1863

Today is the 157th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Although some historians consider his Second Inaugural to be his "greatest" speech, I think it was the Gettysburg Address--not to take anything from the Second Inaugural. And, if not his "greatest," perhaps his delivery at Cooper Union in February 1860 was Lincoln's most important. The speech at Cooper Union, according to Harold Holzer, "made Abraham Lincoln President." I agree. In New York, at Cooper Union, Lincoln accepted an invitation to speak in front of one of his chief adversary's (Salmon Portland Chase--no, I know it sounds fishy, but that was his name) supporters and on the home turf of one of his other opponents (William Seward). His success there won him the Republican nomination, not without a fight, and, hence, the Presidency. And if Lincoln hadn't been elected President..... But back to Gettysburg. Lincoln was not the featured speaker; that was Edward Everett former US Senator and president of Harvard, one of the silver tongues of the age. The occasion was the dedication of the cemetery in which about 7-8,000 soldiers were buried after the decisive Battle of Gettysburg the previous July. The President was invited almost as an afterthought, receiving a request to deliver a few words only a few weeks before hand. (The dedication was delayed for about two months, not quite, to allow Everett to recover from a stroke or heart attack (I forget which). No, he didn't write the speech on the back of an envelope on the train ride from Washington to the small Pennsylvania town. He put a great deal of thought into it. There are several drafts, five or six, and some evidence that he was polishing one of them the night before. Purportedly, one of the "drafts" was written afterward, when a friend asked Lincoln for the copy. Not wanting to disappoint his friend since all the drafts had gone elsewhere, he wrote what he thought/remembered he had said 272 words, that's all it was. But what words they were! After the speeches, Everett purportedly said to Lincoln, "I wish I could have said in two and a half hours what you said in two and a half minutes." That, "two and a half minutes," might have been stretching it. Many in the audience didn't even know the President had started, let alone finished, his address. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address transformed what Jefferson called, "The Empire of Liberty." Lincoln didn't believe that blacks and whites were equal; after all, he was still, in part, a man of his times. But he did strongly hold that blacks and whites shared the opportunity for equality. In fact, that is what the Gettysburg Address did. It changed the way Americans came to view the Declaration of Independence (To Lincoln, the Declaration, not the Constitution, was the bedrock on which American priciples and ideals rested.) and the entire American experiment. No longer were freedom and liberty the sole focuses (foci?). Equality took its place among them. "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." That was key, a firm recommitment to the Jeffersonian ideal that "all men are created equal," blacks and whites both. He knew this would take time to catch on, for people to accept this. Lincoln understood people. They won't hear an idea until they are ready to listen to it. (How long has it taken people to heed the greatest message of all time, that of Jesus, "Love thy neighbor as thyself?" Not only didn't people listen then; they killed Jesus.) Indeed, his Gettysburg Address was met with mixed reviews, some very critical, "not worthy of an American President." It wasn't just the message, but its presentation. The words were poetic. Why not just say, "87 years ago..." or even "In 1776....?" No, he wrote "Four score and seven years ago....." Doing the math, he traced the beginnings of the American experiment to 1776, the year of the Declaration, not the victory over Britain or the adoption of the Constitution. Although many, especially in the audience that overcast day, didn't realize it, he likened the soldiers who died to those of Pericles 2,000 years before. Like the Greeks, the Union soldiers who fell on those July days died for us, for our democracy. "We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract." It was up to future Americans to make certain that "these dead shall not have died in vain." To me, at least, the Gettysburg Address remains the greatest articulation of the concept of self-rule: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." And Lincoln wrote it.

Some Virus Thoughts

I'm not an epidemiologist or virologist and never have played one on television. So I might be all wet on these thoughts. But it sure seems to me we have been going all wrong on this CoVid thing. Toss in that I have no idea who to believe on CoVid stories and "facts," although the "facts" always seem to be changing, some no longer "facts" at all. If the virus is coming back now, "with a vengeance" read one newspaper headline, maybe we should rethink how we are dealing with it. I'm not minimizing the severity of the disease, not at all. Anyone who does is being myopic. But, at the same time, there is such a thing as an overreaction. I think in many ways, that's what we have done, overreacted and often in very harmful ways. It still perplexes me that it seems almost everyone believes and follows what the politicians/governments are saying about the virus. At the least, politicians are the least trustworthy group in American. That's what the polls/surveys indicate again and again. They also have much to gain from their actions, even if they are wrong-headed. That is, playing politics with the virus can be rewarding, especially with nonthinking voters. So why do most people so blindly trust what our government officials say? Bureaucrats, too, have much to gain and little to lose. Most of them certainly don't have to worry about losing their jobs. In fact, the more useless paperwork they create, the more their jobs become "essential" and permanent. Are they ever held accountable? Given the unknown nature of the virus back in March, I'll concede a month or so of the initial responses. But once we found out that the most vulnerable were senior citizens and others with premorbidity conditions, why did states (like Michigan and New York) continue to move infected people into old folks' homes? If we discovered that kids, that is those under 20 years old, were not any more affected by the virus than the regular season flu, why were schools still shut down, with remote-learning? The media, too, have become complicit in the hysteria. A week or so ago, the headline read, "School-Age CoVid Hosptial Cases Surge in State." Hmmm. That sounds pretty serious. Reading the article, though, led to the discovery that there were "18" such cases in the entire state. Wait a minute? In a state with about 1.7 million school-age kids (according to the Michigan Dept of Ed Web Site), "18" is a "surge?" Isn't that about .0001 of a percent? (Where's my calculator?) A reasonable reader might well take such a story as hyperbole, an exaggeration not to be taken seriously. Yet we've been bombarded with such stories. Every day there are new lists of CoVid cases and Covid-related deaths. And they fan the flames of fear. The politicians, especially the Democrats, and their lapdog media, eager to curry favor or sell newspapers or show their sanctimonious intellectual superiority over the rest of us, have created a climate of fear. Who can blame people for being afraid of dying? "Do you want to die?" Well, actually, I can blame them. Had these fearful people thought about things instead of blindly following the least-trustworthy politicians and the opportunistic media, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. One of my e-mail regulars reminded me of something I wrote in a blog some months back. In light of the virus, I wondered what was going on in New Hampshire. After all, the state motto, it's even on the license plates, is "Live Free or Die." Are the citizens of New Hampshire caving in to the restrictions on our liberties and freedoms as easily as people in other states? Or has "Live Free or Die" been canceled as coming from old white men? The economist in me keeps thinking of "cost-benefit analysis." I know it was, a while ago, de rigueur to apply business practices to government operations. "Zero defects," "best practices," etc. were some catch-phrases. (For the record, I'm not at all convinced government or schools can always be based on business practices; they are different animals. But that's a topic for another show.) Why haven't the politicians applied "cost-benefit analysis" to the Covid response? Not everyone was "going to die" from Corona. As noted, young kids were not. Personally, I was never "going to die," not in the physical condition I am in. (Besides, even if I was in jeopardy, it's a matter of personal choice, not a dictatorial government mandate.) Yet, the harmful effects of the lockdown have affected far more people, in the worst of ways, than the China virus (Oops! That makes me a racist.) ever has. Note, again, school-age kids. The odds of them dying from CoVid are not much different from the regular/seasonal flu. We don't shut down schools every year during flu season, do we? Why not? Don't we care if our kids die? No, that's not it at all. The minuscule odds of kids dying from the regular/seasonal flu don't outweigh the detriments of closing schools, having virtual classes, etc. If we are going to "follow the science," as our politicians, bureaucrats, media, and other doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") constantly remind us, why don't we follow it with kids? No one in any right mind can argue the remote learning is remotely (ha ha ha) close to traditional face-to-face/in-person classes. That's especially so for the younger kids. Child psychiatrists and psychologists have demonstrated children are being harmed in many ways other than educationally. These include psychologically, socially, and even physically. (Perhaps more detail will come in a future blog. But don't take my word for it. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") Why isn't that "science" being followed? In adults, substance (drugs and alcohol) abuse has skyrocketed. Suicides and spousal abuse have risen dramatically. I haven't checked, but I'd suspect so has violent crime (outside of the "peaceful protests," of course). How many people's lives have been worsened or even ruined by the loss of businesses, jobs, and income? I know, I know. "At least they aren't dead." No, the "science" shows the overwhelming majority of these people would not be "dead." And no, this isn't being selfish or greedy, not at all. Perhaps it's selfish and greedy to put one's own health (with really minimal dangers?) before the ruination of others' lives and livelihoods? I guess it's easy to pontificate so sanctimoniously about "saving lives" when one hasn't lost a business, job, or income. Again, maybe I'm all wet on this. Maybe I am wrong. I do know I don't trust the information we are being given. I also refuse to live my life in fear of the virus. I'd like to take the Michigan governor's orders and tell her where to stick them, but I can't go into a restaurant to eat; they are closed. I can't teach my classes in-person; my bosses have closed the college. I can't have a big gathering at my house; I don't have any friends. Perhaps the biggest casualty of Corona 2020 is thinking. People either have forgotten how or refuse to think for themselves. Perhaps that was inevitable as the US moves closer to a country where the government (and its left-leaning politicians) promises to take care of citizens from cradle to grave--at the expense of liberty.

"Biden Elected"

That was the headline in Sunday AM's newspaper. What struck me first, before the depression set in, was the absence of an exclamation point at the end. This surprised me because the Detroit Free Press doesn't hide its strong liberal bias. I guess even with the biased media, there is no real enthusiasm for Biden. More even than the preliminary results on Wednesday AM, this headline cemented the malaise I knew would come--regardless of who won the election. I had this same dispirited feeling in '16 as well as '08 and '12. How disheartening that, in a country the size of the US (335 million people), these are our choices. There are reasons, I suppose, but that might be fodder for a later post. For the US Senate seat in Michigan, a really sound candidate, John James, was defeated by the incumbent, Gary Peters. I find this tragic, really tragic, in more ways that one. Most important, that James lost is likely to discourage other good candidates from running. The likelihood of defeating an incumbent, esp one with almost 25 years in politics, appears very small. Why waste time, effort, and money? Why put yourself and even your family through the mud bath called a "campaign?" So, in Michigan, we are stuck with two Democrat lap dogs in the US Senate. It would be nice to sit down and ask our two US Senators why they voted to remove Don Trump in the impeachment trial, especially when the "evidence" against him appeared so bogus. No, they don't really respond to e-mails. Often I get no response. Sometimes I get them six or more months (yes months!) later. And sometimes the responses have nothing to do with the issues I brought up. But, back to the Presidential election. Yes, I think there was some fraud. I don't think there was enough to swing the election back to Trump, but I don't know. One way or another--fraud, incompetence, technology mistakes--this election does little to affirm any confidence in our electoral process except, I suppose, to Biden supporters. I think Trump deserves his day in court. Again, I don't think anything will come of it, that the results will change. But there are enough irregularities to merit some scrutiny. Apparently quite a few people have signed affidavits that they witnessed illegal election activities. In Michigan and other states, software problems transposed votes; that is, Biden received Trump's votes and vice versa--in heavily Republican counties. How many dead people voted? Who knows what to believe? But it's claimed a guy who died in 1984, who would now be 138 years old!, voted in Michigan. Several other people almost 120 years old, also with death certificates, voted here, too. Enough to change the results of the election? Not likely. But to restore confidence in the integrity of elections is worth investigating. And, if wrong-doing is uncovered, throw the book at the wrong-doers! Biden's calls for "unity" and "tolerance" ring very hollow to me. Where was all this sentiment for "unity" four years ago when the Democrats/Clinton lost? Oh, now that the Democrats have won, let's all play nice? From before Trump was even inaugurated, the Democrat obstruction was being planned and enacted. They lied and lied and lied in opposition. It was "Trump isn't my President!" and "Resist at all turns!" But now it's time to sing "Kumbaya." And what sort of "unity" is calling Trump voters names going to bring? In '16 and for four years, people who voted for Trump were all racists and bigots, really stupid people. The name-calling hasn't stopped. A NY Times op-ed called it "obscene" that 72 million Americans voted for Trump, suggesting they were moral failures. (Of course, voting for the scumbag Bill Clinton wasn't "obscene," wasn't an exercise in moral failure, nope!) An e-mail I received from a Trump hater marveled that after four years of Trump, people could still lack "common sense" and "decency." (I wonder if the letter writer refused to take his Trump tax cut!) After viewing the support Trump received, some people have said they now understand how "civilized, cultured Germans" chose Hitler. How ridiculous, especially in light of a call for "unity" and "tolerance." Maybe some of the Biden crew didn't get the memo that it's time to play nice. One thing that really befuddles me is the depth of hatred people have for Trump. Oh, I think it is easy to dislike and even hate him. He is a despicable man. But how deep must that hate be, how has it permeated some people's lives, that they would choose an obviously mentally incapable man such as Biden to be President? It's frightening that people can be so consumed with such hatred. As scummy as Bill Clinton was, as divisive as Barack Obama was, there wasn't that depth of hatred. Finally, Trump has nobody to blame for losing but himself. For one thing, he was never going to lose his base. Those people who cheered his adolescent tweets and comments were going to vote for him regardless. But, by continuing his childish behavior, he turned off people who might have voted for him because of the economy or because of the despicable behavior of the opposition Democrats and their complicit media partners, etc. Someone suggested to me, "What did you expect" from Trump? I guess Trump is who he is. He's incapable of growing up, of being an adult when it's time to be an adult. And that cost him another four years in the White House. Instead of directing their anger at the "stolen" election, perhaps they should direct it at Trump himself.

On Bozos and Other Thoughts

The United States is not alone in having Bozos for political/government leaders. I think Canadia [sic] has a real clown for a prime minister, Justin Trudeau. According to one report I read, from a reliable source, Trudeau recently addressed the beheading of a man in France for the man's criticism of Islam and Muhammad. Trudeau claimed he would "always defend freedom of expression," before going on to add, “Freedom of expression is not without limits.... We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet." We (or at least Canadians) apparently aren't guaranteed freedom of speech if it offends snowflakes; no, we can't make anyone uncomfortable. Regarding the context of Trudeau's comments, a question about the beheading of a Paris teacher who showed his students a cartoon that put Islam and Muhammad in a bad light, I wonder if Trudeau thinks beheading people for what they write, say, worship, etc. which "arbitrarily or unnecessarily injures" anyone, is OK. It sure seems ignorant giving a moral equivalence to a critical cartoon, novel, or even personal religious preference to lopping off one's head. To summmarize, "I believe freedom of expression except when I don't." Here is an article I think should be required reading for all Americans, especially those who seem unwilling to even consider alternates to shutting down the economy, quarantines, masking, social distancing (I still hate that term!), etc. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/sensible-compassionate-anti-covid-strategy/ (You may have to copy and paste the URL into your browser.....) I have sent this link to folks in e-mails and have received very positive responses. The elections are very close, for President and for the US Senate seat in Michigan. In Detroit/Wayne County (and in other cities such as Philadelphia) large numbers of votes have once again mysteriously appeared/been found, well after the polling places closed. And, also mysteriously, those votes are overwhelmingly for Joe Biden and the Democrats. Is anyone surprised at this? That large numbers of votes were "found?" That they were found in political entities controlled by the Democrats? That the vast majority of those found votes are for Democrats? But isn't this what Democrats do? Are there ever any reports or jokes about Republican cemetery votes? Ask Richard Nixon v Kennedy in '60. Ask Coke Stevenson in '48 (who lost to Lyndon Johnson for the Senate seat in Texas by 87 votes, after the cemeteries were searched for voters. Allegedly, Johnson brushed off any thought of wrong-doing with "Dead people have a right to vote, too."). I stole this thought from an Amherst mate trying to find solace in today's political atmosphere. He cited Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. (To me, his Gettysburg Address was his best, the best political speech in all of US History. But the Second Inaugural is a very close runner-up. Some Lincoln scholars rate it his best. That gets no argument from me.) Lincoln reminded his battered countrymen, North and South, of the Founding Fathers' aspirations "to create a more perfect Union." The Civil War wasn't over; not yet. Personally, too, he had suffered. He had lost his son to illness and lost close friends and family to the war. ABout 700,000 or more of the population of North and South had died in combat. My classmate wrote, "One can't imagine the bitterness, the fatigue, the rush to retribution that faced him and the country on that cold March day." My fellow Lord Jeff went on, "Yet there he stood and had the wherewithal to say [these words]: 'With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in......'” Lincoln went on to finish the sentence, "to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan....." It certainly is a thought well worth considering--often.

The Election

The Presidential election is a week and a half away. Finally! My brain tells me I have no idea of the outcome. But my gut keeps saying it will be a Trump landslide, both in the popular vote and the Electrical College. I have no solid basis for that gut feeling, none at all. Regardless, when I awaken on November 4th, I'm pretty sure it will be with a feeling of deep malaise regardless of the winner. I can't imagine voting for Joe Biden; I really can't. I'm especially intrigued by the Biden/Harris signs in the yards of mansions, houses on the lakes with a couple of boats docked, etc. Biden and the Democrats want to take all that away. There isn't a Democrat who hasn't loved any tax he or she met. If those people, the mansion owers with Biden/Harris signs, think they can afford to pay more taxes for government to waste, good for them. But the solution is not to force the rest of us to pay taxes, whether our opposition is philosophical, financial, or whatever. The answer is for these Democrats to voluntarily pay more taxes, bequeath their money to the government. It's been done and can be done. Why do I doubt that will happen? There are many other reasons why I can't see voting for Biden, not at all. In fact, I can't see any reason for voting for him, not even intense dislike of Trump. OK, that's not exactly accurate. For some people, having a "D" behind a candidate's name is all that matters. This saves them from doing any thinking. That the voters of Delaware kept returning Biden to the US Senate does not speak favorably of them. I don't know if the Hunter Biden revelations will have any bearing. I do think they are not, as some people, both Democrat and Republican, have claimed, "a distraction." I guess a good question is why they have arisen now. If I recall, some journalists (Ben Gleck?) were reporting this month, maybe a year or more, ago. Not many paid attention. Will that also be the case now? It seems scandals only stick to certain candidates. Harris brings nothing to the ticket, at least nothing to remotely attract my vote. In fact, I would suggest she detracts from it further. I heard someone a while back say, "I like Harris." I asked why that was so, but the answer was, "I don't really know." Great. Just great. Again, it says nothing complimentary about the voters of California that she was elected to so many offices (including the US Senate) there. That said, I really couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump--either time. I've explained why more than once. I fully understand why people vote for him, although the rabid support he often gets befuddles me. Here is an article that I think should be read by all voters. The author, a Christian minister, explains what I've been saying for years. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/policies-persons-and-paths-to-ruin. (You may have to copy and paste this into your browser.) In effect, the pastor is saying, "Evil is evil." I forget which book of the New Testament cites God, "If you accept me, you will not accept evil." Of course, those who haven't agreed with me over the years will also dismiss this minister's ideas. I know many folks have suggested by writing in a candidate's name or voting for a minor party candidate, I am "wasting" my vote. I really could not disagree more. First, I think that continuing to vote for "the lesser of two evils" is really "wasting" one's vote. Second, give me a candidate worth voting for, not the junk we've been given the past few decades. Third, I claim that my vote is more precious to me than it is to others who merely accept what the Democrats and Republicans throw at us election after election--nationally, state-wide, locally. I'm not looking for a perfect candidate, hardly. There are none out there. I can find flaws in all possible candidates, as I can find a lot of flaws in me. None will agree with my views on everything. If someone asks me about candidates I might favor, no doubt they will point to this or that--flaws. Yep, none of them are perfect. But I am looking for someone who is not evil. And I refuse to consider degrees of evilness. Evil is evil. "Choosing between the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." We can disagree on that. This is America. There seems to be a deep disconnect (I really don't like that word, but if it fits.....) between the polls and other data. Where virtually all election polls show Biden leading, even by double figures, other polls paint a different picture. More than half of likely voters now give Trump a favorable rating. And close to 60% of the people think they are better off today than they were four years ago. And this includes the shutdowns forced on us by mostly Democrat politicians and their bureaucrats. I don't really believe the polls and never have. In 1936, some polls showed Alf Landon winning an upset victory over Franklin Roosevelt. In the end, FDR won 46 of the then 48 states, with all but eight of the Electrical College votes. Polling samples then were very wrong. Perhaps that is what is happening today, too.

Early AM Ramblings

"Little Jack Horner sat in a corner eating his Christmas pie. He stuck in a thumb and pulled out a plum and said, "What a good boy am I!"  I'd guess we all know this Mother Goose rhyme.  I'd guess wrong then.  Once again last week in class none, not a one, of my students had heard this before.  (I was relating the bad treatment an unpopular Andrew Jackson appointee received from Michigan residents just before statehood.)  This wasn't the first time I had blank looks on students' faces with this.  A little thing, not knowing Little Jack Horner, Mother Goose?  Maybe.  And maybe not. Funny how some people are now questioning the qualifications of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court. Most humorous is that she only served on the Court of Appeals for two or three years. "That doesn't seem like a particularly long enough time to prepare one for a seat on the Supreme Court" wrote one fellow. If I recall correctly, there have been a few dozen appointees to the Supreme Court who had no judicial experience. Oh, some of these had been not only lawyers, but held offices such as attorney-general and solicitor-general. But they had not been judges of any sort. Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis, and Abe Fortas fell into this category, as did Harlan Fiske Stone. (I had to get in another plug for my alma mater!) When Oliver Wendell Holmes was appointed to the state supreme court in Massachusetts, he not only had no judicial experience, but had not practiced law at all either. I think Elena Kagan is another who had no judicial experience when appointed. I wonder if these same critics of Coney Barrett were critical of Obama's naming of Kagan as a Supreme. (For that matter, what were Obama's qualifications to be President!) I'm not being critical of Kagan. But it seems to me that people's political philosophies take over in instances like this. They just don't want someone who thinks differently than they do to be on the High Court. I guess "elections have consequences" for some people only when they win. An Amherst professor penned an article claiming the courts used to stay out of election disputes, claiming such disputes were political not judicial in nature. Looking at history, back to Luther v Borden (Dorr's Rebellion in Rhode Island in the 1840s), the Supremes have stayed away from political questions. Not so any more. But I guess I would submit, a lot has changed. Look at the growth of Presidential use, overuse, and misuse of executive orders. Note, too, how easily the legislature (Congress) has ceded its Constitutional authorities to the executive (President) and its bureaucracy (agencies). All that said (written?), is there any reason to trust the outcome of November's election? Who can be relied on for honesty? The politicians and bureaucracy? the media? Americans have been set up, regardless of what side they favor, to doubt, even distrust the outcome. Toss in, as I have before, that well over half of Americans no longer trust their government/politicians and the media. So, that has set up a scene for a disaster over the election results in a couple of weeks. It's difficult to eat crow, to admit one is/was wrong. I had that experience last week in a personal, but pretty important matter. I was just plain wrong in my thoughts. I think the media must do that, examine and critique itself. The admission that reporters (print and electronic), not editors and op-ed writers, now mostly write from their sets of values instead of as disinterested fact-finders will be hard to come by. I don't think journalists can do it. I hope they can, but doubt it. Like so much in society today, they are convinced of their correctness. In that sense, they have become the self-righteous, arrogant elitists that many people have become. Of course, depending on one's own points of view, the media can be completely wrong or right on target. Someone told me the World Series is just around the corner. Is that right? I used to love baseball. I played it and I watched it. I might even say I lived it. Some of my fondest memories are of baseball, my own or my kids/grandkids. Trivial? Of course it's trivial. What does a game matter? It used to matter a lot to me. But now, well, I haven't watched an inning of the playoffs (if, indeed, the World Series is about to start). In a way, my evolution in this is saddening. I sometimes wish I could sit back and watch a ball game for the enjoyment of it. It just doesn't click the way it once did.

"We Have to Come Together?"

The other day I listened to Democrat Congresswoman (Can I write that, Congresswoman?) Debbie Dingell say Americans "have to come together, to unite" at this pivotal time in our history. She added "United we stand; divided we fall." I waited for the radio host (I don't know who it was.) to ask, "But wait a minute, Congresswoman. Hasn't it been your party that has been among the leaders in dividing our people and country?" He should have pointed out that even before Trump was inaugurated, the Democrats were plotting to get rid of Trump, through impeachment or whatever. "That doesn't seem to me to be an act of union. Can you explain how it is so?" Nope, the host didn't ask any of that. He could have, in a civil manner, but either didn't think of it or is a bobble head. Oh, these hosts talk a big game until they get the luminaries on their shows. Then they throw them softballs. Then Joe Biden visited Michigan. In speaking about CoVid, the economy, and more, he too echoed, "We have to come together....." Why don't the so-called journalists (instead of party opeatives?) ask him about his party's divisive measures since November 2016? In other elections, the losing party has accepted the results and worked as an opposition, but not the way the Democrats have. "Can you explain that, Mr. Biden?" It all reminded me of that platitude, "We're all in this together," echoed again and again the past six months regarding the Corona Virus. It seems to me "we have to come together if it's what the arrogant elitists want." It is easy to see that being "in this together" is garbage; a lot of people are not "in this" at all, have not faced nearly the sacrifices, the losses, etc. that many of us have. Jefferson, in his first Inaugural Address, wrote/said after a particularly acrimonious campaign vs the incumbent John Adams (who, by the way, left Washington DC the day before the Inauguration), "We are all Republicans (his party). We are all Federalists." He meant we are all Americans. He stressed unity and acted on that, refusing to use the Federalists' own laws (The Alien and Sedition Acts) against them. Ah, that history stuff just gets in the way. Isn't it interesting that the same people who are up in arms about the 13 (or whatever the number is now) guys who plotted to kidnap Governor Whitmer have remained silent about the "peaceful protesters", that is, the rioters who loot and plunder, burn, assault, and even murde? Yep, if the kidnap plotters are found guilty, jail them and throw away the keys. At the same time, it couldn't be that difficult to identify those committing arson, looting, etc. They have rioted mostly with impunity, little action being taken against them for how many months? Talk about encouraging bad behavior! Many of them post what they've done and/or are going to do on social media (I detest that term!) sites. They, too, should be arrested and tried. If convicted, lock them up and throw away the keys. A discussion arose on one of my e-mail list serves about the long-term effects of CoVid. We don't know what effects the virus will have on people five or ten or more years from now. We can't know. We don't know. So, that argument goes, because we don't know, we have to continue with the masks, social distancing (There's another term I have come to detest.), quarantine/shutdown, etc. But those who argue this way make my point for me. We don't know. Maybe, in fact, exposure today may not have any bad effects later on people's health. Yet, we do know the damage being done by masks, social distancing (I still detest that term, two lines later.), quarantine/shutdown, etc. A lot of people are being harmed--now. I'm not talking of economics and the ruin the shutdown is having on millions, although I don't diminish or dismiss that the way a lot of people do. They say, "Oh, you're just being greedy." I guess that's an easy thing to utter when the speaker hasn't lost income or even a job. But consider, for instance, children now not being in normal school. There is ample evidence that they are harmed not only educationally (and many of them are at the peak years of their learning potentials), but physically, socially, and psychologicially. Consider, too, the spikes in suicides and domestic murders, alcoholism and drug usage. How many cancer, heart disease, and other such deaths could have been prevented had regular check-ups not been suspended--by executive orders that were claimed to be "saving lives?" The list goes on. But the bobble heads can't be convinced. With the collusion (ha ha ha) of the media, a large segment of the population has been cowed into lives of fear. And it, seems, a lot of those bobble heads seem content to give up their liberties so easily to "save lives."