November

November is the Presidential election.  No, I'm not going to grouse about the rotten choices we'll apparently have--again.  I won't convince supporters of either that their candidates are, well, rotten.  I see myself voting for a write-in candidate once again.  But I think I'm not going through all the rigamarole to be a write-in candidate myself.  I guess jumping through all those hoops isn't worth the thirty or so votes I received in 2016.  (That is, if people weren't lying to me about writing in my name.)

Are we going to have an election?  Of course I think we are.  But what kind of election will it be? With the corona virus still in play, as it will likely be, how will the elections be conducted?  If we are still under "social-distancing" orders (There's another term I don't like.), what will that do to election day? 

Are preparations being made, contingencies?  What about online voting?  By phone?  Perhaps the best option would be mass-mailing absentee ballots.  But what a headache!  Of course, any options other than the traditional voting day are going to be headaches.

With such an election, how long before the winner is declared "illegitimate," as if whoever won deliberately caused the corona virus to win the Presidency.  It, such a claim, will happen and will also gain credence among followers of the loser.  I'm convinced of that.

What if, say, only 23% of voters show up, the others staying home because of fears of the corona? (That recognizes that we usually get only 60%, give or take a few points either side, in Presidential elections)  Will that constitute a legitimate election?  Some might say that nonvoters made a choice to stay home, to not vote.  Is that a real choice, stay home or risk corona?  I don't know and perhaps I'm jumping the gun.  But as the Boy Scout motto reads, "Be Prepared."

Historically (There he goes with that history stuff again......), have past Presidential elections been "legitimate?"  For instance, although Union soldiers in the Civil War were given absentee ballots, I would think many of them didn't vote, either because they had other things go do (really?) or the ballots never reached them or were never returned to be counted.  Toss in the fact there were no elections in the Confederate states, at least none for the US President.  I guess one might argue the Southerners opted, through their actions, not to vote.  Still, it's interesting to note that Abraham Lincoln was never the President of the entire United States.  Hmmm......

Let's go back a bit farther in US History.  How legitimate were Presidential elections earlier, say before the Jackson campaign of 1828?  Six Presidents were elected, in effect, by white men of a certain age who had some means (wealth/property) and of a certain religion (still in some states until the 1830s).   Slaves couldn't vote; neither could Indians.  Nor could women.  Property qualifications were still in effect in many states.  So was membership in a particular religious denomination.  And those who didn't vote didn't do that because of choice.  They weren't legally permitted to vote.  The laws precluded that.  Even though legal in the strict sense of the word, were these Presidential elections legitimate relative to the ideas and ideals of the Declaration of Independence and, especially, the Constitution?

Food for thought.  While I'm at it, let me provide a little reading material, about a man who I find very inspirational.   Follow this link:  https://www.runmichigan.com/view.php?id=35030

George Washington

Today is George Washington's birthday--sort of.  First, his birthday is likely lost in that silly "Presidents Day" of last Monday.  I am pretty sure I've written about the folly of honoring all Presidents, including the likes of James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Warren Harding.  By celebrating all equally with a "Presidents Day," the greatness of those such as Lincoln and  Washington seem diminished.  Bah!

Second, Washington was really born on February 11, not 22, 1732.  (BTW, that's how I remember the square root of 3--1.732.  It was the year Washington was born.  Similarly, I remember the square root of 2--1.414.  That was the year Columbus wasn't born.  Ha Ha Ha!)  At the time, Britain still subscribed to the Julian Calendar, not the updated Gregorian Calendar.  That was due to religious conflict between the Church of England and the Catholic Church.  (Remember the Reformation?)  In 1752, Britain finally adopted the Gregorian Calendar, updating time with the sun by "adding" eleven days.  Hence, from February 11 to February 22.  (The commies switched Russia to the "New Style" calendar in 1918.)

I can't imagine there being a United States today without Washington.  Oh, there might well be one, but not like the one of today.  Perhaps we'd be like Canada.  A number of factors allowed the Americans to win their independence.  One was the assistance of foreign powers, most significantly France.  No France?  No American victory.  I think, too, that the Americans didn't really win as much as the British gave up; they were tired of wars.  A series of long wars, stretching back a century or more, had drained the British budget.  British merchants missed trade with the colonies and many clamored for peace.  But also a very key factor was George Washington.  No Washington?  I think no American victory.

Washington exhibited many key attributes.  He lost as much as he won, but was smart enough to know when to retreat rather than lose his army.  He ended up winning the war of attrition.  In many ways, during the war, Washington grew--like Lincoln later would do.  And, later in squashing the Newburgh Conspiracy in 1783 before it could get off the ground, he saved the young US from itself.

The story goes that, while negotiating the peace treaty in London, John Adams was asked by King George "What will your General Washington do now?"  The assumption was Washington would march his army into the capital and become the emperor/king.  But Adams replied that he thought the general would return to his farm at Mt. Vernon (like the Roman Cincinnatus).  The king considered this dubious; after all, France was only about fifteen years from Napoleon, who did just what the king thought Washington would do.  "If he does that," the king mused, "he'll be the greatest man in the world."  Indeed.

Later, too, Washington was a giant.  At the Constitutional Convention, the success of this grand experiment in self-rule was being challenged.  Despite our reverence for it today, the Constitution was not universally hailed at the time.  Many, including big names, opposed it.  The four largest states, with a combined population greater than that of the other nine states, balked at ratification.  That Washington agreed to serve as the presiding officer of the convention gave it and the product it produced, the Constitution, credibility.

Imagine who else could have been the first President under the Constitution.  I can't.  Adams, Jefferson, and Madison later became Presidents, but only after Washington had established the office.  Hamilton favored a monarchy, with himself as the Prime Minister!  There were no guidelines for Washington to follow; there had never been such a government position before.  How would he proceed, with vetoes, appointments to the Supreme Court, with foreign affairs, with everything?  Washington made the rules.  And he was tolerant, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.  He listened to both Hamilton and Jefferson, members of his Cabinet, who had different visions of this young US.  He led an army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, the western Pennsylvania revolt against the federal government, but then, against the recommendations of Hamilton to execute the leaders, pardoned them.  I don't remember if it was Washington or Augustus Caesar who once said, "I was never hurt by the bark of a dog.  Let them have their say."  Even if it was Augustus, it was a principle followed by Washington as President.  He was firmly in charge, but also showed great tolerance and compassion.

On most rankings of Presidents, Lincoln and Washington come in first and second, respectively.  I find no reason at all to dispute that.

Honesty?

What to do about those Houston Astros?  Hmmm......  Stealing signs using technology.  There seems to be an uproar which is out of proportion to, well, to everything.  Of course, I may be off base here.  (Pun intended.)  I don't know who first said it, "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'."  It's been ascribed to baseball and football players, NASCAR drivers, and even a WWF wrestler.

I don't subscribe to this, not in the least.  Cheating is one of the sins on my list of bad character criteria.  But the holier than thou rants from current players, media pundits, and even city councils (LA) ring hollow, very hollow.  Where were and are these players when their teammates use and used PEDs?  Did they speak up?  Did they turn in the offenders?  Should those teams and teammates who won rings forfeit those rings?  I know, I know......  "But that's different."  It's probably not possible to know what those writers who still vote to include the PED users in the Baseball Hall of Fame think of the sign stealing.  Do they condemn one, but overlook the other?

Perhaps different, perhaps not, but isn't any sign stealing dishonest?  After all, it's still called "stealing," right?  (For the record, when I played, I really didn't want anyone trying to steal and relay signs to me while I was hitting.)  So, what if the stealing is low-tech, such as using a telescope?  And don't managers, as soon as a traded players reach the locker rooms, ask what the players' previous teams' signs were?  You bet they do!

So, is it the use of "technology" itself?  Hasn't technology affected all aspects of sports?  Look at managers in the dugouts with their devices at the ready.  All that computer-generated data must provide some advantages.  What about all of the knowledge players now get from studies not at all available decades ago--strength training, diet, etc.?  Of course these are available to all players now, but they weren't then.  Should records set today not really be considered records?  After all, players today have advantages not available to players of the past.

(I'm only partly serious.)

I shook my head at hearing those Hollywood-types involved in the college admissions scandals are facing prison time.  C'mon.  Of course what they did was wrong, dishonest.  The Hollywood-types deserve punishment.  But what they did hardly rates a blip on the Richter Scale of crimes.  Fine them in proportion to their wealth; take good chunks from them.  Make them wear orange while they pick up papers from the freeways every weekend for a year or two.  Prison?  Give me a break.

Roger Stone?  I guess he was sentenced to 40 months in jail.  But weren't the original prosecutor requests for up to 9 years in prison?  Isn't even a sentence of 40 months excessive and inviting a pardon?  Maybe that's what they want.  This is a set-up and a Trump pardon will be met with "Aha!  We told you so!"  But I am not sure I know what they "told" us.  I wonder what those who approve of such sentences for Stone or the Hollywood-types of the admissions scandals think of jailing illegal aliens.

Wasn't one of Stone's offenses/crimes "lying to Congress?"  I don't understand this, not at all.  Why aren't politicians, especially members of Congress and Presidents, ever tried and convicted of lying to us?  I would submit that their lies (And does anyone deny Americans are told such lies quite often?) are far more injurious to us than Stone's lies were to them.  I know, I know......  "But that's different."  But if one is lying to liars, what's the big deal, let alone the crime?

And what about telling lies to get pieces of legislation passed, to prevent the appointment of someone opposed by others,  or to bring charges against a political opponent?  Why aren't those "crimes" prosecuted?  Isn't the integrity of our government and political system more crucial than the integrity of baseball?  I know, I know......

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.