Corrections

OK, the Seahawks didn't take knees during the National Anthem.  They merely linked arms.  Is that different?  Maybe and maybe not.  From some of the "research" I've done, according to multiple sites, a few dozen players on most of the teams have taken knees.

I am a firm believer that the liberties granted in the Bill of Rights are protected from intrusion by the federal (and, through the 14th Amendment, the state) government(s).  More on that later.  But employers have a right to demand employees meet certain standards of behavior, dress, etc.  I agree with that, although the courts often haven't.  What I find ridiculous is the the NFL actually considered fining players for wearing cleats, armbands, etc. commemorating 9/11 and honoring the first-responders.  After all, the NFL had to issue a press release, two days afterward, that it would not be levying fines.  Yet, players who take knees, link arms, etc. in protest are protected.  Look, either the NFL has rules or it doesn't.  Apparently it can enforce them (or think about enforcing them) or not enforce them depending on circumstances.  As I said, yet another reason not to watch the NFL.

Polls.  "Scientific polls."  And which of these "polls" is "scientific?"  Are they so because the pollsters say so or make such claims?  One in Detroit the other day interviewed 600 people to represent the entire state of Michigan.  Now, how "scientific" was this poll when many Trump supporters are flying under the radar, either not admitting they'd vote for the Bozo or not "likely-to-vote" voters?  And, how far off have many of these "scientific polls" been, like the local weather men--not exactly on the mark much of the time?  Polls be damned!  I think the election, as of now, will be a lot closer than the polls seem to indicate.  That's not at all an endorsement of either major candidate, both of whom I despise and will never give my vote.  I wonder if anyone has done a "scientific" study of election results relative to the number of yard signs and bumper stickers that are displayed.

Nolan Finley had an interesting column in today's newspaper, "Is Trump trying to lose?"  Is my mind playing tricks on me or did I really post that idea months ago?  No, I'm not going to check.  If I did, I did.  If I didn't, I didn't.  Still, I've thought it!  Other than the man is completely psycho, how else to explain his behavior?  I have scoffed at many conspiracy theories, as has Finley, over the years.  But does Trump think he can win with what he does and says?  We have politicians from both parties who think they can just borrow and spend, borrow and spend (not to mention nail us on taxes!), yet Trump is worried about "Miss Piggy."  And Trump didn't want to bring up Bill Clinton's sexual transgressions and Hillary's subsequent actions because their daughter was in the audience?  Why would that stop Mr. Insensitive?  He's now worried about how his actions will be perceived?  And, Chelsea or not, it was her father who was involved.  Maybe she should confront her father and mother and ask some penetrating (no pun intended) questions, like why her mother has been so willing to destroy the careers and lives of the women who have accused her husband.  (BTW, why the outrage, deserved, against Bill Cosby, but so little, against Bill Clinton?)  And, well, if you don't believe any of this history of sexual abuse and misconduct and the attempts to squash the accusers and their stories, there's no sense in us wasting our time discussing it.

Trump, after all, has spent a lot of time and money supporting Democrats and their policies over the years.  Could he really be trying to hand the election to Clinton, to destroy the Republican Party (which might well deserve destruction, although not for the reasons Trump might have)?  As Finley notes, I too am open to explanations other than this or "a serious mental disorder."

It seemed overt to me, one of the main reasons I oppose the Left.  And article in today's Free Press suggested that schools of choice don't work in large part because parents are ignorant, they don't know any better, that they make their choices on the basis of ideology not practicality.  (Gee, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!).  That sums it up--and you can toss in the Republican Establishment, from DC to Lansing and in-between.  These elite are smarter than we are; they know what's best for us better than we do.  From what I've observed over the years about politicians and bureaucrats, such a sentiment is highly suspect.  But more to the point, it flies in the face of democratic principles, that the people can and should rule themselves.