The Vaccine

The virus vaccine distribution has begun. The pecking order has been established and some folks have had their shots. I haven't paid a lot of attention so far. But I have been thinking about the vaccine. I know a lot of people will think me crazy (crazier?) for my thoughts on this. Like this how CoVid debacle, there is, for too many folks, only one way to think. I am hesitant to be vaccinated. First, I am loathe to get vaccinations. I'm not fearful of shots, not at all. I don't fear needles. I've been donating blood for more than 50 years and received my "100 gallon pin" from the Red Cross a few years ago. (I didn't know the Red Cross was counting. I wasn't.) But I have never had a regular flu shot and haven't had the flu in more than 30 years. The flu vaccines are not particularly effective, not if a 40% average rate of effectiveness is considered. And according to WebMD, that rate has varied, from a low of about 10% to a high of 60%. The flu vaccine also wears off. The flu virus is notorious for mutating. The medical profession doesn't really know what flu will hit from year to year and, well, how can a really effective vaccine be developed if we don't know what strain of the flu will come? I suppose some people will think 40% effectiveness is pretty good. I don't happen to think so. Too, how many vaccines have taken years and years to develop? Granted, much of the delay can be attributed to red tape/bureaucratic regulations. But my guess is that is just a fraction of the development time. It takes a lot of trial and error to develop a vaccine. Yet this CoVid vaccine seems to have come along pretty quickly, the Trump Administration's cutting of red tape notwithstanding. Its safety must be suspect, I would think, unless one is a bobble head, listening and believing everything the politicians, bureaucrats, and media spew. For that matter, that safety is being vouched for by the same people--politicians, bureaucrats, the media--who have deceived and lied to us for months and continue to do so. If that seems a bit harsh, then let's just say these people sure seem to change their minds a lot. I know they have been defended by statements such as, "We don't know yet. We're still finding out about the virus." Well, then, if that still applies, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccine. And now I'm supposed to trust these people? Remember, too, before the election the great skepticism being peddled by the Democrats about a vaccine. Now, it seems, they are much more on board. Which is it? Do they expect people to think the election made the vaccine more effective? Apparently they do and I'd guess the bobble heads will buy into it. I read early reports that the vaccine was "90% effective." That might be true, but I don't buy it. That's a real stretch, isn't it, "90% effective?" I'm not afraid of the virus. I do take it seriously, but it doesn't frighten me. Yep, I'm old, but I'm very healthy. I really fit none of the at-risk groups. As concerning to me is society's reaction to the vaccine. It frightens me. How will the bobble heads react to people who opt not to get the vaccine? Look how hysterical they've been so far on all things CoVid. Will businesses refuse to serve customers unless those customers provide proof of vaccination? Can goods and services be denied people who opt out of vaccinations? Can employers require them? I wouldn't like that, but could accept it if it's the businesses' choice, not something forced on them by Big Government. And that is what is most frightening? Can the federal government require innoculation? Will citizens have to carry around proof, a barcode for instance, or face fines or jail? Well, consider what they make citizens do now. Light bulbs. Flush toilets. Television sets. Shower heads. Cooking with transfats. Sizes of soft drinks/sugar sodas. Health insurance. Requiring a vaccination might not be such a big step, especially no with the bobble heads clamoring as they surely will. Speaking of the bobble heads. Why don't they just shut up and lock themselves in their houses? They achieved what they wanted. At the expense of other people's livelihoods (businesses, jobs, incomes) they have been made to feel "comfortable" that they won't die. And, no doubt, they are the ones complaining about the "greed" of those concerned about losing their businesses, jobs, etc. with the lockdowns. When thinking about "greed," maybe they should look in the mirror.

The Electrical College

For the record, yes, I'm kidding. Now that Joe Biden has been "elected" President, maybe we will forget about the Electoral College for a while. Maybe not. The Electoral College has been the object of a great deal of criticism, especially for the last sixty or more years. It is "undemocratic," "outmoded," and "just not fair." (No, I'm not going to get started on that word, "fair.") The election of Presidents was among the last of the issues settled by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. That's because there was a great deal of concern about how to choose such an important office holder. Of course there was a call for what we call today "a direct popular vote," what James Madison called "an immediate appointment of the people." But there were many other proposals, too. Some wanted state governors to pick the President. Others called for Congress or even just the Senate to choose. In the end, the Electoral College was adopted. It was a compromise, but it also addressed the concerns many of the Founding Fathers had. Now, there is a serious movement afoot to abolish the Electoral College. Some have called for a Constitutional amendment. I think that is unlikely to happen. A more serious threat is a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If I read this correctly, if adopted, the Electoral College would not be abolished. But states electors would be required to ignore the popular vote within their individual states and vote for whichever candidate had the most popular national votes. Since states, by the Constitution are permitted to select electors in their own ways, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the State legislature thereof might direct, a number of Electors....." state legistlatures, that is individual states, can enact the NPV. It would seem this would be fruitless--unless enough states to total 270 Electoral Votes agree to the NPV initiative. Then, in effect, the Electoral College would be emasculated. (Can I still use that term?) In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 Presidents were elected although their opponents had more popular votes nationwide. Plus, more than a dozen other times, Presidents won with a plurality, not a majority, of popular votes. (Lincoln was one of them, receiving just under 40% of the popular vote in 1860. Due to a three-way race in 1992, Bill Clinton got 43% of the popular vote.) The attacks on the Electoral College today are as vociferous as ever. We should tread carefully in considering this. The Electoral College is there for a purpose. Critics will point to "the will of the people," that is, that the Electoral College has proven in at least five elections to be "undemocratic." (No, I don't agree that "We aren't a democracy." Yes, we are. We just aren't a direct democracy. The US is an indirect republican or representative democracy. Those who claim otherwise overlook the opening three words of the Constitution. The Preamble reads, "We the people....." It could easily have said, as some of the Founders desired, "We the states..." or "We the Congress" or.....) The "general will" is a dangerous concept. Look at the French Revolution. (There he goes with that history stuff again.) The Electoral College is a safeguard against tyranny of the majority. And the US has been described as a government by the majority with minority rights. The US has a federal system. The states matter! If they don't, get rid of the US Senate. Do away with state legislatures and governors and use them merely in administrative functions. Look at early writings of this country. In united States, the "u" was not capitalized, but the "S" was. In sentences, it was "The united States are," different from today's "The United States is....." States mattered. Federalism allows for more local solutions for more local issues and problems. For instance, should the federal government be involved, that is, use tax dollars from citizens in, say, Nevada, to help clear the massive snowfall today in New England? Of course it shouldn't. In the same vein, issues and candidates will differ in places like New York City and the plains of Nebraska. Should the greater population of NYC elect a President who might ignore the problems of the Plains states? At least with the Electoral College, lip service has to be given to the smaller states' concerns. Eliminating the Electrical College would be a mistake.

Solving Problems--The Three Stooges Way?

An old Three Stooges (I know, I know.....) episode includes a scene in which the rowboat they are in is leaking and taking on water. So, they drill another hole in the boat to let out the accumulating water. Simple solution, right? Ha Ha Ha. That's one of the reasons they were the Three Stooges. It seems to me that Big Government (local, state, and, especially, federal) often, too often, resorts to Three Stooges solutions. As I read of the massive new CoVid bailout, approaching $1 trillion (another trillion on top of the $2-3 trillion from last spring), I thought of the Stooges. Here is a problem (a leaky boat?), largely created by government actions, and government now wants to solve it by creating another problem (drilling a hole that lets in more water?). The shutdowns and lockdowns have decimated the economy for a lot of people. Businesses, jobs, money, and even lives have been lost (not "saved"). It's not real surprise, is it, the Big Government solution is to throw more money, more of other people's money, to "fix" things. This isn't just about the CoVid response. It is what Big Government does. Besides, politicians might have to admit they were wrong, not relying on "the science," but on guesses. Trying to sort all of this out, I am reminded of an old cartoon, a philsophical one, whose caption read, "Sometmes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits." I normally don't watch television, especially sports. But the other night I caught the tail end of the MSU-Duke basketball game. What has stuck with me is not that MSU won, but the end of the game. From opposite sides of half court, the two coaches and their teams just waved "Good Game" at each other; there was no handshake line. No doubt that was due to CoVid restrictions. So, after two hours of pushing, bumping, and fouling each other, that is, touching!, these players didn't shake hands to help prevent the virus. Hmmm..... Maybe every little bit helps, but it seems to me to be another instance of "No thinking allowed." If shaking hands, presumably with players wearing masks, is prohibited, why are these guys playing in the first place? Of course we all know. There was a meme going around a couple of weeks ago, written by Dinesh D'Souza. He wrote that he is the same age as Barack Obama and has written a couple of dozen books. None of them are about himself. Yet Obama has written three, each about Obama. (Well, it remains unclear if he actually wrote them, but his name is there as the author.) D'Souza said something like "Obama is the president of his own fan club." I found that hilarious. In the same vein, I get e-mails where one guy frequently psychoanalyzed Don Trump. Now he's started in on John Kennedy. The same term is used to describe both, "narcissistic." Maybe I missed it, but I don't at all recall, not once, this guy labeling Obama "narcissistic." I still think a lot of people still don't "get it." Oh, Trump had and has his diehard supporters. But I still maintain his victory in '16 wasn't really about him. It was many people acting out their frustrations with "the system." Call it "The Swamp," "corporate welfare," "affirmative action," or what not. But they felt they were left out of things government was giving to others. Oh, most of these people were and are well-off, at least well-off enough. Eventually they rebelled at Big Government serving others, but not themselves. I'm not sure that is completely accurate, but that is their perception. And perception is reality. And these people were sick and tired of the government, for which they pay, taking care of others, but not them. They felt as if they were marginalized, even ignored; they had become people not worth caring about, at least not by their government. I am chuckling at some of the letters-to-the-editor in yesterday's newspaper. A couple of them talk about the election, how the attempts to "delegitimize" it are "harming" democracry. Wait a minute! What happened four years ago? Can you say "collusion?" Russian? Chinese? Ukrainian? Martian? One side went so far as to create false documents to bolster their accusations. Impeachment was based on this. Where were these letter writers then? Perhaps that was yet another instance of "But that's different." I'm reading a novel, The Washington Decree, by Jussi Adler-Olsen. He's a top-flight Danish crime novelist and his "Department Q" series is really good. Decree is different. It is centered in the US (written in 2007) and involves a takeover of rights/liberties by a President and his minions. I won't go into the story much, but how different Adler-Olsen describes Americans from the Americans of today. A sizable number resist the unconstitutional actions of the Executive--and they aren't all the militiamen. Today, though, the bobble heads reign supreme, blindly following the "diktats" of politicians and political bureaucrats, the least trusted groups in the country. I certainly don't want to see violence, but I would like to see Americans standing up for their rights/liberties.

Walter Williams

I received word yesterday that Walter Williams died. Dr. Williams was one of the foremost economists and social philosophers of our time. (I'm not sure, but he might bristle at being called a "social philosopher.") Some people have described Williams as a conservative. Others labeled him a libertarian. If I remember, he himself once said, "I just want to be left alone." That is, he didn't want Big Government to take care of him. Like me, Williams didn't like other people, through Big Government, to tell him what to do. Williams was absolutely brilliant and remember I don't toss around such an accolade haphazardly. He had the ability to make things, economics or whatnot, easier to see and understand. And he was witty, a very funny man who often used humor to make his points. Is it any wonder he was a great teacher? Professor Williams taught his last class, a 7:30 AM Economics course!, the day before he died. One of his former students once said he believed his professor would be teaching until the day he died. Indeed. He was known to many as an author, of countless articles and a few dozen books, and as a substitute radio host. If you've not had the pleasure of knowing Williams' thoughts, here is a list of some of them, in shorter quotations: https://www.inspiringquotes.us/author/3104-walter-e-williams He was also quite the courageous man, from his upbringing in poverty, through the discrimination he faced as a black man, and on to the opinions he held that flew in the face of conventional (and wrong) "black thinking" (that is, that of Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, etc.) If you read from just that list of shorter quotations, you'll clearly see that. We can only guess at how much better off black Americans would be had they followed the teachings of Walter Willams (and Thomas Sowell) instead of the panderings of Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama. I mentioned to some folks that it would be great to sit down to have lunch or dinner with Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. I think I'd just say "Hello" and then shut up to listen to these two great thinkers. Thank you, Walter Williams. Rest in peace.

Three Random Thoughts

I recently finished an essay on why the classics matter and why they should be read.  Hmmm......  First, what and who determines a classic?  We, like in all we do, throw the word around carelessly.  "A classic car," "a classic game," "a classic television show," etc.  Ha!  Must a classic be old, like the writings of Thucydides or Marcus Aurelius?  Can they be a bit more modern, such as Rousseau or Stendahl? Is something by Dostoevsky a classic?  Everything he wrote?  If not, why some and why not others?  Can we include non-Western works such as Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe? Do the classics offer us things that are more valuable, more useful than more modern (although still "serious") works, both nonfiction and fiction?  Can the novels of, say, Chaim Potok teach us as much, if not more, than the writings of Maimonides?   In taking wine tours, I've heard many guides and even wine-masters say, "Drink what you like.  The best wines are the ones you like."  Are books like that, that "classics" are the books we like? I re-read, for the umpteenth time, the chapter on creating a physics lesson plan by my physics professor (Professor Romer) in the book, Teaching:  What We Do.  Many times I've said and written that this book of thirteen essays by Amherst professors (many of whom were my teachers) should be required reading for all teachers; I'd even submit it's far more valuable than student teaching.  Professor Romer was also a graduate of Amherst, where his father taught, too.  His liberal arts background was apparent in his skilled writing, his references to art and poetry, for instance, in helping to explain physics.  It is a testament to the value of this "dead-end" degree, liberal arts.  These essays by my Amherst professors are more than obliquely critical of standardized tests.  By omitting much of the process that goes into solving physics problems (that is, finding the answers), much of the "pleasure" of physics (and Shakespeare, Ancient History/Ancient Morals, Philosophy and Foreign Languages, and more) is also omitted.  Students learn that the point is to "get the right answer."  This is what Prof Romer did in my physics class.  He showed us, among other important things, how the "problem" should be addressed.  This includes "idealization" of the problem.  In determining the arc of a batted baseball, wind resistance is ignored by physicists, who prefer "idealization."  But Prof Romer admitted, wind resistance isn't ignored by outfielders chasing that fly ball!  "Idealization" is fine to assume a "flat-earth dimension" when tracking the flight of a batted baseball; it's not quite so in the case of ICBMs. A student lucky enough to have had a physics professor who also teaches other, more advanced physics courses, might well go on to continue studying that advanced material his whole life.  That was/is with me and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.  That's one of the topics, along with quantum mechanics, lasers, cathode ray tubes, etc., that we studied in physics.  For instance, I've applied the lessons of Einstein's Special Theory, the concept of reality changing depending on one's frame of reference, one's perspective, in many ways--my writing, my teaching, etc.    I feel extremely fortunate to have had Professor Romer as a teacher and that I am still in touch with him several times a year.  It's interesting that, in retirement, he has taken to writing history!  He's published one book and is in the process of writing another.  We've shared a few ideas, more specifically, I had questions about his studies. And it's so darn cool that he and his wife, Betty, still remember the autographed baseball (signed by all of the Amherst team members in '71) that I gave to their son David (and the other professors' sons) who was a bat boy for our team that year.  When he, the son, moved out of the house permanently after receiving his graduate degree (to Calif I think), in boxing up things to move with him they came upon that ball.  When they told me that story it made me very happy.  David's wife, Christina, was the chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. I wonder if Professor Romer realized how much this history major learned from his physics class. A while back I read Six Encounters with Lincoln by Elizabeth Brown Pryor. It was not the easiest book to read, but it had some good insights and I both learned things from it and have had some thoughts about Lincoln and his times. It is worth reading. Sometimes the author seems to want to be critical of Lincoln--and often is--but always comes back to what a great President and man he was. At times she wants him to be Superman, to fix all the evils of mid-19th Century America. Besides dealing with the Civil War and keeping the Union together, with the complex problems of slavery and emancipation, with a country full of citizens even more divided than they are today, etc., she is disappointed he didn't provide remedies for Indians, lead the fight for political rights for women, etc. I was struck by this, never I guess really considering it. "Abraham Lincoln...was never truly President of the entire United States." And, in fact, he wasn't. Oh, he never accepted that the Southern states had really left the Union, but the reality is that they did. (With this in mind, I am reminded of a panel discussion that included two of the best US historians, Joseph Ellis and Sean Willentz. During the discussion, Willentz made a point. Ellis went quiet, mulling that over, before admitting, "I didn't know that." Wait! Joe Ellis knows everything about early US history...... It was a good lesson for me.) But one of the pitfalls of the book is that the author, in sometimes criticizing Lincoln and his policies, seems to give serious credence to all views. That is, in weighing sides/arguments, she makes a mistake (I think) in giving equal weight to all of them. For instance, she claims that Lincoln always "missed the point" of the South, as if the Southern position of defending and perpetuating slavery was a valid one. That Lincoln didn't accept the institution of slavery, just because it was the Southern position, should not be a criticism of him. He didn't "miss the point," but refused to give legitimacy to it, esp after 1862.

1863

Today is the 157th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Although some historians consider his Second Inaugural to be his "greatest" speech, I think it was the Gettysburg Address--not to take anything from the Second Inaugural. And, if not his "greatest," perhaps his delivery at Cooper Union in February 1860 was Lincoln's most important. The speech at Cooper Union, according to Harold Holzer, "made Abraham Lincoln President." I agree. In New York, at Cooper Union, Lincoln accepted an invitation to speak in front of one of his chief adversary's (Salmon Portland Chase--no, I know it sounds fishy, but that was his name) supporters and on the home turf of one of his other opponents (William Seward). His success there won him the Republican nomination, not without a fight, and, hence, the Presidency. And if Lincoln hadn't been elected President..... But back to Gettysburg. Lincoln was not the featured speaker; that was Edward Everett former US Senator and president of Harvard, one of the silver tongues of the age. The occasion was the dedication of the cemetery in which about 7-8,000 soldiers were buried after the decisive Battle of Gettysburg the previous July. The President was invited almost as an afterthought, receiving a request to deliver a few words only a few weeks before hand. (The dedication was delayed for about two months, not quite, to allow Everett to recover from a stroke or heart attack (I forget which). No, he didn't write the speech on the back of an envelope on the train ride from Washington to the small Pennsylvania town. He put a great deal of thought into it. There are several drafts, five or six, and some evidence that he was polishing one of them the night before. Purportedly, one of the "drafts" was written afterward, when a friend asked Lincoln for the copy. Not wanting to disappoint his friend since all the drafts had gone elsewhere, he wrote what he thought/remembered he had said 272 words, that's all it was. But what words they were! After the speeches, Everett purportedly said to Lincoln, "I wish I could have said in two and a half hours what you said in two and a half minutes." That, "two and a half minutes," might have been stretching it. Many in the audience didn't even know the President had started, let alone finished, his address. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address transformed what Jefferson called, "The Empire of Liberty." Lincoln didn't believe that blacks and whites were equal; after all, he was still, in part, a man of his times. But he did strongly hold that blacks and whites shared the opportunity for equality. In fact, that is what the Gettysburg Address did. It changed the way Americans came to view the Declaration of Independence (To Lincoln, the Declaration, not the Constitution, was the bedrock on which American priciples and ideals rested.) and the entire American experiment. No longer were freedom and liberty the sole focuses (foci?). Equality took its place among them. "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." That was key, a firm recommitment to the Jeffersonian ideal that "all men are created equal," blacks and whites both. He knew this would take time to catch on, for people to accept this. Lincoln understood people. They won't hear an idea until they are ready to listen to it. (How long has it taken people to heed the greatest message of all time, that of Jesus, "Love thy neighbor as thyself?" Not only didn't people listen then; they killed Jesus.) Indeed, his Gettysburg Address was met with mixed reviews, some very critical, "not worthy of an American President." It wasn't just the message, but its presentation. The words were poetic. Why not just say, "87 years ago..." or even "In 1776....?" No, he wrote "Four score and seven years ago....." Doing the math, he traced the beginnings of the American experiment to 1776, the year of the Declaration, not the victory over Britain or the adoption of the Constitution. Although many, especially in the audience that overcast day, didn't realize it, he likened the soldiers who died to those of Pericles 2,000 years before. Like the Greeks, the Union soldiers who fell on those July days died for us, for our democracy. "We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract." It was up to future Americans to make certain that "these dead shall not have died in vain." To me, at least, the Gettysburg Address remains the greatest articulation of the concept of self-rule: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." And Lincoln wrote it.

Some Virus Thoughts

I'm not an epidemiologist or virologist and never have played one on television. So I might be all wet on these thoughts. But it sure seems to me we have been going all wrong on this CoVid thing. Toss in that I have no idea who to believe on CoVid stories and "facts," although the "facts" always seem to be changing, some no longer "facts" at all. If the virus is coming back now, "with a vengeance" read one newspaper headline, maybe we should rethink how we are dealing with it. I'm not minimizing the severity of the disease, not at all. Anyone who does is being myopic. But, at the same time, there is such a thing as an overreaction. I think in many ways, that's what we have done, overreacted and often in very harmful ways. It still perplexes me that it seems almost everyone believes and follows what the politicians/governments are saying about the virus. At the least, politicians are the least trustworthy group in American. That's what the polls/surveys indicate again and again. They also have much to gain from their actions, even if they are wrong-headed. That is, playing politics with the virus can be rewarding, especially with nonthinking voters. So why do most people so blindly trust what our government officials say? Bureaucrats, too, have much to gain and little to lose. Most of them certainly don't have to worry about losing their jobs. In fact, the more useless paperwork they create, the more their jobs become "essential" and permanent. Are they ever held accountable? Given the unknown nature of the virus back in March, I'll concede a month or so of the initial responses. But once we found out that the most vulnerable were senior citizens and others with premorbidity conditions, why did states (like Michigan and New York) continue to move infected people into old folks' homes? If we discovered that kids, that is those under 20 years old, were not any more affected by the virus than the regular season flu, why were schools still shut down, with remote-learning? The media, too, have become complicit in the hysteria. A week or so ago, the headline read, "School-Age CoVid Hosptial Cases Surge in State." Hmmm. That sounds pretty serious. Reading the article, though, led to the discovery that there were "18" such cases in the entire state. Wait a minute? In a state with about 1.7 million school-age kids (according to the Michigan Dept of Ed Web Site), "18" is a "surge?" Isn't that about .0001 of a percent? (Where's my calculator?) A reasonable reader might well take such a story as hyperbole, an exaggeration not to be taken seriously. Yet we've been bombarded with such stories. Every day there are new lists of CoVid cases and Covid-related deaths. And they fan the flames of fear. The politicians, especially the Democrats, and their lapdog media, eager to curry favor or sell newspapers or show their sanctimonious intellectual superiority over the rest of us, have created a climate of fear. Who can blame people for being afraid of dying? "Do you want to die?" Well, actually, I can blame them. Had these fearful people thought about things instead of blindly following the least-trustworthy politicians and the opportunistic media, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. One of my e-mail regulars reminded me of something I wrote in a blog some months back. In light of the virus, I wondered what was going on in New Hampshire. After all, the state motto, it's even on the license plates, is "Live Free or Die." Are the citizens of New Hampshire caving in to the restrictions on our liberties and freedoms as easily as people in other states? Or has "Live Free or Die" been canceled as coming from old white men? The economist in me keeps thinking of "cost-benefit analysis." I know it was, a while ago, de rigueur to apply business practices to government operations. "Zero defects," "best practices," etc. were some catch-phrases. (For the record, I'm not at all convinced government or schools can always be based on business practices; they are different animals. But that's a topic for another show.) Why haven't the politicians applied "cost-benefit analysis" to the Covid response? Not everyone was "going to die" from Corona. As noted, young kids were not. Personally, I was never "going to die," not in the physical condition I am in. (Besides, even if I was in jeopardy, it's a matter of personal choice, not a dictatorial government mandate.) Yet, the harmful effects of the lockdown have affected far more people, in the worst of ways, than the China virus (Oops! That makes me a racist.) ever has. Note, again, school-age kids. The odds of them dying from CoVid are not much different from the regular/seasonal flu. We don't shut down schools every year during flu season, do we? Why not? Don't we care if our kids die? No, that's not it at all. The minuscule odds of kids dying from the regular/seasonal flu don't outweigh the detriments of closing schools, having virtual classes, etc. If we are going to "follow the science," as our politicians, bureaucrats, media, and other doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") constantly remind us, why don't we follow it with kids? No one in any right mind can argue the remote learning is remotely (ha ha ha) close to traditional face-to-face/in-person classes. That's especially so for the younger kids. Child psychiatrists and psychologists have demonstrated children are being harmed in many ways other than educationally. These include psychologically, socially, and even physically. (Perhaps more detail will come in a future blog. But don't take my word for it. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") Why isn't that "science" being followed? In adults, substance (drugs and alcohol) abuse has skyrocketed. Suicides and spousal abuse have risen dramatically. I haven't checked, but I'd suspect so has violent crime (outside of the "peaceful protests," of course). How many people's lives have been worsened or even ruined by the loss of businesses, jobs, and income? I know, I know. "At least they aren't dead." No, the "science" shows the overwhelming majority of these people would not be "dead." And no, this isn't being selfish or greedy, not at all. Perhaps it's selfish and greedy to put one's own health (with really minimal dangers?) before the ruination of others' lives and livelihoods? I guess it's easy to pontificate so sanctimoniously about "saving lives" when one hasn't lost a business, job, or income. Again, maybe I'm all wet on this. Maybe I am wrong. I do know I don't trust the information we are being given. I also refuse to live my life in fear of the virus. I'd like to take the Michigan governor's orders and tell her where to stick them, but I can't go into a restaurant to eat; they are closed. I can't teach my classes in-person; my bosses have closed the college. I can't have a big gathering at my house; I don't have any friends. Perhaps the biggest casualty of Corona 2020 is thinking. People either have forgotten how or refuse to think for themselves. Perhaps that was inevitable as the US moves closer to a country where the government (and its left-leaning politicians) promises to take care of citizens from cradle to grave--at the expense of liberty.

"Biden Elected"

That was the headline in Sunday AM's newspaper. What struck me first, before the depression set in, was the absence of an exclamation point at the end. This surprised me because the Detroit Free Press doesn't hide its strong liberal bias. I guess even with the biased media, there is no real enthusiasm for Biden. More even than the preliminary results on Wednesday AM, this headline cemented the malaise I knew would come--regardless of who won the election. I had this same dispirited feeling in '16 as well as '08 and '12. How disheartening that, in a country the size of the US (335 million people), these are our choices. There are reasons, I suppose, but that might be fodder for a later post. For the US Senate seat in Michigan, a really sound candidate, John James, was defeated by the incumbent, Gary Peters. I find this tragic, really tragic, in more ways that one. Most important, that James lost is likely to discourage other good candidates from running. The likelihood of defeating an incumbent, esp one with almost 25 years in politics, appears very small. Why waste time, effort, and money? Why put yourself and even your family through the mud bath called a "campaign?" So, in Michigan, we are stuck with two Democrat lap dogs in the US Senate. It would be nice to sit down and ask our two US Senators why they voted to remove Don Trump in the impeachment trial, especially when the "evidence" against him appeared so bogus. No, they don't really respond to e-mails. Often I get no response. Sometimes I get them six or more months (yes months!) later. And sometimes the responses have nothing to do with the issues I brought up. But, back to the Presidential election. Yes, I think there was some fraud. I don't think there was enough to swing the election back to Trump, but I don't know. One way or another--fraud, incompetence, technology mistakes--this election does little to affirm any confidence in our electoral process except, I suppose, to Biden supporters. I think Trump deserves his day in court. Again, I don't think anything will come of it, that the results will change. But there are enough irregularities to merit some scrutiny. Apparently quite a few people have signed affidavits that they witnessed illegal election activities. In Michigan and other states, software problems transposed votes; that is, Biden received Trump's votes and vice versa--in heavily Republican counties. How many dead people voted? Who knows what to believe? But it's claimed a guy who died in 1984, who would now be 138 years old!, voted in Michigan. Several other people almost 120 years old, also with death certificates, voted here, too. Enough to change the results of the election? Not likely. But to restore confidence in the integrity of elections is worth investigating. And, if wrong-doing is uncovered, throw the book at the wrong-doers! Biden's calls for "unity" and "tolerance" ring very hollow to me. Where was all this sentiment for "unity" four years ago when the Democrats/Clinton lost? Oh, now that the Democrats have won, let's all play nice? From before Trump was even inaugurated, the Democrat obstruction was being planned and enacted. They lied and lied and lied in opposition. It was "Trump isn't my President!" and "Resist at all turns!" But now it's time to sing "Kumbaya." And what sort of "unity" is calling Trump voters names going to bring? In '16 and for four years, people who voted for Trump were all racists and bigots, really stupid people. The name-calling hasn't stopped. A NY Times op-ed called it "obscene" that 72 million Americans voted for Trump, suggesting they were moral failures. (Of course, voting for the scumbag Bill Clinton wasn't "obscene," wasn't an exercise in moral failure, nope!) An e-mail I received from a Trump hater marveled that after four years of Trump, people could still lack "common sense" and "decency." (I wonder if the letter writer refused to take his Trump tax cut!) After viewing the support Trump received, some people have said they now understand how "civilized, cultured Germans" chose Hitler. How ridiculous, especially in light of a call for "unity" and "tolerance." Maybe some of the Biden crew didn't get the memo that it's time to play nice. One thing that really befuddles me is the depth of hatred people have for Trump. Oh, I think it is easy to dislike and even hate him. He is a despicable man. But how deep must that hate be, how has it permeated some people's lives, that they would choose an obviously mentally incapable man such as Biden to be President? It's frightening that people can be so consumed with such hatred. As scummy as Bill Clinton was, as divisive as Barack Obama was, there wasn't that depth of hatred. Finally, Trump has nobody to blame for losing but himself. For one thing, he was never going to lose his base. Those people who cheered his adolescent tweets and comments were going to vote for him regardless. But, by continuing his childish behavior, he turned off people who might have voted for him because of the economy or because of the despicable behavior of the opposition Democrats and their complicit media partners, etc. Someone suggested to me, "What did you expect" from Trump? I guess Trump is who he is. He's incapable of growing up, of being an adult when it's time to be an adult. And that cost him another four years in the White House. Instead of directing their anger at the "stolen" election, perhaps they should direct it at Trump himself.

On Bozos and Other Thoughts

The United States is not alone in having Bozos for political/government leaders. I think Canadia [sic] has a real clown for a prime minister, Justin Trudeau. According to one report I read, from a reliable source, Trudeau recently addressed the beheading of a man in France for the man's criticism of Islam and Muhammad. Trudeau claimed he would "always defend freedom of expression," before going on to add, “Freedom of expression is not without limits.... We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet." We (or at least Canadians) apparently aren't guaranteed freedom of speech if it offends snowflakes; no, we can't make anyone uncomfortable. Regarding the context of Trudeau's comments, a question about the beheading of a Paris teacher who showed his students a cartoon that put Islam and Muhammad in a bad light, I wonder if Trudeau thinks beheading people for what they write, say, worship, etc. which "arbitrarily or unnecessarily injures" anyone, is OK. It sure seems ignorant giving a moral equivalence to a critical cartoon, novel, or even personal religious preference to lopping off one's head. To summmarize, "I believe freedom of expression except when I don't." Here is an article I think should be required reading for all Americans, especially those who seem unwilling to even consider alternates to shutting down the economy, quarantines, masking, social distancing (I still hate that term!), etc. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/sensible-compassionate-anti-covid-strategy/ (You may have to copy and paste the URL into your browser.....) I have sent this link to folks in e-mails and have received very positive responses. The elections are very close, for President and for the US Senate seat in Michigan. In Detroit/Wayne County (and in other cities such as Philadelphia) large numbers of votes have once again mysteriously appeared/been found, well after the polling places closed. And, also mysteriously, those votes are overwhelmingly for Joe Biden and the Democrats. Is anyone surprised at this? That large numbers of votes were "found?" That they were found in political entities controlled by the Democrats? That the vast majority of those found votes are for Democrats? But isn't this what Democrats do? Are there ever any reports or jokes about Republican cemetery votes? Ask Richard Nixon v Kennedy in '60. Ask Coke Stevenson in '48 (who lost to Lyndon Johnson for the Senate seat in Texas by 87 votes, after the cemeteries were searched for voters. Allegedly, Johnson brushed off any thought of wrong-doing with "Dead people have a right to vote, too."). I stole this thought from an Amherst mate trying to find solace in today's political atmosphere. He cited Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. (To me, his Gettysburg Address was his best, the best political speech in all of US History. But the Second Inaugural is a very close runner-up. Some Lincoln scholars rate it his best. That gets no argument from me.) Lincoln reminded his battered countrymen, North and South, of the Founding Fathers' aspirations "to create a more perfect Union." The Civil War wasn't over; not yet. Personally, too, he had suffered. He had lost his son to illness and lost close friends and family to the war. ABout 700,000 or more of the population of North and South had died in combat. My classmate wrote, "One can't imagine the bitterness, the fatigue, the rush to retribution that faced him and the country on that cold March day." My fellow Lord Jeff went on, "Yet there he stood and had the wherewithal to say [these words]: 'With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in......'” Lincoln went on to finish the sentence, "to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan....." It certainly is a thought well worth considering--often.

The Election

The Presidential election is a week and a half away. Finally! My brain tells me I have no idea of the outcome. But my gut keeps saying it will be a Trump landslide, both in the popular vote and the Electrical College. I have no solid basis for that gut feeling, none at all. Regardless, when I awaken on November 4th, I'm pretty sure it will be with a feeling of deep malaise regardless of the winner. I can't imagine voting for Joe Biden; I really can't. I'm especially intrigued by the Biden/Harris signs in the yards of mansions, houses on the lakes with a couple of boats docked, etc. Biden and the Democrats want to take all that away. There isn't a Democrat who hasn't loved any tax he or she met. If those people, the mansion owers with Biden/Harris signs, think they can afford to pay more taxes for government to waste, good for them. But the solution is not to force the rest of us to pay taxes, whether our opposition is philosophical, financial, or whatever. The answer is for these Democrats to voluntarily pay more taxes, bequeath their money to the government. It's been done and can be done. Why do I doubt that will happen? There are many other reasons why I can't see voting for Biden, not at all. In fact, I can't see any reason for voting for him, not even intense dislike of Trump. OK, that's not exactly accurate. For some people, having a "D" behind a candidate's name is all that matters. This saves them from doing any thinking. That the voters of Delaware kept returning Biden to the US Senate does not speak favorably of them. I don't know if the Hunter Biden revelations will have any bearing. I do think they are not, as some people, both Democrat and Republican, have claimed, "a distraction." I guess a good question is why they have arisen now. If I recall, some journalists (Ben Gleck?) were reporting this month, maybe a year or more, ago. Not many paid attention. Will that also be the case now? It seems scandals only stick to certain candidates. Harris brings nothing to the ticket, at least nothing to remotely attract my vote. In fact, I would suggest she detracts from it further. I heard someone a while back say, "I like Harris." I asked why that was so, but the answer was, "I don't really know." Great. Just great. Again, it says nothing complimentary about the voters of California that she was elected to so many offices (including the US Senate) there. That said, I really couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump--either time. I've explained why more than once. I fully understand why people vote for him, although the rabid support he often gets befuddles me. Here is an article that I think should be read by all voters. The author, a Christian minister, explains what I've been saying for years. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/policies-persons-and-paths-to-ruin. (You may have to copy and paste this into your browser.) In effect, the pastor is saying, "Evil is evil." I forget which book of the New Testament cites God, "If you accept me, you will not accept evil." Of course, those who haven't agreed with me over the years will also dismiss this minister's ideas. I know many folks have suggested by writing in a candidate's name or voting for a minor party candidate, I am "wasting" my vote. I really could not disagree more. First, I think that continuing to vote for "the lesser of two evils" is really "wasting" one's vote. Second, give me a candidate worth voting for, not the junk we've been given the past few decades. Third, I claim that my vote is more precious to me than it is to others who merely accept what the Democrats and Republicans throw at us election after election--nationally, state-wide, locally. I'm not looking for a perfect candidate, hardly. There are none out there. I can find flaws in all possible candidates, as I can find a lot of flaws in me. None will agree with my views on everything. If someone asks me about candidates I might favor, no doubt they will point to this or that--flaws. Yep, none of them are perfect. But I am looking for someone who is not evil. And I refuse to consider degrees of evilness. Evil is evil. "Choosing between the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." We can disagree on that. This is America. There seems to be a deep disconnect (I really don't like that word, but if it fits.....) between the polls and other data. Where virtually all election polls show Biden leading, even by double figures, other polls paint a different picture. More than half of likely voters now give Trump a favorable rating. And close to 60% of the people think they are better off today than they were four years ago. And this includes the shutdowns forced on us by mostly Democrat politicians and their bureaucrats. I don't really believe the polls and never have. In 1936, some polls showed Alf Landon winning an upset victory over Franklin Roosevelt. In the end, FDR won 46 of the then 48 states, with all but eight of the Electrical College votes. Polling samples then were very wrong. Perhaps that is what is happening today, too.

Early AM Ramblings

"Little Jack Horner sat in a corner eating his Christmas pie. He stuck in a thumb and pulled out a plum and said, "What a good boy am I!"  I'd guess we all know this Mother Goose rhyme.  I'd guess wrong then.  Once again last week in class none, not a one, of my students had heard this before.  (I was relating the bad treatment an unpopular Andrew Jackson appointee received from Michigan residents just before statehood.)  This wasn't the first time I had blank looks on students' faces with this.  A little thing, not knowing Little Jack Horner, Mother Goose?  Maybe.  And maybe not. Funny how some people are now questioning the qualifications of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court. Most humorous is that she only served on the Court of Appeals for two or three years. "That doesn't seem like a particularly long enough time to prepare one for a seat on the Supreme Court" wrote one fellow. If I recall correctly, there have been a few dozen appointees to the Supreme Court who had no judicial experience. Oh, some of these had been not only lawyers, but held offices such as attorney-general and solicitor-general. But they had not been judges of any sort. Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis, and Abe Fortas fell into this category, as did Harlan Fiske Stone. (I had to get in another plug for my alma mater!) When Oliver Wendell Holmes was appointed to the state supreme court in Massachusetts, he not only had no judicial experience, but had not practiced law at all either. I think Elena Kagan is another who had no judicial experience when appointed. I wonder if these same critics of Coney Barrett were critical of Obama's naming of Kagan as a Supreme. (For that matter, what were Obama's qualifications to be President!) I'm not being critical of Kagan. But it seems to me that people's political philosophies take over in instances like this. They just don't want someone who thinks differently than they do to be on the High Court. I guess "elections have consequences" for some people only when they win. An Amherst professor penned an article claiming the courts used to stay out of election disputes, claiming such disputes were political not judicial in nature. Looking at history, back to Luther v Borden (Dorr's Rebellion in Rhode Island in the 1840s), the Supremes have stayed away from political questions. Not so any more. But I guess I would submit, a lot has changed. Look at the growth of Presidential use, overuse, and misuse of executive orders. Note, too, how easily the legislature (Congress) has ceded its Constitutional authorities to the executive (President) and its bureaucracy (agencies). All that said (written?), is there any reason to trust the outcome of November's election? Who can be relied on for honesty? The politicians and bureaucracy? the media? Americans have been set up, regardless of what side they favor, to doubt, even distrust the outcome. Toss in, as I have before, that well over half of Americans no longer trust their government/politicians and the media. So, that has set up a scene for a disaster over the election results in a couple of weeks. It's difficult to eat crow, to admit one is/was wrong. I had that experience last week in a personal, but pretty important matter. I was just plain wrong in my thoughts. I think the media must do that, examine and critique itself. The admission that reporters (print and electronic), not editors and op-ed writers, now mostly write from their sets of values instead of as disinterested fact-finders will be hard to come by. I don't think journalists can do it. I hope they can, but doubt it. Like so much in society today, they are convinced of their correctness. In that sense, they have become the self-righteous, arrogant elitists that many people have become. Of course, depending on one's own points of view, the media can be completely wrong or right on target. Someone told me the World Series is just around the corner. Is that right? I used to love baseball. I played it and I watched it. I might even say I lived it. Some of my fondest memories are of baseball, my own or my kids/grandkids. Trivial? Of course it's trivial. What does a game matter? It used to matter a lot to me. But now, well, I haven't watched an inning of the playoffs (if, indeed, the World Series is about to start). In a way, my evolution in this is saddening. I sometimes wish I could sit back and watch a ball game for the enjoyment of it. It just doesn't click the way it once did.

"We Have to Come Together?"

The other day I listened to Democrat Congresswoman (Can I write that, Congresswoman?) Debbie Dingell say Americans "have to come together, to unite" at this pivotal time in our history. She added "United we stand; divided we fall." I waited for the radio host (I don't know who it was.) to ask, "But wait a minute, Congresswoman. Hasn't it been your party that has been among the leaders in dividing our people and country?" He should have pointed out that even before Trump was inaugurated, the Democrats were plotting to get rid of Trump, through impeachment or whatever. "That doesn't seem to me to be an act of union. Can you explain how it is so?" Nope, the host didn't ask any of that. He could have, in a civil manner, but either didn't think of it or is a bobble head. Oh, these hosts talk a big game until they get the luminaries on their shows. Then they throw them softballs. Then Joe Biden visited Michigan. In speaking about CoVid, the economy, and more, he too echoed, "We have to come together....." Why don't the so-called journalists (instead of party opeatives?) ask him about his party's divisive measures since November 2016? In other elections, the losing party has accepted the results and worked as an opposition, but not the way the Democrats have. "Can you explain that, Mr. Biden?" It all reminded me of that platitude, "We're all in this together," echoed again and again the past six months regarding the Corona Virus. It seems to me "we have to come together if it's what the arrogant elitists want." It is easy to see that being "in this together" is garbage; a lot of people are not "in this" at all, have not faced nearly the sacrifices, the losses, etc. that many of us have. Jefferson, in his first Inaugural Address, wrote/said after a particularly acrimonious campaign vs the incumbent John Adams (who, by the way, left Washington DC the day before the Inauguration), "We are all Republicans (his party). We are all Federalists." He meant we are all Americans. He stressed unity and acted on that, refusing to use the Federalists' own laws (The Alien and Sedition Acts) against them. Ah, that history stuff just gets in the way. Isn't it interesting that the same people who are up in arms about the 13 (or whatever the number is now) guys who plotted to kidnap Governor Whitmer have remained silent about the "peaceful protesters", that is, the rioters who loot and plunder, burn, assault, and even murde? Yep, if the kidnap plotters are found guilty, jail them and throw away the keys. At the same time, it couldn't be that difficult to identify those committing arson, looting, etc. They have rioted mostly with impunity, little action being taken against them for how many months? Talk about encouraging bad behavior! Many of them post what they've done and/or are going to do on social media (I detest that term!) sites. They, too, should be arrested and tried. If convicted, lock them up and throw away the keys. A discussion arose on one of my e-mail list serves about the long-term effects of CoVid. We don't know what effects the virus will have on people five or ten or more years from now. We can't know. We don't know. So, that argument goes, because we don't know, we have to continue with the masks, social distancing (There's another term I have come to detest.), quarantine/shutdown, etc. But those who argue this way make my point for me. We don't know. Maybe, in fact, exposure today may not have any bad effects later on people's health. Yet, we do know the damage being done by masks, social distancing (I still detest that term, two lines later.), quarantine/shutdown, etc. A lot of people are being harmed--now. I'm not talking of economics and the ruin the shutdown is having on millions, although I don't diminish or dismiss that the way a lot of people do. They say, "Oh, you're just being greedy." I guess that's an easy thing to utter when the speaker hasn't lost income or even a job. But consider, for instance, children now not being in normal school. There is ample evidence that they are harmed not only educationally (and many of them are at the peak years of their learning potentials), but physically, socially, and psychologicially. Consider, too, the spikes in suicides and domestic murders, alcoholism and drug usage. How many cancer, heart disease, and other such deaths could have been prevented had regular check-ups not been suspended--by executive orders that were claimed to be "saving lives?" The list goes on. But the bobble heads can't be convinced. With the collusion (ha ha ha) of the media, a large segment of the population has been cowed into lives of fear. And it, seems, a lot of those bobble heads seem content to give up their liberties so easily to "save lives."

Random Thoughts on an Early Autumn AM

For years I have said and written that Americans, by voting, get what they deserve and, unfortunately, I get it, too. I read an article this AM that underscored that, although the author was a bit more crude about it. He called it "the idiocracy," who with the help of Big Tech and the Lamestream media, have allowed the politicians and bureaucracy (Big Government) to "outnumber and outgun (financially)" us. Is it unreasonable of me to want to live my life unfettered with government dictates, such as what kind of television, toilet, light bulbs, healthy insurance, and soon cars I must buy? Is it unreasonable for me to want to keep more of the money I have earned rather than having it taken (stolen in the name of taxation) by a government which has a considerably rotten record of wasting most of it? Is it unreasonable of me to expect government to enforce all of the laws it has passed, not just the ones those currently in power favor? (Why can some people get away with looting, committing arson, destroying public and other private property, but others who may try to avoid paying income taxes have the heavy hand of Big Government land on them?) The list goes on, almost endlessly. I recenly was told of a person who was very upset, quite put out, with seeing a Trump campaign sign that included, "No More Bull....." Apparently the biggest concern was "Kids will see it," the reference to "Bull....." I didn't have a chance to confront this woman or I'd have asked, "What did you think of Governor Whitmer's campaign slogan, '...and I'll fix the damn roads?'" Logic tells us a lot more "kids" heard "damn roads" than will see this guy's Trump sign. I think I know what the response to my question would be, "But that's different." Well, no it's not, but it does tell me a lot about this person. "It's OK when my side does it, but the other side can't." To me, both "Bull...." and "damn" are wrong and, frankly, despicable. "Our democracy is firmly rooted in the principles of an informed electorate which makes decisions at the polls based on reason and beliefs over lies and deception,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement. She is opening an investigation into a petition drive which seeks to limit the state's governor's broad, overreaching "emergency executive orders." Apparently some pro-Whitmer bobble heads are claiming fraud in the effort to gather petition signatures. I don't know about any fraudulent tactics. My signature wasn't gained by "lies and deception." (And my votes aren't influence by Russians or Chinese or.....) So, when is Nessel going to start investigations of politicians, of their campaign "promises" and ads? Talk about "lies and deception!" I think we know the answer to that one, too. "Politics, a profession whose main skill seems to be lying." I forgot where I read that or who said/wrote it. In poll after poll, members of Congress and other politicians are cited as being the least trusted people/profession. We just laugh at the campaign promises they make--and continue to vote for the liars. I'm only half joking when I suggest that the campaign liars should be investigated for fraud. I guess I can only shake my head when so many people distrust politicians, yet have so meekly have followed their directives--shutdowns, quarantines, masks, etc.--regarding the Corona virus. Why do these people still believe "They're saving lives?" It's as if they spit in our faces, tell us it's raining, and we fall for it--again and again. So, it appears the Democrats will use Amy Coney Barrett's Catholicism as a way to try to block her confirmation. Hmmm. I don't know if it's true, but more than one person has told me that Joe Biden claims to be a devout Catholic. (Which leads to the question of how a "devout Catholic" can support abortion. He attends mass each Sunday and carries a rosary in his pocket. So, why is Barrett's faith in question when Biden's is not? I suppose I know the answer to that. "But that's different." And can it really be true that the opposition to her confirmation are really going to try to portray her adoption of several children, including a couple from Haiti, as a character flaw? All this madness reminds me of two tunes. One is Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction" in the '60s, "This whole crazy world is just too frustratin'." (I can still hear his gravelly voice in my head!) The other is the drum and fife ditty played by Cornwallis's band when he surrendered to George Washington at Yorktown, "The World Turned Upside Down." (No, I'm old, but not old enough to hear the British drummers and fifers in my head!)

Double Standards

How long before some NBA player puts this name on the back of his jerseys or before some NFL player does the same?  The name?  One of the LA deputies who were ambushed in their squad car last week.  Either one, but especially the woman officer who, while wounded multiple times in the head and elsewhere, called in the emergency and performed first aid on her partner.  What NBA or NFL player will have the decency, the guts to display this heroine's name?  If Las Vegas were to place odds on such a display, my guess they would be zero.  

Yet, these ignorant players continue to spout and wear the often trite words of the protesters who tried to block the hospital where these deputies were transported after being shot.  As of yet, I haven't heard a single professional athlete publicly denounce the ambush.  Not a one has called for people--family, friends, neighbors--to help apprehend this shooter, that is, to provide information that can lead to the shooter's apprehension.

But what would one expect from these athletes who backed down from criticism of the commie government in China--human rights abuses, genocide, etc.?  You mean take a stand, even against its own mealy-mouthed league?  Ha Ha Ha.  No, these multi-millionaires are too busy ranting against white privilege.  Taking a real stand might endanger their millions.

I heard some radio guy once declare, "If [whatever group he said] didn't have double standards, it wouldn't have any standards at all."  I chuckled, but there is truth in that.  I was thinking of this the other day, trying to make sense of the "defund the police" idiocy.  (No, I can't make sense of it.)  So we are to believe, according to all these protesters, that all police officers are bad, deliberately targeting and looking to murder blacks, etc.  Yep, all of them.  Otherwise why defund entire departments?  But, we are admonished, don't label as violent all of the protesters in Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, DC, Lancaster, etc.  It's claimed, 95% of the protesters are peaceful.  (I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument, I'll let that slide.)  So don't characterize all the protesters because of the actions of a few.  We heard the same thing about Muslims.  Don't condemn all of  Islam because of the doings of the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Islamists.  (I didn't, but that's not my point here.)  Why, then, are all police officers the object of these "peaceful protesters?"

Trivial, perhaps, but why were a certain governor and Speaker of the House able to have their hair done, while the "great unwashed" couldn't visit a hairdresser or barber?  For that matter, to play fair, why is it OK to portray the Star-Spangled Banner (the flag) in nontraditional ways (The Blue Line Flag), but not so OK to sign the Star-Spangled Banner (the national anthem) in nontraditional ways (Marvin Gaye, Jose Feliciano, et al)?  It seems the people who support the former really detest the latter.  Why?  I think both are perfectly fine.

Reacting, Not Thinking

Two Michigan colleges, Michigan State University and Alma, have removed the name of Stephen Nisbet from buildings on their campuses.  The reason provided is that he was a racist, a member of the Ku Klux Klan sometime in his early adult years.  I don't know if he was or if he wasn't.  The actual evidence is a bit sketchy.  But to today's crowd, the "wokists" among us, evidence and facts are not necessary or, perhaps, even desired.  Facts appear to be inconvenient things to get in the way.

Very telling to me is a statement from one of the MSU trustees who voted to remove Nisbet's name.  She said, "Given the point of society we are in right now....."  Yep, another rush to judgment is in order right now.

Perhaps Nisbet was a member of the KKK.  As noted, there is some evidence he was, but it is not conclusive, especially not to his family.  Why the hurry?  As that same trustee added, "...it's appropriate to distance ourselves from anyone who had affiliation with the KKK."  I agree, maybe.  There are a number of things to consider first.

Was he really a member of the Ku Klux Klan?  If he was, was he an active member?  After all, it's been suggested that the Klan often just added names to its membership rolls to boost its numbers, obviously for propaganda purposes.  Were there really 50,000 Klansmen in Michigan in the 1920s?  And, especially given the times, did most of them "join" merely because it was a social organization rather than for its racism?  How many of them were young, in their late teens or twenties, and joined because their buddies did, not because they were racists?  I'm not at all defending the despicable KKK, although "given the point of society we are in right now" some "wokists" might so discern--wrongly, of course, in their convoluted and ignorant thinking.  It's just that I'm getting tired of ignorant, uninformed people making decisions or forcing other ignorant, uninformed, and even cowardly people (and schools, corporations, and politicians) to make them.

What about Nisbet's accomplishments in the rest of his life, after perhaps his bout with a youthful indiscretion that he likely never really thought about and regretted for the rest of his life?  Why do people, including the entire MSU board of trustees who unanimously agreed to remove his name,  ignore his later efforts to promote civil rights in this state, from the writing of the current state constitution to casting the deciding vote to appoint the first black president of a major research university in the US (MSU)?

I am reminded of two things.  (Oh Oh!  Is he going to start that history stuff again?)  Hugo Black was one of the great civil libertarians of the 20th Century Supreme Court.  Don't take my word for it; as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."  Yet, in his early adulthood he was a member of the KKK in Alabama (I think).  Should all of Hugo Black's efforts and successes in the area of civil liberties be "canceled" because of that?

Amid the rush to pull down statues, in Wisconsin the "wokists" tore down one of an abolitionist.  I don't know their faulty reasoning, but the man, Hans Christian Heg, died for the cause of abolition.  He gave his life for it; yet the ignorant had their way.  The thugs have defiled and vandalized memorials to Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln was the man the freedmen, the emancipated former slaves, referred to as "Father Abraham."  The Biblical reference was no accident.

A prime culprit in all of this "wokism," maybe the prime one, is social media.  (This is one of those terms I am coming to detest.)   Social media makes situations worse. It rewards the instinct to react, to “like” or to “share,” not to “stop” or to “think.”  It has brought to life, to acceptance even, "No thinking allowed!"

Reading

Let's back off a bit and turn to some still serious, but less intense matters. 

How about reading?  I don't watch much television, very very little.  That's how I justify so much time I spend on my computer, sending e-mails, reading opinions, and, yes, blogging.  But I also read a lot.

I'm on pace to read my usual five or six books a month.  I still read some nonfiction, but not as much as I used to read.  Most of my nonfiction now comes from review books.  But I'll still pick up a book, any book, about Lincoln.

I've read about 50 or more books about Lincoln, including two more this year.  Two of my favorites are actually novels about Lincoln's life.  One, Gore Vidal's Lincoln, goes roughly 1,000 pages, with footnotes!  Yes, footnotes in a novel.  Also having footnotes is William Safire's novel Freedom, which leads up to the Emancipation Proclamation.  Because they are novels, the authors can speculate about Lincoln's thoughts, motives, etc.  Thus, they offer insights and food for thought about Honest Abe.

For my money, the best single-volume biography of Lincoln is Stephen Oates' With Malice Toward None.  Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals is terrific, too.  It is a great demonstration of how Lincoln and his personality, his lack of ego, helped him to grow as a President and as a person.  He listened to others and, if their ideas were better than his, he took them.  Father Abraham by Richard Striner is hard to read without being moved by Lincoln's "struggle to end slavery."  There was a reason the former slaves called him "Father Abraham," the Biblical analogy intended.  And there are many other top-flight books.  Maybe I'll explore them later.

If you are interested in nonfiction about the Founders and the early US, pick up any and all of Joseph Ellis's books.  Especially good is His Excellency, the biography of Washington.

Fiction is what I read most now. Daniel Silva, I think, is terrific.  I've read all of his novels with Gabriel Allon as the protagonist, an unbelievable, yet believable Israeli agent.  Silva is a wordsmith of the highest caliber.  Nelson DeMille ranges from good to great.  The first two novels of his that I read were my favorites.  The Gold Coast and its sequel The Gate House were hard to put down. 

I also like spy/adventure novels.  Ben Coes (Dewey Andreas and Rob Tacoma) and Brad Thor (Scott Harvath) stand out, as did the late Vince Flynn (Mitch Rapp).  Lee Child and his Jack Reacher are tough to top.  Not only are the characters very likable, good guys; the writing from these authors is very good.  Their writing is noticeably better than most of the spy/adventure novelists.  There are others, too, who I like and will explore them in a future blog.

The Danish author, Jussi Adler-Olsen, has written some really good crime fiction.  His Department Q novels are well-written and full of suspenseful twists and turns.  I've read about half of the series and look forward to the rest.  Peter May, a Scottish television writer, has also attracted my attention with some good books.

Scott Turow has written some terrific legal thrillers.  His first, Presumed Innocent, might be my favorite.  But it's still tough to top others, such as Identical, Innocent, and Pleading Guilty.  While I'm stuck on Amherst alumni, Harlan Coben is always good reading, especially his Myron Bolitar series.  So is Dan Brown.  Although his noted DaVinci Code is wonderful, I still enjoyed a couple of others even more, especially Inferno.

Perhaps next month I'll post some other authors and their books which I have enjoyed.  I hope these have helped you pick out some good reading.  I think it beats he boob tube hands down.

Yard Signs

Can we finally insist those teachers whose yards bear the signs "Home of a Hero!" or "A Hero Lives Here!" remove them?  For many of them, I think "A Proud Teacher Lives Here!" should be removed.  How "proud" can one be of running from the very minuscule chances of catching the Corona Virus, an even much smaller chance of dying from it?   I won't argue that, say, grocery store workers are "heroes" or not.  But if stocking the food shelves, running a cash register, etc. constitutes being a "hero" in the face of CoVid, how do we then classify equally as "heroes" teachers who are refusing or at least resisting returning to face-to-face classes in a few weeks?  They are using their unions to fight normal returns.  It sure gives pause to the oft-repeated, "We're here for the kids," doesn't it?

I don't remember where I saw the photograph of the Los Angeles teacher who was urging the school district not to open schools.  She carried a sign that read, "I Can't Teach If I'm Dead."  No doubt she and her teacher friends thought this a profound statement.  She was, to those other teachers, a modern-day Kant or Heidegger, very deep.  Ha Ha Ha.  "I Can't Teach If I'm Dead."  (Shame on me.)

I do understand there is some concern among teachers, especially those with youngsters, that day care can't be found.  At least that is the situation here in Michigan.  The governor's authoritarian, capricious and arbitrary, and harmful executive orders have reduced the number and capacity of day care facilities.  But what makes teachers so special?  Other people who have had to return to work also might have to find day care for their kids.  And with so many teachers insisting on remote/online classes, how is that going to work out?  Do your online schooling at day care.....

I think anyone who believes or argues that, for the vastly overwhelming majority of students, online learning/classes are quality education is delusional.  Several years back, I spoke with a college guru of online courses and asked him, "Are these online classes the equivalent of regular, traditional in-person classes?"  I barely got the question out of my mouth when he blurted, "Oh, good heavens no!  They're not even close."  And, apparently, this was a guy who taught and advocated for them.

Where are all those politicians and corporation who dumped all over the schools and teachers for the rotten products (Students became products!) they were turning out?  Why aren't they leading the charge for a return to full-time, traditional classes, from Kindergarten through to higher education?  After all, if they are so concerned with quality......

I know, I know.  "But what if a child gets the virus?"  People have been very selective in what "science" they have chosen to believe.  Policy has been set based on this selectivity.  Fear has been instilled in people (parents?) based on this, too.  A considered rethinking of data is required.  We can start with the fact that the median age of those dying from the virus is 80!  That means 50% of the CoVid deaths are of octogenarians.  And only about 6% of those are listed solely as Corona deaths, with no comorbidity factors.  Compare the deaths of children from the regular, seasonal flu with those from CoVid.

OK, I'm willing to make a concession here.  There have been so many lies, so much disinformation and misinterpretation of data, I really don't know what or who to believe.  But I know who I don't believe, not for one instant.  I don't believe those who say we are putting our children's lives in jeopardy by putting them back in school.

I'm not advocating "business as usual."  Obviously care must be taken.  If masks are deemed necessary or even just desirable, I can live with them.  Continue to wash hands often.  If it makes folks more comfortable/at ease, spread the kids around.  Be careful.

To those who might claim I don't care about kids, that I'm sending them to their deaths, I would suggest looking at some views other than what we get from our politicians and media.  Check some opposing views from scientists, even Nobel winners, views that disagree with the quarantine and shutdowns.  Many noted pediatricians, child psychologists and social workers, etc. have expressed the irreparable damage being done to our children, not only educationally.  They are being scarred socially, psychologically, and even physically.

Fraud

Fraud:  "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."  I would add, perhaps, "deliberate" and "political gain."  Criminal fraud, which must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt, in Michigan can result in a prison term of up to 14 years.  A civil conviction requires a less strident standard and normally results in financial restitution.  Regardless.....

I've posted about this before.  But it was reawakened by the extortion tactics being used by some of the "peaceful protesters."  They are making "demands" of often small businesses.  "Comply with our demands or we'll shut you down."  Well, in some places like Louisville, the "peaceful" groups have, in effect, already shut down businesses with their violence.  But if these businesses agree to demands, some of which might be noble in spirit, the violence will cease.  Or, if some of the demands (in the form of quotas) are not met, the businesses will be required to make involuntary contributions to groups of the protesters' choosing. That sounds like the old neighborhood shakedown, almost like protection money.

 

What about politicians?  We call them "campaign promises" and routinely accept them as likely nothing more than lies.  We don't hold politicians to their promises.  I am surprised, but it was only a couple of years ago that one of my students introduced me to this question.  "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"  I didn't know the punchline and didn't even know it was a joke, regardless of its veracity.  I burst out laughing when she answered, "When his lips are moving."  

Obviously that's not true of all politicians.  And just as obviously there are some political roadblocks for some of the campaign promises.  But far too often we are just bombarded with known lies.  So, then, aren't those campaign promises really fraud?

Perhaps one way to get our politicians to behave more honestly is to prosecute for fraud.  Of course, many of the district attorneys/prosecutors are elected officials themselves; that is, they too are politicians.  So what are the chances of any prosecutions?

Maybe a more realistic solution is to vote against the worst of the liars.  We can whittle our way down, from the worst to the little less bad to the little less.....  I wonder, though, if they'd get the message.  I doubt, too, that voters would do that.  They are hung up on voting by political party, based on their unions' endorsements, how they are expected to vote because of their inclusion in this group or that, etc.

I don't really see a solution.  Voters have proven time and time again they are  more than willing to vote for, not good candidates, but "the lesser of two evils."  It seems the best "liars" are rewarded.  It's very disheartening.

I guess I'm still living in my little dream world.

Censorship

Censorship is becoming a big problem in this country, in more ways that one.  I'm not a Libertarian as far as censorship goes.   But I think we need to be very, very careful in restricting freedom of expression.

There was a reason the Founding Fathers made the First Amendment the one protecting freedom of expression.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or the press or the people peaceably to assemble......"  These men were wise and they realized that once a government ("Congress shall make no law......") can control people's thoughts, self-rule is all over but the shouting.

We encounter today two variations of censorship.  Both are included in this sentiment, "I may disagree with what you say," or write or....., "but will fight to the death your right to say it."  It's a misconception that the French philosophe (yes, philosophe, not philosopher) Voltaire wrote this.  He almost assuredly didn't, but he also most assuredly believe it.  Federal and state governments have, over the years, attempted to curtail certain speech.  Often it's in the name of national security, in wartime, etc.  But citizens can also exercise censorship through a variety of means--ostracism, boycotts, and today, peer pressure under the guise of being "woke," "cancel culture," and other current evils.  (Oh, there I did it.  I spilled the beans as to my views.  Ha Ha Ha.)

Freedom of expression means, above all, protecting the right to say things that are not popular, indeed, things that are despicable.  (I'm not talking here of slander, pornography, etc., but the expression of ideas.)  It's easy to allow people to say and write things that we like or support.  It's the ideas we hate that need to be protected.  Laws and social pressures are not the ways to combat such hated ideas.  That includes views that favor fascism and communism.  Those views need to be, not censored, but defeated in the arena of ideas. 

I wonder, in schools today, if students are taught about Frank Collin and his American Nazis in the late '70s.  They wanted to hold a march, a demonstration, ("peaceful" of course) in Skokie, Illinois.  Skokie was the target because of the sizable number of Jews who lived there.  Some of the Jews were relatives of survivors of the German Nazi extermination camps; some were survivors themselves.  I won't go into the history of the legal battle, but it is worth studying.  Ideas we hate......

Today, although I am still very wary of Big Government's penchant and abilities to control what is said, printed, and even thought, I think a bigger danger comes from the "woke" and "cancel culture" people.  This has come to the utterly ridiculous.  We've all read or heard of people who have been forced to resign or even been fired, who have issued apologies to snowflakes, er, people who have been "offended," for what they have said.  Locally, a teacher was dismissed for, it now appears, several tweets/twits (I can't help myself with that!) he made.  One was, "Liberals suck!"  (My aversion to that word, "suck," is well known.  I hate it and always have.  But, if the shoe fits......)  Another was simply, "Trump is our President!"  There have been other dismissals and forced resignations nationally at big-name companies, newspapers (Isn't that the epitome of irony?), and television networks.  I imagine liberals might take offense at such a characterization "suck!", but aren't conservatives often called names, too?  Aren't conservatives--or so I've read and heard--"greedy" and "selfish," "bigoted" and "racist," and "white supremacists," among other things?  (I don't know where that leaves people like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Kira Davis, Candace Owens, and others.)  In fact, one of the e-mails the local school district received urging this teacher's dismissal called the President "a fascist."  (OK, no doubt like a majority of those throwing around the word "fascist," the letter-writer likely has no real idea of its meaning and its historical context.  But they heard--probably didn't see it as that would entail reading, Ha Ha Ha--it somewhere and it sounded good and got a desired reaction, so......)

Intelligent people I know, ones who have been educated to examine different viewpoints, to listen to all sides, before making judgments have also jumped on the bandwagon of intolerance.  I was struck a while ago by a guy who was very tentative in expressing to me the beginnings of an opinion that wouldn't fly with the woke folks.  In a way, I was offended.  (Ha Ha Ha!)  But my initial response was not at all critical, but open and tolerant, and he eventually said a lot more that the woke folks wouldn't tolerate.  I agreed with all of it.

This, the woke censorship, the cancel culture, and the like is what we need to combat.  I wonder how loudly these self-ordained censors would cry if their ability to yell and scream was, ahem, "canceled."

Chris Columbo

Christopher Columbus.

Statues of him have been toppled all over the US.  Others, I'm certain, will join them.  OK, he kidnapped people, enslaved Native Americans, and was dishonest.  Without a doubt, though, he was a terrific sailor and salesman, especially in his relations with Ferdinand and, in particular, Isabella.

Timing is everything.  Columbus received financing from the Spanish monarchs in 1492.  ("In fourteen hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue......")  It was no accident.  About half a dozen years before, he had approached the Portuguese, the leaders at the time in exploration of the world outside of Europe, about sponsoring his voyages.  They knew he was wrong about his claims of reaching the riches of Asia (India, China, Japan) by sailing westward and turned down his request.

The Muslims were expelled from Spain, The Reconquest, in 1492.  That freed up money (Wars are expensive!) for Ferdinand and Isabella to invest in Columbus's venture, to catch up with their neighbors the Portuguese.

OK, enough of that.  People now blame Columbus for the ensuing slavery, genocide, ecocide, etc.  The anti-Columbus movement started years ago.  In 1992, the 500th anniversary of his first  Atlantic crossing, popular posters were selling.  They read, "Christopher Columbus: Wanted for Grand Theft, genocide, racism, rape, torture....."  Columbus may have been first, the one who initiated the Europeanization (for better or worse) of the American continents.  (And when will we hear the calls for renaming the "Americas?"  After all, they were so named after Amerigo Vespucci, a European.)  But he was not the one who was the most egregious.  Many others followed him.  And, had Columbus not "discovered" the Americas, does any reasonable person think no other Europeans soon would have?

And are these people ignorant of all history?  "Canceling" it, or at least what many of these ignorant people seem to want to do, will not purify it.  There is no absolute purity to history.  To try to make it so is creating fairy tales. 

History is the story of the conquest, slavery, etc. of some peoples by other people.  The list is practically endless.  In Africa, we can start but not end with Shaka Zulu.  In Asia, there were the Chinese and all their emperors, native and adopted (Manchus, Mongols).  Let's not forget Genghis Khan and his grandson. Kublai Khan.  Perhaps we can ask the Eries (if we can find any!) and Pottawatomis what they think of the Iroquois.  I wonder what the Cheyennes thought of the Sioux, those same Sioux from whom the protesters claim the US stole Mt. Rushmore.  And speaking of the indigenous American peoples, the Aztecs, among others, practiced human sacrifice.  

One lesson we can learn from Columbus is asking the question:  Hero or Villain?  

Hero?  Columbus' deeds introduced American foods and medicines to Europe.  How many lives were saved?  The wealth from the New World helped to finance European growth n culture, the arts, business, technology, and ideas.  (And, note below, it was Western Europe, through the Englightenment, which began the process of abolishing slavery, to the extent it has been abolished.)  Opening the two American continents led to wider settlement, eventual population growth, and the consequent spread of a more complex civilization.  In turn, that led to advances in health, industrialization, etc. all over the globe for the next centuries.  (When the "woke" people are critical of this, ask if they are willing to give up their cell phones, their televisions, their computers, their cars, their indoor plumbing, their great life-expectancy, etc.  If they are, then they aren't hypocrites.)  There's more, but.....

Villian?  Europeans decimated the Native American population; some claim as much as 75 to 90% of it.  I have no idea how that number was reached given the times, no census, etc.  Maybe someone threw out that number at one time and it stuck.  We'll never really know.  But the Indian population, especially in the Caribbean was devastated.  Likely, the Europeanization led to the African slave trade, when the native source of slaves disappeared.  But, again, slavery was not initiated by the Europeans after Columbus and the African slave traded was aided and abetted by Africans and Muslims--that's where the trade started. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of native plants and animals were destroyed, no doubt.  The actual number will also never be known.  Some say the precedent for colonization, not only of the Americas, but the entire globe was established, its odious residue lasting to the present.  Remember, too, the Europeans weren't the first or only people to dominate others through colonization.  

Was all this the fault of Columbus, rather than Europeans who followed, from Spain and Portugal to Britain and, eventually, Americans of European descent?  Was this merely (and I don't say that lightly) the march of history, weaker peoples from all over the globe being dominated by more powerful peoples from all over the globe?  Had Columbus not "discovered" the New World, no doubt some other European would have.  Were the atrocities that followed foreseeable?  Maybe, maybe not.  But are they all to be laid at the feet of Columbus?

To recognize this is not to condone it.  But people should get their facts straight.  It was, after all, Western Civilization (if not the US, coming late into the picture) that began the process of ending the African slave trade, well, to the extent it's been ended.  And the American Founders, I think, realized that slavery was evil, that it was something that needed to be eradicated.  That they didn't is shameful, but, in some ways, understandable.  But that's something for another post.

A Speech That Will Never Be Given

Here is something I've been mulling over in my mind for about a week.  I shared some of this idea with others in an e-mail. 

Perhaps Trump should finally make a speech, to the nation on prime time television, bypassing the biased media.  He should address the protests/demonstrations that continue, directly talking to the American people.

First he should condemn the violence in no uncertain terms.  That would appeal to, I think (or at least hope), the vast majority of Americans.  He should point out the destruction being done to people's businesses, homes, and cars.  He should strongly condemn the beatings and killings of what some of the media have called "peaceful demonstrations."

Second, he should question the actions of the protesters, specifically the destruction of memorials and monuments.  Not all of the attempts to topple them are in the least bit warranted.  Do these ignorant demonstrators know anything about US Grant and the Civil War, the winning of which led to the practical emancipation of the slaves?  (I am not downplaying the Emancipation Proclamation or the 13th Amendment, nor Lincoln's and others' roles in ending slavery.)  If their goals are what they claim them to be, Trump should ask (and not rhetorically) why memorials to Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and other abolitionists are being defaced, ruined, and destroyed?  Should ignorance be the driving force behind these demonstrations and violence?

Third, and this one would be difficult to finesse, but it's needed, he should ask the demonstrators why they have never protested the black-on-black murders in places like Chicago, Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, etc.  Doesn't/Didn't the life of Mekhi James, the three-year old who was shot in a drive-by last weekend in Chicago, "matter?"  (I know, I know.  There is a difference between police brutality and shootings by thugs.  But the end result, to the families, is the same--a wasted life.) "Why haven't the 60+ shootings in Chicago just last weekend alone, the 100+ shootings in NYC just last week alone, etc. attracted your anger?  They haven't even attracted your concern!"

Specifically,  he could then call out the hypocritical and cowardly corporations, which have become too numerous to name individually, who have sided with and financed BLM.   Also, "Hey NFL and its players!  Why haven't you taken knees for the likes of Mehki James or any of the three teen-age girls shot and killed last week in Chicago, too?"

Then he could address the college kids and their professors, you know, the ones who know everything and aren't afraid to tell us.  "Why aren't you upset enough to demonstrate against murders like Mekhi's?"  (Yeah, I'm fixated on Mekhi James, but the murder of a three-year old breaks my heart.)

Before going on national television, though, Trump should invite Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others to sit with him as a show of unity for the black community and its lives.  I have no doubts they would decline, making up all sorts of excuses.  But then Trump could throw that back on them, asking the black community, "Why have your self-anointed black leaders," he could name them, "refused to sit in support of my anger at so many black lives lost in Chicago, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles.....?"

This is a speech that will never happen.  I think such a speech, while ticking off the left, Democrats, and the Lamestream media (as does everything "Trump") would show leadership from the President.  I'm talking real leadership, not bullying.  Too many of Trump's followers still equate his bullying and juvenile tweets/twits with leadership.

I think a problem is that Trump has been so adolescent that few people other than his die hard supporters would listen.  That is, in part, their fault.  But it's also, in part, Trump's.  Only the Trumpsters would listen--and they listen no matter what he says.  But it's not them he needs to convince.

I also don't think Trump is capable of a serious speech.  He lacks the ability to deliver one.  And he doesn't recognize the messages that need to be sent.

Just a thought or two on this:  the demonstrations and violence, the troubles in the black community, real Presidential leadership.

Razing, redux

With all of the pandering done by Democrats to garner support from the iconoclasts, when will they move to rename the Richard Russell Senate Office Building?  A staunch segregationist and bigot, Russell not only filibustered in an attempt to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but along with a dozen or so other Southern Senators boycotted the Democratic National Convention later that year to protest after Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law. 

It's quite an honor to have one of only three Senate office buildings carry one's name.  I think there have been about 2,000 US Senators in history, going back to 1789.  Three out of 2,000!  And there was nobody with a cleaner record than Richard Russell?  

As a point of fact, if I recall, the only Senator to vote against naming the building for Russell was--Michigan's own "Conscience of the Senate," Philip Hart!!!!!!  Now, regardless if I agreed or disagreed with Hart's politics, there is a man to admire.

 

For that matter, what about the noted Klansman Robert Byrd, a long-time Dem leader honored by the party at his death.  He served in the US House and Senate for almost 60 years.  At his funeral, a certain President eulogized him as "a true champion" and "a voice of principle and reason."  Granted, maybe the man changed over the years.  But if he could change, why in the eyes of so many are others with questionable pasts not allowed to change?

 

I believe any attempts to censure either man was met with the rationale from Democrats, "He was a product of his times."  So, then, why weren't Washington, Jefferson, et al, even Columbus, "products of their times?"

 

If I recall correctly, too, aren't there statues of Lenin in NYC, LA, and Seattle?  What about the statue of Che Guevara in NYC?  Real friends of democracy there, both of them.

Of course, maybe like the British demonstrator who didn't know Winston Churchill, these American protesters don't know the history of their country either.

 

Just askin'.