Impeachment?

I hesitated to read it, but a Free Press op-ed's headline claimed "No legal argument against a Trump impeachment trial." First and foremost, the Constitution clearly states "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."  It does not read, "ex-Presidents" or "former Presidents."  The authors (Is it enough to note that one of them was Obama's "ethics czar?????") make the spurious argument that Congress established a precedent in impeaching William Belknap in 1876; Belknap was no longer the Secretary of War. That Congress has never made a mistake, passed a ridiculous resolution or piece of legislation, etc. throws this argument flat on its bejabbers. They also write, "...the Constitution makes clear that impeachment serves two important goals, removing a bad actor from office and forever disqualifying him or her from holding any office....." Hmmm. I don't think I found that it the first sentence of this paragraph, that is, in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution itself. What they have done is translate a political action by a 19th Century Congress into Constitutional law. I don't think so, Tim. Second and foremost, how can one be "removed from office" if one doesn't hold that "office?" Logically, it is impossible. If it is possible within the law, as the authors claim, then what Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist makes great sense, "The law is a ass, a idiot [sic]."  Third and foremost, how is this going to help us "unite," "come together," etc.?  If anything, it will drive people further apart.  Fourth and foremost, how much time, effort, and money are being spent on this fruitless impeachment?  I've quoted Nobel Laureat Milton Friedman many times on this, "It's easy to spend other people's money." Members of Congress of both parties, especially Democrats, have become quite good at this. Fifth and foremost, what about all those Democrat members of Congress whose speech could easily be suggested has led to violence over the past couple of years, including attacks on the federal, state, and local governments?  Federal court houses and other property, police headquarters, etc. were burned, bombed, and otherwise destroyed.  Law enforcement officials at every level of government were injured or killed.  Even members of Congress were shot, beaten, etc.  Why are these not "assaults on our democracy" incited by Democrats?

I'm a Sap!

So, it looks more and more that college loans for students are going to be "canceled." Color me a sap in many ways. There have been several articles in the newspaper recently about this, "forgiving student debts." I certainly agree that many students have overly onerous loans to pay back. But there is much wrong with canceling student debts. I paid off my college loans, on time, when the default rate was about 60-70%. That is, most people who had student loans didn't pay them back. To put my kid through school, I worked four and five jobs so he wouldn't have a heavy debt post-graduation. (Yes, I really was drawing paychecks from five different employers at one time in the '90s.) I'm raiding my retirement savings (about 15% so far and he's only a sophomore) to pay for my grandson's college; he has a loan now, but it's minimal and I may pay that off at the end of this semester. I'm not at all complaining. No. It was and is my chosen responsibility. To me, it was and is the right thing to do. Again, I'm not complaining about what I did, but about this stupid plan to forgive college loans. So now, according to Biden, Schumer, and other leading Democrats, student loan "forgiveness" is a priority? A few blogs back, I posted about the government's "Three Stooges Approach to Solving Problems," problems they created. Here is another one. College costs are out of control. There are many reasons, from far too many administrators to professors only teaching a course or two. And a large part of the spiraling costs of the past few decades has been federal government involvement in student loans. If you want to see how that resulted in higher college costs, necessitating more loans for students, as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." Simply put, when colleges saw that they were going to get their money thanks to government guarantees, it was a license to jack up the price of a higher education. What about those loans that won't be repaid, that is, which will be canceled? Somebody is left hanging with the bill. Is it government which paid the college costs, but now won't be reimbursed? So, it is really the taxpayers who are left holding the bag--again. And, of course, there are private lenders, too. What signal is being sent by this? You can borrow money, but don't have to really pay it back? I believe it was President Herbert Hoover (I know, quoting him might be a stretch!), who once responded in opposition to suggestions that First World War European debts to the US be forgiven, "They hired the money, didn't they?" Then pay it back! (Most didn't. Finland and a couple of other nations repaid us, but that was about it.) "Yeah, lend me the money. Sure I'll pay you back." Wink, wink, wink. If college seems out of one's financial possibilities, there are options. Go to the local community college for a year or two. From what I've seen and heard, the education we (Yes, that's me, a community college professor talking.) provide is equal to the one received at the four-year schools. There is also work. Students can work while going to school. They may take longer to finish their degrees, but they won't have the heavy loans to repay. More and most personal to me, those of us who either repaid our loans or saved/sacrificed to avoid loans are saps. Will those who acted responsibly be repaid their tuition, room, board, and other expenses, expenses paid out of their own pockets? Ha Ha Ha. I believe Elizabeth Warren during the Iowa caucuses was asked this by a farmer who had acted responsibly. "What about me? I worked hard and saved to avoid the loans. Will I be reimbursed for doing the right thing?" Or something like that. Warren, in her arrogant elitism dismissed such a notion. "Of course not," Her Arrogance replied. No, Mr. Farmer, you are a sap. In your own words, you get "screwed" for acting responsibly and sacrificing. Once again, government has given people reasons to act irresponsibly. The doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") encourage bad behavior, once again even punishing good behavior.

A First Step?

The new administration has been mouthing words such as "We have to come together" and "We must unite." The President today said, "We are not enemies. We are neighbors." I say "mouthing" because until I see something other than empty words, I can't take these Democrats very seriously. How often they say one thing and do something quite different. (Isn't that lying?) Do "We have to come together" and "We must unite" include trying to expel Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz from the US Senate for challenging the Electrical College vote, something Pelosi's own choice of impeachment manager wanted to do, the exact same thing, in 2017? For that matter, how can we take any of these talking heads or newspaper editors spouting "togetherness" and "unity?" I haven't seen anything remotely resembling such suggestions. But I'm not really surprised; are you? I often don't know what or who to believe any more; there are liars on both sides. ("Character? Is that still around?") But I've heard things such as "deprogramming" and "re-education." Again, true? I don't know. But such talk should frighten everyone. "Hey, it can't happen here!" Who'd a thunk, a year ago, government could force thousands of businesses to close, schools to shut to the extreme detriment of our children, people to wear masks everywhere, etc.? (I am reminded of one of Sinclair Lewis's lesser known novels, "It Can't Happen Here." Lewis created a Depression-era scenario when the US becomes a fascist state. Opposition, such as the editor Doremus Jessup, is silenced--imprisonment without trial, disappearing, etc. It's well worth reading, particularly in light of how readily many/most Americans have given up their rights to autocratic governors today.) But back to my point. If Biden is serious, here's a suggestion. Wait a while, maybe a month?, and invite Donald Trump and Melania to the White House for dinner, purely as a social affair. Of course, if he does that, I might be so shocked that I'd have a heart attack! (But I'd survive. My days will be ended by "a bus" or "a bazooka." My physician told me that.) But it would be a start. And the Trumps might well decline. It would be a step, action instead of more empty rhetoric. Biden could also ask the House to withdraw its impeachment. If that's not possible, to take back the charge, they he could urge the Senate to vote against removal--unanimously. (I think it's unconstitutional, if not utterly stupid, to "remove" a guy from the Presidency if he is no longer the President. I know there are some Constitutional questions about banning Trump from ever running again, but I'd think that would be sorted out by the Supremes.) I suppose my suggestions are predicated that Biden really wants to unite Americans, other than "uniting" all under the Democrat Party banner. I am not sure he does; in fact, I doubt it. But if he is serious..... Then again, maybe Biden is just a puppet, strings being pulled by others with their own agendas.

"Selective...."

Several dictionary sites have chosen "pandemic" as the Word of the Year 2020. It would be tough to argue with that. The virus has destroyed 2020. Everyone's life has been affected by it. Yes, no complaints from me about "pandemic" other than I just plain don't like the word. Similarly, I believe it was the annual Lake Superior State University review that included "We're all in this together" as a phrase they'll be glad to see go. Me, too, since it's obvious to all but the unseeing that we are not all in this together. More evidence today--people are "jumping the line" to get their vaccine shots. It doesn't matter than some people might be more vulnerable, might need the shot more. After all, those "Old people, why do they need the vaccine? They're going to die anyway." So, "If I can cheat and get the shot instead of someone who might need it more, so what?" I'd really like to see which people are doing that. "We're all in this together," except when we're not. I have another candidate for a word that has played an important role in our society, but not just 2020. This started several years ago. I'm not sure how often people actually use the word, but it does describe much of how they act. "Selective." People have become very selective in their lives. It seems we have selective morality, selective outrage, selective principles (Does that make them really not principles then?), selective concern, and more. Some "experts" have dismissed this, that "selective" merely is employed to attack political, philosophical, and other opponents. I'm not quite so quick to dismiss it, but am willing to accept a different term if it fits. I suppose "hypocritical" can worm its way into the discussion. So can "self-serving." Perhaps frivolous, but a good example was an article in the newspaper the other day. The sports writer noted how the likes of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and others are kept out of the Baseball Hall of Fame because of their performance-enhancing drug use. OK, if Hall electors (sports writers, veterans' committee, or whoever) want to take a stand on that issue, fine. But, then, how can these same electors have inducted former commissioner Bud Selig to the Hall? Wasn't it under his watch (or non-watch?) that the whole PED thing exploded? Wasn't it sort of like Nero fiddling while Rome burned? (Actually, that, Nero fiddling, isn't true, but you get the point.) Why, then, are the players who used PEDs not selected while the man who looked the other way is? Why is Donald Trump roundly criticized for infidelity to his marriage(s), but Bill Clinton's similar escapades overlooked? Where was the National Organization of Women on that? Oh, Clinton was impeached (as was Trump, but over a far different "issue"), but he remained very popular despite being a scumball. Why are Trump's lies brought up at every turn, but most people ignored Barack Obama's untruthfulness, deliberate untruthfulness? It seems to me Obama's lies had more of a direct impact on lives than Trump's. "Follow the science" is another example of being "selective." If we are to "follow the science," shouldn't we consider all of "the science?" But we don't. We only "follow" what suits our agendas, our purposes. I'm old enough to remember the Time Magazine cover story of the '70s, "A New Ice Age?" Oh how we were warned! Fewer that 20 years later, it was "global warming" that was going to destroy our planet (and us). Well, maybe it's not really global warming, but "climate change." Remember the "acid rain" fears heaped upon us? Our lakes would be dead, all the plant and animal (fish) life killed off. The "science" told us that. Perhaps in part due to some societal changes we made, it never happened. The same thing is true of CoVid. Selective science is applied, science that supports some politicians' motives and agendas. They pick and choose what they use to set policy, to inform the citizenry. Oh, they trot out "experts," experts who say the "right" things. But why don't they (or the media!) also listen to or even publicize opposing views? "The science says....." Well, not all of the science says what is purported. Some very well known and respected scientists, including Nobel winners, have disagreed with the science that has been accepted. How "selective" we are in our outrage over the protesters. Those in DC, although only a very small fraction of those who were there, were "assaulting our democracy." Yep, I heard that from all of those lame-brained politicians, media pundits, and their "experts." So, it must be true, right? Why would they lie to us? Heh Heh. But all those summer riots, er, "peaceful protests," even against federal and state government buildings, police and fire stations, other government property, not to mention private homes and stores, was not an "assault" on anything, I guess. I remember nary a peep from these same people when cities were being burned last summer. Our outrage is "selective" when it affects us in a bad way, but if others face bad things, that's OK--we're not angry at all. There are many more examples. I, for one, am getting very, very tired of it. I suspect more and more people are, too.

Dazed and Confused

Here are a couple of brief thoughts I have had this AM. (I know. You don't believe they are "brief." Neither do I. Ha Ha Ha.) I am confused. I have been repeatedly told that not all Muslims are extremists and terrorists. (For the record, I do not believe that they are. Over the years, I've known many Muslims and considered them friends and more. But no doubt some will misinterpret what I write/say.) Yet, all those who support or even voted for President Trump are racists and bigots. Hmmm. (For the record, I don't believe that, either.) All summer I was led to believe that not all those rioters, er, "peaceful protesters" were doing violent things such as looting, burning, destroying, assaulting, and even murdering. But all those who showed up in DC last Wednesday were intent on insurrection, traitors who wanted to overthrow the US government. So which is it? When am I supposed to [spozda] believe "all of them" and when am I not? I think I need a scorecard. What I'm really looking for is a little intellectual honesty instead of blatant partisan hypocrisy and willful blindness. We can surely disagree, but let's at least be honest about our opinions. In a crossword I did this weekend was the clue "lese majeste." It's an old French term that means to do wrong or commit a crime against the ruler or, I suppose in a broader sense, the state or government. In a democracy, that's a dangerous concept. Henry Steele Commager, a history professor when I was at Amherst, once wrote that a society's most valuable members are its critics. He had an entire essay devoted to that idea. I fully agree, especially in a free society. That is the essence of the First Amendment. (Is that still around?????) It seems to me, though, that many Americans deire a return to "lese majeste." To them, a difference of opinion regarding our government, the direction it takes, who is elected, etc. is a crime--or at least they want to make it one. Oh, I have a lot more on my mind, but I wrote "brief" above. I think for now I'll stick to that.

January 6

I've been trying to organize my thoughts about the events of January 6. It has not been easy. My emotions have run the gamut, from extreme anger and frustration to deep sadness and hopelessness. The violent protesters of Wednesday need to be identified and punished, just like the violent protesters who burned down our cities, looted, etc. last summer. Period. It's hard to know where to start. It's no secret I am not nor ever have been a fan of President Trump. I won't rehash that here. (People can check my previous blogs.) Yes, I think he bears a great deal of blame for Wednesday. He has exhibited incredible irresponsbility, from the election right up to January 6. I expected nothing less; that's what he is, in effect, an irresponsible adolescent. He'll never grow up. Instead of show real leadership (which if he'd shown in his term as President, he'd likely have won the election without much problem) in contesting the election, he threw his equivalent of a tantrum. I do blame him. I found it almost unbelievable that he peppered his "Go home peacefully" Tweet with, "They stole the election. We know it. They know it. Everyone knows it." Talk about lighting a match next to a pile of gasoline-soaked rags! That spurred on his most delusional supporters. Was there, as Trump has claimed, "fraud" in the election? I really don't know. Like so much today, I don't know who to believe. But I do believe there was; I just don't know for sure. There were too many statistical anomalies, too many convenient coincidences, too many deviations from state laws and practices, etc. to assure confidence in the fairness of the election. And I certainly don't trust the Democrats who were in charge of much of this vote-counting. But believing isn't knowing. I find it interesting that when I make statements like this, that I think the Democrats are dishonest, scummy hypocrites, I am accused of being a Trumpster. Yet, at the same time, I have incurred the wrath (or at least displeasure) of Trump supporters when I express my extreme distaste for him. I mentioned to one of my brothers I'd likely upset people with this blog; he replied, "Go ahead and piss them off!!!" OK. If there wasn't much fraud (And how much is acceptable? A little? In just some places? None is!!!!!), it was certainly at the least incompetence, incompetence that borders on fraud. That said, I doubt, but again don't really know, if there were enough questionable votes to change the outcome. I don't know and nobody really knows. Believing isn't knowing. This election and subsequent ones must be investigated. Who will investigate? Politicians, either Democrats or Republicans? Bureaucrats appointed by and dependent upon Democrats or Republicans? Isn't that sort of like letting the foxes run the chicken coop? I kept hearing the blowhard politicans on Capitol Hill, the media pundits, and their "experts" sound off about the January 6 events as "an assault on our Democracy." I think the lack of faith in honest elections is as great, if not far greater, "an assault on our Democracy." Fair elections/Voting is the essence of "our Democracy." If they are violated..... More than that, I think, I was angriest at the sanctimonious self-righteousness (I use those terms a lot.) of the politicians, media pundits, and their academic "experts." I was not only angry, but insulted and frustrated. They got it all wrong! The politicians didn't make America-first, save our Democracy speeches. They provided cop-outs, political speeches aimed at further themselves. For all their talk about "healing," "coming together," "reuniting," well, these Senators and members of Congress were mostly pathetic, nauseating even. The "experts" glossed over the significance of the past. Have these idiots forgotten the threats posed to Washington, the Capitol building, "our Democracy" by the Civil War? Maybe one of them brought it up, but I didn't and haven't heard it. One was stupid enough to say this was a bigger threat than Pearl Harbor! But, again, I expected nothing less from these arrogant elitists, hypcrites that they are. (Why don't more people understand that?) For four years, the Democrats and their media lapdogs have stirred up division and hate. Hate and division, I guess, are OK when they benefit the Democrats (and their media lapdogs). If they are detrimental to the US, so what? From the day Trump was elected in 2016 (and I believe even Trump was surprised he won), they have driven a wedge between Americans. Anyone who denies this course of division and hatred is incredibly stupid, willfully blind, blatantly hypocritical--or all three! Now, though, it's not them--It's Trump! These are the one's insisting that the events of January 6 were "an assault on our Democracy." How many people, "protesters," were at the Capitol on Wednesday--tens of thousands? (I heard there was a "limit" of 35,000, but who knows how many "illegals"--ha ha ha--there were.) How many have been arrested? I heard on the radio last night fewer than 100. There may be more; I don't know. How many despicably broke into and entereed the Capitol? (I am not in the least way justifying this. Throw the book at them!) So, what fraction of one percent were "assaulting our Democracy?" (I'm not going to bring up the summer riots, er, "peaceful protests," many of which were encouraaged by these same Democrats and misreported by their lapdog media. Remember the CNN reporter who called them "mostly peaceful protesters" as an entire city block burned in the background of her report?) I am convinced all their talk of "impeachment" and "the 25th Amendment" are diversions, to rile up more people, to obfuscate the left's role in all of this. And they drag in as complicit in this "assault" Congressmen and Senators who dared challenge state electoral votes. In other words, to these politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, it's OK that some of these states' highly questionable election procedures go without scrutiny. Potential fraud and incompetence are just fine. In fact, those who stood up for the integrity of elections are being called responsible for what happened on January 6. "The Swamp" lives! It will use Wednesday to more firmly entrench itself. See what happens when you challenge it. You will be responsible for those who stormed the Capitol--YOU! Those jerk politicians and the media who talk about "the assault on our Democracy" are far greater threats to "our Democracy" than those few felons who attacked the Capitol. They'll just bring about its demise a little more slowly, gradually. Oh, I forgot, like Gretchen Whitmer, these blowhard hypocrites, arrogant elitists are "saving us." They never look in the mirror. Why should they? Haven't they proven they are smarter than we are, that they know what's best for us better than we do ourselves? (Ask Obama.) They cannot see the damage they have done and are doing to these United States. Perhaps they don't care. There's a lot more on my mind. My thoughts and emotions are still all jumbled. This is enough for now, but for one thing. I wasn't at all surprised the the media pundits and the "experts" they brought in got their American history wrong. No, I wasn't surprised at all.

Vaccine Passport?

I was reminded of this, in a different context, last week. No doubt you are familiar with the methodology of boiling frogs (or lobsters) to death. First, the government tells us what kind of light bulbs we can use. Then it's toilets. Shower heads. Televisions. Health insurance (But don't worry. "You can keep your policy. You can keep your doctor. It won't cost you an extra dime.") Masks. Businesses (but only certain ones) must close. Vaccine passports????? And then the frog was dead.