Wait a second - you think the right is violent?

Alas, we have a sick society. And, it is getting sicker.

The events of January 6, 2021 should have caught no one by surprise, least of all the D.C. police or federal government. I disapprove of the behavior of these young men and women (though the left would like to pretend, when convenient, that two sexes no longer exists). I presume that many of them I would vehemently dislike, particularly if they are actual racists (as opposed to the anti-racists the left now calls racists) and I’m sure there are some who would dislike me immediately, for whatever reason. Frankly, I have never liked radicals or extremists on either side of the aisle. Unfortunately, a good part of the left is now radical and many of the others, however nice and well-meaning they think they are, are what used to be called with reference to the Soviets, “useful idiots.” Even the nicest and most intelligent of them. Literally, the people who put Hitler in power were thinking the same thing (no, I don’t think Biden is Hitler) – it will be better because now they will stop fighting.

But, despite my disapproval of what the rioters did, I do get it. Oh, I completely do and so do millions of other Americans, even if they too are shocked at the attack on the capital.

Why? Because that is my reflexive response, but violence is what the left has done the past decade (and at various other times in the past, as, of course has the right in the past). This is what they have done repeatedly, alarmingly, without shame or need to hide it (thanks to a complicit media and Democrat Party), over the course of the last year to such a degree it has rendered some cities places you just don’t want to go to – including NYC, once the greatest city I knew of.

BLM and Antifa have rioted, threatened, killed all over our country and been lauded for it. They are responsible for hundreds, if not thousands of deaths just this year, mostly the deaths of minorities, many young children, but also cops of every description and other innocent people. No one cares less for the lives of black people than BLM, which has this year been responsible for their deaths at a rate of which neo-Nazis and the few Klansmen left in this country could only dream.  They’ve tried to defund the police, though it is an idiotic idea beyond words. They’ve tried to push us down the road to socialism (do you read their websites? The so-called anti-racist books. If you haven’t, don’t argue with me). 

They have created a “Heil Hitler” like campaign of saying “Black Lives Matter,” intimidating or fooling people to accept it as somehow better than “all lives matter” (remember, Jim Webb had to give up a presidential campaign just for saying it once), so that we now see it all over the web, tv and on storefronts. Black lives only matter because all lives do, and the entire basis of their claim that they say it because people don’t act like they know it has been shown to be entirely false. Blacks are actually the most privileged people in America, though, obviously, they are economically less successful as a group. They automatically get higher SAT scores because they are black. They get admitted into schools easier because they are black. The anti-discrimination laws favor them. The federal disparate impact laws favor them (most people never heard of it, but it means they don’t need to even prove discrimination in some areas – just that they didn’t as a group do as well with respect to some law). They are favored in getting contracts. It is a get out of jail free card for many and the police are told by their superiors not to arrest them, because if they resist and you fight them, you will get prosecuted). They can attack police singly and or in groups and their racist supporters (both black and white) demand the police not fight back – and they’ve won that battle.

They’ve argued its okay to destroy property, they pretend disagreeing with them or not taking their side is violence (“White silence is violence”) so that they have an excuse not to be violence.

I could go into a long scree about the left, but I’ve done it many times in this blog and anyone can read it if they want. This is about the riot in D. C. the other day. And it’s not really about blacks either. The BLM/Antifa movement is actually more of a socialist one (if you don’t read their literature, I promise you, CNN, the NYTimes and most news channels certainly aren’t going to enlighten you). We see these riots all over the country, mostly in democratically controlled areas where they know the government will not interfere and blacks and other minorities suffer most from it because they can’t get away. And so many of the rioters are obviously white. Sometimes most or all of them. Most blacks, of course, want the same or more cops. Who wouldn’t? Who else will protect them?

I know, if you get your news from the usual sources and don’t research yourself (you can, but it’s time consuming and hard to find stuff that is not propaganda), you think – I never heard any of this. What are you talking about? I say this with authority because so many people, among them my closest friends, have said it to me.

Look, the BLM riots were hardly peaceful. Joe Biden’s comments today that blacks would have been treated harsher were an abomination, a vicious lie, and the worst pandering I’ve ever seen since Hilary Clinton started carrying hot sauce in her pocketbook. 

One non-profit that tracks violence, some months ago concluded that in the three months (then) since George Floyd died, 93% of the BLM protests were peaceful. Lets assume they were correct. That means 7% were violent. And 7% turned out to be about 550 violent protests/riots in a few months across the country. We could be terribly alarmed if the number was one tenth of that. And none of that counts all the individual acts of harassment, assaults, property destruction that were not part of a “protest,” a word that no longer has much meaning as BLM says these are protests and even Joe Biden, who is a useful idiot to them, says they are not.

“From Time Magazine: “The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) analyzed more than 7,750 Black Lives Matter demonstrations in all 50 states and Washington D.C. that took place in the wake of George Floyd’s death between May 26 and August 22.” 

Their report states that more than 2,400 locations reported peaceful protests, while fewer than 220 reported “violent demonstrations.” The authors define violent demonstrations as including “acts targeting other individuals, property, businesses, other rioting groups or armed actors.” Their definition includes anything from “fighting back against police” to vandalism, property destruction looting, road-blocking using barricades, burning tires or other materials. In cities where protests did turn violent—these demonstrations are “largely confined to specific blocks,” the report says.

The non-prof. did everything they could to minimize the violence, of course, but, you can’t logically. Of course, it’s all a lie, anyway, like everything else in this area of discussion. There probably have been at least 220 violent protests in Portland alone – although they count that as 1 “location.” Portland is probably the poster boy for why I don’t really care much about what happened the yesterday. Antifa/BLM has been trying to take over Seattle and Portland for a few years. Since May, there have been repeated violent mob attacks in Portland on police, on citizenry, on stores on even politicians. These fascists have even literally, tried to burn cops to death in their precinct. As far as I’m concerned, the cops could start shooting months ago.

What did the weak, fascist, idiotic ”black lives matter” chanting mayor of Portland (a white man, by the way) do when Trump offered help, when he even sent help for the federal building under siege, where it seemed the mob was trying to kill federal employees (these are the same ones who tried to kill cops) – he screamed bloody murder, attacked Trump, attacked the federal government, as if they were the monsters. Seriously, what an idiot. By the way, during the actual civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, unlike this fake civil rights movement, they begged the feds to help.

Biden is elected and suddenly, the mayor is calling the same mob criminal and asking for federal help. Hmmm. Wonder why? I’ll tell you why. Because almost everything done these days on the left is based on resistance to Trump and the mayor is just one more a crazed left-winger, and that “trumped” for him the actual terror he and whatever semblance of normal people are left in that city (43% voted for the “Antifa candidate”). He has let his city be put through hell over politics. He deserves almost anything bad that happens to him (no, not burnt to death like they tried to do with the police – but a lot of bad stuff). If they do kill him, which is not impossible, he certainly participated in bringing upon himself his own death, without a single good reason.

Even forget just BLM. They and many other groups rioted in D.C. when Trump was inaugurated. Many groups went down to D.C. to protest, although it is not clear to me what they were protesting in reality (it was called a women’s march). Women marched against him as if he is anti-women (I’ve never seen anything he has done as president that would indicate he was anti-woman) and now they have elected a sexual predator, to which I’m sure they cried – “Yeah!” But, that’s because everything done by the left these days is not only based on a lie, it is usually also completely hypocritical. I’m not going to list the examples here. If you don’t know it already, you won’t believe it. And, yes, so are the Rs and conservatives, but not to the degree we have here, right now in the last decade or so. To be fair, the Rs and conservatives, at least those who make their way into politics are much bigger cowards, so afraid of being called a racist (by racists, ironically), so afraid the media won’t love them (they won’t no matter what, except when they surrender).

The inauguration protests/riots were the largest single day protest/riots in history, including millions of people throughout the country. I am not sure how many people protested the yesterday, but it was a few thousand. Not millions. And, the violence in 2017 was extraordinary, especially in D.C., where even a limo (ironically owned by a minority) was burnt and much other damage done, not to mention the fighting.

But, of course, it didn’t just start there. The physical violence by the left against Trump’s campaign was itself extraordinary. Trump supporters were beat up and not just at rallies. There was, I’m sure you forget, even an assassination attempt (I know, I know, you never heard that – June 18, 2016 – look it up yourself). One whole event had to be cancelled because of violence? What was the media report? That Trump’s rallies were violence. I have documented two people, both who were trying to disrupt the rally, being punched by idiots. I’ve asked people to document others if they disagreed. No one has. That’s as opposed to tens of thousands acts of violence against Trump and the rallies.

Unfortunately for Republican voters, not only is virtually the entire media against them, so are most of their own elected R representatives and their appointments. As soon as this happened the other day a number of acquaintances firmly on the right told me that – see, this was going to happen and it’s not going to stop. I said it would not only stop, but no politicians would stick their neck out for these people. Yes, just like Obama could “pal around” with Putin and it was okay with the world, Trump would help the Ukrainians immensely and still be accused of being a Russian stooge. Just like Obama could issue an order restricting immigration from Arab countries and no one cared, Trump did and was attacked (though he ultimately triumphed in court – the “legal” argument was that it was okay for Obama to do, but not for Trump).

And, sure as the sun will rise, R politicians have condemned the protesters and Trump over this. Barr, who was repeatedly accused of being Trump’s stooge (again, the hypocrisy is stunning – Eric Holder, Obama’s AG, said he was Obama’s wingman – but that was okay). Barr is a straight shooter for the most part with some courage, but I question whether he has the stomach to withstand the attacks on him, including threats, which the media and the left has perfected. He has condemned Trump for this. I might have too, if there wasn’t this flip side, the non-stop attacks and aggression of the left designed to take power in this country (again, not that Rs don’t behave badly too – just not to the same level). I don’t mind that people condemn what happened yesterday. But I do mind that they pretend there’s not a good reason for these people to feel ostracized, treated unfairly, and that rioting is the only way to get anything anymore.

There is no other outlet for the people who stormed the capital to make their case any other way. The media and BLM will call them racists whether they are or not. The media will never give a fair accounting of what happened or their side of the story. If you are for Trump, or conservative, or think that All Lives Matter rather than the racist Black Lives Matter, you are just wrong to them and peppered with names. They have learned and taught us that debate is pointless. 

So, we have this incident, this one scary incident (I think all four dead were protesters, so it doesn’t look like they were very violent compared to Antifa – they didn’t shoot cops or try to burn them alive) as opposed to the non-stop series of attacks by BLM/Antifa, etc. But, just as everything Trump does is called worse than Watergate by those who either know little or are liars on the left, they will make this out as the worst thing that ever happened in history.

I will say one more time, I do not condone the attacks in anyway. They shouldn't have happened. But, I do understand it. Our country is sick and it is lost. I may have hundreds of articles I’ve saved over the last few years demonstrating the attempts of the left to destroy our culture including the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. They want to stomp out of existence even Lincoln, even Gandhi (not a westerner, but the main inspiration for King) and of course Columbus, judging them by today’s mores. They have pulled down or vadalized statues all over the country, and intimidated others into taking them down themselves, even those of American heroes. They want to teach our children that white kids are future killer cops, they want to teach social justice (which, means, of course, justice based on skin color), rather than math, which they call “racist.” I do not make these things up. I’ve heard the arguments – but that’s only some people. It’s true. And we can’t judge everyone in a group by the worst of them. But, on the left, the surveys show these crazy views are well received by Democrats. They want to brand little boys “toxic” and give only rights to people they favor (again, if you don’t read their websites, you don’t know – they are only pro-black – not pro-everyone - and anti-capitalist to boot). And, they want to try to dissolve any differences between men and women, some not even treating their boys like boys, calling for the censorship of books and art, even history.

But, those reading this who are seeing red, who think everything in here is right-wing craziness or a lie, etc. (basically, everything I’ve just charged them with), should not fear overmuch. No one is listening to me. Yes, others-millions, feel the way I do. But, they’ve mostly all given up. They do not want to street fight or even argue with the left. They do not want to argue with their families, who have learned all the tactics of making it unbearable. The tactics of intimidation and threats does work. Especially if the government and media is on their side. In order to make something like this work, you have to actually have people who are true believers in your movement in the levers of power, and the left does – the right doesn’t much. They lose almost every battle. Most people I know who are for Trump have jobs, go to work, take care of their kids, own homes and businesses – and they don’t want to fight with anyone, even when they have very strong feelings about it. 

This fanatical support on the left and lack of real support on the right, is one of the numerous reasons that the left’s extremists are so much more dangerous than the right’s extremists. There are very few right wing extremists (unless you define that as voted for Trump, which some do). Even civil rights groups list very few neo-Nazi or Klan organizations in existence, and very few people. The extreme on the left encompasses large swaths of their party with people imbedded all over government, hi-tech and education. It’s why there are so many people who feel like I do, who just give up – have said they realize they were outplayed and hope someday after they are dead that their kids and grandkids can have the same American dream they did.

As I’ve repeatedly blogged about here, particularly over the last six months, the left’s tactics are textbook Nazi/fascist/Communist tactics. I’m not going to repeat everything I’ve said in my posts over the past six months plus. You can read if you want. But, I am quoting below from a book on Cold War spying (The Quiet Americans), by Scott Anderson, the Soviet playbook on taking over a country. It’s chilling not because what they did worked, but because it’s working now in our country:

“What [the U.S. representative] observed firsthand over the next several weeks was just how quickly a government could be undermined and supplanted, the speed and relentlessness with which the Soviets operated. When the coalition government was reshuffled in early November, several conservative cabinet ministers were replaced with FND officials. The following month, the sitting prime minister was forced out in favor of a more Soviet-friendly leader; he gave the FND even more positions in the political leadership. With attention focused on the changes occurring at the top tier of government, few took note of a crucial change at the next level down. Appointed the new undersecretary of the interior Ministry, a position that appeared modest on paper but which oversaw Romania’s police and internal security forces, the head of the national communist party immediately launched a purge of the old guard throughout the country and their replacement with communist cadres. The effect of all this was bracing: between King Michael’s August 23 switching-sides speech and the installment of a wholly Soviet-compliant government less than four months had elapsed.

In a few years, Hungary’s communist strongman . . . would coin a colorful term to describe the methods used to bring him and other Soviet allies to power in Eastern Europe: “salami tactics.” Also known by the more graphic “death of a thousand cuts,” it is the strategy of tearing away at an existing political framework from so many different and seemingly unrelated angles—the appointment of an unqualified but loyal functionary to a sub-ministry here, the annulment of a legal protection over there—that it leaves the opposition overwhelmed and flummoxed and unsure of where to make a stand.

Naturally, it has precisely the same effect on any external powers trying to counter such assaults. Is protesting a judge’s shutting down of a regional newspaper really worth provoking a diplomatic incident?  Is challenging a regime’s intimidation tactics against a labor union worth the risk of an armed confrontation? The answer almost invariably is no, because left in the hands of diplomats, there is always some larger goal, some greater consideration, that is best served by making smaller compromises along the way; the end result, though, is that it can eventually become too late to make a stand anywhere. As World War II drew to a close, the laboratory where these salami tactics were being tested was Romania, and the first outsider to see them in action was lieutenant Commander Frank G. Wisner.”

Well, some people who support Trump have been wondering where to make a stand and they picked D.C. and the capital, directing it at pathetic politicians who have supported the lies and the insurrection in the country.

Do I blame them for believing the story that the election was stolen? I don’t believe it. I haven’t seen any proof of enough fraud (there is always some fraud to overturn a state or the election in general). Do I blame them for, after Trump and Rs lost every post-election lawsuit right up to the Supreme Court, to pretend that the Rs in the Senate could object and therefore Mike Pence, the VP, would throw out the votes? There’s no basis for that at all. Of course.

But, so what? Reality had no part of the partisan attacks on Trump. Why should his supporters care about it. Half or more of the nation believed and many still do that Trump trafficked with the Russians to win the 2016 election (despite there never having been any proof), that he committed some crime because he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor (Biden actually blackmailed Ukraine by their standards – not that they care at all). They made up and used every other false story or ridiculous conclusion concerning Trump they could think of. They impeached him over what they first claimed was a crime, then a quid pro quo, then that it was just ummm, not that it matters, abuse of power and obstruction of justice - exactly what you charge when it is fabricated. So, why shouldn’t Trump supporters pretend that the election was stolen and that it was okay to just throw it out when Biden and his team have convinced people that Trump was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands who died from COVID this year, despite the fact that the disease rages out of control, seemingly randomly, throughout the world. The nutty idea that Trump, who did stop travel right after he was advised to do it, when knuckleheads like Biden, Clinton and others were calling him a racist for doing so, somehow, is not only bizarre, but ridiculously unfair. It didn’t matter to them. Why should Trump supporters care?

What went on was wrong. Stupid. Inevitably a failure. But, it pales in comparison to what the left has done and will do, now that they are mostly in power. What needs to be done by those who still want justice (real justice) and a country where merit and effort mean something, relentless attacks and arguments need to be made against BLM, Antifa, Biden and the Democrats. I may not agree with every attack on them, if they actually don’t make sense. But, I will understand it being made. If Biden’s vehement and dishonest remarks today are any clue; if the House’s efforts to purge the congressional record of male words are any clue, it’s going to be rough. The Rs have little power left. I hope they use it wisely, which may mean fighting very hard.  As even Muhammad Ali learned in his fight with the wrestler Antonio Inoki, you can’t box someone who is allowed to lay on the floor and kick you. The left has eaten the right’s lunch repeatedly, and is expert in doing so, and supported by people who literally hate capitalism, fairness and even most of the people in the country. They will say or do anything to win and that has included the death of many, so nicely avoided by the media and politicians. We are all on the menu – even other radicals – because they also eat their own at the slightest sign of dissension.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

A Stain on our Democracy? I'd have to agree

Like millions of others this past week, I watched the second part of the Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Bret Kavanaugh. As I have said a googolplex times here, this isn't Wikipedia, and I will presume you know who he is and what has happened, or this will make little sense to you. If you know, no doubt you have made your own judgments, have your own biases and thoughts as I have mine, and will see it through your own lens. This is true whether you watched or know a little or a lot. Feel free to email me to comment, as I believe you will not be allowed to comment anonymously through blogger, and no one seems to want to leave a comment with their email address, which I guess I understand, given the dangers of the digital world.

The following is mostly a fantasy. It is the statement I wish Brett Kavanaugh could have given the day of his testimony (not the original testimony; I mean the one after Prof. Ford testified). I have hindsight in my favor, of course, and many conversations with many people over the last week, before and after the hearing. I've repeated a finding of mine, anecdotal, unsurprising, based on a very small personal and informal survey, but I still think powerful. During the day of his hearing, I spoke to 14 people, and including myself, 15 all told. This included friends, relatives and acquaintances. But, I knew who everyone liked and disliked politically and voted for (or not) in 2016. I also learned that day where they stood on Kavanaugh. Here was the interesting result. Five of those people either "hate" Trump, some virulently or at least dislike him and/or voted for Clinton. Every one of them thought Kavanaugh came off poorly, and that he was either too partisan or had a bad temperament, even if he were provoked, which did not justify his behavior. Five other love Trump. They all thought Kavanaugh did fine and that it was natural that he was furious at being called a molester, even a rapist, a serial rapist and even a serial rapist who drugged his victims. The last group was also five people, including myself, were people who don't like Trump or Hillary Clinton and/or didn't vote for either in the 2016 election. All of us five felt just like the Trump people did about Kavanaugh. By the way, of all those people there were only four women, though, of course, it would have been better if there were more. But, none of it was planned so it was what it was. Three of the women were Trump supporters and the other one didn't vote for either.

Yes, small sample size, and unscientific as can be. But, the results were hardly surprising to me. Although, the last group might not be the same in different geographic areas or bubbles like academia or certain workplaces, etc.  I live in middle class, white, middle-aged suburbia and that's who I was mostly speaking with. We tend to have similar opinions. Almost all of the people I spoke with who disliked Trump were on the telephone.

In any event, getting past my survey or whatever you want to call it, in the end, I have to agree with Kavanaugh. I did find it a national disgrace. We are reaping the whirlwind. I am saddened, really distressed, not only by the behavior of D Senators, who I thought behaved abominably (actually, worse at his first hearing) but also by the R Senators who out of fear of being called misogynist in the meeto! era abdicated any responsibility to defend a R nominee being assaulted by the other side, so that he was literally all on his own. I cannot imagine the Ds would have done that. But, the Rs also failed to own up to any responsibility for the anger that has arisen on the left because of their side's refusal to even consider Garland. Then again, the media would have been all over them if one of them so much as asked her a tough question. Perhaps I will try to show how to do that gently here too? It's really not so hard. I've had witnesses who had sympathetic stories and tried to bait me as an attorney into being too tough with them in front of the jury or arbitrators. I was able to avoid it without much difficulty. Also, that so many people decided that this man, who seemed beloved by so many others (everyone has people who do not like them), including co-workers, clerks, his children's friends and their family's, and so on, was "evil" or "hiding something."

But, I will leave the rest for the opening statement I wrote for him, which I will give forthwith. It is easier for me to write it a little more dispassionately than him for three very important reasons: One, no one threatened my family. Two, no one called me a rapist, never mind a serial rapist. And, three, I have the benefit of time and hindsight. I will not include even his better lines, such as his daughter's inclusion of the professor in her prayers. Because really, this is not his, but mine, though put into his person (we start with prayer - I don't pray). I'm just using his situation to say what given that hindsight, and experience, I think would have been most effective.

"Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein and Members of the Committee,

 You may not be surprised to know over the course of the past 11 days when I learned that Professor Ford claimed that I had assaulted her when we were teenagers, that I have prayed much. I have prayed alone. I have prayed with my wife and with my priest and my children. Whether it sounds farfetched to this committee or not, this committee has been in my prayers as well as anyone who truthfully believes I have done them harm. I was stunned, horrified, felt victimized, although not alone.

At the same time, I am a man, and I am subject to vanity, subject to pride, subject to anger. I know that if I came in here and stoically answered questions as if this was a walk in the park, it would probably be better for me. It would not make any difference to those who decided from before my nomination was announced that they were voting "no," or when it was announced that they were voting "no," or those who have determined that I was "evil," yes, "evil," in case anyone missed it. But, I have not been accused of being out of touch with proper behavior or social norms or that I "don't get it." I have been called one of the most heinous things you can call a man - a rapist. More, I have been called a serial rapist. And that is not even the worst of it. For those of you who run for office. These are not, as you say, Senator Klobuchar, normal times, though perhaps I think for different reasons than you. I have not in politics for a long time and my reasons are not partisan. I am concerned with civil order. And when I see a breakdown of civil order, public functions disrupted, violence and intimidation replacing argument and persuasion, then I think these are not normal times. And because these are not normal times, when a seat for the highest court in the land comes up, and it is contested not just by vetting the justice who is nominated, but by calling him evil, suggesting that he will cause pain and terror throughout the land, suggesting he is a pawn who rapes women and laughs triumphantly at their pain, well, it might result as it did result, with a death threat to the nominee's wife. I'd like you to think about that for a moment, because each of you, because each of you who has participated in castigating my good name, and I had nothing but a good name after 6 thorough FBI investigations, is responsible for a death threat to my wife. Maybe some of you have gotten death threats. Maybe you do not take them seriously. I do. And if my wife's life is threatened, who do you think she is frequently in the company of? What do you think that means to friends and family?

Perhaps you earnestly believe if you lose an election you have this right, not just to fight hard to try and persuade the other side and the public that you are right, but also to try to destroy men and women's lives if they are nominated for office by the "other side."

I know I am not the first one, And I know other people have dealt with far worse. Far worse. People have died in the name of freedom, been maimed in the name of freedom, seen their children sacrificed. And, of course, in doing this, someone in this process, and it can only be someone on one of the political staffs if not Ms. Ford's own lawyers, released her own name to the press and caused such distress to her life. Of course, she may not want my sympathy, feels it is false even, because she believes I molested her and am simply trying to appear sympathetic. But, I know I did not. So, I cannot help but give it, though it is mixed with wonder, of course.

I have listened patiently to your questions, the insinuations by you that I am supposed to tell President Trump what to do about the FBI, that I am hiding things, that I am a racist, that even before Prof. Ford's name came out I was complicit in harassment because I once clerked for a justice who was found to have harassed women. And I know I will hear all these again without apology or even acknowledgment that another Senator raised it 5 minutes ago. I know this because I was an attorney and I am a judge and I understand that this is part of strategy. But, all attorneys, all politicians, all humans should have limits, should have some basic decency.

I listened carefully to Professor Ford this morning. I do not remember her, for which I mean no offense but do not apologize. It is a long time ago and we meet a lot of people. I'm sure my words will be searched and no matter what I say, someone will find a way to interpret it so that I might have secretly, for some unknown reason left a loophole to mean that yes I did molest her or someone else. But, I will do the best I can so that at least people without an ax to grind will understand. I believe her when she says we met. I believe her that someone molested her at some time, although she cannot remember when or even what year. I understand the trauma of women getting molested and the effect it can have on them. But, I have never molested or forced myself on her or any other woman, period. I have never had non-consensual sex or unlawfully exposed myself to anyone. I have never taunted a woman. I have never tried to take a woman's clothes off against her will. At the time Professor Ford describes me, I was a virgin. I did not have sexual experiences with anyone except perhaps very few chaste kisses, which I do not choose to discuss.

I will do my best to answer your questions as dispassionately as I can, but I may fail. I'm sure I will hear that I will. I'm sure I will be told, no matter how I do, that I was intemperate, lack judicial temperament and am, as I said, evil. But, we have heard that already before this new material even came up. We heard that before I was even named and was only an X to be filled in.  But, I will continue to be honest beyond what is in my best interests. There is a large part of me that does not want to be stoic, that wants to let my anger out at not only the gross insult to me far beyond what anyone should have to absorb in accepting a nomination. It has been suggested to me by normally civil people that I use a certain declaration containing a swear word with you, that I trade insult for insult, because no nominee has ever been so insulted before this committee before, not even Clarence Thomas.

I'm not going to do it. But, I understand why they want me to and I believe a lot of people would not only understand why I did it, but might even stand up in their living rooms and applaud. And some of those people, would have been witnesses before Congress. As you said, Senator, these are not normal times.

I understand the politics of it but have to stay out of it. If you ask me about the president, I will recite to you from a prepared statement once. I understand you do not like him. I can't comment. After that, I will just ask you if you want me to recite the prepared statement. I understand about Justice Garland, who is a personal hero of mine, who I stood up for, but if you ask me about him, I cannot comment on it, and I will just read a prepared statement the first time. After that, I will just read it again if you want me to. Along with Roe v. Wade, which I do not expect questions about today, that's really what this is all about, and I think that's what most people in this country know and expect. But, that has nothing to do with me and it's not something that should have anything to do with me.

If you ask me about the FBI I will read from a prepared statement once. I understand you would like them to investigate, but I can't comment on it. After that, I will just ask you if you would like me to recite the prepared statement.

I do understand that this type of politics has been going on for a long time, much longer than anyone here has been alive. But, we've come so far in so many ways. Just not in this way. I found this quote from John Adams from a letter to Thomas Jefferson. By the way, that was era where the two sides routinely said horrible things about each other too. In any event, this was later in their lives and they were out of government, and had patched up their differences:

"While all other Sciences have advanced, that of Government is at a stand; little better understood; little better practiced now then 3 or 4 thousand Years ago. What is the Reason? I say Parties and Factions will not suffer, or permit Improvements to be made."

There's more, but I thought that was the most applicable part. We can see planets surrounding other stars and send robots through veins to cure diseases, but when another party takes power, we still try to destroy the lives of the people. It is practiced no better now than when the forefathers lived.

So, shut up, right? It is a seat on the Supreme Court. Death threats to your family, never getting to teach again because probably some of the students, egged on, will now call you a rapist or disrupt the class, perhaps never coaching again because protesters might show up at the game and endanger the children, hiring security guards for my children, these are the penalties I should have to expect, because I was nominated by a president you don't like. So, it's my problem, right.

You do have a duty, of course, to investigate the claim. It could have been handled confidentially with Chairmen Grassley two months ago and it would have then been discovered that none of the other people allegedly involved, including Prof. Ford's friend have any memory or knowledge of it, that there is no date or year for it, no evidence whatsoever of it. I am not making light of her feelings or pain. I am talking about reality. It did not need to be this for her sake or mine. It did not need to be this for the sake of the country. As to the other claims, all I can say is, are you serious? Is this where we are at? A woman can claim she went to ten parties where I was involved with the gang rapes of women, where no one called the police, where there is no evidence of it, and we are to take it seriously? What claim is so far-fetched that we do not take it seriously? Must it involve space aliens? I wish, I wish, I wish I was not jesting.

As I said before and might say again in answering your questions, Professor Ford sounds credible and I believe she is sincere, I know for a fact that she is wrong because I would never, even as a young man who sometimes drank too much, do such a thing. I was surprised, I have to admit, that no one asked her, a professional psychologist, if people in general, witnesses after even 24 hours, trauma victims ever have false memories. I think it is fairly well known, and one doesn't even have to be a trained psychologist to know it. But, there are books on the market and people giving talks about the certainty they had in accusing someone of rape, only to years later realize that - they were wrong. I admit, I wish someone else had brought that up, but, it looks like, I will have to.

I will take a deep breath now and submit to your questions. Forgive me if I am not the model of stoicism today, although I will try to re-achieve that level. Try to imagine that someone has accused you of one of the most heinous crimes we know of in front of the whole world and that you were worried someone was hunting your spouse or family and perhaps you will understand.

I will take your questions now."

That's my Kavanaugh statement. Of course, he had all that stuff about his dad and his calendar, some of which worked, some of which was booooorrrrrinng.

And, his petulance with some of his questioners, particularly Klobuchar, who is generally well-liked, and not as did not play well with anyone who did not want him to be confirmed in the first place, and did play well with those who thought the Ds were off the charts obnoxious when they first addressed him. But, other than the narrow band of Fox, talk radio and a few other media outlets, the overwhelming television and print coverage is anti-Trump (too well established to argue - see the Harvard study) and anti-Kavanaugh.

Even after it is over, it wasn't over. We had to listen to another round of dreadful speeches from everyone. I was even surprised at Lindsey Graham, who was outraged, purple with rage while Kavanaugh was being questioned, but calmed down the next day to say much the same thing, and defended his own policy again of voting for D nominees and treating them with dignity, even though he disagrees with him. I will give him a B-, not an A. Here's why. First, he's delusional to say they did the right thing with Garland. Yes, it was legal, but it so violated the trust the two parties must have with one another, that it has fueled this anger (and, yes, I'm perfectly aware that pretty much all of the the leading Ds had earlier said that they thought the rule should be no appointments in a presidential election year when it suited them - but that was insane too). If the Ds get the Senate there will be no more Trump higher offices filled until Justice Garland is seated on the Supreme Court, period, and we will see about after. Of course, he won't do that, so . . . .

Second, Graham does vote for the D nominees. And he does not sneer at them from across the floor. Nor do the other R committee members (at least since Sessions is gone). They were not as obnoxious as Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Hirono, Leahy and Durbin were, at least, with Kavanaugh and Korsuch, but they were smarmy and tried to be a little tricky, at least with Sotomayor and Kagan. I grimaced a little, but they were still respectful. Jeff Sessions questioning Kagan over her gun position while Dean at Harvard Law was probably the hottest exchange - he did look like he wanted to smite her. But, Sessions wasn't calling her a monster. He was just calling her out as being a liberal secretly against guns. And, in my opinion, she got the better of the exchange (as the justices usually do), because he was being paranoid. Compare that to the way to aforenamed D Senators treated Kavanaugh even before the Ford accusation came out - "Evil."

The problem is, a quarter to half the country is happy to agree that Kavanaugh is a monster, or at the very least, his being nominated by the Trump is enough to justify the destruction of his personal happiness, and his family's with it.  A friend of mine I was speaking to yesterday, who is unable to discuss anything about Trump without becoming enraged and quickly hanging up (he once, at his house, told me he was leaving the room if we didn't stop talking about Trump - meaning, he could, I couldn't - and I don't even like Trump), told me he trusts his judgment and he could tell from the first second that he saw Kavanaugh, he's an evil guy, part of the whole conspiracy to take the United States down and use it for the profit of just a few people. Yeesh. But, that's the Sanders-Warren-Democratic Socialist message, isn't it? Not really Clinton's, but, could she even run now if she didn't adopt it? I think she would soon get the Jim Webb treatment if she ran in 2020, unless she completely caved, kowtowing to the new generation. If she didn't, they'd yank her mike, and I don't mean figuratively. Cuomo found he had to say "America was never great" when he ran against a no borders, no Ice opponent, and he was initially a fairly moderate, actually conservative D.

A number of the Ds on the committee, friends who spoke with me, commentators online, etc., complained that Kavanaugh revealed himself as not having a judicial temperament. I know very few people who have not lost their temper at one time or another, many with very little reason. A very few of them show stress, but will not raise their voice no matter what the the provocation. I yell all the time now at my gf, but believe me SHE GODDAM WELL DESERVES IT!!!!! (God, I hope she doesn't read this - if I don't post next month, you'll understand. Donations are welcome). But, I have a pretty good sense of humor about myself. You can insult me a lot. I don't get upset about ethnic or slurs ("she" insults me so regularly I have to have a pretty thick skin), but, I admit, if you hit the right nerve about my personal integrity basically, call me personally dishonest, I can get pissed. And, though it doesn't seem to happen that I can recall. If you called me depraved, a child molester, rapist, etc., yeah, I'd be furious too.

The irony is, we live in the most sensitive times I've ever experienced in my life. It is the opposite of when I grew up, when it seemed people had a much thicker skin except for people we found a little weird, or, of course, little kids. Now, people are very quick to get insulted. Do parents even teach their kids "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me," anymore? We even have micro-aggressions, which I'm pretty sure mean "'not-aggressions' but we'd like to call them aggression anyway." Words with dual meanings ("retard" comes right to mind) or words that sound like other words (famously, niggardly) can be dangerous.

Everybody, well almost everybody (not Don, who sometimes commented here before Google screwed up the comment feature) is so freaking sensitive. Yet, when Bret Kavanaugh, on the word of a women who is going by memories that can at best be described as cloudy and incomplete, 35 or so years old, uncorroborated even as to the presence of her own friend, is called a child molester (she was a child at the time), and then also a serial rapist and drugger of women, some people expect him to say, "pip-pip, carry on" or not be livid or upset. His life is changed forever. He has already said he may never teach again. His own students would probably heckle him. How can he be alone with women now? How vulnerable is he? He has to worry about the security of his family, his parents? If he gets on the Supreme Court, are idiots going to be screaming out "rapist" at the oral arguments. We saw what the morons did at the first hearings he had (no Senator Grassley - it is not free speech when the police are dragging them away).

Today, people say they feel "unsafe" if someone has an opinion they do not like and they need "safe zones" or people get fired for their opinions (as famously happened at Google and just happened, I believe at CERN. But, Bret Kavanaugh is not allowed to be upset or show it, because he's going to be a Supreme Court justice and we have to pretend they are without partisan . . . ehhhh . . . they are without partisanship. How silly. Every other member of the court is as partisan as they can be. He'd be no different. In fact, he'd probably still be the least partisan of the R justices. I understand why politicians keep up the pretense of these partisan fantasies that the other justices are fair or impartial, but why do other people? Why not just say, I just want my side to win? Is there an R who wouldn't want Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from every controversial case, as a liberal constitutional scholar now insists Kavanaugh would have to, because she said something intemperate about Trump? Come off it. We know how every one of them really feels? Do you remember what Obama said that caused the the Rs not to go the State of the Union address anymore? It was nothing, a pittance over a case? Should they all recuse themselves? Of course not.

Of course, it doesn't matter to the Ds (neither parties feel shame - their friends all support them), because, as I wrote above, it's never been about him (and certainly not about Ford). It's mostly about Garland and Trump and Roe, in some order. I have no doubt, with the hysteria we are seeing, that some of them have talked themselves into believing the rhetoric.

I'm sure many ordinary citizens, forgetting that a week ago they were fine with him even if they were Ds or liberals, because now they have a handle that they'd be outraged at, no doubt, if used against a Clinton when one was in office. Come to think of it, not too long ago in history, they were. Except, almost all of that we've learned was true, and even some of them (and me - I supported him throughout it) kind of came to believe he may have been a rapist too. Indeed, I've only today learned that Juanita Broderick is demanding an FBI investigation into her alleged rape by Clinton. Anyway, partisanship is very powerful, blinding, and I'm sure they believe, whatever it is they believe and that includes believing they were fair in appraising it and coming out on the side they did. As Judge Roy Bean was supposed to have said - "First we have a fair trial, then we hang him." Or perhaps it is just the most magnificent coincident ever known to humankind - that in fairly appraising political controversy, Ds and liberals will side almost every time with Ds and liberals and Rs and cons will side with Rs and cons. And when they don't, their own side will hate them with a white hot heat little seen outside of supernovas.

I do hope Bret Kavanaugh gets on the Court. I have a gentlemen's bet that I hope I lose that he will not. So far I'm losing as he passed the Committee, when Flake voted for him. But, as we know, Flake nearly buckled and did the whole FBI thing, which, if you were watching, was just a weird ballet between him, who didn't know what he was trying to say, Grassley, who just wanted to finish and the Ds, who wanted Flake to make unprecedented demands (or an "amendment," which made no sense) on his yes vote that really made no sense. His experience, particularly with the two women in the elevator, tells us something. It is going to be an all-out "protest-assault" on Flake, Murkowski and Collins and probably a few D Senators to get them to vote against. I am hopeful it doesn't turn violent, but it seems to me that Ted Cruz and his wife were all ready chased out of a restaurant (which now has armed guards b/c the owners are getting death threats - although many Ds have assured me their far left is not becoming violent) in the name of Kavanaugh, so chances are not great if those protesting violence don't feel that they are getting their way.

Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat (ironically, when I was a liberal, I could not stand him at all as he had the most combative and obnoxious debating style) and Harvard professor who often pontificates these days in favor of conservative outrage at political correctness b/c so many liberals truly have gone so far off their nut that it is hard to believe, has been falsely accused himself in the past and knows what it is like. He called what goes on these days nearly sexual McCarthyism. That's kind of like what it is, but maybe worse.  Whatever it is, I am passed my dating age and don't have to suffer much because of it. But, I feel for young people today. Many are just ignoring it, but many are just accepting it and they are missing a lot and also being afraid. I've heard too many say so to me, and it's not like I've talked to that many, to think it's just me being an old codger saying damn those kids and their newfangled ways.

The man I sometimes refer to here as Eddie told me that he heard recently that not only should affirmative consent be obtained before sex, but that it should be enthusiastic consent. Well, there goes my sex life and that of almost everyone in my age group. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just saying. But, even Eddie, pretty far to the left by his own admission, thought that was over the top.

And, I'm done watching. The Senate has been speaking about it non-stop, as have the talking heads. I really can't listen anymore to either side. Poor Bret. We will see what happens. But, I just don't think he's going to make it and that will be the shame (as was Garland).  

Farewell, John McCain

Have you noticed that death alone awakens our feelings? How we love the friends who have just left us? How we admire those of our teachers who have ceased to speak, their mouths filled with earth! Then the expression of admiration springs forth naturally, that admiration they were perhaps expecting from us all their lives. But do you know why we are always more just and more generous toward the dead? The reason is simple. With them there is no obligation.” – Albert Camus

I wrote the following paragraph in December, 2006, thinking about the then upcoming 2008 presidential nomination process, trying to predict who might have a chance in the nomination process. At the time, Rudy Giuliani was doing really well in the polls before he self-destructed (and as far as I am concerned, never completely recovered). After I wrote it, McCain bottomed out, was virtually out of the race, but held on and rallied to win it. And I was glad. I’m correcting a couple of typos, which I left in the original, before posting this, because, frankly, they are embarrassing. And who’s going to complain if I do? Without some compulsion to be honest about it, who would know? Ironically, I frequently edit other people’s work for profit and friendship, but somehow still can’t find the strength to edit my own posts before I hit publish, even if I spent days writing it. I’m just babbling, as usual. Here’s the bit on McCain:

“John McCain. Long time Arizona Senator. I am a little biased here. He has been my personal favorite since the late 90s. McCain is a genuine war hero. In the modern world, you often just need to sign up or show up for hero status, but McCain survived years of POW torture, and refused to go home ahead of others who were there before him, which he could have due to his privileged position as an admiral’s son. Sounds pretty heroic to me. I like McCain for his moderation, his willingness to buck his own party, his willingness to admit mistakes. He is a formidable speaker, strong on defense, and appears to me, at least, to put country first. Many conservatives dislike him for the same reasons I like him. Naturally, I don’t like everything he does either. Some of his supposedly benevolent positions like the campaign reform law he sponsored and his attempts to censor certain commercial activities in order to protect children, cross over first amendment boundaries in my opinion. I watched a hearing where he grilled now convicted Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling, and showed a lack of understanding of basic economics. However, most of his comrades seemed equally clueless. He has already disappointed me by wisely asking the forgiveness of the same religious groups he castigated in 2000 by going to Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and speaking there. Still, he knows what he needs to do to win. I give him THE BEST CHANCE TO WIN THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION DESPITE GIULIANI'S GENERAL POPULARITY.”

Reading it again, I’m actually surprised to see that I feel pretty much the same way today as I did in 2006. I don’t know that I would change anything substantive in it. When he died he was still my favorite politician. I think my future biographer will have little trouble establishing that as I just did a word search for “McCain” on my blog and that found I’ve mentioned him in 99 posts since I started in September, 2006!!!  I’ve only posted 497 times total. That means I mentioned him in about 1 out of every 5 posts. That probably means I mentioned him in almost every political post I’ve written. Glad I didn’t know that. And, what I wrote, seems to be generally the same stuff that others say about him all the time, both the good and bad of it. So much for originality on my part.

When McCain lost his bid for the presidency, I was, not surprisingly, disappointed, although he did such a bad job campaigning that at the time he lost, it was already a foregone conclusion to everyone but those for whom it is an article of faith to be certain their side will win until they don’t. I was living in Virginia at the time and the local city newspaper published an op-ed I wrote about it. It doesn’t look to me that I ever posted it here, and it’s definitely too late now. If I recall, my main view was that the reasons he lost did not include his choice for VP (although, is there anyone left who doesn’t think that was a bad choice outside of her family?), but rather Bush fatigue, the economic collapse during another Republican’s term and, did I say this – a really bad campaign?

My feelings at his recent death were more complicated. First, we had quite a while to deal with it since he first announced his brain cancer.  So, hardly a shock. Second, I am in a period where I can barely stomach to watch anything political, though I expect that will change next year when people start jockeying for position for 2020. I also have a strange tendency to get irritated when the press makes a big deal out of a politician dying. I don’t know why. Maybe there’s a good reason, but I can’t think of it. I just do.

But, most of all, I wasn’t planning on watching because I didn’t want to see the hypocrisy of his fellow pols, most of whom I didn’t respect the way I did McCain, praise him, even treat him as a savior, when all they did during their careers were shoot him down unless they thought he’d vote the way they’d like. He was not, for all of his vaunted moderation, a popular man in many ways. Leave aside his famous explosive temper and perhaps some arrogance in private that I’d expect a world famous person like him might have (people who aren’t even famous on their block are arrogant, so why not him?), politicians, like most people, do not like moderates much. Yes, they hate their opposition, but I think they hate the moderate more (and McCain was largely conservative his whole career – just more moderate than most). The reason is, the moderate ruins the game, that is, that either a Democrat or Republican position, or a conservative or liberal one, is all there is. And one side has to win (coupled with the fantasy that next time everyone will see reason and it will be them).

Democrats sometimes loved him prior to his run for president. That’s because he’d sometimes take their side and more often, work with them on something he saw as important. Republicans, not surprisingly, hated him for that. After all, he took their money and ran as a Republican. There’s nothing politicians hate more than apostates. And the love from Democrats ended when he had the temerity to oppose their choice. Then he became a bad guy. I get to quote Mark Twain here at length. I actually love this and handcopied pages of the two speeches out of a book. Because I’m grateful to people who even skim what I write, this is only part of it:

“I have referred to the fact that when a man retires from his political party he is a traitor — that he is so pronounced in plain language. That is bold; so bold as to deceive many into the fancy that it is true. Desertion, treason — these are the terms applied. . .  What is the process when a voter joins a party? Must he prove that he is sound in any way, mind or body? Must he prove that he knows anything — is capable of anything — whatever? Does he take an oath or make a promise of any sort?— or doesn’t he leave himself entirely free? If he were informed by the political boss that if he join, it must be forever; that he must be that party’s chattel and wear its brass collar the rest of his days — would not that insult him? It goes without saying. He would say some rude, unprintable thing, and turn his back on that preposterous organization. But the political boss puts no conditions upon him at all; and this volunteer makes no promises, enlists for no stated term. He has in no sense become a part of an army; he is in no way restrained of his freedom. Yet he will presently find that his bosses and his newspapers have assumed just the reverse of that: that they have blandly arrogated to themselves an ironclad military authority over him; and within twelve months, if he is an average man, he will have surrendered his liberty, and will actually be silly enough to believe that he cannot leave that party, for any cause whatever, without being a shameful traitor, a deserter, a legitimately dishonored man.

There you have the just measure of that freedom of conscience, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech and action which we hear so much inflated foolishness about as being the precious possession of the republic. Whereas, in truth, the surest way for a man to make of himself a target for almost universal scorn, obloquy, slander, and insult is to stop twaddling about these priceless independencies and attempt to exercise one of them. If he is a preacher half his congregation will clamor for his expulsion — and will expel him, except they find it will injure real estate in the neighborhood; if he is a doctor his own dead will turn against him.

I repeat that the new party-member who supposed himself independent will presently find that the party have somehow got a mortgage on his soul, and that within a year he will recognize the mortgage, deliver up his liberty, and actually believe he cannot retire from that party from any motive howsoever high and right in his own eyes without shame and dishonor.

. . .

This infamous doctrine of allegiance to party plays directly into the hands of politicians of the baser sort — and doubtless for that it was borrowed — or stolen — from the monarchial system. It enables them to foist upon the country officials whom no self-respecting man would vote for if he could but come to understand that loyalty to himself is his first and highest duty, not loyalty to any party name.

Shall you say the best good of the country demands allegiance to party? Shall you also say that it demands that a man kick his truth and his conscience into the gutter and become a mouthing lunatic besides? Oh no, you say; it does not demand that. But what if it produce that in spite of you? . . .”

And

"He taught them that the only true freedom of thought is to think as the party thinks; that the only true freedom of speech is to speak as the party dictates; that the only righteous toleration is toleration of what the party approves; that patriotism, duty, citizenship, devotion to country, loyalty to the flag, are all summed up in loyalty to the party. Save the party, uphold the party, make the party victorious, though all things else go to ruin and the grave.”

It reads like a satire, but it is real life. It hasn’t changed at all since Mark Twain’s day. Someone should have read it at McCain’s funeral even if they are all pretending to care about what he preached and how he conducted his life. Because that's them, that's most people.  Before he died and after he died.

I saw what I expected to see as the funerals approached. Putting on C-Span, I watched one Senator (I’ll be nice and leave out his name) praise him for putting “country over party.” I am sure many did. If they thought it was such a good thing, I’d expect we’d see them do it too. But, that hasn’t been my experience with that Senator or most of the two parties (Graham, Manchin, come to mind).  I turned the tv off before I saw crocodile tears, which may have been genuine, for all I know. People have an incredible capacity for self-deception.  I thought it would be too much to watch his televised funeral, but at the last moment I decided to do so. It wasn’t so bad. The eulogists did a reasonably good, if not inspired job.

But I heard about “country first” again at his funeral in Arizona. How long will that last? I expect until the tv coverage ends and it is back to day to day politics. And, in fact, just now, I learned that this same Senator – Okay, Chuck Schumer. There, I said it – in response to the White House holding back a fraction of the record-setting number of documents demanded in Justice Kavanaugh’s hearing (requesting something like 4 to 5 times the amount of the next highest number requested for any previous Supreme Court nominee and they’ve already released far more than twice as much as the next largest earlier production), is claiming it is a “cover up.” Well, you know, it could be, of course, but I doubt it. But, both parties have dirty secrets and are reprehensible when in power. Maybe Kavanaugh is a serial killer who only targets widows and orphans. They would run with that if they thought it would work. And, if they can find one women who thought one off color joke by a staffer of his was improper and who did not lose his job, they will act as if Kavanaugh raped an entire village.

If you aren’t spinning already, John, start now. What do you think would happen if he didn’t die, and came back to the Senate? The same grieving conservatives would have disliked him as an apostate, respecting only the small power he had garnered. The same grieving liberals as a right wing nut case, as they did when he opposed Obama. It is not that I don’t think that people should patch up quarrels after they retire. I do, where it is genuine. But, he wasn’t retired. And this isn’t genuine, even for those who are genuinely touched by his death.

At the top of this post I quoted from a Camus book I read quite a long time ago, The Fall. It was a great book, I thought superior to The Stranger, his most famous. But, little stuck has stuck with me over the decades but the tone of the book and that one line, which I vaguely remembered and had to look up. I put his question to those politicians mourning McCain. Why are they all so complimentary and admiring to a man whose political philosophy they rejected out of hand? Because they no longer have to deal with him, have any “obligation” towards him. As when he lost the election – gave up – they could afford to be generous. It makes them look good. Ironically, the biggest jerk of them all, Trump, is being the most genuine, outside of McCain’s family, who I expect loved him.

I would like to avoid going to funerals where I'm not wanted and don't want to go, in my life. I can think of someone I know who I found more than a little disagreeable in life, who will likely precede me to the grave. I have said that I do not want to go to that person's funeral to others who think it is a matter of showing respect, being supportive of a survivor or just being conventional. What if I have no respects to pay?  What if I think it will be a distraction or that it is showing disrespect?  If I do go, for I am subject to acting out of pity, it will be out of obligation to the living. Probably, I would regret it, even if it is not dramatic. 

McCain did put country first. At least, consistent with his beliefs. And he did it to his own detriment over and over again. He would tell them in Iowa that corn subsidies were wrong and he’d say in the industrial belt that those jobs weren’t coming back. He’d even say this when campaigning. And, when he thought it was important, he’d vote against his party. At the end, I think he may have been voting against Trump.

Of course, he could be wrong, or, I could think him wrong and I did so all the time. It doesn’t matter – as Stalin once, supposedly anyway, said of Churchill – I don’t know what he said, but I like his spirit. I did like McCain’s spirit. I liked his sense of humor, I liked him calling his friends, even kids “jerks,” I loved his standing up to his party, and I liked his admitting when he was wrong or that economics wasn’t one of his strengths (it wasn’t – he seemed clueless). It is a rare trait in any person, never mind a politician.

Over and over again, it has been said that he acknowledged he wasn’t perfect. Well, come on, he’d better. But, then again, others don’t. He was far from perfect but admitted that he had pandered and did things he wasn’t proud of to win. Maybe it was not much, but it was a lot more than I hear others doing. And he did it while he was vulnerable and in the game.

But, did he have a happy life (we sometimes ask when people die)? Not counting the 5 ½ years of hell, of course.  I expect a lot of the time he was genuinely pissed off, but, he had a job that would lend itself to it. Still, it seemed to me that he was happier than most were -  a happy warrior compared to most of them.

Speaking of happiness, I am reminded . . .  that always sounds pompous. Take two. Once, a long, long time ago. . . Take three. You know I like history, right? And, Herodotus, was the “father of history?” Heard of him, right? So, in his histories, he wrote about a king named Croesus. Croesus was so rich (his people, the Lydians, who lived in modern day Turkey, may actually have invented coinage, or at least solid silver or gold coinage) that we still 2500 or so years later have an expression, “. . . rich as Croesus.” People said it when I was growing up all the time and it was a thing. Anyway, rich as he was, when the celebrated wise man, Solon, paid him a visit, he made the mistake of asking him if he was the happiest person. Solon, undeterred by Croesus’ disappointment, explained that he wasn’t. Apparently, you have to be dead before you know, to see if you died well and what else was going to happen in your life. You can almost see Donald Trump asking some celebrated wise man this and being angered at the answer.

Croesus had some setbacks. His beloved son, who he tried to protect after being warned about his death by an oracle, was killed nevertheless in the manner predicted. He was totally f’d by an oracle and attacked Persia, destroying an empire, just as the oracle predicted – but it was his own. He was almost burned alive by Cyrus, the greatest conqueror of his generation, but, either through royal or divine intervention, survived and faithfully served his conqueror. But, given a measure of freedom, he was no longer a king. It did not seem like he met the expectations he set for himself or ever achieved the happiness he thought his wealth deserved. I have to say, I know a few people like that.

It would seem to me, applying Solon’s standards, McCain was wildly successful and happy. He arguably had a head start, being the son of an admiral who was the son of an admiral. I have not read any of his books, and I cannot say whether he had a pleasant or sad childhood, whether his birth was a benefit to him or too much pressure. Whatever it was, he ended up flying a bomber in the Vietnam War, was shot down, was gravely injured in his crash, worse when captured, worse when tortured for years. And, like Trump, he’d tell you he was no hero, he cracked. He signed a statement for his enemies and prepared to kill himself, stopped by his tormentors. He should not have suffered so. But, just the same, it probably forged his personality to a large degree, just by surviving it. I’m sure he would rather have done without it, a hundred times over. But, it also made his reputation forever. Even if it is a thin silver lining, it was something. Who besides him and Trump would say he wasn’t a hero? I’m sure there are some, because many people – many good people - can’t separate politics and character. McCain could and did. For all his famed feistiness, he was forgiving, probably more so than I am. He went back to Vietnam more than once, and was instrumental in that country’s partial reconciliation with us.

I have said before, I do not understand the story about his refusal to leave Vietnam before his turn (they went in order of capture), when the Northern Vietnamese found out his parentage. I do not understand why they didn’t tie him up in a box and drop him off at the Swiss embassy. What would they do? Give him back? Still, no one has ever challenged it and maybe it is true. I can’t say.

I listened to the eulogies of Joe Biden, Barack Obama and George Bush. McCain chose them to show we have to get past political differences, as he was justly famous for doing. And, they spoke well. Everyone has spoken movingly about him, obviously other than Trump, who, left out, has been wisely and uncharacteristically mostly silent about it. His daughter and son-in-law did attend and sat quietly through the withering “America has always been great,” shot at Trump by McCain’s daughter. To be honest, she’s entitled at her father’s funeral to some liberties, but, I thought it unnecessary, a distraction and not so wise.

Many commentators are, in fact, claiming the funeral, designed by McCain to a large extent, was a repudiation of Trump by his exclusion (though it was said if he came, no one would have stopped him).  I can’t say for sure, of course, but I think they are, too some degree, at least, correct. It was just a sentence here or there, but it was enough. Looking at it as generously as possible, in repudiating Trump, he was repudiating the one he sees as epitomizing what he didn’t like about politics in general on both sides.  But, how much a “healer” McCain would have appeared to be had he invited Trump?  I don’t think Trump is so narcissistic that he would have ruined the funeral, although others might have been ungracious to him. Trump Derangement Syndrome knows few boundaries.

How do you have healing when the president, elected by roughly half the electorate, and geographically speaking, most of the country, is excluded and mocked? If that was McCain’s plan, it was a dumb one. He’s not responsible for his daughter’s eulogy or the jabs taken here and there at the president. To the extent he would have smiled, well, the celebration of his life is marred by that too, because making it about Trump - which is now the media drumbeat, trivialized McCain's life - which was about so much more.

As always, I’m not trying to be remotely comprehensive about his life or even his funeral. I left a lot out that I know without reading it, and I’m sure there is even more on just Wikipedia that I don’t know. I don’t really care enough about the details to study it. I just know why I liked him so much more than everyone else, although, as stated in that 2006 post, I recognize that these are probably some of the same reasons others despise him. You know what they are too, so I don’t have to say. Nor do I want to try to compete with the eulogizers. They did pretty well, even Bush, with whom a speech can be a deadly weapon.

I’m just going to say, good-bye John. I think we are lucky to have had you. You made politics better, even if in a small way. Perhaps it was not with any lasting success, but some small success that will resonate here or there. Perhaps, like some of history's unsung heroes, it will be a long term victory rather than a short term one. Perhaps that’s the most anyone can do. And it definitely is not the same without you.

Political update for November, 2017

There's a lot going on and only I, out of the six billion people on this planet, have something valuable to say about it. I’m sure you will agree after reading the following:

Stand, kneel, play patty cake – what do I care? Just don’t bore me.

The whole NFL anthem thing is almost played out – and pretty much where I wanted to be in the first place. That’s good, because for once the NFL, whose games I love to watch, but whose organization I’ve come to have little respect for, got it right for a change. But, let's start at the beginning.

Kaepernick - So, Kaep was a decent quarterback in this league who had a lot of potential, but during his last two years the 49ers were a poor team and he showed no improvement. Statistically, he’s right about the same place as he had been, but the teams not winning and efforts to improve his game (including with mentoring from Hall of Famer Kurt Warner) seemed not to help at all. Though he comes from a middle class family into which he was adopted, he may have been radicalized a little by a new girlfriend (that's the narrative and what it seems like, but I really don’t know - maybe he was leaning that way already), and it also seems that he is feeling some kind of youthful identity stress. I don’t know that he is acting with any more or less political savvy than other people. He’s 30 now. I probably felt a lot like he did in my early 20s - not a commie, but definitely a lefty. I grew out of it. 

I actually liked Kaepernick quite a bit for a while. Though I thought a lot of Alex Smith, who he replaced as starter (and who is a few years later having the year of his life), I wanted to see Kaep play.  He seemed like he had a fun loving personality and was absolutely a great athlete, if not ever an elite QB. I remember one play, probably in 2013, which endeared him to me personally. He had just run the ball and was forced out of bounds. A defensive player on the other team was jawing at him coming off the sidelines back to the field. Kaep smiled at him sweetly and just pointed to the scoreboard. Maybe he has changed. Like with entertainers, we only see their public persona and not necessarily the real person. He was fined for something he said on the field, not sure what, fined for wearing headphones the league didn’t endorse (that’s a knock on them, not him, in my book) and had a fight with a teammate who used to date his new girlfriend. Nothing horrible, but, you don’t see Eli Manning or Russell Wilson doing those type of things either, right?

Anyway, for whatever reason, in 2016 he started sitting out the anthem. He didn’t make a big deal about it until asked why during an interview. Naturally, there was a reaction, but, though I have trouble with his statements that black people are oppressed (not that there isn't prejudice on both sides) or that cops are quicker to shoot them than other people, I could be wrong and they obviously have a long history of oppression against them and many people still feel they are today. On the other hand, even President Obama said it is a lot better now than ever. 

Actually, I don’t need to agree or disagree with him at all, or even know why he is sitting. I don’t care. As far as I’m concerned he could sit or kneel, as he did in the last game of the season, for any reason or no reason at all. I’m sure I’ve written here on one occasion at least that in high school I often lay down on the radiator during home room while the pledge of allegiance was recited, mostly out of exhaustion, but partly because I was never comfortable with public displays of patriotism, and when younger would sometimes not stand for the anthem for both of those reasons. I tend to stand in public these days during the anthem, because it upsets people more than I care, and I'm a little less exhausted, but there have been times I haven’t stood if I was in a back row.

In any event, some other players emulated him, and some much better athletes than him, including some on the Seattle Sea Hawks. This year it took off, especially when our whiz kid from Queens opened his bi-i-i-g-g mouth and said that players should be fired or benched – whatever. Then, the protest became something else. Whole teams linked arms in some kind of show of unity/protest and there were some black power salutes.

Now there was even more push back. Some people took Trump’s side, although I think he was idiotic about it, perhaps just trying to rally his base. I personally knew people who said they refused to watch the games while players were protesting. As many people pointed out, people are buying hot dogs and doing whatever they want during the anthem. Why can’t players do the same? What could be a more peaceful display of someone’s opinion than merely sitting or taking a knee? Some people seem to think is more respectful to the armed forces (I have no idea why they are part of the discussion – are they why we have the anthem? If so, I sure didn’t know that).

The NFL definitely has its eye on the bottom line. It is the reason for most of their stupid decisions although, they are a business and it is hard to blame them for trying. I don’t know if they are handling it right. There tv numbers – the reason for all that big money – that have been dwindling. But, that is also true of cable tv and sports in general, or so I read. The powers that be in the NFL, mostly my nemesis, Goodell, decided they’d better do something about the bad publicity from the protests. But, at the same time, being that the large majority of their players are black, they needed to tread lightly. Jerry Jones, the owner of the Cowboys, told his team whoever protests doesn’t play and it looked like the NFL was going to follow suite. But they didn’t. Goodell, in an NFL network interview, made it clear there were no policy changes and they wanted to talk to players about social justice. So, they had a meeting. It looked like they were even going to have Kaepernick, but then they didn’t.

What took place at the meeting, I can’t say. I guess there was “dialogue.” About what, I don’t know. It’s not like anyone is accusing the NFL, one the most minority dominated big businesses in the country, of oppressing blacks. I don’t know who they are accusing of oppressing them. Is it still about cops? The NFL, which is suddenly responsible for racial justice in this country, as if they were a branch of the civil rights division in Washington, agreed at the meeting that it would have a month set aside for social justice. No idea what that will entail, probably public service messages and some promotions. Maybe those representing the players wanted a way out too.

 Now, it comes out one of the owners,  Houston's Robert McNair, made a comment about the inmates running the prison, or was it asylum? So, he had to apologize for using an expression. Because e v e r y t h i n g is about color now, I guess his expression – one that had no racial meaning I knew of - became all about race too. Yawn. So, his team was affronted because that means . . . ummm . . . the owner’s a racist? The millionaire players are oppressed?  

Me? Not enough to not watch the games, but I just wanted everyone to shut up about it. I don't think it does a thing for what the protests are intended to do (I still am not sure what) and I don't think it does a thing for the military or police to have it pushed to the side. It just makes me happier.

In the meantime, Kaepernick has sued the league on the grounds that there is a conspiracy not to hire him. That means owners had to get together to say – hey, lets not hire Kaep. That’s going to be hard to prove. I understand why they don’t want to hire him. For one thing, he started the whole thing. He had also worn socks with pigs wearing cop hats, which he claims he wore before he started sitting down and only represented rogue cops, and he wore a Che tee-shirt to some event or another. Che is a hero to rebels but to others a vicious murderer. Kaep now also sports an afro which we kind of associate with the ‘60s and “black power.” Some people may think that’s great, and maybe he’s a trend setter. But, others are going to be angry about it. Not because they are racist (although I’d bet some are), but because they hate racial divisiveness. Let’s face it – Che was and Kaep is divisive, and he’s not good enough to overcome it. There are other QBs not playing or second string who are better than he is -- but they aren’t divisive. There were and still are other guys protesting, but they were either really good, or great, or they were kneeling next to guys who were. If Kaep was good enough, he’d get hired too. Mediocre and divisive are a bad combination.

I’ve written before about what I think is going on in racial relations in America and I don’t want to go into it here. Why? Because I’m watching football. And there is nothing racist about football. Along with basketball, it is practically the antithesis of racism – unless you count reverse racism. The revolution is taking on almost ludicrous behaviors and opinions. Recently, the NAACP demanded that the national anthem be changed to remove a reference to slavery – not even an obnoxious reference, but one that simply acknowledges that there were slaves and indentured servants. I knew there was more than one stanza to the anthem, but I don’t know how many there are. I would expect that not one person in 10,000 knows that there is more than one, not one in a million knows how many and not one in ten million know the words. And what would it mean to change the words that are never sang or thought about by almost anyone in the country? Finding old books and burning them or just having some government official stating – we change these words and henceforth everyone pretend Francis Scott Key never wrote them.  I don’t get it. It would be like Jews demanding that people stop mentioning the holocaust or Americans that people stop writing novels about 9/11. You can’t change history. These things happened. We are better off knowing and thinking about them.

Also, recently, an NBA player suggested we stop calling owners "owners." "Chairman" would be better. Why you ask? Not that we have slavery, but apparently for him, using the word "owner" is some kind of holdover from slavery we should get past. Thanks to Mark Cuban for pointing out that the ownership involved is not of people, but shares of stock or a team.  

So, my preference – sit, stand, kneel, sing, don’t sing, I don’t care. It’s harmless, absolutely peaceful protest about something concerning race, but I’m no longer sure what. Maybe it just means for the protester - we are black and we still feel stigmatized or threatened or we are protesting for those who look more like us but don’t have million dollar salaries. It’s not that I don’t care about race relations or people’s feelings. I just don’t want to hear about it or see it while I’m trying to watch football. It would be like a football game breaking out in a super market while I'm trying to shop.

Weinstein, you knucklehead, you may be disgusting, you may be a criminal, but you may also have helped women get past a stigma of being sexually assaulted

It was exactly zero shock for people to read that there was an avalanche of women coming out of the shadows to accuse a film producer of sexual harassment. I’ve known since I’m a child that there was a casting couch and that many young actresses, maybe old ones too for all I knew, who felt they had to have sex with people in power to get good roles. Or put up with uncomfortable situations. And many times they were likely right.

Harvey Weinstein, is, undoubtedly, a pig. Yes, when this many women come out, I do believe them, at least most of them. He is probably, based on the accusations, a criminal, though he denies that part of it. It’s actually not fair that some of the commentary seems to focus on his looks. He’s not a good looking guy, but that shouldn’t be the issue.

What I’m glad to see mostly is that women who were before being quiet, because they felt they wouldn’t be believed, or that they’d be shamed, now feel they can speak up. But, if all it is, is a snowball related to Weinstein and a few other chosen people who were predatory, it is not enough.

Many, many years ago I heard something in summer camp that I still remember. I was somewhere between 8-10 and a camp counselor, probably in her young 20s - to me very grown up, was saying that she had to wear a blue dress for her wedding because she had been raped – she couldn’t wear the traditional white. I was outraged for her but thought she was crazy to think that way. Why should she be shamed or stigmatized because someone else did something horrible? Don’t ask me where I got this idea that intentions should matter a lot and that traditions that shamed, denigrated, stigmatized or denounced people over things that were not in their control and seemed to have no rational relationship between the fact and the reaction, were not good traditions, but I had it very young, still in my single digits. Maybe everyone does, but it never seemed like that to me. It seemed closer to the opposite. People seem to like those stigmas, sometimes even when they apply to themselves.

But, at the same time I felt outraged for her, I was also very impressed that she didn’t seem to be ashamed that she was raped and could speak about it. I was already aware that rape, like almost anything sexual or biological in those days (we didn't even discuss that women had menstrual cycles) was a hush-hush matter. And, again, maybe all or most young kids know that. I’m not sure where we learn it.

Somewhere along the road of life I started to say outloud that I thought that women would be better off if their names were not hidden in rape cases and that the should be very upfront about it if they were sexually abused. The idea of sexual harassment was only slowly developing.  Definitely by my 20s.  But, quickly I learned it wasn’t an appreciated position to take publicly. People immediately got mad – as usual when I said what I thought about anything emotionally charged – and often they changed what I was saying into something different and definitely offensive, and claimed I was demeaning women, that I couldn't know what rape was like, and I shouldn’t have anything to say about it. Usually, if I have an opinion that was different than most people, I’d know that at least some people agreed with me, sometimes many people, but that being less awkward and more social than I was, were uncomfortable saying it in public (e.g., there are a lot more atheists/agnostics than admitted it publicly). But, with this opinion, I seemed to be completely on my own. Honestly, it didn’t come up a lot, but that was my impression.

Jump ahead to 1991 and the William Kennedy Smith rape case. There’s a lot that can be said about that case – there have been books about it – but I just am focusing on the fact that Ms. Bowman, the alleged victim was publicly outed, rather than being hid and the crime being prosecuted against an anonymous person. Though I tended to believe Kennedy in the scenario described, having heard the testimony, I was glad to see it was being brought out of the shadows for the defendant's sake, but also for hers, even if she protested.*

*Just as an aside, though people associate his name with the rape case too, few people are aware that subsequent to the trial, he received his M.D. and went on to a storied career as a humanitarian dealing with land mines and innovative ways to help poor countries with medical issues. No, you idiots, I’m not saying if he was a rapist his career gives him absolution (I’m actually sorry to have to say this, but I too frequently get reminded how people argue), I’m just saying that he was not just the party boy he was portrayed to be. I’ve read that he was accused as late as 2004 of sexual assault, which he denied, pointing out that he was very susceptible to accusations (a good point whether he’s a rapist or not). I don’t know what’s true. I’m just noting that anyone would be proud to have his humanitarian record. Both could be true.  

Still, I did not see much evidence that women were being taught not to be ashamed to be victims. I get the problem still. They did not want to be the subject of hostility from ogres, and there are plenty of them, have their sex lives dragged out in public, maybe have their careers and life affected, have people whisper when they came into a room, etc. Nor have that general horrible feeling of having someone else exercise their will over them (presuming they are telling the truth). And I’m not saying I would feel or act differently, because I am subject to the same cultural training as they are. I am saying that we should get past it, and that case was a small step.

But, now, maybe, things are changing a little bit. Obviously, as time goes by we see more women, and sometimes men, willing to come out and say that they were abused. There’s courage in numbers, clearly. Although it seems there is a lot going on, there’s no way to know if this outing stuff will trickle down to those who can’t get in the media spotlight because the accused aren’t famous. I don’t know if it will empower people at work or other places at all. We’ll see, I guess. And, I’m also not suggesting that some of the accusations are false. It is just as dangerous to suggest that women don’t lie about rape or assault as to take the man’s side by rote.

I will only touch upon one more point about it. We have a tendency in this country to throw the baby out with the bath water when we have cultural change. While it is important - incredibly important - that women not be sexually assaulted or harassed at work, and I welcome this Weinstein generated movement in general, we do not want to create a situation where the work place becomes a sexual bonfire of the vanities - where every social interraction between male and female workers is made non-sexual and castigated as evil. Because that is what we have been teaching our young people. Love and sexuality exists even at work. You can't cut it out of you by force or law. Many relationships, I don't know if still most, are created there. It is one of the few places you can get to know people well in a natural environment and we are way to hung up about sex in general. Mild flirtation, dating, even sex does not have to be evil or wrong in the work environment. Probably little of it is. Just today I read of a journalist at CNN saying that she gave a man permission to say her dress look pretty. Now, that's insane.

Trump

               While he was running I said that if he won, he’d be a terrible president but it would be very entertaining. It is. Partly because he’s such a moron (of course, Tillerson said that, whatever his denials – I don’t know that for a fact, but I believe it – I call a lot of people a moron at some point; it’s a common character assessment for even minor mistakes and Trump makes major ones repeatedly) and partly because of the resistance, which I’ve written on here before, is in a state of hysteria* and keeps his presidency aflame too.

*I’ve been a little conscious of the usual partisan fear and hatred for the opposition since Nixon and very much so since Reagan – when I joined in, being then very liberal. The reaction to Bush II was a large uptick in animosity towards the opposition president, possibly because the election was so close; Obama possibly more so, because of the attempt and partial success in changing our government, but at least the same amount; but the white hot “hysteria” regarding Trump is a giant leap back to uglier times in American history. Part of that is Trump’s fault, as he was the most insulting, degrading and flagrantly dishonest campaigner we’ve seen in modern times. Pay back is a bitch, as they say. It makes it very difficult for him to govern now at all, as even many in his own party intensely dislike him or don’t mind watching him flail. I have my own friends and family members who literally can’t bear any disagreement about him. One friend, who invited me over, started talking about him and literally became hysterical when I agreed on A,B and C insults, but not about D, and said heatedly he was going upstairs if I kept talking about him. The other day a relative started every sentence with how fair he was to Trump and then would become white hot with rage by the end of the sentence and called him a “Nazi.” Those are just my own experiences, but I see this all the time with Trump, mainly in op-eds criticizing him. Unfortunately, his supporters rarely match the emotion in defending him because it is so hard to defend someone who constantly shoots himself in the foot.

Anyone could justify doing their entire political review on Trump. He is almost the only subject and not just about politics. His adversaries make almost everything about him. Too much is written about him for me to want to do wander endlessly about him though. I’m just going to sum up some issues.

I still don’t see the Trump-Russian connection. Though some of his opposition says – but there are already indictments and a conviction – no there aren’t, not about his campaign's supposed collusion with Russia (which, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, isn’t a crime, unless it’s connected to a real crime). Neither Manafort nor his partner are accused of “collusion” crimes. Even Flynn, who had not yet been indicted will not likely be indicted for that. And Papadopoulos pled to lying to the FBI, which does not even rise to the level of perjury and is just a blunt tool to force people to say what the FBI wants it to say. Which makes any testimony he may have about collusion tainted.  None of the above were or will be accused, as far as we know now, of any collusion, however their adversaries might choose to phrase it. So far, every revelation about a discussion or possibility of some minor league collusion, seems to show that there was none (not that there couldn’t be - I'm just not sure I'd think there was anything wrong with it).

Trump’s main problem is not the “resistance.” Had he the support of all Republicans in congress, he’d be able to sweep most of it aside. But, many of them give him tepid support and some, like McCain, Corker and Flake have just plain come out against him. Even the independent counsel is a product of Republican dislike for him, as they are the majority and could have limited the scope of the investigation or not had it at all (although it is largely Sessions' fault).  Not that I have a problem with the investigation of Russian interference with the election or into Trump’s business conflicts. Both are legitimate topics. But, the craze over collusion so far looks delusional. Show me a fact, I’ll change my mind.

When I first assessed Trump in June of this year, I wrote that the following was dead in the water –  the stupid wall; banning Muslims from America except for new standards for vetting asylum seekers in general; self or forced deportation of millions of illegal aliens and an independent counsel to investigate the Clinton emails.

In a comment Bear took me to task, suggesting it was already happening. I still disagree. So far, though he keeps trying – I think to make it look good for his base – congress has shown no interest in the stupid wall. Despite the hysteria over his orders, which affected citizens from seven, then six predominantly Muslim countries, there has never been an order banning Muslims and isn’t going to be.*  The WH has already announced there will be no mass deportations and the only thing he has done is not renew an illegal DAPA (I didn’t say it – a court did) and tried to bolster the border patrol – crossings are way down and even his opposition has a hard time saying that we should not have a border (although, I do know there are some who feel that way). Last, right away it was announced that the email investigation was over, though I'm sure some Republicans would like to have it re-investigated. We’d need some dramatic new revelation to change that.

*Some people will argue that these are, in fact, Muslim bans and that even he has called it that and insisted that this is what it his orders really were. Well, as I said, he can be an moron. The orders specifically forbid discriminating by religion, although they are almost entirely Muslim countries. But, can anyone deny that these few countries do have a significant population which might pose a threat to us and do not have control of their own immigration or borders. In addition, we are not also so bound to them politically or otherwise so that a ban would destroy the relationship (e.g., Saudi Arabia). In any event, the entire population of these countries is well below 10% of the Muslims in the world. The latest so-called “ban,” was a proclamation which was also stayed by Hawaiian and Maryland district courts. Supposedly they will be appealed, but it is possible they will be ignored. I have to admit, though I think these orders mostly unnecessary, I am disturbed that under our constitutional system a district court (the lowest federal court) can stop the president from acting in what he believes is a national security matter in what I believe is a political way by lower courts. It gives a judge in the other party the opportunity to control what is legitimately presidential power.  Imagine if nationwide orders of Exxon’s or Microsoft’s CEO could be stopped by a local production manager. This power was essentially usurped by the court system long ago (Obama had the media support to just ignore such orders when he wanted to) and I guess people like it.

But, despite all the negativity from the press towards Trump, despite the fierceness of his opposition and the distraction of the Russia investigation, he has what would certainly be considered successes for other presidents in that their supporters liked them (let’s not forget Obama got a Nobel Prize just for being elected). The economy is growing faster than it has in years, consumer confidence is up, as I said – illegal border crossings are down and the border administration doesn’t feel like they are the enemy, the rules of engagement for our armed forces has been made more reasonable, ISIS as a political and military force is being reduced rapidly, Russia has stopped pestering planes with theirs (I think since February, shortly after the inauguration) and Iran our ships since July when we fired warning shots at them. I think they get the message that there is a new sheriff in town - even if he sometimes acts like an idiot, who does not feel that humility is a virtue in foreign affairs. The stock market is at an all-time high (although, we should always be nervous about bullish markets). New jobs are way up and unemployment way down. New regulations have come to a stand-still and are being reduced, manufacturing and housing are up. NATO has responded to his call for a greater anti-terrorism focus. I could go on, but if you want to say those are talking points, they are. I took them from various lists so I wouldn’t have to think hard. Still, doesn’t mean they aren’t real. You will not see these arguments in most of the mainstream media though. You have to read online. Yes, you can absolutely argue that some, many or all of these things are actually bad for us (although some it would be hard to do so) or that he has little to do with him (again, some, you really can’t). I’m not judging here. Some things he does I like, more things I don’t. I’m just saying that other presidents would be given “credit” for them.

Love him, hate him. I know good people who feel both ways. We will be lucky if this is the narrative that we have for the next 4-8 years because it will mean nothing horrible has happened.

               The future is easy to predict until you get there. I love to predict elections, even who is going to run, and sometimes I do it well, sometimes abominably. I really don’t think I’m any better or worse at it than anyone else. It is human nature to think when you are right it was because of some good qualities in you – logic, knowledge, intelligence, etc. And when you are wrong, it is because something unforeseeable got in the way. Even if we realize that this isn’t the case, we still feel that it is true anyway.  

               During the Obama years, I wrote about 8 of 10 installments of why he was the worst president in my lifetime. Even worse than his predecessor. Never finished it. Trump may surpass him too. I’m not sure yet because Trump hasn’t had a chance to do much. The other day - election day -the normal trend occurred, where the Democrats gained seats in the house during election following the presidential election. We don’t know if it is going to get worse next year when Senate seats are up for grabs. But, not unlikely. Trump can do nothing with a majority, I doubt he will do more with less of one. And maybe this is what is best, no party with complete control to wreak havoc on the idiots who elected them.

               Nevertheless, I am going to start making election predictions for 2020 sooner than later, probably around the end of 2018, could be early 2019, which isn’t all that far away.  If you wait until there’s a clear front runner, or just follow the polls, you aren't predicting much. The two main questions I’m asking myself now are no different than what many other people are wondering – will the Democrats continue what they’ve been doing and double down on the leftwards trend and nominate a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Sanders type, and, two, will Trump run again. Right now, I’d bet a little both things will be so, but I don’t feel a whole lot of conviction about it (actually, probably rarely do about these things).

               In the meantime, enjoy or withstand the roller coaster, if you can.