Random Thoughts on an Early Autumn AM

For years I have said and written that Americans, by voting, get what they deserve and, unfortunately, I get it, too. I read an article this AM that underscored that, although the author was a bit more crude about it. He called it "the idiocracy," who with the help of Big Tech and the Lamestream media, have allowed the politicians and bureaucracy (Big Government) to "outnumber and outgun (financially)" us. Is it unreasonable of me to want to live my life unfettered with government dictates, such as what kind of television, toilet, light bulbs, healthy insurance, and soon cars I must buy? Is it unreasonable for me to want to keep more of the money I have earned rather than having it taken (stolen in the name of taxation) by a government which has a considerably rotten record of wasting most of it? Is it unreasonable of me to expect government to enforce all of the laws it has passed, not just the ones those currently in power favor? (Why can some people get away with looting, committing arson, destroying public and other private property, but others who may try to avoid paying income taxes have the heavy hand of Big Government land on them?) The list goes on, almost endlessly. I recenly was told of a person who was very upset, quite put out, with seeing a Trump campaign sign that included, "No More Bull....." Apparently the biggest concern was "Kids will see it," the reference to "Bull....." I didn't have a chance to confront this woman or I'd have asked, "What did you think of Governor Whitmer's campaign slogan, '...and I'll fix the damn roads?'" Logic tells us a lot more "kids" heard "damn roads" than will see this guy's Trump sign. I think I know what the response to my question would be, "But that's different." Well, no it's not, but it does tell me a lot about this person. "It's OK when my side does it, but the other side can't." To me, both "Bull...." and "damn" are wrong and, frankly, despicable. "Our democracy is firmly rooted in the principles of an informed electorate which makes decisions at the polls based on reason and beliefs over lies and deception,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement. She is opening an investigation into a petition drive which seeks to limit the state's governor's broad, overreaching "emergency executive orders." Apparently some pro-Whitmer bobble heads are claiming fraud in the effort to gather petition signatures. I don't know about any fraudulent tactics. My signature wasn't gained by "lies and deception." (And my votes aren't influence by Russians or Chinese or.....) So, when is Nessel going to start investigations of politicians, of their campaign "promises" and ads? Talk about "lies and deception!" I think we know the answer to that one, too. "Politics, a profession whose main skill seems to be lying." I forgot where I read that or who said/wrote it. In poll after poll, members of Congress and other politicians are cited as being the least trusted people/profession. We just laugh at the campaign promises they make--and continue to vote for the liars. I'm only half joking when I suggest that the campaign liars should be investigated for fraud. I guess I can only shake my head when so many people distrust politicians, yet have so meekly have followed their directives--shutdowns, quarantines, masks, etc.--regarding the Corona virus. Why do these people still believe "They're saving lives?" It's as if they spit in our faces, tell us it's raining, and we fall for it--again and again. So, it appears the Democrats will use Amy Coney Barrett's Catholicism as a way to try to block her confirmation. Hmmm. I don't know if it's true, but more than one person has told me that Joe Biden claims to be a devout Catholic. (Which leads to the question of how a "devout Catholic" can support abortion. He attends mass each Sunday and carries a rosary in his pocket. So, why is Barrett's faith in question when Biden's is not? I suppose I know the answer to that. "But that's different." And can it really be true that the opposition to her confirmation are really going to try to portray her adoption of several children, including a couple from Haiti, as a character flaw? All this madness reminds me of two tunes. One is Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction" in the '60s, "This whole crazy world is just too frustratin'." (I can still hear his gravelly voice in my head!) The other is the drum and fife ditty played by Cornwallis's band when he surrendered to George Washington at Yorktown, "The World Turned Upside Down." (No, I'm old, but not old enough to hear the British drummers and fifers in my head!)

Double Standards

How long before some NBA player puts this name on the back of his jerseys or before some NFL player does the same?  The name?  One of the LA deputies who were ambushed in their squad car last week.  Either one, but especially the woman officer who, while wounded multiple times in the head and elsewhere, called in the emergency and performed first aid on her partner.  What NBA or NFL player will have the decency, the guts to display this heroine's name?  If Las Vegas were to place odds on such a display, my guess they would be zero.  

Yet, these ignorant players continue to spout and wear the often trite words of the protesters who tried to block the hospital where these deputies were transported after being shot.  As of yet, I haven't heard a single professional athlete publicly denounce the ambush.  Not a one has called for people--family, friends, neighbors--to help apprehend this shooter, that is, to provide information that can lead to the shooter's apprehension.

But what would one expect from these athletes who backed down from criticism of the commie government in China--human rights abuses, genocide, etc.?  You mean take a stand, even against its own mealy-mouthed league?  Ha Ha Ha.  No, these multi-millionaires are too busy ranting against white privilege.  Taking a real stand might endanger their millions.

I heard some radio guy once declare, "If [whatever group he said] didn't have double standards, it wouldn't have any standards at all."  I chuckled, but there is truth in that.  I was thinking of this the other day, trying to make sense of the "defund the police" idiocy.  (No, I can't make sense of it.)  So we are to believe, according to all these protesters, that all police officers are bad, deliberately targeting and looking to murder blacks, etc.  Yep, all of them.  Otherwise why defund entire departments?  But, we are admonished, don't label as violent all of the protesters in Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, DC, Lancaster, etc.  It's claimed, 95% of the protesters are peaceful.  (I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument, I'll let that slide.)  So don't characterize all the protesters because of the actions of a few.  We heard the same thing about Muslims.  Don't condemn all of  Islam because of the doings of the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Islamists.  (I didn't, but that's not my point here.)  Why, then, are all police officers the object of these "peaceful protesters?"

Trivial, perhaps, but why were a certain governor and Speaker of the House able to have their hair done, while the "great unwashed" couldn't visit a hairdresser or barber?  For that matter, to play fair, why is it OK to portray the Star-Spangled Banner (the flag) in nontraditional ways (The Blue Line Flag), but not so OK to sign the Star-Spangled Banner (the national anthem) in nontraditional ways (Marvin Gaye, Jose Feliciano, et al)?  It seems the people who support the former really detest the latter.  Why?  I think both are perfectly fine.

Reacting, Not Thinking

Two Michigan colleges, Michigan State University and Alma, have removed the name of Stephen Nisbet from buildings on their campuses.  The reason provided is that he was a racist, a member of the Ku Klux Klan sometime in his early adult years.  I don't know if he was or if he wasn't.  The actual evidence is a bit sketchy.  But to today's crowd, the "wokists" among us, evidence and facts are not necessary or, perhaps, even desired.  Facts appear to be inconvenient things to get in the way.

Very telling to me is a statement from one of the MSU trustees who voted to remove Nisbet's name.  She said, "Given the point of society we are in right now....."  Yep, another rush to judgment is in order right now.

Perhaps Nisbet was a member of the KKK.  As noted, there is some evidence he was, but it is not conclusive, especially not to his family.  Why the hurry?  As that same trustee added, "...it's appropriate to distance ourselves from anyone who had affiliation with the KKK."  I agree, maybe.  There are a number of things to consider first.

Was he really a member of the Ku Klux Klan?  If he was, was he an active member?  After all, it's been suggested that the Klan often just added names to its membership rolls to boost its numbers, obviously for propaganda purposes.  Were there really 50,000 Klansmen in Michigan in the 1920s?  And, especially given the times, did most of them "join" merely because it was a social organization rather than for its racism?  How many of them were young, in their late teens or twenties, and joined because their buddies did, not because they were racists?  I'm not at all defending the despicable KKK, although "given the point of society we are in right now" some "wokists" might so discern--wrongly, of course, in their convoluted and ignorant thinking.  It's just that I'm getting tired of ignorant, uninformed people making decisions or forcing other ignorant, uninformed, and even cowardly people (and schools, corporations, and politicians) to make them.

What about Nisbet's accomplishments in the rest of his life, after perhaps his bout with a youthful indiscretion that he likely never really thought about and regretted for the rest of his life?  Why do people, including the entire MSU board of trustees who unanimously agreed to remove his name,  ignore his later efforts to promote civil rights in this state, from the writing of the current state constitution to casting the deciding vote to appoint the first black president of a major research university in the US (MSU)?

I am reminded of two things.  (Oh Oh!  Is he going to start that history stuff again?)  Hugo Black was one of the great civil libertarians of the 20th Century Supreme Court.  Don't take my word for it; as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."  Yet, in his early adulthood he was a member of the KKK in Alabama (I think).  Should all of Hugo Black's efforts and successes in the area of civil liberties be "canceled" because of that?

Amid the rush to pull down statues, in Wisconsin the "wokists" tore down one of an abolitionist.  I don't know their faulty reasoning, but the man, Hans Christian Heg, died for the cause of abolition.  He gave his life for it; yet the ignorant had their way.  The thugs have defiled and vandalized memorials to Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln was the man the freedmen, the emancipated former slaves, referred to as "Father Abraham."  The Biblical reference was no accident.

A prime culprit in all of this "wokism," maybe the prime one, is social media.  (This is one of those terms I am coming to detest.)   Social media makes situations worse. It rewards the instinct to react, to “like” or to “share,” not to “stop” or to “think.”  It has brought to life, to acceptance even, "No thinking allowed!"