Equivalence

This AM's newspaper had an editorial titled, "Trump loses biggest pig fight."  Again, for the umpteenth time, I will never vote for Trump (nor Clinton).  What has been captured on tape and released by media outlets shows him to be what he really is, a cad of cads--or worse.  The editorial certainly reveals that, too.

But where I have trouble is the "loses" part.  The author considers Trump's words and actions to be worse than those of either Clintons--the 17 accusations of consensual or, esp, involuntary sex with Bill and the trampling, vilification, and even ruining of many of those women by Hillary using her position and power.  NO!!!!!!  Saying something, however vile, is one thing.  Doing something is quite another.  Saying is not breaking the law.  Sexual abuse and rape are breaking laws.

I know I know......  Allegations, just allegations.  And what flavor of Kool-Aid is your favorite?  The women's groups who have continued to support the Clintons should be ashamed.  That is, at one time, when shame existed, they would have been.  No longer.

And note all those Establishment Republicans, so early to oppose Trump--and rightly so.  Then they, albeit reluctantly, came on board with tepid support, at least some of them.  Now, with the latest revelation about Trump (And what did they expect?  These guys are supposed to be smart!), they've flip-flopped again, withdrawing their support and leveling criticism.

Will they, like other Establishment Republicans, throw their backing to Clinton, let's just say, the Clintons?  The Democrats are the party of the Kennedy's; the Performing Arts Center named after one of the biggest womanizers in Presidential (if not other) history and what was the relationship between that President's brother and Marilyn Monroe?  (Oh, you conspiracy nuts!)  OK, how about the third brother at Chappaquiddick.?  And yes, I could go on about others.  I'm not saying the Democrats have a monopoly on lewd or other immoral behavior.  I am merely critical of the selective outrage, of the false moral equivalence being tendered now.

On another note, the newspaper this AM also had an op-ed about Judge Damon Keith.  Has there been a better American over the past 50 years or so?  If you've followed his legal career, you know how articulate and compassionate the man has been, while staying within the confines of the law.  It is a travesty that no President--Democrat or Republican!--elevated him to the Supreme Court.  If any jurist was deserving (I think of Judge Learned Hand, for one), I can't think of many who were more so.  Going way back when, at Fordson HS I had a sociology class with Mr. Chalmers, who I think was a very intelligent man.  One of our group assignments was to find guest speakers to present to class.  With the help of my father, I lined up Damon Keith, then chair of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission.  (I think he was appointed federal district judge later that year, I think.)  I was excited and also very nervous to meet such a person, let alone the student bringing him to class.  Let's just say I was more nervous to get a call from the school office that AM from Mr. Keith that he couldn't make it.  But as might well be expected of a man of his integrity, he arranged for a substitute.  Oh, well, the sub would be better than nobody, I guessed.  Well, this substitute was no "nobody."  He was Arthur Johnson.  Who?  You wouldn't ask that question if you knew anything about the civil rights movement in Detroit.  Mr. Johnson was a college roommate of Martin Luther King.  He served in a variety of positions before eventually becoming the president of the Detroit chapter of the NAACP.  He did legendary work for the national NAACP, too.  But I remember walking down the halls of Fordson, after meeting Mr. Johnson in the office, with more than a little trepidation.  After all, this was Dearborn, unfortunately known for its segregationist policies, official or otherwise.  And I was walking with this black man, with each and every other student staring at us.  "Hey, what's Marinucci doing with that black guy?"  (I'm guessing, in 1966, many were thinking "colored guy" or maybe worse.)  Mr Johnson was very relaxed with me and Fordson and, as I recall, very pleasant.  He gave our class a great talk that I hope students remembered.  And Mr. Chambers (Remember, I said he was very smart) was quick to recognize what a prize we had in Mr. Johnson.  He relieved me of my duties after class and took Mr. Johnson to lunch with the rest of the Social Studies Department.

Sometimes it's good to have to make choices, even if theoretical ones.  Also in today's newspaper was an op-ed, "Sharpton or Pence?  How would you vote?"  It was another way to look at Trump v Clinton.  Hmmm......  Sharpton or Pence?  I'm no Pence fan, esp not his support for Indiana's "right-to-work-for-less" law.  I don't think I would have the problem with Sharpton v Pence as I do with Trump v Clinton.  I might choose, I think, Pence, given my dislike of the charlatan Sharpton.  I might also choose "none of the above," although my dislike for Pence doesn't rival that of my abhorrence of Trump or Clinton or, for that matter, Sharpton.  Now, is it unreasonable for me to ask why we can't have people like Damon Keith or Arthur Johnson running for President!?!?!?