10 December 2013 –

The Human & Animal New Kingdom Society.  THANKS! 

A friend recently forwarded an e-mail in which the following four questions were asked and answered.  The purpose was to show how disparate thinking can be useful. 

Question #1:  How do you put a giraffe into a refrigerator?

Answer 1. Open the refrigerator, put the giraffe inside and close the door. Theoretically, the question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an overly complicated way. 

Question #2: How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?

Answer #2: Open the refrigerator, take out the giraffe, put in the elephant, and close the door. This tests your ability to reflect on the consequences of previous actions. 

Question #3:  The Lion King is hosting an Animal Conference.  All the animals except one attend.  Which animal?

Answer #3: The elephant, silly; you just put him in the refrigerator.  This tests your memory.  

Question #4: There is a river you must cross, but there are crocodiles in it, and you don’t have a boat. How do you manage to get across the river?

Answer #4: You jump in and swim across.  Weren’t you listening?  All the animals, including the crocodiles, are at the conference.  This tests your ability to learn quickly from your mistakes. 

To answer as the author intended, you must abandon reality and allow simplistic conditions to guide your thinking.  I missed all four questions.  Then, I set sanity aside and other, more rational answers quickly came to me. 

    

Answer #1.  Only the government would be dumb enough to study how to put a giraffe in a refrigerator. So, you should bid for the contract.  First, project building a super-large refrigerator powered by solar energy with wind power as a back-up and leasing one middle-aged, male giraffe from a federally-funded zoo.  Then, you use stimulus money left over from 2009 to hire a small, minority-owned, freight company to move the giraffe to the newly-built refrigerator.  A National Parks Service official supervises the move, and three volunteers from the ASPCA video the event.    Once you get the giraffe in the refrigerator, a contracted wildlife expert oversees its care through a specially-designed door.  Total one-year contract cost: $17,500,000.   

Answer #2.  As all federal programs are wont to do, this refrigerator concept grows.  Three giraffes die due to ineffective temperature control, resulting in $25,000,000 in cost overruns in the first year, but you iron out the glitches, do a little research, and declare that the program now is ready to include elephants.  You bid for the new contract, citing your expertise with giraffes.  You also note that the higher elephant leasing costs, the costs for a larger refrigerator, the new health-care insurance package which the freight company’s employees’ union recently negotiated with management (exempted from adherence to Obamacare), and the hiring of an elephant expert to assist the Parks Service official, will raise the cost to $48,750,000.  After you win the elephant contract, the wildlife expert says she can oversee the care of both the giraffe and the elephant, but she needs three assistants.  An additional $400,000 brings the elephant contract cost to $49,150,000 and $42,500,000 for the second year of the giraffe contract. 

Answer #3. The American Bald Eagle does not attend the Animal Conference.  The giant wind turbine blades in surrounding alternate energy wind-farms make it too dangerous for him to fly in and land at the conference site.  The elephant and the giraffe are virtual attendees through 40’ interactive screens.  The purchase and set-up costs—by union labor, of course—add only $2,300,000 to the conference cost of $147,900,000.  Fortunately, all costs are covered by the federally-funded, USAID-dispensed program, The Human & Animal New Kingdom Society, THANKS.

    

Answer #4. Although Congress won’t declare war on animals, you proclaim that river crocodiles are an existential threat to the nation’s security, thereby rallying support from your fellow travelers who want to cross the river.  However, you manage the conflict so badly that crocodiles eat five hundred of your troops, and you waste ten years and one hundred billion dollars trying to build a coalition of responsible and friendly alligators, caimans, and great lizards to help the crocodiles assimilate into an international family of friendly animals.  Finally, you negotiate a treaty with the crocodiles that allows you to cross the river on their backs and allows them unimpeded movement across your borders. 

Final government cost of The Human & Animal New Kingdom Society programs: $1,284,350,000, more or less, and ten years of war.  But now, we project many more meaningful years to come.  THANKS!

6 December 2013 –   

Three Envelopes: Political Strategy at its Finest

When I was a squadron commander, I heard a story about dealing with the dangers of command.  It bears repeating as we assess this administration’s activities since 2009.   

At a change of command, the incoming and outgoing commanders usually have a little time together before the ceremony.  One time, an arrogant, incoming base commander asked the worn-out, outgoing base commander if he had any useful advice before the ceremony.  The outgoing commander studied the new guy carefully and sighed.  He then told the new colonel that in the bottom left hand- drawer of his desk were three envelopes, marked one, two, and three.  In case the new commander, even with his vast skills and inspired vision, could not handle a crisis, he could open envelope number one and consider the advice written therein.  The new commander seemed unimpressed, and the ceremony went as planned. 

Things went well for the new commander. But, one day, something came up that completely flummoxed him.  This brilliant colonel was in a panic.  Then he remembered the envelopes.  He flung the desk drawer open and ripped open the first envelope.  Inside were three words: “Blame your predecessor.”  Immediately, the commander announced that the crisis was due to the old commander’s mistakes and that things would get better soon.  That seemed to placate the troops and the higher- ups in command. Crisis Averted. 

Later, another crisis arose that threatened to bring everything on base to a halt.  The commander was beside himself until he remembered the remaining envelopes.  He tore open the second envelope and read the word: “Reorganize.”  Yes!  The commander announced that the problem stemmed from faulty organization and that sweeping changes would be made to better facilitate the mission.  Again, the troops and the command above him seemed satisfied. Phew!

Then, one day, another crisis befell the base.  The commander hated to do it, but he was tired and had no fresh ideas; he opened the third envelope and read the last piece of advice:  “Prepare three envelopes.”   

Our President, hailed by his supporters as the brilliant man who would lead the United States into a new era, didn’t need to open envelopes to lay blame or change things.  He naturally seems to revert to such political and personal tendencies.  In his first five years, he has blamed his predecessor, Congress, Republicans, rich people, big business, international allies, and climate change for failures in his domestic and diplomatic policies.  I contend that his laying of blame has divided the political scene more than anything else in recent years.  After all, why would those he repeatedly attacks care much for the President’s success?  What is more, the checks and balances in our constitutional system expect, indeed impel the opposition—particularly one where not one Republican lawmaker voted for the Affordable Care Act—not to cooperate as the President struggles to implement such an ill-conceived and unpopular law.   

The President’s failures in crises are numerous:  Benghazi; Syria; the politicizing of the IRS; our languishing in and slinking out of Afghanistan; his failure to pass a budget for five years; profligate spending that will double the 2008 deficit by 2015; the embarrassing lies about and the failed technology of Obamacare; on and on ad nauseum.   In each of these debacles, the President has laid blame on someone else.  This is a petty, short-term diversion, not to be used by one who wants to engender the trust of the troops/constituents. 

     

The President also is reorganizing government and society to his liking, saying it is good for the country.  However, what he added to the advice in the envelope is dangerous:  not only reorganize, but enforce and legislate by fiat.  The President has often warned that if Congress won’t help him do something, he will do it by himself.  Certainly a former constitutional law lecturer should know that such governance is neither constitutional nor faithful execution of the laws.  Finally, the President’s tinkering with, delaying, and reorganizing many parts of Obamacare display poor planning and an incredible naivete that the program would just come together because he willed it.  Each fix seems as dangerous to our economic and physical health as the law itself.  This isn’t reorganizing; it’s disorganizing.   

President Obama knows he does not have to prepare three envelopes.  Short of committing blatant high crimes and misdemeanors, he will finish out his term.  But, on 20 January 2017, a smart successor will not ask anything of President Obama--except to clean out his desk.  

20 November 2013  - 

         

A Military Commander Would Be Fired By Now 

The President’s attempts to sell his Affordable Care Act to the public remind me of Robert F. Brunner’s delicious lyrics in “The Merchants’ Song” from the 1978 Disney movie, “The Small One.”   

“Oh, clink, clink, clank, clank, get your money to the bank,

“Telling little stories you can trust. 

“We never ever fail when we go to make a sale,  

“We simply cheat a little if we must!”  

The President told stories we could trust and made the sale.  But, did he cheat a little to get his signature legislation passed and protected from repeal?  Can he be trusted?  Let’s examine those questions in light of leadership principles I relied on in my Air Force career. 

First, when I led Air Force units, I learned that the commander’s standards dictate how the rest of the organization works.  The commander leads her people to success or leads them to failure.  The airmen in the organization expect to be led.  The commander must deliberately adhere to regulations and communicate honestly and openly to all in her organization, something President Obama famously promised he would do.  If some of the people mess up—and people always do—or if the commander personally does something wrong, she should take the blame.  If the bad actions are severe enough, she should expect to be relieved of command. 

Next, to ensure that the organization accomplishes its mission, the commander must entrust his deputy and division heads with power to run their operations according to the clear, open policies he establishes as commander.  He also expects that they will continually inform him about what they are doing, how those actions apply to the organization’s overall goals, and on potential or actual problems with the implementation of the organization’s operational plan.  This style of leadership demands regular, two-way communication between upper and lower levels of the organization.  This process instills in leaders on all lower levels a sense of loyalty to their bosses.  More importantly, it demands loyalty to honest principles and to the organization’s mission.  It is a time-consuming and difficult leadership approach, but it ties an organization together.  

  

Finally, the commander works harder than anyone in her organization.  She wears herself out in the job because she instinctively “goes to the sound of the guns.”  Her orders are executed faithfully because she is as dedicated to the mission as anyone working for her.   She does not expect anything of her subordinates that she wouldn’t do herself.  This creates an unswerving loyalty up and down the chain of command, loyalty based on lawful and honest principles, not on cronyism.  

    

President Obama either told deliberate lies about the effects of the Affordable Care Act or he was woefully uninformed by his White House staff, by the applicable agencies in the Executive Branch of government, and by those who wrote the law.   

    

If President Obama has lied, then he and his organization—his staff and the agency heads in his executive branch—are corrupt and should not be trusted.  He shows that he uses self-serving designs to deceive and to acquire power; he does not serve the public.  His team also shows that it follows his lead.  No one who had daily contact with the development and execution of the Affordable Care Act blew the whistle on the President.  They protected themselves and their corrupt boss.    

If President Obama has been misinformed for the last 3 ½ years, then he is incompetent as a leader and should not be trusted.  If he ignores his staff and agency heads, those within his immediate span of control who brief him on the Affordable Care Act’s problems, then the President shows himself incapable of running any organization, let alone the executive branch of the US government.  If his staff withheld information from him for years and he does not fire them for the deception, then the President shows he is incapable of selecting and inspiring subordinates to serve the American public. 

Why does the President find himself in this no-win leadership crisis?  One of the biggest reasons, I would say, is because he doesn’t work very hard.  His public remarks show only a vague understanding of events, suggesting a lack of preparation; so of course, he doesn’t inspire confidence.  It’s easy to talk about open, honest conduct and communication when trying to get elected, but establishing and maintaining such standards requires hard work.  He shows by all measures that he is simply unwilling to work hard enough to do that. 

Whatever crises in confidence, loyalty and trust that result from the President’s lies, incompetence, or inaction, he deserves.  As does any poor commander. 

14 November 2013 -

Heroes and veterans, old and young

I’ve spent the last two weeks in a Veterans’ Day frame of mind.  Throughout my military career in many countries I have contemplated the significance of the 11^th hour of the 11^th day of the 11^th month of every year. Now, several years out of uniform, a series of events has caused me to reflect deeply on the role of today’s veterans in this great country.  

Two weeks ago, William Howard Fotheringham, the most nearly perfect man I have ever known, died at the age of 93.  His funeral was a small, mostly-family event.  It seems he outlived all his friends. 

“Deacon” Fotheringham was a World War II veteran.  He enlisted in 1942, was commissioned a second lieutenant after graduating flight school, and was shipped off to fly P-38 Lightnings out of New Guinea as a member of the storied 80^th Fighter Squadron.  He was credited with killing one Japanese aircraft on 23 June 1943.  In 1944, after he was shipped back to the US to serve as an instructor pilot, he met Wylene Hunter in Oakland, CA.  He always said it was love at first sight.  They married on 11/22/44, and Howard was a devoted husband throughout their 64 years of married life.  Wylene preceded him in death in April, 2009. 

Lieutenant Fotheringham came home after the war and built this country.  He returned to college and earned a master’s degree and a counseling certificate.  For the next 37 years, he worked for the Salt Lake Board of Education.  He was a quiet, deeply religious man who took care of his family, paid his bills on time, and provided a great example of manhood to young men like me.   In 1977, when I told him I was going into the Air Force, I saw a glint in his eyes that I have since seen only in the eyes of great warriors.  He knew what it meant because he had fought.  He had won.  And then he returned and worked hard and honorably until he died.  He was the best of America.  Howard, Veteran’s Day is for you.  Forever. 

 On Veteran’s Day morning, I drove to visit a friend on his 400 acres south of Three Rivers, Texas.  We drove around his land, talked about how to work an honest day, enjoyed watching deer graze, and moved a bull from one pasture to another.  My friend knows how to work.  When I left the next day, I drove through Victoria, Texas, on the way back to Houston.  For some reason, I stopped at the town’s Memorial Square Park, pulled out my harmonica, and played the songs, “Lorena,” and “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” for the veterans buried there.  No one else, no veterans or their families were in the cemetery on a Tuesday afternoon.  They probably were all at work. 

  

Wednesday, my wife and I attended a lunch honoring veterans hosted by a local women’s political group.  We had delightful conversation and good food on a local country club’s beautiful golf course.  The speaker was a 26-year Army veteran.  I told him afterward that for an Army officer, he used a lot of big words.  He laughed and told me that if he had known an Air Force officer was in the audience, he would have talked a lot more with his hands.  We played our parts well. 

    

About twenty old men were honored.  Heroes. Three were World War II veterans, two were Korean War veterans, and most of the rest were Vietnam War era veterans.  In fact, at sixty years of age, I was the youngest vet there.   It bothered me when I saw that no younger veterans came.  And then I realized that on a Wednesday morning, the young veterans of the last few wars were probably at work.  At that moment, at that Veterans’ celebration, something became very clear.

   

I realized that today’s veterans are following in the steps of their predecessors.  They have returned from war.  They have gone to work.  They are raising their families and paying their bills on time.  They are the very muscle and sinew of this country.  I salute them as I saluted their compatriots from previous generations.  In them, I place hope and expectations for our future.   They have proven worthy and capable of the work that is ahead of them.  They are the examples to another rising generation real Americans.  Veterans’ Day is also theirs.  Forever.  

7 November  2013

Range Gate Stealing: [A metaphor for] changing the message and distorting the truth.

Mark Twain famously said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”  A fourth lie we often don’t recognize is when the truth has gradually been distorted and changed.   We find this latter type of lie in politics, in law, and in every day conversations. 

The air combat technique known as Range Gate Stealing perfectly illustrates this kind of deception:

An aircraft loaded with missiles flies over enemy territory.  It is charged with destroying the enemy’s air defenses so more bombers can come and destroy other enemy targets and return home safely.  This first aircraft is immediately “painted” by enemy ground-based radars, which emit an electronic signal that hits the aircraft and bounces back to the radar dish to determine the aircraft’s location in the sky.  This tracking data then is sent to a missile battery that fires at the aircraft.  From the time the aircraft is detected by the radar to the time a missile is fired may be only ten seconds.  Death comes quickly to the unprepared.  

But the attack aircraft can survive by using electronic countermeasures—ECM—to deceive the ground radar.  ECM slows down the radar’s response and gives the attacker enough time to bomb the radar site and eliminate threats to the follow-on attackers. 

Here’s how it works: every electronic emitter, from radio stations to radars, operates at a specific frequency.  But they are never exact; they actually vacillate within a narrow band on the electromagnetic spectrum.  Remember turning the dial on an old radio to “lock on” a station?   As the dial approaches the assigned frequency—the center of the station’s narrow frequency range—the music becomes clearer.  This wiggle room in the spectrum, however narrow it may be, is what range gate stealing exploits.   

The attacking aircraft detects when the ground radar’s signal hits it, and immediately identifies the radar’s frequency.  The aircraft then sends back a signal from the center of identified frequency range to the ground radar, but one more powerful than the radar’s original signal.  The ground radar then locks onto the more powerful return signal within its frequency range.  The attacker then moves the center of its deceptive signal’s frequency slightly closer to the edge of the ground radar’s original frequency range.  The ground radar will follow the deceptive signal because it’s the strongest one in the acceptable range.  The attacker then moves its strong, deceptive, return signal to the edge of the ground radar’s frequency range, showing the attacking aircraft in a false position in the sky.

Finally, the aircraft moves the deceptive return signal beyond the ground radar’s frequency range and turns it off.  The radar on the ground now “loses lock” on the deceptive signal.  It must reacquire its original signal and find the attacker all over again.  This process gives the attacker time to fire on the radar, kill it, and return safely home. 

This is range gate stealing.  It works in war, it works in our lives.

Consider the prosecutor who range gate steals a domestic situation, completely changing it while questioning a defendant:

Prosecutor:  What were you and your wife doing before the police arrived?

Defendant:  We were arguing.

Prosecutor:  And while you were yelling, your son came home?

Defendant:  Yes.

Prosecutor:  And he saw you screaming at your wife? 

Defendant:  Well...

Prosecutor:  And while you were threatening your wife, the police arrived.  No further questions.

Many of our elected officials also are adept at political range gate stealing.  They declare something clearly and plainly, reiterate it with slightly different words and meanings each succeeding time, and then, in our confusion or complacency, execute something well beyond the scope of what they originally declared they would do.  They lie faster than most people can prepare a response.   

   

To defend ourselves against such perfidy we must focus on the substance of our position, and not allow even seemingly innocuous changes to our original message.  We must not allow our opponents to change the vocabulary, the names, or the rules of our argument.

And if our elected officials try to move us from our core, we cut them off. Period.  If they strengthen their rhetoric by shifting from the original message, we demand that they return to the real issue.  Period.  If they change their promises, falsely declaring that the new information was really the essence of the old information; if they pretend that what they have said is not what they meant; and, if they change the objectives of their own promises, we stop their monologue and hold them accountable for their lies. Period. 

Aircraft that practice range gate stealing win the day.  Politicians who practice range gate stealing must be stopped.   Anything less is deadly.   

31 October 2013 -

The Worthy Politician’s Blueprint:  Verities, Virtues, and Values 

How can we determine which politicians will best serve the people of the United States?  I offer the following suggestions for your consideration as we approach the 2014 national elections:

First, list the fundamental principles of life that you hold to be undeniably true.  These are verities.  Whether religious or secular, they should apply to political issues of the day.  For example, a fundamental principle of truth for me is that the Founders of the United States were unique and inspired men.  They lived in a world of rigid autocracy, political/religious melding, and slavery, which they openly defied when they codified the freedoms we take for granted today. 

Another verity, or principle of truth, is that the products of their rebellion, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are the greatest expressions of political freedom and governance in the history of the world, breathtaking in their scope.  An accompanying fundamental principle of truth is that the United States of America is exceptional.  Its physical location in the world, its resources, its people, the idea that opportunity is based on individual freedom and not on genealogy — all were unique in the late 1700s and inspire us today. 

Finally, the government was formed to be limited in its scope and responsibilities.  Sovereignty rested with the people and the society we formed. 

These principles are among the applicable verities, the fundamentally true principles that should be the basis of political decision-making.    

       

The next step is to act on these principles.  Over time, we form and refine our character traits--our virtues—as we act upon principles we hold to be true.  For example, the virtue of tolerating others’ beliefs comes from maintaining that the rights in our founding documents are as applicable and necessary today as they were 237 years ago.  But how far should we go in tolerating the inflation of freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly in society?  One classic answer: you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesn’t scare the horses.   What constitutes scaring the horses, i.e., eroding society’s cohesion and wearing away the nation’s sovereignty, is a compelling issue of our day.  I suggest that our elected officials do not need progressive principles to help decide these issues; they can apply the inspired, durable ideals laid out more than two centuries ago.   

Another key virtue is courage.  Courage to defend individual rights against those who would abridge them for their own purposes, and courage to defend the Constitution itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  The freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, bearing arms, and the inviolability of home and property, among others, are critical to a free society; it takes courage to defend them.  Elected officials should be courageous enough to risk their political lives to defend our rights, especially when other politicians want to abridge them in order to “help and protect us” in times of so-called crisis.  Pledging life, fortune, and sacred honor in the maintenance of such rights is as necessary today as it ever was. 

  

An accompanying national virtue is thrift, which results from preserving the principle of limited government and respect for other peoples’ property.  Most of what our government spends money on today is not the government’s business.  Nothing corrupts government officials more than perpetually centralizing power and spending other peoples’ money.   Property rights were sacred to our Founders; they are sacred to me.   Our elected officials should spend our money judiciously and only on those programs set forth in the Constitution.  Other social spending should rest on us and on private organizations.

   

Finally, our values are what we are willing to pay for—what we spend time, money, and effort to acquire.  They are the visible results of what we believe and how we act.  If an elected official’s values are to spend money, raise taxes, and go into debt in the name of every cause du jour, then I know his standards are not in line with the virtue of thrift.  I know that his fundamental views of truth bear little resemblance to those of our nation’s Founders.   And there is no reason to believe he is courageous if he does not stand against the continuing hemorrhage of our national capital.

Verities at one’s foundation.  Virtues in one’s character.  Appropriate values for one’s efforts.  When our elected officials show themselves that clearly, you will see the rarest virtue in politics:  trustworthiness.  What is that worth?  “…a merchant man seeking goodly pearls:  Who when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.”  (Matthew 13: 45, 46).  Trustworthiness is worth that much.  

17 October 2013 –

It’s All About The Name Of The Game                                                    

Let’s put aside crises of the day and consider an important question:  Should the Washington Redskins owner, Dan Snyder, change the name of his football team to something less offensive?

This is not breaking news.  The same issue was broached with the previous owner, Jack Kent Cooke, in the 1970s and 1980s.  Mr. Cooke’s answer was always “No.”  A month ago, USA TODAY reporters asked Mr. Snyder if he would abandon the name.  His response was equally blunt: “Never…it’s that simple.”  

It’s that simple if we believe that keeping an eighty-year-old name is the team owner’s constitutional right of property.  It’s that simple if we see those pressuring for a name-change as self-serving agitators.  Such simplicity, however, sets unavoidable battle lines, and agitators will most likely control the conflict’s tempo.  I suggest Mr. Snyder sidestep the acrimony and fist-pumping that infest such arguments.  I suggest he reverse his stance and base his actions on the concept of propriety.  Mr. Snyder should announce that it is respectful and decent to find a new name for a football team that actually spent its first season in Boston as the Braves.  Mr. Snyder should announce that it is appropriate and polite to change a name that lost its context when the team moved from Boston to Washington, D.C., in 1937, and no longer employed the part-Native American coach whom the Redskins originally meant to honor.  Mr. Snyder’s ultimately simple response should be that propriety, not political correctness, suggests a name change.  He would keep fans and defang enemies. 

I see two methods for Mr. Snyder to find a new team name.  The first is to invite Native American leaders to a conference in D.C. to discuss new names which should evoke virtues such as courage, steadfastness, and strength.  The leaders who refuse to attend should be ignored.  Those who attend the conference and agitate should be ignored.  Those who present and discuss new names should be praised and incorporated into the team’s public image.  These leaders also should be given box seats at every home game against the Dallas Cowboys for the next thirty years.  The new name, proper and embraced by all, could then continue the Native American theme that has been with the team since its inception.     

The second method is to pick a team name that identifies the team with the region.  The Houston Oilers, Minnesota Vikings, Washington Senators, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Dallas Cowboys are examples of sports teams’ regional ties—ethnic, historic, and economic.  Just as he might do with Native American leaders, Mr. Snyder could consult with regional leaders in selecting a new name.   

Mr. Snyder could even combine regionalism with a Native American name, but that is difficult because the tribes that lived in the D.C. region don’t have the familiar names or historical fame of the tribes of other regions. 

A specifically regional name also may not travel well if the franchise—heaven forbid—moves to another city.  In 1961, the Washington Senators moved to Minneapolis-St. Paul and became the Minnesota Twins.  An expansion club was formed in D.C. and took the name Washington Senators.  But these Senators moved to Dallas in 1971, left their name behind, and became the Texas Rangers.  

On the other hand, the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles before the 1958 season and were still the Dodgers.  Sports writers had invented the name in the early 1890s when Brooklyn fans were referred to as “Trolley Dodgers” because the ball park was hemmed in on two sides by trolley tracks.   Hmm… I wonder how the name would have fared if the team had moved to San Francisco instead.  By the late 1960s, writers could have referred to the S.F. team as “Draft Dodgers.”  The President just announced that immigration reform is his next big political issue.  Will some writer in Los Angeles now refer to its baseball team as the “ICE Dodgers?”  Just wonderin’.     

So, Mr. Snyder has at least two ways to change his team’s name for the better.   If he opts for a regional name, I suggest he focus on capturing the essence of the Washington D.C. culture and economy.  Something that fans will instantly recognize. 

How about the Washington Wafflers? 

What do you think?   If you want to help Mr. Snyder choose a new team name, please send your suggestions to the Atascocita Observer.