcomes - for better or worse.
That said, we have no choice but to navigate this dangerous swamp for as long as he invades the people's house, while not deliberately antagonizing those we love, like, need and are forced to interact with.
I do not, and will never understand that aspect of them, but I must love and respect the rest of them for the good of my life, theirs and the nation. We all do.
So, for the benefit of all we have built together, we must understand that we are not our enemies. We are our only hope for the future. Please be kind, forgive and love. It's our only hope.

Ted Cruz says Net Neutrality is the "Obamacare" of the Internet.

Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz Tweeted that President Obama's call for the FCC to put into place "Net Neutrality" protection, is "the Obamacare of the Internet".

I'm sure that Senator Cruz, a well-known partisan who many believe will run for president himself in 2016, meant that as the worst of insults. But let's dissect that statement rationally. First we must define terms.

What is Net Neutrality? It is defined as the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

While the term "net neutrality" was coined by a Columbia University professor named Tim Wu, back in 2003, in reality it is how the Internet has always functioned since its inception, and continues to function to this day. It is not something Obama is trying to add to the Internet, but rather a status quo he aims to defend from destruction. Most large telecommunications companies are also Internet service providers. They would love to have laws changed to eliminate net neutrality and allow them dictate speed and tier pricing and access to the Internet, even though they don't actually own the Internet. The Internet is a public resource, built and maintained by taxpayers.

Is it like "Obamacare"? The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2010 - aka "Obamacare" - is complex law that seeks to allow greater access to affordable health insurance, in part by removing corporate barriers imposed by insurance companies related to pre-existing conditions and other factors.

So, if one were to find a parallel, it would be that the purpose of both the ACA and net neutrality is to prevent huge corporations from limiting access to an important service which they don't even own, and charging exorbitant and erratic rates for that access, in a way that overwhelmingly benefits large corporations over small businesses and individual citizens.  So the good Senator may be onto something, here.

The biggest difference is that the ACA sought to break down existing barriers in the status quo by creating new laws, while net neutrality seeks to protect existing liberties from new barriers imposed by more laws wanted by the big telecom corporations.

What's the harm of letting the telecom companies have their way, and why does Senator Ted Cruz feel compelled to get involved?

The greatest concern from allowing the dismantling of net neutrality is the ability of large corporations to stifle and impede entrepreneurs, start-up companies and innovators, who are the backbone of the US economy, but are often seen as a threat by huge corporations. If the government fails to protect net neutrality, the real losers would be small businesses and American ingenuity. Most Internet service providers operate as monopolies or near monopolies in most markets. They stifle the free market and eliminating net neutrality will only exacerbate that problem. They, in fact do function as a utility, but without any of the market controls that utilities require so they don't take unfair advantage of consumers and other businesses.

As for Senator Cruz, if you go to opensecrets.org, and look at his largest campaign donors, you'll find names like Martin Lewis LLP of Philadelphia, and Sullivan and Cromwell LLP of New York - both huge law and lobbying firms who have among their clients several giant telecommunications companies, including many based outside the US. So Senator Cruz owes a large debt to these companies. And what Senator Cruz wants to do to the existing freedoms on the Internet would allow large telecoms, including those in China, France and elsewhere, to dictate the speed and access of the Internet for US small businesses. As with all things in politics - follow the money.

I don't know about you, but I'm not OK with allowing huge, international corporations the power to put American small businesses and innovators at a competitive disadvantage. But that's exactly what will happen if Senator Cruz gets his way.

Tip o' the cap to Dan Helfond for this article.
Six Reasons Real Conservatives Should Reject The GOP And Support Net Neutrality

Put the Adults back in charge of Kansas

It is time to restore adult supervision to Kansas politics.

I find it remarkable that Kansas has become so radical that lifelong traditional Kansas Republicans have no choice but to ally with Democrats just to get a moderate and reasonable voice heard again. Kansas has a proud history of moderate Republicans - from Dwight Eisenhower to Alf Landon to Nancy Kassebaum to Bill Graves. But the current failed cabal has pushed traditional lifer Republicans like Jean Schodorf to run on the other side just to have a chance. Democrat Paul Davis is supported by over 100 traditional Kansas Republicans, including several on his senior staff.
The Brownback "experiment" is a very measurable, and absolutely complete abject failure, and there is no way to put lipstick on this pig. There isn't any extremist who even tries to defend it, other than to say, "Trust us, it looks bad now, but it will get better!" Really? Sorry, you've worn out your trustworthiness, not just with Democrats and independents, but even with reasonable Republicans.
And Kansan Kris Kobach is the poster child for wasting taxpayer money - failing to do his elected job while soaking the depleted Kansas coffers to fund his personal quixotic quest, sending him to Arizona and other states to pimp his bizarre voter suppression strategies that have been ruled unconstitutional by nearly every court that has reviewed them.

Kansas has, since its introduction into the union, been a voice of moderate reason. The Kansas of today would appall all those leaders who preceded the current dismally failed regime. Kansas is not as radically red as the world thinks. I know. I have lived here for 21 years. This is a state that was once a beacon of progressive leadership. It is now a pitiful butt of national jokes.

To fix this my slate:
Davis/Docking - Governor/Lt Governor
Kutala - US Representative
Schodorf - Secretary of State
Orman - US Senate.

KY-102 - the tainted soundtrack of my misspent youth

Former KY-102 Jock, Randy Raley had his friend Ben Crain put together this really cool video montage for the 40th anniversary reunion party on Friday. Ben just posted it. 

For any one "of a certain age" raised in Kansas City, this will bring back a flood of great memories. Click it to view... 

Click Here for KY 102 video montage

It was my honor to provide food for the KY-102 40th anniversary party.

I wish I could share all the memories, all the fun, all the love, all the stories. But I can't. Watch the video. If you don't get it, there's nothing I can say. If you do get it, there's nothing else I need to say about the most important cultural phenomenon of my youth.

Except, Thank you to my friend Randy Raley for making this happen, and inviting me to be a part of it. Check out his online radio project, Planet Radio. You won't be disappointed.

The truth about the 1985 World Series - aka quit whining, Cardinal fan.

Time for Dr. Doggity's History lesson. This has come up for 29 years, and now that both the Royals and Cardinals are one series away from a reprise of 1985, it's bound to go crazy again. It has already started. 
Game 6, 1985 World Series. Don Denkinger was the first base umpire. Dana DeMuth was second base umpire (anyone remember him?)
The blown call no one remembers...In the fourth inning of the scoreless game, the Royals' Frank White appeared to have stolen second base, but was ruled out in a questionable call, confirmed as the wrong call by later review of the tape. The batter, Pat Sheridan, hit a single to right field two pitches later. This would have likely given the Royals a 1–0 lead had White been called safe. Instead, Leibrandt and Cox traded scoreless innings until the eighth, when Brian Harper singled home Terry Pendleton to give the Cardinals the 1–0 lead. By all rights, it should have been 1-1. Might have changed KC's strategy in the 9th, right? So shut up.

Then there was another call - the first out of the top of the 9th. The next at bat, Jack Clark dropped a routine pop-up. Darrell Porter -the Cardinal's catcher then allowed a passed ball and failed to make a tag on Jim Sundberg. Denkinger didn't do any of that. Jorge Orta - the guy Denkinger called safe was later forced out at 3rd, and never even scored. So he was a non-factor in the inning. And so, thanks almost exclusively to Cardinal errors, not Denkenger’s call, we were tied up 3 games to 3. 
The Cards still had a chance to win it in game 7. What did they do? Lost 11-0 and had their pitcher and manager ejected. Bottom line - the Denkinger call may have been the wrong call, but it didn't cost the Cards the game, let alone the series. Any more than the DeMuth call changed the game. Period. 
You can be mad about a call. I get mad about calls all the time. Sometimes they impact games. But one call almost never actually costs a game, if a team has the toughness and heart to shake it off and make plays, as the Royals did after the horrible call against Frank White in the fourth inning. 

And certainly one call never costs a team TWO games. The Royals won, and Don Denkinger did not “give” them one game, let alone the series. Period. 
History. 
It matters. 

Cards fans - be happy with your 19 pennants and 11 World Series wins, and recognize our ONE championship - won fair and square. Hope to see you in a couple of weeks.

The Hunt For Blue October!

As a kid, I went to Kansas City A's games at Municipal Stadium with my grandpa. We'd park his Chevy in some guy's yard, and to avoid traffic. He'd give me a buck - which, in the 1960's would buy everything in the park. #sugarrush. Grandpa hated traffic (which is likely why he worked nights), so after the game we'd walk down the hill from 22nd & Brooklyn to Arthur Bryant's BBQ at 19th & Brooklyn, to wait out the traffic vacating the 35,000 seat stadium on two-lane city streets.

We'd have a brisket sandwich, fries and a red cream soda. A guy with mits four times the side of a normal adult would load the sandwich with meat. Sauce applied with paint brush, a huge order of fries - and that nectar of the gods - red cream soda. To this day, whenever I see that A's logo, I crave that grainy, peppery Bryant's sauce and a red cream soda. 
It is looking very likely that next Tuesday, the A's will come to KC for the wild card play-in game. While I would prefer to have the division, there's a part of me that wants this game. And I will have to get some Bryant's brisket and red cream soda. And just like all the times with grandpa, we'll watch the A's lose.

Go Royals!

The 50th Anniversary of the Birth of the Stadium Rock Concert

The Beatles began the now commonplace standard of the stadium rock concert fifty years ago today. 

For the astronomical (at the time) sum of $2.00 to $8.50, (the top number was about $63 in today's money) tickets were swallowed up by just over 20,000 fans, making it tied for the second largest crowd on the Beatles' first North American tour. I think there has been some false impression that the concert was a flop, but it was truly anything but.

But it almost never happened.

The Beatles weren't originally scheduled to perform at the Municipal Stadium in Kansas City, Missouri. Their day off was cancelled, however, after local promoter Charles O Finley persuaded the group's manager Brian Epstein to let them play.

Our days off were sacred. If you look at our 1964 timetable you can see why. I didn't realise until recently that we used to have a whole year of work, and then get something like 23rd November off - and then have to judge a beauty competition that day. So, by the time we got to Kansas City, we probably needed a day off. I can't actually remember falling out with Brian about him wanting us to work on a day off, we'd talk to each other rather than fall out.

Paul McCartney
Anthology

Charles Finley was the controversial owner of the Oakland Athletics Major League Baseball team, who at the time were based in Kansas City. He initially offered Epstein $50,000 but was turned down. He increased his bid to $100,000 but was again rejected. Finley then raised his offer to $150,000 - at the time the highest sum ever paid for a single performance - which Epstein accepted.

I remember the Kansas(sic) offer - for them to play an additional, unscheduled gig - kept coming up. It started out at $60,000 and they were saying 'no' because they had so few days off. Already that year they'd been to Paris, the States, appeared on the Ed Sullivan shows, come home and made the A Hard Day's Night record and movie. Then flown straight off on a world tour, and back to England for more concerts, TV and radio shows. And a visit to Sweden and straight after that an American tour.

They weren't getting any rest. A day off was precious; so if Brian wanted to fill one of their days off with an extra gig, they'd have to stop and think. To play thirty-five American cities was a big tour in those days. They'd play a gig on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, in different cities all over the States - flying in, hotel, press conference, gig, back to the hotel, flying out.

Brian had booked a 35-gig tour and they knew what they were doing and were committed to that. But to shove one more show in the middle was another story. So, The Beatles kept saying 'no', and the money kept going up. They agreed to do it in the end. The offer started at $60,000 and finally went to $150,000.

Neil Aspinall
Anthology

The Beatles arrived at Municipal Airport at 2am, with around 100 fans waiting in the pouring rain to greet them. The group were taken by limousine to the Muehlebach Tower hotel where they stayed in the 18th floor penthouse. The hotel later sold their bed linen to a Chicago businessman, who resold it in small pieces as souvenirs.

20,280 fans attended the unscheduled concert, with tickets costing between $2 and $8.50. The Beatles added their version of the Kansas City/Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey! medley to the setlist. Something they had not played since their days in Hamburg. 

The show lasted just 32 minutes, for each of which The Beatles made $4,687. The opening act was a local group, Jack Nead and the Jumping Jacks, followed by, in order of appearance, The Bill Black Combo, The Exciters, Clarence 'Frogman' Henry, and Jackie DeShannon.

The Beatles attracted sell-out crowds throughout their inaugural US tour, except in Kansas City. The group attracted a crowd of 20,207, well below the Municipal Stadium's capacity of 35,000. The concert was billed with the slogan "Today's Beatles Fans Are Tomorrow's Baseball Fans."

The low attendance was due to local animosity toward Finley, who guaranteed the payment of $150,000 out of his own pocket regardless of ticket sales. Ticket sales may also have been low because of high price for the best seats, which at $8.50 were the most expensive for any of The Beatles' US tours. Even still, it was tied with Vancouver for the second-largest crowd on that tour.

On 4 November 2008 a two minute film containing silent footage of The Beatles performing at the concert was sold at auction for £4,100 ($6,600).