"Follow the Science"

I know I've written about this before, but I was reminded of it several times recently. One stemmed from a conversation I had last week about "the science." I was noting the contradictory orders from politicians and other government officials. I also cited how many times the orders have changed. My neighbor was defensive, "They are just 'following the science.'" So, I blew off a little steam. "That's fine, but they need to be honest with us. They make it up as they go and then claim they are, as you said, 'following the science.'" No, they are not! I reiterated "They need to be honest with us." Too many of us have ignored alternative views of "the science." I repeated what I've written a number of times. "The science is never settled. That is the essence of science." In fact, it's a very good argument for a liberal arts education. Another was a photograph of the President. He was alone, apparently engaged in a virtual meeting with other world leaders. Yet here he was wearing not one, but two masks! I would assume he has had the vax, that anyone coming remotely close to him or the White House has also been vaxed. For that matter, there was nobody else in the photo. Let's see, the science says, we are told, to get the vax. The chances of either getting the virus or spreading it are virtually (pun intended!) zero. After all, if we sill must do all that masking, distancing, shutting down, and more, why bother getting the vax? I thought the science told us it would allow us to get back to normal. Again, it appears we are being lied to or, at the least, deceived. The politicians' own words and actions disprove what they've said all along. By changing their minds and policies, they are telling us "the science isn't settled," aren't they? Again I ask, why can't they be honest with us? This leads me to believe the lies and deception are deliberate, involving something other than science. How often have we heard that in the past couple of decades, particularly now in dealing with CoVid-19, "The science is settled." The statement has been summarily used to push agendas, when debate is discouraged or even feared. It's been used to sway people who really don't know. How easy to disarm (or at least try to disarm) opponents by throwing out "the science is settled!" Who but the most ignorant of people would argue with "science?" I guess the best example over recent years is "global warming," er "climate change"--or whatever the current term. Now it's how we deal with the corona virus. "The science is settled." No, the science settled. Science is never settled. That's the essence of science, that there are unknowns and that there is always something new, more to learn. But the phrase, "the science is settled" has been politicized to further agendas, to stifle debate, dissent, and challenges. It lends a legitimacy, perhaps undeserved, a sense of credibility to a viewpoint. Even more, it sways people who don't know much about an issue, but well, if the science is settled, that's good enough for them. Again, no, the science isn't settled. Science is never settled. It's one of the important lessons I learned in my physics classes at Amherst. (I admit to not realizing it at the time. It took some years before it "clicked," before I could rejoice, "I get it!") Consider these. For centuries, the Western world believed that there were four elements in nature--earth, water, air, and fire (and sometimes ether). This was not disputed, not by anyone credible. And people accepted that because "Aristotle [Empedocles or some other Greek scientist] said so." (Other cultures had similar findings--Chinese, Indian/Buddhist, etc.) The science had been settled. No challenges allowed. In 1633 (If I recall correctly.), the most famous European scientist of the day, Galileo Galilei, was put on trial, with the possibility of losing his life and being excommunicated (the death penalty of the soul), for challenging the accepted scientific and Church beliefs regarding the geocentric theory of Ptolemy, that the sun, stars, and entire universe moved around a stationary earth. That he postulated the heliocentric theory of Copernicus and others almost cost Galileo his life--and his soul. The science had been settled. No challenges allowed. Several decades later came Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest of British scientists. Albert Einstein, in the 20th Century, remarked, "To Newton, nature was an open book whose letters he could read without effort. Newton stands before us--strong, certain, and alone." Einstein was hardly the only one to recognize the "most genius" (Einstein's words) of Newton. Alexander Pope penned this poem, "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night. God said, 'Let Newton Be' and all was light." There was only one universe, physicists once said, and Newton had discovered all of its laws--optics, gravity, planetary orbits, wave motion, calculus, and, of course, his three laws of motion. All this and yet 20th Century science has disproved many of Newton's theories, including Einstein's work with relativity and the quantum mechanics of Max Planck and others. For 250 years or more, the science was settled. No challenges allowed. And now I read that some of Albert Einstein's theories have been disproved. It was Carl Sagan, the astronomer/astrophysicist, who wrote, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument. My position is mistaken.'" He added, "And then they would actually change their minds." So, the science isn't really settled. But apparently only scientists--well, some of them who haven't sold out to politicization and sources of funding--know that. We should think about this the next time, whether it's climate change, how to deal with the corona virus, or whatever, we hear, "The science is settled." It's not. It never is.

How to Fight Back?

Wokeness is all over. It's not just among the vocal left extremists. For quite a while the hypocritical Hollywood-types have joined. Of course, so have the colleges and universities, not to mention many of the K-12 public schools. Toss in professional sports, the latest being Major League Baseball. Corporate America, for whatever reasons, has signed up, too. On Saturday, 100 CEOs of leading US corporations met virtually "to discuss state voting laws." What the heck is that? Some, such as airlines, social media outlets, etc., have already exposed their wokenesss. Most, in their letters of explanation, have also exposed their ignorance. They displayed a lack of historical knowledge and of understanding the GA law. They also demonstrated limited abilities to think, to analyze and reason, instead resorting to knee jerk reactions based, mainly, on lies and distortions. Many Americans are unhappy with such wokeness. But how can they fight back? Will boycotts work? That seems dubious at best. Who's going to really give up their favorite NFL team(s)? Who will turn off the boob tube? People can't boycott everything; they need to buy things to live. So, how to fight back against this? People say they will "vote with their pocketbooks/wallets." I doubt that will happen. Oh, for a while they might give up their Diet Coke, not watch a ball game, etc. Will such behavior last? Color me skeptical. Is there anyway to take legal actions against the wokesters? I don't know. I am not a lawyer (and don't even play one on television). I haven't researched this at all. In fact, I've just started thinking about it. I wouldn't know where to begin. Perhaps someone a lot more intelligent than I am might eventually have some ideas. Maybe a class action lawsuit against Google or Twitter or You Tube or whoever else bans people due to their political views, i.e., opposition to wokeism is a possibility. Congress and the red states might increase the corporate tax rates, just on the largest companies. (Imagine the Republicans in the Senate calling Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi and telling them they wouldn't be opposed to a large increase in the corporate tax rate! I can see the Democrats salivating now.) Exempt small businesses. I know a tax on corporations is really a tax on consumers, the increases merely passed on in the form of higher prices. Maybe, though, higher prices will actually cause buyers to purchase less. With profits down, stockholders might then hold CEOs and other upper management (the wokesters) accountable for their ignorant stances. Maybe it's time for the CEOs of the large corporation to realize the time of the Republicans "having their back," regardless of their wokeness, is over. Of course, that would take a little courage and initiative from Establishment Republicans. I'm not holding my breath. Lawsuits for libel/slander? I don't know. But the wokesters willfully spreading distortions and lies have harmed a good number of people, costing them money, jobs, and more. Can, in the judicial system, the wokesters be made to try to prove their assertions of bigotry, racism, "white supremacy." etc.? And, if they can't, can they be made to pay, to make the accused/aggrieved persons whole? I heard an interesting, but disturbing thought the other day. (Gee, what else is new these days?) Some pundit suggested Major League Baseball moved its All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver because it feared players would boycott the game. That is, the All-Stars would refuse to play as some ill-thought protest against the Georgia election law. I have two thoughts on that, one I've expressed before. If the players are going to protest by not playing the All-Star Game in Atlanta, will they play regular season games there? If so, why? Could it be they might have to forfeit games that mean something? Might they also have to forfeit pay? Hey c'mon, principles can only take you so far. Now we might be talking about money. And why is Major League Baseball letting ignorant people influence what it does? How many of these players who might boycott an All-Star Game really know what's in the Georgia law? How many have actually read parts of it, let alone all of it? I think we know the answers to those questions. I'd guess they just believe the distortions and lies put out there by Democrats, including the President (Remember, even the Washington Post gave Biden four Pinocchios for his lies about the law). They don't consider the reasoned rebuttals to the lies. If this pundit's theory is correct, isn't that a wonderful way to run an organization, letting the most ignorant of people sway the decisions? And one last thing. Even when it's shown that people have willfully distorted and lied about the Georgia law (among other things), they don't recant. No, they don't regroup and say, "Oops! We were wrong." No, they continue to lie. What was it Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels said, "A lie told once is still a lie. A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth." These people have no shame. Caught in lie after lie, they never apologize, but double down on their lying. "Shame." Now there's a word I may have to write about in the near future before it becomes obsolete. Oh, while I'm still at it. Joe Biden called the Georgia voting law "Jim Crow 2.0." Of course that's a blatant distortion, a lie. But, I don't at all doubt Biden has little if any idea of what "Jim Crow" actually was. If he did, how can he compare the Georgia law with the discriminatory and penal laws of the post-Civil War South? If he did, how can he compare requiring a photo ID to vote to the lynching and other acts of terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan, Knights of the White Camelia, and other such hateful groups? No, I'm convinced we have a President who is a very ignorant man. And a major problem with that is many Americans are ignorant enough to believe him (and others who deliberately spread untruths).

Sports and Social Change

I would like to clarify my views on the role sports has played in social change. I don't know if this will surprise or even upset some folks, but it's fact. Jackie Robinson and the integration of the Major Leagues was an early and major step in the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, in my classes I spend a good deal of time on this. Without going into the entire lecture, I'll cite a few things. In the 1960s, Martin Luther King told the great black Dodgers pitcher Don Newcombe, "Don, you and Jackie [Robinson] and Roy [Campanella] will never know how easy you made it to do my job." A dozen years or so earlier, the actress Tallulah Bankhead (who won a number of "best actress" awards), said, "The Negro [baseball] stars have certainly done something for baseball and baseball has done something for Negroes, too. If nothing else, it's unbigoted some bigots." Add Jim Bouton's comments in his book Ball Four. "They [blacks] were better players and Willie [Mays] was the best. There were a lot of kids who learned to love him before anybody told us we couldn't." Yes, sports can and have played major roles in furthering corrections to wrongs in US society. For that matter, the NFL players kneeling or at least not standing for the National Anthem doesn't bother me. (I should note that I really don't follow the NFL much.) Oh, I don't like it. I think it is short-sighted and, in fact, ignorant. But if this is how some players want to express their views, that's fine with me. But I also believe that if a team's owner says no to kneeling, players who are paid by the owner must follow his wishes--or they could quit playing. I understand NBA and NCAA teams bear woke slogans on their jerseys. (Again, I don't watch or follow these leagues/teams.) I just wonder where all this wokeness has been when, say, innocent black kids have been gunned down in Atlanta, Chicago, DC, LA, Detroit, etc. by thugs. Why didn't and apparently don't these basketball players think the lives of these black children "matter?" MLB moving the All-Star Game is, again, I suppose the league's right. But I think it is very wrong. It is not furthering corrections to wrongs in US society, not at all. For one thing, from the statement put out by the commissioner (or his office), the stance of the league is based upon falsities and even deliberate lies. I'd almost think that once the MLB was exposed to the truth, that is the lies upon which their decision was based, the league would reverse its decision. Almost..... Wokeness means ignoring reality, facts, and truth. Such things don't matter. Another aspect of the MLB decision in this is its hypocrisy, which also seems a mainstay of wokeness. The commissioner is a member of the Augusta golf club (whatever it's called, the site of the Masters). So far, he has not voluntarily canceled (ha ha ha) his membership. And baseball showed its real colors in making a deal with the commies in China (some streaming deal?). So, it's OK to protest lies and misinformation about the Georgia election law, but it's not OK to make money with a country that practices slavery, genocide, etc.? Hmmm..... Where are the "values" the MLB commissioner talked about? As the O'Jays sang, "Money, Money, Money, Money--Muh-nay!"

Has Thinking Become Obsolete?

This Georgia election law has me scratching my head. No, it's not really the law itself, but the reactions to it. It's hard to know where to start. It seems, from the President on down, many people are flat out wrong about what the bill does. I can't help but think that the politicians and media-types are deliberately lying about it. Even the Washington Post gave the President its worst rating for lying about what's in the law to the President, four Pinnochios! WaPo--the Democrat Party lap dog!!!!! Yet, the Presdent and his press secretary have repeated those inaccuracies, which seems to me to be deliberately lying. For instance, the law does not prohibt giving water or snacks to voters waiting in line. It does ban campaign workers from doing so. Don't all states have laws preventing election workers from handing out campaign literature to voters within a certain number of feet of the polling places? There is a valid reason for that. Wouldn't allowing campaign volunteers to provide water and snacks at least open the door for the possibility of impropriety, especially given how we've seen the steps the parties have gone to in seeking to win elections? By setting certain times for submitting votes/ballots the law merely quantifies those times. Previously, Georgia law stated within normal working hours. Now the time is set, either 9 to 5 or 7 to 7 (I forget which). Who can possibly be against requiring photo ID to vote? Most people have drivers' licences and states, like Georgia, can provide free state ID cards. Again, given the very questionable activities surrounding our recent elections, what's wrong with a voter proving he/she says who she/he is? We require photo ID for many, many things. Nobody seems to complain about showing photo ID to fly, to pick up concert tickets at the will-call window, to purchase medical marijuana, or buy liquor? "Why do I have to show ID? I'm 21 and want to buy this beer. Why don't you believe I am who I say I am?" Hmmm..... Equally disturbing to me is the "wokeness" being exhibited by corporation and, as usual, the sports and entertainment industries. Has anyone read the statement Major League Baseball put out in explaining its hare-brained decision ("Hare-brained?" I'll explain in a bit.) to move the All-Star Game from Atlanta? It's apparent to me nobody in the MLB executive offices actually read the Georgia law. The MLB statement if filled wih broad woke platitudes, most of which are inaccurate. Let's pick on Major League Baseball first. Hmmm..... Who is actually being hurt by moving the All-Star Game? I'd think it is the people of Georgia. So, MLB's bone of contention is with the people, including blacks, of Georgia, not the state legislators and governor. Who is going to lose money here? It's not MLB or the players (who I've read were "blind-sided" by the change of venue). So, Georgia committed a sin and must do its pennance. Why not really show how woke you are, MLB, and move the team out of Atlanta or, at the least if that isn't legally possible, not play games there? If the players are in such complete support (and I don't believe they are) why don't they refuse to play any games vs the Braves in Atlanta? Of course, that would likely entail having to forfeit money and, no matter how woke, the cause isn't worth giving up money, is it? What are a few hundred thousand bucks to people making millions of dollars participating in a game? What will the MLB do if the Braves make the playoffs, even the World Series? "We're sorry, but because we are woke, the Braves will have to either forfeit their playoff games or agree to play them in California or New York. Those states are sufficiently woke." Oh, let's pile on! Order MLB game tickets online and indicate you will pick them up at the will-call window. But read the "rules." You will be required to show photo ID, yep, with your picture on it!, to be given your ticket at will-call. And surely, some 18-year old who wants to buy a beer at the ball park won't have to show photo ID to prove he is the 21-year old he says he is. How about Disney, Pay Pal, and Delta to just name a few corporations who require photo ID for their services? If they oppose photo ID for voting, shouldn't they also oppose it for getting their services? Of course, voting isn't nearly as serious/important as getting into a ball game or theme park or on an airplane, is it? Granted, these are private corporations and they can set their own polcies. I agree with that. And the state of Georgia is a government entity. There is a difference between the two and I acknowledge that. But one would think, at least I would, that these corporate leaders would show a little consistency, a little action to back what they say they believe, instead of "Do as I say, not as I do." Oh, let's pick on television, too. The Masters Golf Tournament is coming up--next weekend maybe. I'd imagine a major network will be covering it. The Masters in played in Augusta, Georgia. Hmmm..... Will that network back out of televising the tournament, forgoing all the advertising revenue? For that matter, will the advertisers pull out their money? After all, shouldn't the network and the advertisers put their money where their mouths are? Do people no longer think before they speak or act? Are thoughts, well-reasoned ones, now passe? How do some of these people rise in the corporate world, pure dumb luck?

Two Thoughts

Where to start? Let's open with the filibuster. Unless I have this completely wrong, the Democrats' insistence to eliminate it in the US Senate is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Long a part of Senate rules(since 1789), in the course of the recent past it has been supported by, surprise, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. In fact, I read that in 2020, it was used more than 300 times to try to block legislation--all 300 times by, surprise, the Democrats. Now that they are in the majority (or close to it with the 50-50 split and the Harris tie-breaker), they want to handcuff the minority (Republicans). When the Democrats were in the minority, they sure didn't favor handcuffing themselves! It is almost as if the Democrats are saying, "We're for the filibuster, except when we're against it." Huh? Why, in the media coverage of this issue, aren't these things pointed out? I think I can guess why. I'm not sure if this is true, but I don't doubt it. Gayle Manchin has been nominated by Biden for a federal position that pays $165,000 a year. Who is Gayle Manchin? I don't know her qualifications for whateve the job is, but have little reason to doubt she's qualified. She might be; she might not be. But she is also the wife of US Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from WV. He has been a holdout on supporting the Democrats' efforts to get rid of the filibuster. So far it seems he has resisted all the Democrat leadership arm-twisting. Now? Hmmm. I don't think nominating his wife to a lucrative government position, regardless of her qualifications, passes the smell test, at least not under these circumstances. Again I ask, where is the media coverage on this? For Biden and others to invoke "Jim Crow" is out-and-out inflammatory. If the use of the filibuster is a reflection of the anti-civil rights Jim Crow years (and in many ways it was, right up to the 1950s and 1960s), where does that leave the Democrats and their repeated use of it in 2020? So, the Democrats now want to allow transgenders to compete in girls' sports. Hmmmm. If a biological male, who now self-identifies (I hate that term.) as a female, he can run in races, etc. against biological girls who self-identify as girls. That has happened in Connecticut high school sports, maybe in other states, too. I don't know. Not only did a couple transgenders (males who now call themselves females) win Connecticut state championships in several track events, they obliterated the state girls' records in those events. I'm not sure what one of Biden's executive orders explicity mandates, but even if it doesn't specifically state that transgenders can compete in girls'/women's events, it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to guess where that might go. Remember when the 16th Amendment was enacted in 1913, Americans were promised this would be "the fairest and cheapest of all taxes." Incomes under $4000 were not taxed at all and those up to $20,000 paid 1%. Graduation led to a 3% tax on incomes over $50,000. Hmmm..... Look where we are now--and where we've been. The Noble Experiment," Prohibition, ended up with federal chief Wayne Wheeler ordering poisons like arsenic and strychnine to be put in rubbing alcohol, car anti-freeze, and embalming fluid when people started drinking them to get their alcohol. When informed the poisons could kill Americans (and in fact more than 5,000 did so die), it was aloofly defended with "They shouldn't be drinking anyway." When FDR pushed the Social Security Act through Congress, Americans were assured that their SS numbers would not be used for identifcation other than SS. We know where that promise ended up. What do these and many other instances have to do with Biden's transgender executive order? We can't and shouldn't trust these people. Even when the intent is well-meaning, sooner or later the good intentions are forgotten. I think I read that 400+ US high school boys in recent years posted track times in the 100 (or was it 200 or both?) meters that were faster than that of the NCAA women's champion. In 2017, the best time by the 2016 women's Olympic 100 meter champion was bettered by 5,000 men/boys world-wide. (I was assured the number of zeroes, three of them, was correct.) I know of no pernicious attempts to fraudulently take advantage of this, but is it unreasonable to assume that's just a matter of time? Think about college athletic scholarships for "females." Think about the money in women's professional sports, be they basketball, golf, soccer, or tennis. Again, I remember reading about the Australian national women's soccer team being drubbed, 7-1 (in soccer!) by an elite team of 15-year old (I think it was; regardless, they were still in high school.) boys--and the game was called at halftime. Every time I hear this I am reminded of the movie Billy Madison. An adult Adam Sandler just annihilated some grade school kids (six-year olds?) in a game of beano/dodge ball. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hShxpYG_ql0 (Cut and paste if necessary.) Like my proposal for bathrooms for transgenders, why don't we have sports divisions each for men/boys, women/girls, and transgenders? It's seems just a matter of time before the lure of money will lead to unintended consequences if we don't.

True or False?

In this day and age, it's hard to know what to believe. We get fed opinions posing as reality, lies posing as facts. If something suppoorts what I believe, it's true; if it supports the other guy, it's false. The ends justify the means, I guess. It is very frustrating. I know I have peddled inaccuracies and now am almost paranoid that I'll repeat some untrue "news." That said, President Biden's choice to head HHS said this in a recent interview. "“We have two very different cultures, and we have two very different perspectives on the world,” [Xavier] Becerra told NPR. “That’s not to say one perspective is better than the other.” He was talking about the Chinese Communists' treatment of their people. Such treatmet involves not just persecution of minorities, but genocide! If true, I really hope this quote was taken out of context, although I can't imagine how it can be spun any differently. If not, what an idiotic thing for a leader of American government, a potential Cabinet officer, to think, let alone say. Genocide is merely dismissed as a "different culture...a very different perspective on the world?" So, a "culture" that abhors and resists genocide does not have "better...perspective" than one which practices it? And some people of this guy's own political party are more concerned that some Dr. Seuss books in the past included the word "Chinaman?" Regardless of the context, there seems to be a disconnect here. A while back I blogged about the practice of giving equal weight to all opinions or, in this case, "perspectives." Such a practice is ignorant and involves not only sloppy thinking, but cowardice. Back in another lifetime, when I taught in the high school, there was a push to add a course, one called "Accept and Respect." Its course description included "Students will learn that all cultures are worth of acceptance and respect" or something real close to that. How stupid! In opposing this, I asked "What about Nazis? Should we 'accept and respect" them? How about the Taliban or even the KKK?" Of course, what followed was the patronizing, "Now Ron....." So if you don't waht to include Nazis, the KKK, the Communist regimes, the taliban, why use the word "all?" Words have meanings. And knowing the academic shortcomings of many teachers, who can trust them with this? I will, as usual, write to my two US Senators about this confirmation. It will be a waste of time and effort. Both are bobble heads, blindly following the lead of their Democratic leaders. Do they ever think for themselves? If I get any response at all to my e-mails, most likely, as is usual, it will be a vanilla statement that has little to do with my concern. It's as if the replies to me are based on others' letters. How do such people get elected over and over again????? Back to Becerra. (BTW, didn't Biden butcher Becerra's name in announcing his nomination?) What could lead any American to think like this? Maybe he is echoing his President, who seemed to suggest a few weeks ago that the genocide of the Uighurs was merely the result of "a different cultural norm." Granted, during the campaign he was more critical, actually referring to "genocide." Why isn't this blasted across the headlines of our newspapers and television news? Isn't it important that Americas know this is how and what their administration thinks? Oh, I have forgotten. "All people and all cultures are deserving of acceptance and respect." Of course, it might not make any difference. Who cares how the Chinese Communist government treats its people when there is money to be made? Do I really need to name/list the US politicians and corporations who speak of "our friends the Chinese?" I could start right here in Michigan. No, spare me the thought that these pols and businesses were talking about the general Chinese population. The people are not the face of China and make no decisions. It's the Commies. But that's OK because we can make a lot of money dealing with "our friends the Chinese."

Random Thoughts on the Cancel Culture

Canceling? Let's see. Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head. Dr. Seuss. The Jeep Cherokee. Abraham Lincoln and George Washingto, among others. Who knows what or who is next? Is Planter's Mr. Peanut next? Will one of my neighbors be required to get rid of her vanity license plate which reads, "Mrs. Peanut?" I'm struck by several things in all of this. The people doing the canceling seem very ignorant. They don't know what they are doing. They have little or no capacity to think, at least not for themeselves. I am reminded of lemmings, although I call most of them bobble heads. Do they really know what they are doing? I think not. I wonder if any of the cancel crowd has ever heard of Krystalnacht? I'd wager not. I'm equally certain they are unaware of the "canceling" done by authoritarian/totalitarian governments. The first step toward controling people is controling their ideas or at least the ideas to which they are exposed. Books burned or banned; the same with newspapers and other media. Authors banish, imprisoned, or worse. I'd like to confront one of the cancel crowd and ask how he/she is different from Robespierre (who?), Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, Mao, etc. I think I know the response. "But that's different." It always is, isn't it? I realize no books have been banned by the government; there is no government censorship. But having corporations bend their knees to a small, but vocal minority doesn't seem too far from it. Why is so much of corporate American falling in line with the cancel culture? It can't really be that those leading US businesses really believe this garbage, e.g., that there is something wrong with a Mr. Potato Head, can it? Are they that cowardly, fearful of the mob, especially considering the mob is very small percentage of the population? For that matter, look at the professional sports organizations, particularly the NFL and NBA. I'm sure there are some good people among the players. But isn't their superficial pandering to the mob apparent? If Mrs. Potato Head, Dr. Seuss, the Jeep Cherokee, etc. are so offensive, why can we still find retailers, such as Amazon, that continue to sell tee shirts with the likenesses of Mao Zedong and Che Guevara on them? It's not OK to reflect "Mr." or "Mrs.," but it's all right to display the images of mass murderers? How long until we are done with this? One of my buddies, speaking of us, cynically suggested "until we die." I wonder. How long will it be before we no longer allow the stupid people to dictate the rules, how we live? I'm not confident that it will end any time soon. Look at how our schools hve been run, ridiculous program after ridiculous program for decades now. Will the majority finally have had enough and say "Stop!"? Again, I'm not encouraged. Look how easily they have been manipulated by the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of our government officials, so-called "experts," and the sycophantic media during the CoVid year. They are being bought off, "bread and circuses," again with "CoVid Relief" bills. "Follow the science," they are told, when most people don't understand the essence of "science."