Impeachment

I continue to chuckle at how many journalists and commentators get it wrong.  No, not "four" Presidents have had impeachment proceedings brought against them.  It's been five.  But who's counting?  Certainly not people who expect us to think they "get it right" regardless if they don't.  By the way, three Presidents have been impeached.  All three were not removed.

With all of the garbage being tossed at us from all sides, I'm not sure what Donald Trump did or didn't do.  In light of what recent Presidents have done, I am convinced, if they weren't impeached, then the charges against Trump are ridiculous.

Toss in the fact that Democrats were talking "impeachment" before Trump was even inaugurated and things become clearer as to intent.  Nancy Pelosi said that "...American voters should choose the President."  So why is it she thinks that Congress, the House in impeaching and the Senate in convicting, should determine who the President is?  More, she thinks the Democrats in Congress are the ones who should "choose the President."  Her and their actions speak far louder than her and their words.

I'm still confused by the charges, "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress."  "Abuse of power?"  Where were the Democrats when Obama used the IRS and other federal executive agencies to attack political opponents such as Tea Party and other conservative groups?  (I wonder if many know some progressive organizations, "enemies?," were also targets.)  Remember the name "Lois Lerner?"  Heh Heh.  "Obstruction of Congress?"  Obama's Attorney-General Eric Holder was held in "contempt of Congress."  Hmmm.  Doesn't that suggest "obstruction of Congress," at the very least?  And, for that matter, what is "obstruction of Congress?"  Isn't there a natural tendency for the Executive and Legislative branches to be at odds at least some of the time?  Don't we call that "Separation of Powers" and "Czechs and Norwegians?"  I know, I know.  "But that's different."

I laughed at the headline in one recent newspaper.  "GOP sends message Trump's actions were OK."  Here we go, another indictment of journalists, at least this one.  First, that's not what a not guilty verdict will say.  It says that Trump may or may not have committed these "actions," but they are not cause for removal.  So, in keeping silent about Obama's many "sins," voting pretty much as a party not to remove Bill Clinton (who actually did commit crimes!), etc., were the Democrats sending a message that Obama's and Clinton's actions were OK?

More, something this journalist must not have considered.  A number of members of the House of Representatives have lied, blatantly so, and behaved, quite frankly, with open bias and bigotry.  Some have displayed immoral and unethical behavior--on more than the impeachment circus.  Where are the Democrats in the House in, again at the very least, bringing censure proceedings against their fellow party members?  Yep, their silence is deafening and would reasonably lead Americans to think "Democrats send message that their House members' actions were OK."

I have written more than once to my elected members of Congress about this.  I have asked them to show honesty, courage, and integrity, rather than blind party loyalty.  I have asked them why they haven't introduced censure proceedings against their fellow Democrats.  Either I receive no responses or some innocuous blather not much related to the issue.

I once heard a wise man say, "If you accept it, you condone it."  Again, I know, I know.  "But that's different."

Halftime--Super Bowl

I can't believe it's been more than two months since I've posted on my blog!  Wow!  Tempus Fugit--time flies.  There has been a lot to say and I've thought about much.  I just haven't had a lot of time--or engerney [sic].  Perhaps later this week; with my February column finished and classes starting to roll smoothly, I'll have opportunities to post.  We'll see.

In the meantime, I watched very little of the Super Bowl.  I really have little interest.  I don't remember many, if any, of the commercials.  Someone told me a 30-second spot cost more than $5 million.  I think it's safe to say I haven't earned close to half of that in 50+ years of working.  I believe in free enterprise, but to spend that much money for commercials seems obscene to me.  But it's not my money and I don't begrudge anyone theirs.

I saw maybe five minutes of the halftime "show."  That was more than enough.  Almost immediately I thought, "This is borderline pornography."  I admit I might just be an old fogy, lost in decades past with their notions of decency.  I admit I never heard of that Shaka (?) performer.  (It wasn't Shaka Khan!)  As for Jennifer Lopez, I've certainly heard her name, but can't name a single song or movie or whatever she's done.  And if shown her photograph, I'm sure I couldn't identify it as her. 

What was with the scantily-clad women?  Of course, even on prime time television that's pretty much become de rigueur, hasn't it--women and sometimes men with few clothes.  But in the few minutes I watched, there was a stripper's pole, innumerable sexual gestures, and, I guess, more.  Several women much younger than I at yoga this AM expressed how bad this show was, citing the "sexy"nature of it.  The short time I was in the car today, three different radio hosts remarked at this, too.

One of the radio hosts opined that "many parents" probably sent their kids out of the room during the halftime show.  I doubt that.  My guess is that, considering what's on television and in movies, most of them thought nothing of the show, certainly nothing indecent.  I hope I'm wrong.

More, to me, is to wait for the reaction to the women's groups.  I would guess some women might see the antics of these two women and their casts as "empowering."  I find that laughable.  How many years have these same women protested against the objectification, the demeaning of females?  Where is the #MeToo movement on this?  After all, didn't the doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") force the Miss America Pageant to eliminate the swimsuit competition?  (I'm not certain about that, but think it's so.)  

How hypocritical!  In the end, I don't care what those Hollywood-types wear--or don't wear.  I suppose diligent parents can control what their kids watch.  But for those women's groups to remain silent in the face of such as the Super Bowl halftime show is the height of hypocrisy.  It reminds me  of how they claimed Bill Clinton was the "first feminist President."  Yeah, sure.  Ask Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Leslie Millwee, and Kathleen Willey.  Clinton's hypocritical defenders called these accusers "tramps," hinting at "trailer trash."  The politics of convenience.  I know, I know.  "But that's different."

If, for various reasons, protest groups boycott Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby (boycotts which I find stupid), shouldn't we expect a women's boycott of Pepsi, the sponsor of this halftime show?  Don't hold your breath.  People show an increasing tendency toward situational and selective "outrage."

Impeachment?

I thought we were done with this, cries for impeachment of Supreme Brett Kavanaugh.  Most if not all of the Democrat Presidential hopefuls have either called for impeachment proceedings or have suggested them.  I have a question for these folks.  How did they stand on the vote not to remove Bill Clinton from the Presidency 20 years ago?  After all, several of the Dems referred to Kavanaugh as "lying under oath" to Congress, although is it "lying" if Kavanaugh denied doing something that never happened?  Clinton, too, lied under oath and had his license to practice law in Arkansas suspended for five years.  He also, due to the lies, was disbarred from Supreme Court practice, although I think he voluntarily gave up that to preclude further penalties/punishments.  So, if Kavanaugh should be impeached due to lying under oath, which it more and more appears he wasn't remotely doing so, what about Clinton?  What about the Democrat Senators  who, if I recall, voted unanimously "not guilty?"

And I have lost a lot of interest in the Democrats' impeachment efforts toward President Trump.  It seems to me much ado about nothing.  But I am willing to concede maybe there is something somewhere.  I hear talk of Trump's behavior as "unconstitutional."  Yep, I understand that.  But what about other Presidents who have had their actions overturned by the Supremes?  Weren't those Presidents acting, then, "unconstitutionally?" Why weren't there impeachment proceedings against them?

I know this will elicit howls and maybe even name-calling (but I'm used to it), but where were such strident impeachment calls against Obama?  Can anyone, with a straight face, deny that he exceeded on far more than one occasion his Constitutional powers?  That is, he acted unconstitutionally.  So.....?

Yet, instead of actually doing anything (and that they aren't is likely a good thing?), the Clown Show called the US Congress proceeds.  Here's how much of a circus it is.  Last week, my represenative sent a newsletter touting the latest achievement of hers.  She helped pass legislation protecting pets.  I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of our pets.  But one would think their are thousands of anti-cruelty-to-animals laws in this country--state and local laws.  But, I guess in a Clown Show, that is a big deal.

History

I know history isn’t important.  It doesn’t have its own place on the public school state tests.   For years if the coach or art teacher (or someone) didn’t have enough classes to teach, he/she was given a history class or two.  After all, “It’s just history.”  (If "Anyone can teach," what do we ask about one teaching history?)  

I was once, at one of the colleges, asked to fill in at the last minute (an emergency) for another history class.  I agreed and asked the dean relevant questions:  What course was it?  What was the subject/topic for the day?  She just replied, “I don’t know.  It’s history.”  She dismissed me with, “History is history.” 

It seems fewer and fewer college students are majoring in history.  Many people see it as a “dead-end” subject, one that doesn’t lead to jobs.  I'm sure students are counseled to believe that.  They are told this by family members and others. How short-sighted and narrow-minded is that?

Last September, I received a schedule of events for the Amherst Homecoming Weekend later in October.  At Homecomings (and Reunions) the college presents activities for the Alumni, often classes, lectures, panel discussions, to attend.  (Yeah, I’ve heard the jokes.  “Do you have to take a test?”)  I noted that, at least on this schedule, there were no history classes (the students' history classes) for the Alumni to sit in on.  There were economics, English, math, a variety of sciences, etc., but not a single history course.  Maybe, I hope, history classes don’t meet on Fridays?  Yeah, that must be the reason, not that nobody is interested in history.

That said, reading history, especially written by gifted writers like David McCullough, Joseph Ellis, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and others, is not just entertaining, exciting to read.  Episodes of the past, requiring very little imagination, can easily be seen in our times and lives of today.  Are these the lessons of history teachers speak of?  ("...teachers speak of?"  I remember what Winston Churchill purportedly said about the rule to never end a sentence with a prepostion.  "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put."  So there!)  

A Russian official in the ‘50s said, “The American loves his car, his refrigerator, his house.  But he does not love his country.”   Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but I think maybe that, in a sense, pertains to today.  Do we love our NFL, reality and other television shows, vacations, and other creature comforts more than we love or at least appreciate the country that has allowed us to have them?  For many Americans, it sure seems so.  They take things for granted.  Many think they “deserve” things, as if getting them is a “right.”  (Everything is a “right” nowadays.  I saw a headline the other day claiming, “Clean water is a right.”)  And for a good number of them, getting those things for free, that is, paid for by others, is also a “right.”  Often, such an attitude is buttressed by politicians pandering for votes.

.  

History can teach us, if we are willing to learn, that what we have today did not always come easily.  Many people had to work hard, sacrificed their lives, etc. so we can live as we do.  I read a story way back when about Lech Walesa, the Polish leader of the union Solidarity.  Solidarity took the lead in what was to lead to the downfall of the commies in Poland.  He spoke of the US Bill of Rights.  He urged Americans not to take the Bill of Rights for granted, claiming he read it every day.  Here is a guy who was beaten and imprisoned, whose life was always on the line, who had his family threatened, all to want for Poles what we have here in the US.  He is telling us that our rights do not come cheaply, that they are not automatic.  There were many people in US history who experienced the same dangers as Walesa.  We should know about them.

I thought about this the other day, too.  Today, the US has the best football players and perhaps other athletes in the world, but do we have the best teachers in the world?  Is the answer a given?  And the way we compensate those groups, we are likely to perpetuate that.  But that's a topic for another day.

"We believe....

...in democracy, except when we don't."

That seems to be the going thing, especially by the arrogant elitists out there.  (I know the arguments that there are no "democracies," not per se.  I don't agree and have written about that before.)  Apparently, if the people decide/vote the ways the upper crust want them to vote, all is fine and dandy.  Democracy works!  But if they don't, well, it doesn't and the arrogant ones have to save us from ourselves.

I was reminded of this with the continuing Brexit battle in Britain.  In 2016, if I remember, British voters opted to leave the European Union.  The margin was slim, about 5%, but the turnout was pretty high.  The reasons aren't important here.  The British voters may have been right, may have been wrong.  But, if one believes in a democracy, that people can rule themselves (at least indirectly), don't people also have the right to be wrong?  And if one believes in democracy, one also believes that, eventually, people will get things right.  In Britain, those who know better are putting up a whale of a battle to prevent Brexit.  Apparently they are winning.

I think that is happening here in the US.  The arrogant elitists are trying and have been for going on three years now, to overturn the 2016 Presidential election.  Like Don Trump or not (and I don't), he was duly--legally and Constitutionally--chosen President of the US.  But those who are smarter than the rest of us have worked hard, expending and wasting how much time, energy, money, and other resources, to undo what Americans did.  The doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") are trying to save us from outselves.

This one is more tenuous, especially here in Michigan.  I am not a fan of "emergency manager laws."  They have been used, with moderate success, by governors to save citizens from themselves.  Duly elected, say, school boards have been replaced by appointed emergency managers.  I understand that sometimes money comes from other sources than the school districts or cities and an argument might be made that, having a vested financial interest, outside bodies/people can step in.  I'm not sure I buy that.  Is it naive of me to believe that if people/voters choose the wrong paths, they should be able to sink or swim on their own?  Should cities and school districts (at least their government functions)  be allowed to collapse from the weight of their own incompetence and/or corruption?  It's a tough question. 

But it leads me back to my original statement, "We believe in democracy except when we don't."  It reminds me of what I've said about schools for years.  Those who run them are fond of the refrain, "We're here for the kids."  I add something.  "We're here for the kids except when we're not."  By the way, I don't necessarily believe in that, that education is necessarily primarily "for the kids." But that's a topic for a future post.

China?

I got a big laugh out of all this kerfuffle (and that's a pretty cool word!) over the NBA and China.  What's the big deal?  Other than NBA players (according to one sports column I read), "who are caught in a mess they know little about," who doesn't know all about Communist China?  It's been, since 1949 (and before) a brutal dictatorship.  But who cares? 

Our President offered "Congratulations" for the seventy years of brutal dictatorship, complete with massive human rights violations, millions of imprisonments, and ten millions of murders.  (No, I don't believe Trump was sending any sort of subliminal message.)  Our former governor frequently lauded his efforts to open trade between Michigan and  China.  A past state superintendent of schools, now some sort of consultant, often refers to "my friends the Chinese."  And how many of our corporations have overlooked all these abuses to do business with the commies in China?  All that money......

Besides the human rights violations and perhaps up to a million murders in the past seven decades, the commies have stolen our corporate patents and intellectual property, hacked into our government and military secrets, etc.  Yet, how proud Americans are with their relationship with such murdering tyrants!  Nothing of such dealings with the US can occur without commie approval; so, then, who are the Americans dealing with?  Yep......

But, that's OK.  It's all about the money.  It's always all about the money.  The Chinese government can run over protesting individuals with tanks.  They can shoot, in cold blood, protesters in Hong Kong.  Let's go back a few decades and remember the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. 

It's not just the NBA which is groveling to the commies.  It seems like most of corporate and political America has been doing the same thing.  We've had Presidents sell US techonology secrets to the Chinese military.  US-based airlines, clothing manufacturers, and hotel chains have kowtowed to the commies, fearful of offending them and putting all that money in peril.  Again, I ask, what's the big deal with the NBA?  We've already sold our souls to the devil.  (Remember, "...but the economy's good.")  Surely we don't want to offend our friends the Chinese.  Money-grubbing takes precdence.

When Congress voted to open trade with the Chinese several decades ago, many of the so-called "experts" hypothesized that would liberalize China, that society and government there would open up, with more rights, economic and political.  That doesn't appear to have happened, does it? 

(Remember, though, the NBA didn't stop players from wearing "Hands Up, Don't Shoot," despite that meme being false.  The NBA punished Charlotte, NC by taking away the All-Star game because of a law requiring transgenders to use the rest rooms that coincided with their gender at birth.  It was critical of President Trump's ban on immigrants from several Muslim nations that export terrorism.  Apparently the NBA is fine with protesting injustices in the US, but not with far more egregious ones in China.  And don't get me started on Nike and that Kaepernick guy.  "Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything."  Well, we can't expect billions of dollars to be "sacrificed," can we?)

Granted, there probably isn't much we can do to help the Hong Kong protesters, who are, after all, just seeking the same rights we have.  But we don't have to grovel to the despots for the sake of getting all that money from the lucrative Chinese market.  But do we turn our backs of those seeking freedom to defend one of the most brutal regimes in all of human history?  Apparently we do.

I would say, of the money grubbers, "Shame on you!"  But I have long thought shame is something which has disappeared in these United States.

Please excuse any typos and other errors.  I'm too tired to proofread.

The Electrical College and Flavored Vaping

After a newspaper erroneously printed an obituary of the still living Mark Twain, he quipped, "Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated."  I didn't realize it's been since July that I've posted here.  At may age, I wonder if any thought......

I've had lots to think about, lots to confront and to be confronted by, etc., but have just been far too busy for a retired guy.  Each of the last three weekends, I had on my list of things to do, "Blog!"  I ran out of time, I guess.

One thing that seems to be gaining momentum is the National Popular Vote plan.  I strongly oppose that.  The idea is to get rid of the Electrical College.  It's not hard to figure out who is behind that, considering that of the last five Presidential elections twice Democrats won the national popular vote but, due to the existence of the Electrical College, lost the elections.  (I'm going to resist saying, "Poor losers!")  According to the plan, a state which signs on agrees to assign all of its Electrical votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, even if that candidate loses in that state.  First, there are historical reasons for the existence of the Electrical College.  I don't think they are obsolete today.  Second, NO!!!!!!  I don't want my vote wasted just because of what voters in the other states want.  I want my vote counted, whether for a minor party candidate or a write-in candidate.  Why should my vote count for less than some California voter?  For that matter, why should my vote not count at all?  Third, this is another way some folks are trying to circumvent the Constitution.  (I know, I know.  "The Constitution is just a document that was written by old white men."  Try reading it and thinking about it before agreeing with that ignorant comment.)  I believe about 15 states have already signed on the the National Popular Vote plan, states whose Electrical votes add to 196.  (Double check my figures.)  Only a handful of states, whose votes total another 74, will put the plan into action.  That is, a minority of the states can circumvent the Constitution in this instance.  That, my friends, is frightening and wrong!  I hope Michigan isn't foolish enough to sign on to this.

Michigan's governor has issued a decree banning flavored vaping types.  (I don't know much about vaping, so am unaware of the proper terminology.)  The idea is to help prevent teen-age use and the accompanying health concerns and even deaths that occur from vaping.  Does the governor and those who have cheered the decree really think this will prevent vaping from youths to any degree?  I really doubt it.  Isn't smoking a "health crisis," as the governor cited to rationalize her vaping ban, for kids, too?  Isn't smoking a bigger danger for kids, esp for the long haul, than vaping?  (I'm just guessing it is.)  Kids are prevented from smoking by laws, too, right?  Ha Ha Ha.  For that matter, isn't underage drinking a far bigger problem than vaping?  Don't flavored alcoholic drinks attract youthful and illegal drinkers?  So, why doesn't the governor ban those sweet drinks?  Hmmm......  I can think of some reasons, none of which make sense in light of the governor's professed ban on flavored vaping.  Why should adult vapers (as opposed to "vapors?") also be prohibited from the flavors?  After all, they can still purchase and drink the flavored alcoholic beverages.  And they can still smoke.  Should we consider the precedent of Big Government again stepping in and prohibiting things it doesn't like?

I have several other topics, but this is long enough for today.  Besides, I have essays to grade, the first of the term.  Ugh!  I'll try to get to those topics by this weekend.  As usual, I'm not going to proofread this, so please overlook any typos.