A First Step?

The new administration has been mouthing words such as "We have to come together" and "We must unite." The President today said, "We are not enemies. We are neighbors." I say "mouthing" because until I see something other than empty words, I can't take these Democrats very seriously. How often they say one thing and do something quite different. (Isn't that lying?) Do "We have to come together" and "We must unite" include trying to expel Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz from the US Senate for challenging the Electrical College vote, something Pelosi's own choice of impeachment manager wanted to do, the exact same thing, in 2017? For that matter, how can we take any of these talking heads or newspaper editors spouting "togetherness" and "unity?" I haven't seen anything remotely resembling such suggestions. But I'm not really surprised; are you? I often don't know what or who to believe any more; there are liars on both sides. ("Character? Is that still around?") But I've heard things such as "deprogramming" and "re-education." Again, true? I don't know. But such talk should frighten everyone. "Hey, it can't happen here!" Who'd a thunk, a year ago, government could force thousands of businesses to close, schools to shut to the extreme detriment of our children, people to wear masks everywhere, etc.? (I am reminded of one of Sinclair Lewis's lesser known novels, "It Can't Happen Here." Lewis created a Depression-era scenario when the US becomes a fascist state. Opposition, such as the editor Doremus Jessup, is silenced--imprisonment without trial, disappearing, etc. It's well worth reading, particularly in light of how readily many/most Americans have given up their rights to autocratic governors today.) But back to my point. If Biden is serious, here's a suggestion. Wait a while, maybe a month?, and invite Donald Trump and Melania to the White House for dinner, purely as a social affair. Of course, if he does that, I might be so shocked that I'd have a heart attack! (But I'd survive. My days will be ended by "a bus" or "a bazooka." My physician told me that.) But it would be a start. And the Trumps might well decline. It would be a step, action instead of more empty rhetoric. Biden could also ask the House to withdraw its impeachment. If that's not possible, to take back the charge, they he could urge the Senate to vote against removal--unanimously. (I think it's unconstitutional, if not utterly stupid, to "remove" a guy from the Presidency if he is no longer the President. I know there are some Constitutional questions about banning Trump from ever running again, but I'd think that would be sorted out by the Supremes.) I suppose my suggestions are predicated that Biden really wants to unite Americans, other than "uniting" all under the Democrat Party banner. I am not sure he does; in fact, I doubt it. But if he is serious..... Then again, maybe Biden is just a puppet, strings being pulled by others with their own agendas.

"Selective...."

Several dictionary sites have chosen "pandemic" as the Word of the Year 2020. It would be tough to argue with that. The virus has destroyed 2020. Everyone's life has been affected by it. Yes, no complaints from me about "pandemic" other than I just plain don't like the word. Similarly, I believe it was the annual Lake Superior State University review that included "We're all in this together" as a phrase they'll be glad to see go. Me, too, since it's obvious to all but the unseeing that we are not all in this together. More evidence today--people are "jumping the line" to get their vaccine shots. It doesn't matter than some people might be more vulnerable, might need the shot more. After all, those "Old people, why do they need the vaccine? They're going to die anyway." So, "If I can cheat and get the shot instead of someone who might need it more, so what?" I'd really like to see which people are doing that. "We're all in this together," except when we're not. I have another candidate for a word that has played an important role in our society, but not just 2020. This started several years ago. I'm not sure how often people actually use the word, but it does describe much of how they act. "Selective." People have become very selective in their lives. It seems we have selective morality, selective outrage, selective principles (Does that make them really not principles then?), selective concern, and more. Some "experts" have dismissed this, that "selective" merely is employed to attack political, philosophical, and other opponents. I'm not quite so quick to dismiss it, but am willing to accept a different term if it fits. I suppose "hypocritical" can worm its way into the discussion. So can "self-serving." Perhaps frivolous, but a good example was an article in the newspaper the other day. The sports writer noted how the likes of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and others are kept out of the Baseball Hall of Fame because of their performance-enhancing drug use. OK, if Hall electors (sports writers, veterans' committee, or whoever) want to take a stand on that issue, fine. But, then, how can these same electors have inducted former commissioner Bud Selig to the Hall? Wasn't it under his watch (or non-watch?) that the whole PED thing exploded? Wasn't it sort of like Nero fiddling while Rome burned? (Actually, that, Nero fiddling, isn't true, but you get the point.) Why, then, are the players who used PEDs not selected while the man who looked the other way is? Why is Donald Trump roundly criticized for infidelity to his marriage(s), but Bill Clinton's similar escapades overlooked? Where was the National Organization of Women on that? Oh, Clinton was impeached (as was Trump, but over a far different "issue"), but he remained very popular despite being a scumball. Why are Trump's lies brought up at every turn, but most people ignored Barack Obama's untruthfulness, deliberate untruthfulness? It seems to me Obama's lies had more of a direct impact on lives than Trump's. "Follow the science" is another example of being "selective." If we are to "follow the science," shouldn't we consider all of "the science?" But we don't. We only "follow" what suits our agendas, our purposes. I'm old enough to remember the Time Magazine cover story of the '70s, "A New Ice Age?" Oh how we were warned! Fewer that 20 years later, it was "global warming" that was going to destroy our planet (and us). Well, maybe it's not really global warming, but "climate change." Remember the "acid rain" fears heaped upon us? Our lakes would be dead, all the plant and animal (fish) life killed off. The "science" told us that. Perhaps in part due to some societal changes we made, it never happened. The same thing is true of CoVid. Selective science is applied, science that supports some politicians' motives and agendas. They pick and choose what they use to set policy, to inform the citizenry. Oh, they trot out "experts," experts who say the "right" things. But why don't they (or the media!) also listen to or even publicize opposing views? "The science says....." Well, not all of the science says what is purported. Some very well known and respected scientists, including Nobel winners, have disagreed with the science that has been accepted. How "selective" we are in our outrage over the protesters. Those in DC, although only a very small fraction of those who were there, were "assaulting our democracy." Yep, I heard that from all of those lame-brained politicians, media pundits, and their "experts." So, it must be true, right? Why would they lie to us? Heh Heh. But all those summer riots, er, "peaceful protests," even against federal and state government buildings, police and fire stations, other government property, not to mention private homes and stores, was not an "assault" on anything, I guess. I remember nary a peep from these same people when cities were being burned last summer. Our outrage is "selective" when it affects us in a bad way, but if others face bad things, that's OK--we're not angry at all. There are many more examples. I, for one, am getting very, very tired of it. I suspect more and more people are, too.

Dazed and Confused

Here are a couple of brief thoughts I have had this AM. (I know. You don't believe they are "brief." Neither do I. Ha Ha Ha.) I am confused. I have been repeatedly told that not all Muslims are extremists and terrorists. (For the record, I do not believe that they are. Over the years, I've known many Muslims and considered them friends and more. But no doubt some will misinterpret what I write/say.) Yet, all those who support or even voted for President Trump are racists and bigots. Hmmm. (For the record, I don't believe that, either.) All summer I was led to believe that not all those rioters, er, "peaceful protesters" were doing violent things such as looting, burning, destroying, assaulting, and even murdering. But all those who showed up in DC last Wednesday were intent on insurrection, traitors who wanted to overthrow the US government. So which is it? When am I supposed to [spozda] believe "all of them" and when am I not? I think I need a scorecard. What I'm really looking for is a little intellectual honesty instead of blatant partisan hypocrisy and willful blindness. We can surely disagree, but let's at least be honest about our opinions. In a crossword I did this weekend was the clue "lese majeste." It's an old French term that means to do wrong or commit a crime against the ruler or, I suppose in a broader sense, the state or government. In a democracy, that's a dangerous concept. Henry Steele Commager, a history professor when I was at Amherst, once wrote that a society's most valuable members are its critics. He had an entire essay devoted to that idea. I fully agree, especially in a free society. That is the essence of the First Amendment. (Is that still around?????) It seems to me, though, that many Americans deire a return to "lese majeste." To them, a difference of opinion regarding our government, the direction it takes, who is elected, etc. is a crime--or at least they want to make it one. Oh, I have a lot more on my mind, but I wrote "brief" above. I think for now I'll stick to that.

January 6

I've been trying to organize my thoughts about the events of January 6. It has not been easy. My emotions have run the gamut, from extreme anger and frustration to deep sadness and hopelessness. The violent protesters of Wednesday need to be identified and punished, just like the violent protesters who burned down our cities, looted, etc. last summer. Period. It's hard to know where to start. It's no secret I am not nor ever have been a fan of President Trump. I won't rehash that here. (People can check my previous blogs.) Yes, I think he bears a great deal of blame for Wednesday. He has exhibited incredible irresponsbility, from the election right up to January 6. I expected nothing less; that's what he is, in effect, an irresponsible adolescent. He'll never grow up. Instead of show real leadership (which if he'd shown in his term as President, he'd likely have won the election without much problem) in contesting the election, he threw his equivalent of a tantrum. I do blame him. I found it almost unbelievable that he peppered his "Go home peacefully" Tweet with, "They stole the election. We know it. They know it. Everyone knows it." Talk about lighting a match next to a pile of gasoline-soaked rags! That spurred on his most delusional supporters. Was there, as Trump has claimed, "fraud" in the election? I really don't know. Like so much today, I don't know who to believe. But I do believe there was; I just don't know for sure. There were too many statistical anomalies, too many convenient coincidences, too many deviations from state laws and practices, etc. to assure confidence in the fairness of the election. And I certainly don't trust the Democrats who were in charge of much of this vote-counting. But believing isn't knowing. I find it interesting that when I make statements like this, that I think the Democrats are dishonest, scummy hypocrites, I am accused of being a Trumpster. Yet, at the same time, I have incurred the wrath (or at least displeasure) of Trump supporters when I express my extreme distaste for him. I mentioned to one of my brothers I'd likely upset people with this blog; he replied, "Go ahead and piss them off!!!" OK. If there wasn't much fraud (And how much is acceptable? A little? In just some places? None is!!!!!), it was certainly at the least incompetence, incompetence that borders on fraud. That said, I doubt, but again don't really know, if there were enough questionable votes to change the outcome. I don't know and nobody really knows. Believing isn't knowing. This election and subsequent ones must be investigated. Who will investigate? Politicians, either Democrats or Republicans? Bureaucrats appointed by and dependent upon Democrats or Republicans? Isn't that sort of like letting the foxes run the chicken coop? I kept hearing the blowhard politicans on Capitol Hill, the media pundits, and their "experts" sound off about the January 6 events as "an assault on our Democracy." I think the lack of faith in honest elections is as great, if not far greater, "an assault on our Democracy." Fair elections/Voting is the essence of "our Democracy." If they are violated..... More than that, I think, I was angriest at the sanctimonious self-righteousness (I use those terms a lot.) of the politicians, media pundits, and their academic "experts." I was not only angry, but insulted and frustrated. They got it all wrong! The politicians didn't make America-first, save our Democracy speeches. They provided cop-outs, political speeches aimed at further themselves. For all their talk about "healing," "coming together," "reuniting," well, these Senators and members of Congress were mostly pathetic, nauseating even. The "experts" glossed over the significance of the past. Have these idiots forgotten the threats posed to Washington, the Capitol building, "our Democracy" by the Civil War? Maybe one of them brought it up, but I didn't and haven't heard it. One was stupid enough to say this was a bigger threat than Pearl Harbor! But, again, I expected nothing less from these arrogant elitists, hypcrites that they are. (Why don't more people understand that?) For four years, the Democrats and their media lapdogs have stirred up division and hate. Hate and division, I guess, are OK when they benefit the Democrats (and their media lapdogs). If they are detrimental to the US, so what? From the day Trump was elected in 2016 (and I believe even Trump was surprised he won), they have driven a wedge between Americans. Anyone who denies this course of division and hatred is incredibly stupid, willfully blind, blatantly hypocritical--or all three! Now, though, it's not them--It's Trump! These are the one's insisting that the events of January 6 were "an assault on our Democracy." How many people, "protesters," were at the Capitol on Wednesday--tens of thousands? (I heard there was a "limit" of 35,000, but who knows how many "illegals"--ha ha ha--there were.) How many have been arrested? I heard on the radio last night fewer than 100. There may be more; I don't know. How many despicably broke into and entereed the Capitol? (I am not in the least way justifying this. Throw the book at them!) So, what fraction of one percent were "assaulting our Democracy?" (I'm not going to bring up the summer riots, er, "peaceful protests," many of which were encouraaged by these same Democrats and misreported by their lapdog media. Remember the CNN reporter who called them "mostly peaceful protesters" as an entire city block burned in the background of her report?) I am convinced all their talk of "impeachment" and "the 25th Amendment" are diversions, to rile up more people, to obfuscate the left's role in all of this. And they drag in as complicit in this "assault" Congressmen and Senators who dared challenge state electoral votes. In other words, to these politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, it's OK that some of these states' highly questionable election procedures go without scrutiny. Potential fraud and incompetence are just fine. In fact, those who stood up for the integrity of elections are being called responsible for what happened on January 6. "The Swamp" lives! It will use Wednesday to more firmly entrench itself. See what happens when you challenge it. You will be responsible for those who stormed the Capitol--YOU! Those jerk politicians and the media who talk about "the assault on our Democracy" are far greater threats to "our Democracy" than those few felons who attacked the Capitol. They'll just bring about its demise a little more slowly, gradually. Oh, I forgot, like Gretchen Whitmer, these blowhard hypocrites, arrogant elitists are "saving us." They never look in the mirror. Why should they? Haven't they proven they are smarter than we are, that they know what's best for us better than we do ourselves? (Ask Obama.) They cannot see the damage they have done and are doing to these United States. Perhaps they don't care. There's a lot more on my mind. My thoughts and emotions are still all jumbled. This is enough for now, but for one thing. I wasn't at all surprised the the media pundits and the "experts" they brought in got their American history wrong. No, I wasn't surprised at all.

Vaccine Passport?

I was reminded of this, in a different context, last week. No doubt you are familiar with the methodology of boiling frogs (or lobsters) to death. First, the government tells us what kind of light bulbs we can use. Then it's toilets. Shower heads. Televisions. Health insurance (But don't worry. "You can keep your policy. You can keep your doctor. It won't cost you an extra dime.") Masks. Businesses (but only certain ones) must close. Vaccine passports????? And then the frog was dead.

The Vaccine

The virus vaccine distribution has begun. The pecking order has been established and some folks have had their shots. I haven't paid a lot of attention so far. But I have been thinking about the vaccine. I know a lot of people will think me crazy (crazier?) for my thoughts on this. Like this how CoVid debacle, there is, for too many folks, only one way to think. I am hesitant to be vaccinated. First, I am loathe to get vaccinations. I'm not fearful of shots, not at all. I don't fear needles. I've been donating blood for more than 50 years and received my "100 gallon pin" from the Red Cross a few years ago. (I didn't know the Red Cross was counting. I wasn't.) But I have never had a regular flu shot and haven't had the flu in more than 30 years. The flu vaccines are not particularly effective, not if a 40% average rate of effectiveness is considered. And according to WebMD, that rate has varied, from a low of about 10% to a high of 60%. The flu vaccine also wears off. The flu virus is notorious for mutating. The medical profession doesn't really know what flu will hit from year to year and, well, how can a really effective vaccine be developed if we don't know what strain of the flu will come? I suppose some people will think 40% effectiveness is pretty good. I don't happen to think so. Too, how many vaccines have taken years and years to develop? Granted, much of the delay can be attributed to red tape/bureaucratic regulations. But my guess is that is just a fraction of the development time. It takes a lot of trial and error to develop a vaccine. Yet this CoVid vaccine seems to have come along pretty quickly, the Trump Administration's cutting of red tape notwithstanding. Its safety must be suspect, I would think, unless one is a bobble head, listening and believing everything the politicians, bureaucrats, and media spew. For that matter, that safety is being vouched for by the same people--politicians, bureaucrats, the media--who have deceived and lied to us for months and continue to do so. If that seems a bit harsh, then let's just say these people sure seem to change their minds a lot. I know they have been defended by statements such as, "We don't know yet. We're still finding out about the virus." Well, then, if that still applies, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccine. And now I'm supposed to trust these people? Remember, too, before the election the great skepticism being peddled by the Democrats about a vaccine. Now, it seems, they are much more on board. Which is it? Do they expect people to think the election made the vaccine more effective? Apparently they do and I'd guess the bobble heads will buy into it. I read early reports that the vaccine was "90% effective." That might be true, but I don't buy it. That's a real stretch, isn't it, "90% effective?" I'm not afraid of the virus. I do take it seriously, but it doesn't frighten me. Yep, I'm old, but I'm very healthy. I really fit none of the at-risk groups. As concerning to me is society's reaction to the vaccine. It frightens me. How will the bobble heads react to people who opt not to get the vaccine? Look how hysterical they've been so far on all things CoVid. Will businesses refuse to serve customers unless those customers provide proof of vaccination? Can goods and services be denied people who opt out of vaccinations? Can employers require them? I wouldn't like that, but could accept it if it's the businesses' choice, not something forced on them by Big Government. And that is what is most frightening? Can the federal government require innoculation? Will citizens have to carry around proof, a barcode for instance, or face fines or jail? Well, consider what they make citizens do now. Light bulbs. Flush toilets. Television sets. Shower heads. Cooking with transfats. Sizes of soft drinks/sugar sodas. Health insurance. Requiring a vaccination might not be such a big step, especially no with the bobble heads clamoring as they surely will. Speaking of the bobble heads. Why don't they just shut up and lock themselves in their houses? They achieved what they wanted. At the expense of other people's livelihoods (businesses, jobs, incomes) they have been made to feel "comfortable" that they won't die. And, no doubt, they are the ones complaining about the "greed" of those concerned about losing their businesses, jobs, etc. with the lockdowns. When thinking about "greed," maybe they should look in the mirror.

The Electrical College

For the record, yes, I'm kidding. Now that Joe Biden has been "elected" President, maybe we will forget about the Electoral College for a while. Maybe not. The Electoral College has been the object of a great deal of criticism, especially for the last sixty or more years. It is "undemocratic," "outmoded," and "just not fair." (No, I'm not going to get started on that word, "fair.") The election of Presidents was among the last of the issues settled by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. That's because there was a great deal of concern about how to choose such an important office holder. Of course there was a call for what we call today "a direct popular vote," what James Madison called "an immediate appointment of the people." But there were many other proposals, too. Some wanted state governors to pick the President. Others called for Congress or even just the Senate to choose. In the end, the Electoral College was adopted. It was a compromise, but it also addressed the concerns many of the Founding Fathers had. Now, there is a serious movement afoot to abolish the Electoral College. Some have called for a Constitutional amendment. I think that is unlikely to happen. A more serious threat is a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If I read this correctly, if adopted, the Electoral College would not be abolished. But states electors would be required to ignore the popular vote within their individual states and vote for whichever candidate had the most popular national votes. Since states, by the Constitution are permitted to select electors in their own ways, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the State legislature thereof might direct, a number of Electors....." state legistlatures, that is individual states, can enact the NPV. It would seem this would be fruitless--unless enough states to total 270 Electoral Votes agree to the NPV initiative. Then, in effect, the Electoral College would be emasculated. (Can I still use that term?) In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 Presidents were elected although their opponents had more popular votes nationwide. Plus, more than a dozen other times, Presidents won with a plurality, not a majority, of popular votes. (Lincoln was one of them, receiving just under 40% of the popular vote in 1860. Due to a three-way race in 1992, Bill Clinton got 43% of the popular vote.) The attacks on the Electoral College today are as vociferous as ever. We should tread carefully in considering this. The Electoral College is there for a purpose. Critics will point to "the will of the people," that is, that the Electoral College has proven in at least five elections to be "undemocratic." (No, I don't agree that "We aren't a democracy." Yes, we are. We just aren't a direct democracy. The US is an indirect republican or representative democracy. Those who claim otherwise overlook the opening three words of the Constitution. The Preamble reads, "We the people....." It could easily have said, as some of the Founders desired, "We the states..." or "We the Congress" or.....) The "general will" is a dangerous concept. Look at the French Revolution. (There he goes with that history stuff again.) The Electoral College is a safeguard against tyranny of the majority. And the US has been described as a government by the majority with minority rights. The US has a federal system. The states matter! If they don't, get rid of the US Senate. Do away with state legislatures and governors and use them merely in administrative functions. Look at early writings of this country. In united States, the "u" was not capitalized, but the "S" was. In sentences, it was "The united States are," different from today's "The United States is....." States mattered. Federalism allows for more local solutions for more local issues and problems. For instance, should the federal government be involved, that is, use tax dollars from citizens in, say, Nevada, to help clear the massive snowfall today in New England? Of course it shouldn't. In the same vein, issues and candidates will differ in places like New York City and the plains of Nebraska. Should the greater population of NYC elect a President who might ignore the problems of the Plains states? At least with the Electoral College, lip service has to be given to the smaller states' concerns. Eliminating the Electrical College would be a mistake.