September, already?

Yep, hard has it is to believe, it's September.  Classes have already started.  One down, seventy-seven to go.  I really did, though, look forward to the first one and am eagerly anticipating this term.

Boy, it's been warm, if not hot!, and humid here.  We (Karen, Michael, and I) were in Las Vegas last week (and part of this) visiting Matt and Linda.  It was hot there--105-106 most days, with the hottest day reaching 109.  Yep, that's hot!  But when people joke, "Yeah, but it's a dry heat.....," it's not really a joke.  I ran each AM, one day at 82 degrees, by far the coolest AM.  The other days I started anywhere from 89 degrees to 93 degrees, with the temps inching upward by my finish.  But those runs were far more comfortable than the ones here this week, with temperatures 20 and 25 degrees cooler and all this humidity.  I think, one day, I saw "15% humidity" in Las Vegas.  Here a couple of days it was approaching 100%.  And two afternoons, we (Karen, Carrie, and I) walked/ran when it was in the upper 80s and lower 90s--with that humidity.  Yes, we were careful......  My blind running buddy this AM, in response to my grousing about the heat and humidity, remarked, "Yeah, but we'll be wishing for this weather in November......"  I told him, "Not me."  I much prefer running in the cooler and colder stuff than this soup.

I remain a bit befuddled by this phenomenon called "Trump."  I saw a poll this AM that showed him, right now, ahead of any and all of the Democrats seeking the nomination, yes, even Clinton.  (Now, how anyone can still even consider voting for her also befuddles me!)  Granted, the election is more than a year away.  Still, Trump?  No, I'm not a Trump-guy and can't envision voting for him, in a primary or in a general election.  Still......  I'm not exactly sure I can put my finger on it.  Of course, people are sick and tired of Washington, DC.  An outsider has an attraction, noting also the relatively strong showing in the polls of Ben Carson and Carla Fiorini (who I would give serious consideration for a vote).  But, are people "fed up," as some pundits claim?  I have my doubts.  After all, voters continue to vote for the same DC folks (and newcomers just like them), the Establishment, again and again.  They aren't "fed up" enough to throw the bums out, those who tell lie after lie in their campaigns, knowing full well they won't live up to their promises.  (Is it a "lie" if one doesn't really mean it?  Is it a "promise" if one doesn't really mean it?)  As an example, if people are "fed up," how can they even think about voting for Clinton, all other warts aside?  Hmmm......

Now, try this one on, too.  Trump signed some "loyalty pledge," to support whoever the Republican candidate is, precluding a third-party run by Trump if he doesn't get the Republican nomination.  Why would he do that?  To try to get the Republican machinery in place if he wins enough primaries and caucuses?  The Establishment Republicans must be jumping for joy.  They figure Trump can't possibly win the nomination and now have secured a promise from him to support whoever they do nominate.  Ah, that's the key word, isn't it?  "Promise."  It would be cool to see the Republican Establishment bash Trump if he goes back on his "promise," exposing them for the lying hypocrites that they are.  Trump should have never signed such a deal.  Instead, to gather even more grass roots support, he should have said something like, "I'll sign such a pledge if the Establishment Republicans agree to sign a similar pledge not to renege on their campaign promises."  Imagine those like "Glitch" McConnell and Boehner with that one......  I'd like to see that.

I see that the ObamaCare health tax is approaching, likely to hit even before the 2018 expected date as companies plan for the future and the added expenses.  And all along I thought the President was knowingly lying when he "promised" (Ah, there's that word again!) that we could keep our policies, the same ones, and it wouldn't cost "a dime more."  Ha.  BTW, I'm still waiting for some--or any!--of those ObamaCare supporters around here to volunteer to contribute to the already more than $2100 our health insurance has cost us since it went into effect.  Nope, not a single person has come up with a single dollar.  Oh, and our policy isn't the same as it was three years ago either.

I get a kick (although I loathe it) how local school districts and communities continually plead "poverty" then spend frivolously--OK, wastefully.  Maybe it's in the nature of the beast, that, as Milton Friedman once postulated, "It's easy to spend other people's money."  And most of these Bozos are "penny wise, but pound foolish."  They want to cut where the savings would be the least, while spending where the costs are most.  Don't take my word for it; look at your local places.

Speaking of that, I keep hearing about the "economic recovery."  Oh, it's been "slow," but the President and DC pols are heralding it, as are the Michigan Republicans, from the governor on down.  Remember Mark Twain's astute observation about "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."  Oh I certainly don't believe the politicians' claims of, say, employment/unemployment figures.  Who doesn't know that they play with the figures and even the definitions.  But more so, even if I accept their versions of "a recovery," it seems pretty apparent those who have "recovered" are those who were hurt the least by the recession and those who were hurt the most haven't recovered.  More jobs/employment?  Maybe, but at what costs?  Diminished hours?  Far lower pay?

I understand right-to-work and its appeal, esp as the unions have gotten way out of hand.  (Remember, though, the unions never operated by themselves.  They couldn't have given their members raises unilaterally.  Management agreed to the many ludicrous things that have led many people to turn on unions.)  That said, I really have a hard time with those former union members who now, because they can save some money, who opt out of unions.  Boy, talk about ingrates.  Or to stick with a them over the past dozen or so years, talk about being greedy!  Perhaps those who opt out should be required to also forgo any benefits the unions have bargained for them in previous years.  The opters should have to give up the union pay, health insurance, job security, etc.  But, no, they want what those who have worked to get--even though they are no longer willing to work for them.  "Hey, it's all about me!  I deserve what others get, even though they worked for it and I am not."

OK, that's enough for now, except I keep linking that Iran Deal with the Munich Agreement of 1938.  I know a lot about that agreement and the similarities are striking.  Even listening to the supporters of the Iran Deal sound remarkably like 80 years ago.  Although Munich is soundly criticized now, at the time it was extremely popular.  After all, "Herr Hitler is a reasonable man.....," said Neville Chamberlain.