"I Don't Get It"

Boy, there's a phrase teachers don't care to hear.  I think far more students are much more capable of learning than they realize or, at least, are willing to admit.  There aren't a lot of dummies out there.

That said, here goes, "I don't get it."  I find I live in a world I increasingly don't understand.  Maybe I do understand, "get it," but am not willing to admit it.

On the news this AM, a man left his son in a hot car, deliberately.  Apparently there is enough evidence to charge him with murder.  Can that one be comprehended?  Not by me.

Another local report the past few days had a carjacker pull a man and his wife, his pregnant wife, out of their car.  With his hands raised, in the air, the carjacker shot the driver anyway.  He also shot his wife.  The driver died and the woman is in the hospital.

I wonder how many people are far more concerned with voting on Dancing with the Stars and those other similar shows than voting for President (OK, you got me there!) or at least other elective offices.  I'm betting it's a lot.

I still don't understand American voters or the LameStream media.  Maybe it's just our local outlets, radio, television, newspapers, but they seem far more interested in Don Trump's tax returns than Hillary Clinton's e-mails or the Clinton Foundation.  Do the Lamestreams follow the public or does the public follow the Lamestream narrative?  (Shame on me, using that trendy word, "narrative."  I should know better.)  For that matter, I wonder what Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Linda Tripp, Gennifer Flowers, and the others assaulted by Bill Clinton think of "Miss Piggy."  I don't understand.

I engaged a Gen-Xer (or Millennial--I am so out of touch that I'm not sure I know the difference anyway) in conversation a while back.  I was reminded of this the other day when thinking about how anyone could vote for Clinton.  It was she who said something like people shouldn't have to work at jobs they don't like, "boring," "dead-end," "drudgery," (if I recall and it was a few years ago, I think), just to take care of their families, to see that they have health coverage.  They should be able to follow their dreams, even if it means taking a job which does not allow them to take care of their families or, I supposed, taken to the extreme, work at all--if that's their dream.  The Gen-Xer (or millennial) expressed something that is out of my realm of understand, except......  He agreed and said to me, "I suppose you don't agree with that."  No, I told him, I don't.  I don't remember my exact words, it was a few weeks or a month or so ago, but I replied, "You decided to have a family.  You should be the one to take care of it, not others.  You should want to, above all else, take care of your loved ones."  I could tell I wasn't at all convincing, but I added this anyway, and these are the exact words, "It's not all about you, you know."  Apparently I don't understand that, either.

And I guess Planned Parenthood or one of them Tweeted (Twittered?) something the other day about "Abortion being good for the economy."  OK, I confess, I didn't read anything beyond that, not if there was any more Tweet (Twit), not of the article, nothing.  That was enough for me.  So we kill babies to have fewer mouths to feed?  (Hey, let's be like our good trading partners, the commies in China!)  So women can "follow their dreams" and work instead of raising babies--or at least carrying babies?   And this "women's choice" thing is baffling.  Didn't they make choices in engaging in an activity that could lead to pregnancies?  But they don't want the responsibility if the "choice" goes awry?

And, again, I can't fathom why anyone would voter for either Trump or Clinton.  I've written enough about that, but the thought still bothers me.  It is baffling.