Richard Nixon, Redux

Forty-some years ago, Richard Nixon was unceremoniously ushered out of the Presidency.  His resignation, the only American President to resign, saved him from an impeachment trial and, no doubt, a conviction and removal.

But, what were his sins?  Why did he become so reviled (if he hadn't been by a large segment of Americans going back to the  '40s and '50s) that he had no choice but to resign?

Contrast that with today.  Lies, deliberate lies, to enhance or protect one's political position.  Use of agencies of the federal gov't to attack political opponents ("enemies lists").  Blatant disregard of the Constitution and federal laws.  Why is there no serious opposition to what is happening now?  It seems to me that today's scofflaws are every bit as deserving as Nixon to trials and punishment.  What's the difference?

Could it be the hatred many elitists had for Nixon?  Could it be that, simply, if my guy breaks the law, that's OK; if your guy does, it's Katie bar the door?  Could it be a rotten LameStream media, biased and arrogant in its own self-righteousness?

Maybe people have finally become fed up, hence, the support for Trump (and, to an extent Sanders).  Trump supporters have had it and see no other solution to the problems of crooked, lying politicians, arrogantly biased media, and a gov't that takes sides, seemingly intent on serving some people at the expense of others.

Anyway, I found it quite distressing to read a reasonably intelligent person's rationale for defeating Sanders in Calif, if only to bolster the chances of nomination for Clinton.  As I have written many times, asking "How can any person support Clinton for the Presidency?"  It beats me and I can't figure it out.

Gus asked the other day if I noticed how a Metro newspaper seemed to have the same writers of letters-to-the-editor again and again.  Yep, I've noticed and it's more than just that one newspaper.  All of the Detroit dailies seem to have that situation.  I know they don't publish three or four a week, but if you watch, the same names pop up very frequently.

I guess I don't have a problem with that.  Many of the writers express intelligent ideas, some with which I agree and some I don't.  But the ideas are often sound.

But it reminded me of my own situation.  For a while, I was one of those, getting half a dozen or more letters published each year.  Then, a couple of years ago, I wrote asking why one of the Metro newspapers was so critical of people/groups who tried to use the machinery of gov't to their advantage, pointing out that's exactly what the two Detroit newspapers did about 20-some years ago to prevent their own demise/deaths.  If the newspapers' survival came about by utilizing special gov't influence (or whatever term it might be; I can't think of it right now), why can't others also seek to advance their interests?  I guess it's whose ox is being gored, huh?

The murders in Detroit, esp of kids, continues.  Is there a day that goes by without a story of someone being shot and killed or wounded down in the city?  (The latest was on a street maybe a couple of miles from my boyhood home, actually in the same block.)  If there is, there aren't many of them.  So, I guess a legitimate question is, where are the Black Lives Matter folks?  Why aren't they protesting, to the utmost, the shootings of 3- and 4- and 5-year olds?  Where are they?  Their credibility is at stake.