I agree that Michigan's governor has gone overboard with her power grab. I'm not arguing the necessity of her isolation orders, although I think I could. I could also question the illogic behind them. Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer's orders are, according to Michigan laws of 1945 and 1976, well, unlawful. As much as that, I think they are also unconstitutional and, especially, undemocratic.
I think a lot of people agree with me. (Obviously not everyone.) But many of those same folks who agree wouldn't agree with this. Despite the emergency manager laws, what former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, a Republican, also did fits the same bill--unconstitutional and undemocratic. I know, I know......
(Like I'm not arguing for or against the necessity or effectiveness of Whitmer's actions, I'm not arguing for or against the necessity or effectiveness of Snyder's actions. For the record, as this post demonstrates, I oppose both on principle.)
The situations are very different, but the end results are the same--unconstitutional and undemocratic actions by state executives. That some find Whitmer's and Snyder's actions different in this sense, seems to me, to be hypocritical. Either you believe in the right of people to govern themselves through elected representatives or you don't.
It reminds me of the public schools when they insist, "We're here for the kids," but always omit, "except when we aren't."
Sometimes, in practice, democracy is messy. It doesn't always turn out the way we like or want. That's part of, well, democracy. People aren't perfect and make mistakes. Sometimes they are big mistakes. But, again, either you believe in democratic principles or you don't. I really don't think you can pick and choose which principles and when to support.
If some of these cities and school districts went underwater, well, then rather than pick dictatorially someone to run them, let these entities sink or swim on their own. If one believes in democracy, one believes that the people will eventually work out of their messes. Or is democracy only for some people?
I believe a federal judge, in his opinion upholding Michigan's emergency manager statute, wrote this: "The act does not take away a fundamental right to vote because such a right has never been recognized by the courts." Huh?????? In a democracy, perhaps only the right to freedom of expression is more "fundamental" than the right to vote. Universal voting is the cornerstone on which representative government is based.
Consider this. Why, after the Civil War all the way up through the 1960s and 1970s, did so many white supremacists in the South work so hard to prevent blacks from voting?
Again, at the end of a long day, please overlook/forgive any typos......
Saturday, May 2, 2020
Thursday, April 30, 2020
"When Truth Mattered"
That was the title of a book review in today's newspaper. This isn't about the review, but it does play nicely into what I've been thinking about for a while. This also isn't about CoVid-19, although it also plays into my thoughts.
One of the casualties of the past couple of decades or more has been a loss of trust, of confidence, in many of our institutions. If institutions form the basis, the backbone, of a society, we might be in more trouble that many of us think. Which of our institutions can be trusted today?
How naturally, it seems, lies or, at the least, distortions flow. There is no shame in lying or even in getting caught. Dishonesty is de rigueur, as if some people are proud to be dishonest, not shamed by it. There's even a euphemism for lying, "misspeaking." But, of course, that is only used if one is caught in the lie.
I suppose dishonesty has been around forever. But there used to be a stigma attached to it. Once upon a time, liars and cheaters might well be ashamed or embarrassed by their dishonesty. Perhaps I was/am naive. Overt dishonesty, from lying and cheating to covering up lies, cheating, and other criminal activity seems to be an industry.
Did all this start with Bill Clinton, perhaps not his many dalliances, but his open lying to the American people, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski?" When it became apparent he did and that was a lie, he tried to change the definition of "is." OK, he was impeached, but not removed, acquitted by some of the same politicians who found the other party's defendants automatically guilty. But what was there really? Was he embarrassed? Was there, after maybe some initial shame, any repercussions? He was in huge demand after leaving office, getting hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars to speak. And, what are the ramifications of "Hey, if the President can cheat and lie about it with no consequences to speak of why can't I?"
Presidents since have lied, almost as a matter of policy. Other politicians have followed suit. Again, maybe his has been going on forever, but the dynamics of lying, cheating, and dishonesty in general have changed. Does anyone trust politicians? Does anyone have any confidence that what politicians say/promise is what they really mean?
What about our media? Loyal followers CNN, ABC, NPR, and the like are convinced they are getting the truth from these sources, even if proven not to be so. Likewise, those who watch Fox feel the same way. Can any thinking person trust any of them?
For decades our schools fabricated how well students were doing. The penalty was meddling by politicians and corporate-types, leading to the incessant testing, testing, testing. More and more, educators who seemed to have lost any knowledge of what quality, rigorous education entails, were faced with policies mandated by people who not only know less about education, but also had their own agendas. Dishonesty came with a price that time.
The list goes on. Who can trust the Catholic Church which continues to cover up many of its cases involving abusive priests? Weren't the Boy Scouts also doing the same thing, covering up abuses within its ranks?
I'm sure we'd, at least most of us, would mouth, "Of course truth/honesty matters!" But do we really believe it?
One of the casualties of the past couple of decades or more has been a loss of trust, of confidence, in many of our institutions. If institutions form the basis, the backbone, of a society, we might be in more trouble that many of us think. Which of our institutions can be trusted today?
How naturally, it seems, lies or, at the least, distortions flow. There is no shame in lying or even in getting caught. Dishonesty is de rigueur, as if some people are proud to be dishonest, not shamed by it. There's even a euphemism for lying, "misspeaking." But, of course, that is only used if one is caught in the lie.
I suppose dishonesty has been around forever. But there used to be a stigma attached to it. Once upon a time, liars and cheaters might well be ashamed or embarrassed by their dishonesty. Perhaps I was/am naive. Overt dishonesty, from lying and cheating to covering up lies, cheating, and other criminal activity seems to be an industry.
Did all this start with Bill Clinton, perhaps not his many dalliances, but his open lying to the American people, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski?" When it became apparent he did and that was a lie, he tried to change the definition of "is." OK, he was impeached, but not removed, acquitted by some of the same politicians who found the other party's defendants automatically guilty. But what was there really? Was he embarrassed? Was there, after maybe some initial shame, any repercussions? He was in huge demand after leaving office, getting hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars to speak. And, what are the ramifications of "Hey, if the President can cheat and lie about it with no consequences to speak of why can't I?"
Presidents since have lied, almost as a matter of policy. Other politicians have followed suit. Again, maybe his has been going on forever, but the dynamics of lying, cheating, and dishonesty in general have changed. Does anyone trust politicians? Does anyone have any confidence that what politicians say/promise is what they really mean?
What about our media? Loyal followers CNN, ABC, NPR, and the like are convinced they are getting the truth from these sources, even if proven not to be so. Likewise, those who watch Fox feel the same way. Can any thinking person trust any of them?
For decades our schools fabricated how well students were doing. The penalty was meddling by politicians and corporate-types, leading to the incessant testing, testing, testing. More and more, educators who seemed to have lost any knowledge of what quality, rigorous education entails, were faced with policies mandated by people who not only know less about education, but also had their own agendas. Dishonesty came with a price that time.
The list goes on. Who can trust the Catholic Church which continues to cover up many of its cases involving abusive priests? Weren't the Boy Scouts also doing the same thing, covering up abuses within its ranks?
I'm sure we'd, at least most of us, would mouth, "Of course truth/honesty matters!" But do we really believe it?
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
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
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
Saturday, February 22, 2020
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.
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.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
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......
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......
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
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."
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."
Monday, February 3, 2020
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
