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."

Random Thoughts on an Early Autumn AM

For years I have said and written that Americans, by voting, get what they deserve and, unfortunately, I get it, too. I read an article this AM that underscored that, although the author was a bit more crude about it. He called it "the idiocracy," who with the help of Big Tech and the Lamestream media, have allowed the politicians and bureaucracy (Big Government) to "outnumber and outgun (financially)" us. Is it unreasonable of me to want to live my life unfettered with government dictates, such as what kind of television, toilet, light bulbs, healthy insurance, and soon cars I must buy? Is it unreasonable for me to want to keep more of the money I have earned rather than having it taken (stolen in the name of taxation) by a government which has a considerably rotten record of wasting most of it? Is it unreasonable of me to expect government to enforce all of the laws it has passed, not just the ones those currently in power favor? (Why can some people get away with looting, committing arson, destroying public and other private property, but others who may try to avoid paying income taxes have the heavy hand of Big Government land on them?) The list goes on, almost endlessly. I recenly was told of a person who was very upset, quite put out, with seeing a Trump campaign sign that included, "No More Bull....." Apparently the biggest concern was "Kids will see it," the reference to "Bull....." I didn't have a chance to confront this woman or I'd have asked, "What did you think of Governor Whitmer's campaign slogan, '...and I'll fix the damn roads?'" Logic tells us a lot more "kids" heard "damn roads" than will see this guy's Trump sign. I think I know what the response to my question would be, "But that's different." Well, no it's not, but it does tell me a lot about this person. "It's OK when my side does it, but the other side can't." To me, both "Bull...." and "damn" are wrong and, frankly, despicable. "Our democracy is firmly rooted in the principles of an informed electorate which makes decisions at the polls based on reason and beliefs over lies and deception,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement. She is opening an investigation into a petition drive which seeks to limit the state's governor's broad, overreaching "emergency executive orders." Apparently some pro-Whitmer bobble heads are claiming fraud in the effort to gather petition signatures. I don't know about any fraudulent tactics. My signature wasn't gained by "lies and deception." (And my votes aren't influence by Russians or Chinese or.....) So, when is Nessel going to start investigations of politicians, of their campaign "promises" and ads? Talk about "lies and deception!" I think we know the answer to that one, too. "Politics, a profession whose main skill seems to be lying." I forgot where I read that or who said/wrote it. In poll after poll, members of Congress and other politicians are cited as being the least trusted people/profession. We just laugh at the campaign promises they make--and continue to vote for the liars. I'm only half joking when I suggest that the campaign liars should be investigated for fraud. I guess I can only shake my head when so many people distrust politicians, yet have so meekly have followed their directives--shutdowns, quarantines, masks, etc.--regarding the Corona virus. Why do these people still believe "They're saving lives?" It's as if they spit in our faces, tell us it's raining, and we fall for it--again and again. So, it appears the Democrats will use Amy Coney Barrett's Catholicism as a way to try to block her confirmation. Hmmm. I don't know if it's true, but more than one person has told me that Joe Biden claims to be a devout Catholic. (Which leads to the question of how a "devout Catholic" can support abortion. He attends mass each Sunday and carries a rosary in his pocket. So, why is Barrett's faith in question when Biden's is not? I suppose I know the answer to that. "But that's different." And can it really be true that the opposition to her confirmation are really going to try to portray her adoption of several children, including a couple from Haiti, as a character flaw? All this madness reminds me of two tunes. One is Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction" in the '60s, "This whole crazy world is just too frustratin'." (I can still hear his gravelly voice in my head!) The other is the drum and fife ditty played by Cornwallis's band when he surrendered to George Washington at Yorktown, "The World Turned Upside Down." (No, I'm old, but not old enough to hear the British drummers and fifers in my head!)

Double Standards

How long before some NBA player puts this name on the back of his jerseys or before some NFL player does the same?  The name?  One of the LA deputies who were ambushed in their squad car last week.  Either one, but especially the woman officer who, while wounded multiple times in the head and elsewhere, called in the emergency and performed first aid on her partner.  What NBA or NFL player will have the decency, the guts to display this heroine's name?  If Las Vegas were to place odds on such a display, my guess they would be zero.  

Yet, these ignorant players continue to spout and wear the often trite words of the protesters who tried to block the hospital where these deputies were transported after being shot.  As of yet, I haven't heard a single professional athlete publicly denounce the ambush.  Not a one has called for people--family, friends, neighbors--to help apprehend this shooter, that is, to provide information that can lead to the shooter's apprehension.

But what would one expect from these athletes who backed down from criticism of the commie government in China--human rights abuses, genocide, etc.?  You mean take a stand, even against its own mealy-mouthed league?  Ha Ha Ha.  No, these multi-millionaires are too busy ranting against white privilege.  Taking a real stand might endanger their millions.

I heard some radio guy once declare, "If [whatever group he said] didn't have double standards, it wouldn't have any standards at all."  I chuckled, but there is truth in that.  I was thinking of this the other day, trying to make sense of the "defund the police" idiocy.  (No, I can't make sense of it.)  So we are to believe, according to all these protesters, that all police officers are bad, deliberately targeting and looking to murder blacks, etc.  Yep, all of them.  Otherwise why defund entire departments?  But, we are admonished, don't label as violent all of the protesters in Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, DC, Lancaster, etc.  It's claimed, 95% of the protesters are peaceful.  (I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument, I'll let that slide.)  So don't characterize all the protesters because of the actions of a few.  We heard the same thing about Muslims.  Don't condemn all of  Islam because of the doings of the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Islamists.  (I didn't, but that's not my point here.)  Why, then, are all police officers the object of these "peaceful protesters?"

Trivial, perhaps, but why were a certain governor and Speaker of the House able to have their hair done, while the "great unwashed" couldn't visit a hairdresser or barber?  For that matter, to play fair, why is it OK to portray the Star-Spangled Banner (the flag) in nontraditional ways (The Blue Line Flag), but not so OK to sign the Star-Spangled Banner (the national anthem) in nontraditional ways (Marvin Gaye, Jose Feliciano, et al)?  It seems the people who support the former really detest the latter.  Why?  I think both are perfectly fine.

Reacting, Not Thinking

Two Michigan colleges, Michigan State University and Alma, have removed the name of Stephen Nisbet from buildings on their campuses.  The reason provided is that he was a racist, a member of the Ku Klux Klan sometime in his early adult years.  I don't know if he was or if he wasn't.  The actual evidence is a bit sketchy.  But to today's crowd, the "wokists" among us, evidence and facts are not necessary or, perhaps, even desired.  Facts appear to be inconvenient things to get in the way.

Very telling to me is a statement from one of the MSU trustees who voted to remove Nisbet's name.  She said, "Given the point of society we are in right now....."  Yep, another rush to judgment is in order right now.

Perhaps Nisbet was a member of the KKK.  As noted, there is some evidence he was, but it is not conclusive, especially not to his family.  Why the hurry?  As that same trustee added, "...it's appropriate to distance ourselves from anyone who had affiliation with the KKK."  I agree, maybe.  There are a number of things to consider first.

Was he really a member of the Ku Klux Klan?  If he was, was he an active member?  After all, it's been suggested that the Klan often just added names to its membership rolls to boost its numbers, obviously for propaganda purposes.  Were there really 50,000 Klansmen in Michigan in the 1920s?  And, especially given the times, did most of them "join" merely because it was a social organization rather than for its racism?  How many of them were young, in their late teens or twenties, and joined because their buddies did, not because they were racists?  I'm not at all defending the despicable KKK, although "given the point of society we are in right now" some "wokists" might so discern--wrongly, of course, in their convoluted and ignorant thinking.  It's just that I'm getting tired of ignorant, uninformed people making decisions or forcing other ignorant, uninformed, and even cowardly people (and schools, corporations, and politicians) to make them.

What about Nisbet's accomplishments in the rest of his life, after perhaps his bout with a youthful indiscretion that he likely never really thought about and regretted for the rest of his life?  Why do people, including the entire MSU board of trustees who unanimously agreed to remove his name,  ignore his later efforts to promote civil rights in this state, from the writing of the current state constitution to casting the deciding vote to appoint the first black president of a major research university in the US (MSU)?

I am reminded of two things.  (Oh Oh!  Is he going to start that history stuff again?)  Hugo Black was one of the great civil libertarians of the 20th Century Supreme Court.  Don't take my word for it; as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."  Yet, in his early adulthood he was a member of the KKK in Alabama (I think).  Should all of Hugo Black's efforts and successes in the area of civil liberties be "canceled" because of that?

Amid the rush to pull down statues, in Wisconsin the "wokists" tore down one of an abolitionist.  I don't know their faulty reasoning, but the man, Hans Christian Heg, died for the cause of abolition.  He gave his life for it; yet the ignorant had their way.  The thugs have defiled and vandalized memorials to Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln was the man the freedmen, the emancipated former slaves, referred to as "Father Abraham."  The Biblical reference was no accident.

A prime culprit in all of this "wokism," maybe the prime one, is social media.  (This is one of those terms I am coming to detest.)   Social media makes situations worse. It rewards the instinct to react, to “like” or to “share,” not to “stop” or to “think.”  It has brought to life, to acceptance even, "No thinking allowed!"

Reading

Let's back off a bit and turn to some still serious, but less intense matters. 

How about reading?  I don't watch much television, very very little.  That's how I justify so much time I spend on my computer, sending e-mails, reading opinions, and, yes, blogging.  But I also read a lot.

I'm on pace to read my usual five or six books a month.  I still read some nonfiction, but not as much as I used to read.  Most of my nonfiction now comes from review books.  But I'll still pick up a book, any book, about Lincoln.

I've read about 50 or more books about Lincoln, including two more this year.  Two of my favorites are actually novels about Lincoln's life.  One, Gore Vidal's Lincoln, goes roughly 1,000 pages, with footnotes!  Yes, footnotes in a novel.  Also having footnotes is William Safire's novel Freedom, which leads up to the Emancipation Proclamation.  Because they are novels, the authors can speculate about Lincoln's thoughts, motives, etc.  Thus, they offer insights and food for thought about Honest Abe.

For my money, the best single-volume biography of Lincoln is Stephen Oates' With Malice Toward None.  Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals is terrific, too.  It is a great demonstration of how Lincoln and his personality, his lack of ego, helped him to grow as a President and as a person.  He listened to others and, if their ideas were better than his, he took them.  Father Abraham by Richard Striner is hard to read without being moved by Lincoln's "struggle to end slavery."  There was a reason the former slaves called him "Father Abraham," the Biblical analogy intended.  And there are many other top-flight books.  Maybe I'll explore them later.

If you are interested in nonfiction about the Founders and the early US, pick up any and all of Joseph Ellis's books.  Especially good is His Excellency, the biography of Washington.

Fiction is what I read most now. Daniel Silva, I think, is terrific.  I've read all of his novels with Gabriel Allon as the protagonist, an unbelievable, yet believable Israeli agent.  Silva is a wordsmith of the highest caliber.  Nelson DeMille ranges from good to great.  The first two novels of his that I read were my favorites.  The Gold Coast and its sequel The Gate House were hard to put down. 

I also like spy/adventure novels.  Ben Coes (Dewey Andreas and Rob Tacoma) and Brad Thor (Scott Harvath) stand out, as did the late Vince Flynn (Mitch Rapp).  Lee Child and his Jack Reacher are tough to top.  Not only are the characters very likable, good guys; the writing from these authors is very good.  Their writing is noticeably better than most of the spy/adventure novelists.  There are others, too, who I like and will explore them in a future blog.

The Danish author, Jussi Adler-Olsen, has written some really good crime fiction.  His Department Q novels are well-written and full of suspenseful twists and turns.  I've read about half of the series and look forward to the rest.  Peter May, a Scottish television writer, has also attracted my attention with some good books.

Scott Turow has written some terrific legal thrillers.  His first, Presumed Innocent, might be my favorite.  But it's still tough to top others, such as Identical, Innocent, and Pleading Guilty.  While I'm stuck on Amherst alumni, Harlan Coben is always good reading, especially his Myron Bolitar series.  So is Dan Brown.  Although his noted DaVinci Code is wonderful, I still enjoyed a couple of others even more, especially Inferno.

Perhaps next month I'll post some other authors and their books which I have enjoyed.  I hope these have helped you pick out some good reading.  I think it beats he boob tube hands down.