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."