The Latest

I heard the latest polls that had Ben Carson at 19%, Ted Cruz at 21%, and Don Trump with a double-digit lead.  The same poll asked voters (I don't know the population) the most important issue is for them.  The leading issue, with 59% (?), was to fix/change Washington, DC.  Sooner or later, if not to their demise, the Establishment Republicans are going to have to realize they won't win in '16 if they keep throwing Establishment Republican candidates at us.

A couple of weeks ago, a Detroit editor asked "when voters will come to their senses."  He was referring to the support Trump has generated.  I thought this guy was a bit more in tune with we hoi polloi than the Establishment elites, but I guess not.  He doesn't get it yet or is ignoring it.

It isn't Trump.  It's dissatisfaction, frustration, anger with the government, specifically the federal government.  Other than "the 47%," I can't imagine anyone voting for Democrats, but of course many do.  I would respect them a great deal more if they, those Democrat voters, donated a lot more of their money instead of grousing about "the rich have to pay their full share."  Yes, I think many of them are hypocrites, decrying the "greedy" wealthy while clinging to what they have.  And yes, they, at least most of them, can still live their lives quite comfortably if they lived what they preached.

I also can't imagine anyone voting for Establishment Republicans either.  I could never, for instance, vote for the current governor of the state of Michigan.  So, where does that leave me??????

I think a lot about the unrest on today's college campuses, the protests and sit-ins.  In many of these instances, I think it's just a case of entitled spoiled brats realizing they can get their way by behaving like, well, entitled spoiled brats.  Yes, there may well be some legitimate issues on campuses.  One might well be sexual assaults/rapes.  But I don't see any sit-ins, boycotts, protests at the football or basketball games.  And all this junk about "diversity," "safe place," etc.  What a bunch of hooey!  Is there any less diverse institution in the US than higher education?  Oh, college "diversity" is only what the diversity-types want or feel is necessary.  There is little diversity of opinion.  Note how first it was conservative voices that were banned from speaking on campuses.  They were hooted down or, even before they showed, had their talks canceled because of protests or threatened protests.  How's that for "diversity?"  Then note the past couple of weeks, when black students banned white students from their "safe spaces."  What's next??????

Going back to Amherst in the late '60s and early '70s (and, yes, I've been following the student protests there, too; more in a bit), the campus protests then revolved around the Vietnam War and the lies and deceptions of government and military leaders.  (No, I don't discount that there was a draft then, unlike today.)  But on our campus, voices weren't excluded.  We had one of the radical SDS guys talk and a Black Panther on trial in New Haven spoke.  On the other hand, one of LBJ's cabinet members gave a lecture, as did a retired US Army general/colonel (I forget which; it was a long time ago!).  I can't imagine any of these folks so enamored with "diversity" following such, well, diversity of opinions that Amherst afforded us.

Speaking of Amherst, I was very upset with an unofficial/nonbinding faculty vote to get rid of "Lord Jeffs" as the college mascot/nickname.  There's no concrete evidence that Amherst actually followed through on his proposal to give smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, including those who also butchered and scalped.  But I'm not going to argue the pluses and minuses here.  In fact, I might have done that.  What is concerning is that the faculty vote was unanimous.  Every faculty member believes the nickname should go?  There were no dissenters?  They are that lock-step in agreement with political correctness?  Were there any dissenters, but they were pressured/cowed into compliance?  C'mon, where is the independence of thought we were taught at Amherst 45-50 years ago?  I can just imagine, were this faculty vote actually an essay/paper we had to submit, the comments my professors would have made.  No, they wouldn't have been complimentary.

And, I think at a number of these campus protests, one of the demands is for a cultural awareness or diversity course that is mandatory for all students.  I may or may not have a problem with such a course.  I have a major problem with mandating it as a requirement.  If these protesters want such a class and want to take it, fine.  Don't tell me what to take!  And, again, I note that if these colleges, take Amherst for example, were/are so bad, why did these students opt to attend them?  As one of the very few dissenters (and certainly not the lily-livered administrators or the grown-up hippies in the faculty) at one of the colleges said, "It's like choosing to go to Cal Tech and then being disappointed that there are so few literature and so many engineering courses."  Maybe some of these protesters shouldn't have been admitted to colleges in the first place??????

It's not on the state tests, so kiss penmanship/cursive writing good-bye.  I may or may not write about that later in the week.