Best choice of woman on the $10 bill

So, beginning in 2020, a woman will appear on the $10 bill, according to the U.S. Treasury.

Typical, isn't it? Women get their face on money just as we become a cashless society. It's like finding out that they're going to put your face on an album cover right when everybody switches to mp3s.

Once again, the chauvinist system slights women. Am I right, ladies?

But really, the plan to add a woman's face to the $10 bill has brought its share of confusing, confounding debate.

In one survey of registered voters (do unregistered voters not use cash? If they do, why weren't they asked?), Eleanor Roosevelt got the most support. Sure, she's much admired, but wouldn't we ultimately be honoring her for who her husband was? I mean, she did a lot of great things, but wasn't her most notable achievement her marriage? Isn't that a rather old-school choice?

In that poll, abolitionist Harriet Tubman was second, American Indian guide Sacagawea was third, Amelia Earhart ("My $10 bill disappeared just like the person on it!") fourth and Susan B. Anthony rounded out the top five.

Anthony's candidacy is particularly significant because the change in the $10 bill is being made to coincide with the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote and Anthony was a key player. But don't people remember the dollar coin mess? We had a Susan B. Anthony dollar coin and it flopped. Putting her on the bill would be like bringing Dennis Miller back to "Monday Night Football."

While I don't have a problem with any of the top five choices, they don't seem particularly inspired.

Whoever gets her face on the bill will replace Alexander Hamilton, which isn't a big loss. Hamilton advocated for a national currency, so having him on a bill is kind of like having George Mikan's signature on the NBA basketball because he was a proponent of the 3-point line.

I suggest a different approach. The woman on the $10 bill should be someone who was successful on her own in her field, not because she's married to someone who was. We appear to be a year away from the first woman major-party candidate for president, so political choices are out for now.

Entertainment is the obvious solution and the choice of an entertainer could make the new bill a collector's item, too. Kind of like the Elvis stamps.

My first thought was someone like Madonna, who is fiercely independent and has been a leader in her field for 30 years. But then I considered her remake of "American Pie" and rejected the idea.

The best choice is obvious – one of America's most beloved stars.

The best candidate virtually invented the situation comedy on television and 60 years later, her iconic role in "I Love Lucy" remains timely. In addition, her business acumen made her one of the most powerful figures in show business long before women could get into most board rooms. She ran a TV studio that produced not only her shows, but "Mission Impossible" and "Star Trek."

That she was portraying a ditsy goofball while rewriting the corporate entertainment handbook, having children on her own timeline and overcoming significant obstacles makes this woman clearly the best choice.

Yes, that's right.

It's time for the Lucille Bill.

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Let's bring Stanhope Syndrome into open

It's not that I want the attention. It's only that I occasionally suffer from a malady that has been in the shadows too long and lacks a name.

I suggest calling it Stanhope Syndrome.

About a month ago, I had a flare-up. If you've had one, you know how difficult it is – both physically and emotionally.

The symptoms, like with many maladies, are simple: In this case, it's the inability to complete a sneeze. It wouldn't be so terrible if that were the only symptom. But the emotional trauma amplifies the pain. And the frustration. In many ways, the social stigma makes it worse.

People look at you funny.

It's the kind of disorder that isn't obvious at first. You have to sneeze, so you prepare and . . . wait . . . wait . . . wait . . . and don't sneeze. Your eyes flutter, your mouth opens, you tilt your head back.

Yet nothing happens.

It's OK if it only happens once, but sometimes it happens twice. And thrice.

I suffer from occasional bouts of Stanhope Syndrome. And I'm unashamed.

During my most recent battle with SS (as we'll be calling it soon), I completed only about 50 percent of a series of about 40 sneezes over a two-week period. But the thing about SS is that you don't realize the problem immediately. It's only when you sit back and think about it – maybe after another bout when you waved your arms, threw back your head and were disappointed – that you realize how often it's been happening.

Once or twice is unfortunate. Several times is a syndrome.

Part of the answer for me – and perhaps for others – is to tell someone about it. When I informed my co-workers (who were shocked at the detail I shared, which I presume was because they were unaware of the seriousness of SS), things got better. I actually completed several sneezes in a row.

SS shame leads us to keep quiet, which only reinforces whatever it is that keeps us from sneezing.

This isn't the first time I've campaigned for a disease to be named after me. Several times, I've suggested that Type 1 diabetes, of which I'm one of the most noted victims, should have my name. But it hasn't worked because, I suspect, Big Pharma already has "Type 1 diabetes" written on all the packaging supplies.

This disease is different. There's no major drug to deal with it.

Yet.

There's an obvious win-win solution for Big Pharma and me: Pepper. In exchange for calling the chronic inability to complete a sneeze, "Stanhope Syndrome," I'm willing to be part of a campaign to market pepper in small containers. Maybe a pepper pill, but one that's called Xyzedol or Zexatrim (I suspect drug companies want their products to be valuable words in Scrabble). Then those of us who suffer from SS can snort it and sneeze (if my life experience and hours of watching slapstick comedies are any indication).

It could bring relief.

The inability to sneeze is nothing to . . . umm . . . cough at. It's uncomfortable, embarrassing and allows whatever your body is trying to expel to remain in your sinuses. It's a shame and shame is bad, too.

Join with me in bringing Stanhope Syndrome out of the closet. And in it getting it named Stanhope Syndrome.

Mostly in getting it named Stanhope Syndrome.

Let's end this silent, shameful disease that haunts America. And let's . . . ahh . . . ahh . . . ahh . . .

Have you seen my prescription bottle of Xyzedol?

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor who suffers SS. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Let's make presidential debates even better

The Republican presidential candidate debate earlier this month on the Fox News Channel captured the attention of Americans more than any debate since the great "Flame Broiling vs. Frying" fast-food conflict of the 1980s.

The reason was obvious: Donald Trump. The former United States Football League team owner brought drama and theatrics to the television show.

It was riveting, like watching a speeding car veer dangerously close to a cliff.

The next Republican debate is in mid-September and we'll see a steady stream of the gabfests between now and the 2016 election. Unfortunately, they'll almost assuredly return to their normal (boring) state: Overprepared politicians regurgitating prepackaged pablum, hoping to avoid a mistake.

Boring!

Since debates have been that way for decades (since Richard Nixon somehow looked "shady" and "unsavory" in the 1960 debates with John F. Kennedy), I say it's time to change them up. Debates have momentum – people talked about politics for days after the Cleveland GOP showdown.

Let's keep it going. Let's make presidential debates must-see TV, which will then make the electorate more "informed" and will make the general election next November the biggest TV and Internet event since the early "American Idol" finales.

This could be as big as Clay vs. Ruben!

Here are some suggestions. The networks and candidates should feel free to use any or all of them.

Add shock collars. These can be used to stop politicians from using buzzwords and to force them to answer questions. They can still make their points, they just can't fall back on pat phrases. For instance, candidates who say "entitlements" or "corporate welfare" will be shocked. Live. On camera. And if they don't at least address a question within 30 seconds, they get a jolt. I'd watch!

Add other contests. Wouldn't it be interesting if part way through the debate, the contestants had to compete in the 100-yard dash or the 50-yard backstroke? What about if there was a singing competition? Or a freestyle rap battle, with the crowd picking the winner? The ability to be physically fit, entertaining and perform under pressure is crucial in a president. Let's test them and add to the show . . . er, debate.

Reality-show-style voting. Copy the reality shows and let America vote. But this time, it really is "America," not millions of teenage girls. At occasional intervals, a website could open for voting (Twitter and Facebook could join in) and the viewers vote. Finish last in a round and you're out of the debate, winnowing the field until there are just two people left for the final question.

Duplicate "Russian Roulette." The early 2000s game show had a floor that would suddenly drop from beneath a contestant after a wrong answer, which is what we do with politicians. In the middle of the debate, the moderator would ask a surprise question ("What is the capital of North Dakota? Who is the political leader of Turkey? Who sang the 1980 hit song "Pop Muzik"?) and candidates who get it wrong risk disappearing from the stage, mid-debate. As an alternative, include all the earlier suggestions in this column and simply have the person voted out drop from view, via the trap door.

I'd watch. And so would you.

This could be the best thing for American politics since Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel Tildon in the 1876 election, which most observers credited to Hayes besting Tildon in a series of wrestling matches.

Say . . . I've got another idea!

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Ranking greatest (and worst) generations

By now, we're indoctrinated: The people who fought in World War II, then returned to build the United States into the greatest nation in the world are "The Greatest Generation."

All others must bow down to them, because they're clearly the . . . no! Wait a minute!

Who gave former NBC News anchorman Tom Brokaw the right to make that decision?

Maybe Brokaw is just a groupie for that generation. Maybe it's time for someone with a neutral viewpoint (me) to rank the living generations.

Based on the always-accurate pros vs. cons standard, here's the ranking of the five current generations (excluding those born after 2005). If you disagree with me, it's probably because you're typical of your generation.

Away we go . . .

5. Generation X (Born 1965-80). Is it too late to label this "The Worst Generation?" They followed the baby boomers and spent the 1980s and part of the 1990s whining about it while playing video games, listening to grunge music, living at their parents' homes and complaining some more.

Pros: Made hip-hop music culturally popular, played a lot of video games.

Cons: Played a lot of video games, whined a lot, got caught between self-important baby boomers and new-world millennials. Gave us Adam Sandler. I love some Gen-Xers, but face it . . . they'll probably whine about this, too.

4. Silent Generation (Born 1928-45). They were between the two most-hyped generations in American history.

Pros: Many of them still read the Daily Republic, so . . . no need to insult them. And Don Draper on "Mad Men" was part of this generation, as were my parents.

Cons: Fought the "forgotten war" (Korea) to a tie, teamed with the Greatest Generation to oppose baby boomers, gave us no presidents (Greatest Generation provided seven, baby boomers three so far). Elected Richard Nixon president. Twice.

3. Baby Boomers (Born 1946-64). If you don't think baby boomers were important, just ask one. They'll tell you about Woodstock, the Vietnam War, the Beatles, the Civil Rights movement, television, blah, blah, blah. This is my generation, but boy are we a bunch of self-important bloviators.

Pros: See above. Also created the Internet, paving the way for the information revolution. Made rock music the dominant cultural influence. Gave us Spielberg, Letterman, Oprah, Ali and Joe Montana.

Cons: Rewrite history too often to inflate own importance, selfish, doubled the divorce rate of their parents, still obsessed with acting young, even though they're not.

2. Greatest Generation (Born 1901-27). A naming error, based on my rankings, but it's clear how they get that label.

Pros: Survived the Depression, fought and won World War II, rebuilt Europe and led the U.S. economy to the top of the world after the war. Also hired great PR man in Brokaw.

Cons: Had no other choice with the Depression and World War II – they had to survive and fight, so I'm not sure they should get so much credit for that. And they turned a blind eye to racial and sexual discrimination, forcing baby boomers to deal with it and then brag about it for decades. A great generation and worthy of admiration. But overrated.

1. Millennials (Born 1981-2004). The generation that is now moving into power in America, with several decades of dominance to come. Often criticized as lazy and entitled, but that's usually by baby boomers (who think they're too important) and Gen-Xers (who are whiners). My view? I welcome our new overlords.

Pros: Creative thinkers who consider innovation natural. Motivated by relationships and happiness, rather than job security. Accepting of those who are different. Changed how we communicate by embracing and enhancing all forms of new media.

Cons: Still live in their parents' house at 30. Haven't produced a significant political leader (oldest member of generation is just 34, though). Reality TV watchers. Some confusing style choices (in the eyes of a baby boomer). Justin Bieber.

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor and Baby Boomer. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

New planet will make you younger, heavier

In case you missed the big news, we have a new planetary relative: Earth's "bigger, older cousin."

Mrs. Brad and I are already planning a vacation to Planet Oliver (explanation in next paragraph), where I will be heavier and younger (explanation later).

But still . . . a planetary relative! It's like finding out you have a cousin that you didn't know about, like when Oliver joined the rest of the kids on "The Brady Bunch." (That's the explanation!) Or when Chachi moved in with Fonzie on "Happy Days." Or even when Will came west to live with Carlton's family on "Fresh Prince of Bel Air."

Cousins are fun!

The idea that it's a relative comes from NASA, which is smart enough to get a man to the moon and back several times, although in that Tom Hanks movie, it almost didn't work. But you're just trying to distract me by mentioning Ed Harris.

NASA announced a few weeks ago that its Kepler spacecraft (named after former Major League Baseball star Gabe Kapler) discovered a new planet that's a lot like Earth. It's in the constellation Cygnas (named after a health care company) and is located in an area where water is possible, which is more than you can say about a lot of California right now.

Suffice to say, it was big news for the space folks.

"Today, the Earth is a little less lonely," said NASA researcher Jon Jenkins, who didn't address rumors that Earth actually found it's new connection through FarmersOnly.com, the website with talking dogs.

NASA can't tell whether Planet Oliver actually has water or air, but it may have convenience stores where you can overpay for bottled water and buy some air, so it's got that going for it.

The best news, though, is that the planet, officially named Kepler-452b (but commonly called Planet Oliver), is just 1,400 light-years away. I'm not an expert in scientific distances, but I presume that "light-years" are shorter than regular years, kind of a distance equivalent of light beer and light yogurt. So it doesn't seem that far away.

We'll visit.

Jenkins said the planet "almost certainly has an atmosphere," although he didn't clarify if it would be a positive or negative atmosphere, which would have a major effect on whether Mrs. Brad and I would want to make repeat visits to Planet Oliver.

But getting back to what we started talking about, an interesting issue is that gravity on Planet Oliver is thought to be about double that of Earth, which means we would weigh twice as much and would likely need bigger pants, a problem that would be solved by some big-and-tall stores.

The other intriguing side issue is that it takes 385 days to circle its "sun," which means if you lived 50 Earth years, you would only be about 47 on Planet Oliver.

I don't see any negatives. A planet close enough for "light" travel, a new market for big-and-tall clothing stores, a place where you're younger and a chance to meet a long-lost planetary cousin.

I just don't know why you insisted on bringing up Gabe Kapler, light beer and FarmersOnly.com.

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.