Vote Dem?

 According to Mr Cheatum (Nashville Tennessean 1/25/25) the only way to save the United States is to vote Democrat in the November and subsequent elections. He is absolutely correct if you wish to preserve the US of A that we can watch playing out in Minnesota and New York, to name a couple.

Minnesota has experienced an absolutely overwhelming flood of illegal immigrants. In the past month that state has been investigated for over $9 billion dollars in Fraud (CBS Nesw 1/5/25). Add to that near continuous rioting and attacks on federal officers, and even local police, as they attempt to counter the influx of illegal immigrants by sending the worst of the worst back to someplace else.  Now, as the riotous protests continue with protesters continuing to flout the law, refuse to obey lawful authority, and now escalate the level of action to more direct physical attacks, lives have been lost.

New York is a little behind in the fraud department, but probably because of the promises of all the free stuff offered by their newly elected socialist Mayor. I won’t detail the problems, but just take a look at state finances and see which ones are in the red, fiscally, and compare it to those in the Red, politically.

Even before the socialist was elected Mayor of NY City, it was reported that, “ In just a few years, over 125,000 New Yorkers moved to Florida, taking nearly $14 billion in income....” Income does not include savings and investments.

 (https://capwolf.com/why-millionaires-are-fleeing-new-york-in-2025/) (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/rich-leave-new-york-city-after-mamdani-takes/story?id=127503351)

(https://nypost.com/2025/08/28/opinion/with-the-rich-already-fleeing-new-york-wholl-be-left-for-zohran-mamdani-to-tax/)

Coup de gras (https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathangoldman/2025/08/26/if-mamdani-raises-nyc-taxes-will-the-wealthy-leave-the-city/)

Yes, if a lawless, impoverished United States is the ideal, vote Dem.

Election Hoopla

Enough already! This is the third day since the election, and the flow of venomous invective, hate-filled screeds, and outright misstatements have not relented on social media. And, not to demean or diminish the originality of the criers, but it does, the verbiage is identical to the play book disseminated by the DNC and its water carriers, the main-stream media.

One point in question. “Convicted felon,” is flung about, usually at the top of the list of purported offences, as if it were concerning a major felony incursion into the safety and security of people or the country. As a matter of fact, the “conviction” is for a financial statement, supposedly overstating the value of property offered as collateral for a business loan. 

Now for the reality check. The loan was repaid in full, resulting in zero loss to the lending institution. And, as we loved to point out in high school and college debate, the legislative intent is critical in the application of laws. In this instance, fraudulently stating an inflated value of property in order to secure a loan that results in a default and loss to the offended party is the crime. This legislation protects the lender.

The actual value of the property in question can actually be questioned. Second, the lending entity, paid in full, did not suffer a loss as a result of the “perjurious disclosure” on the loan document. As the NBA and NFL say, on occasion, “No harm, no foul.” (Don’t get me going.)

So, as some famous man said, or should have said, “The People have spoken. Cut the crap!” If you are not going to help change the circumstances (notice I did not use the pejorative description, “the mess we are in,”) change circumstances for the better, then get out of the way.

And as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Philippians (chapter 4, verse 6) “Be anxious for nothing, but with prayer and thanksgiving, let your requests be known to God.” Don’t worry, it will work out. No, God will work it out.

K amala’s Last Stand

Though the election is over, Kamala Harris can still thwart Donald Trump’s quest to become the 47th President. The defeated Vice-President can invoke the 25th Amendment, depose Jos Biden, and become the 47th President–for 70 days or so. (I predicted that he would not last a year. Some prophet, huh?)

“Take that! Donald Trump. You failed. I’m 47. You have to settle for being 48." Talk about a “poke in the eye with a sharp stick,” as a friend of mine used to say. And a small succor for the disappointment of losing an election. At least no one can any longer say that she never received a vote in a Presidential primary or election.

(Am I being kind? I’m trying to paint a dismal picture a little brighter. You’re welcome.)

Covenant School Shooting Nashivlle

 Concerning the so called manifesto written by the Covenant School killer, we are convulsed with calls and demands for its disclosure. Lawsuits and a multitude of voices raise a cacophonous cry to read it. On the other hand, the parents, school, and justice authorities are resisting.

There have been few published, logical examinations of the reasons for releasing or withholding of the papers. Here is such a defense.

First, the police who read it have declared that it is not a well-reasoned manifesto. It is a compilation of ramblings from what we now know was a disturbed, incoherent mind. There is no reason for publicizing this gibberish.

Incidentally, if the public is so desperate for some unconnected musings, my blog is available. But I digress.

Second, the same authorities who evaluated the value of the disconnected writings also note that there is no declaration of intent or evidence of planning involved. Again, there is no rationale for giving this deranged person his or her “fifteen minutes of fame.” 

Third, the major defense for withholding the documents by “unaffected or unconnected” persons is the distinct possibility that it will engender copycat actions. Ever since the unibomber achieved notoriety, our society has endured a literal avalanche of mass murders, many of which were inspired by the desire for recognition by the perpetrator. Even publicizing their names seems suspect. Just call them “the killer.” Names can be released well after the initial clamor and drama has subsided.

And fourth, there is historical precedence for withholding private details of the lives of both the victims and the killer. President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and the Kerner Commission investigated the entire incident. The details of that finding were sealed for 100 years with the explanation that the personal interests of all involved took precedence over the curiosity of the public. We all wanted, and demanded to “know what happened.” The major details were already public, and the rest were personal and not fodder for public display and consumption.

The claims of “prevention” following the publication have been disproved by legitimate authorities. How has the display of earlier “manifestos” prevented any subsequent tragedies? The “public’s right to know” has been met by the details of, 1. what happened, 2. who did it, and 3. how was it resolved. Nothing further is material to those of us with no “skin in the game.”

And speaking of skin, the actual parties who were affected have made their intentions and desires clear. Disclosure will most assuredly subject them to further trauma, and demonstrably contribute to additional incidents. The school shooting in Colorado was inspired by previous killings. Then the one in New England, likewise, was engendered by previous publicity saturated killings, and then Florida, and Texas. There is no need to proceed with a roll call of deranged debacles.

The authorities have the documents and any value gained from them has surely been gleaned. The desire for details can be satisfied after a suitable time of “cooling down.” Any possible value of the disclosure to the public can be gleaned in the coming years. There is no hurry to disclose it now. Go back and read the Columbine documents to satisfy the hunger for details. Those families still ache over their losses, but the immediate sting has subsided. The Covenant victims deserve the same consideration.

And as for the lawyer who declared that the families and friends are not victims, I would challenge him to look into his own soul and consider how he would react to the unjustified murder of his family member, child or grandchild or even the loss of his friends’ family members.

The Bible warns us that, “...in the last days difficult times will come. For people will be lovers of self....” Read the entire list in 2 Timothy 3, verses 2 through 5. This is a damning indictment, and we are living in the aftermath of events that validate this description from the Apostle Paul.

Let’s not contribute to the chaos or further encourage subsequent events.

The Abortion Debate: Part 2

In our previous discussion, we learned that a critical component of debate is the definition of terms. Those definitions must be reasonable, logical, and clear. Without a clearly defined definition of the terms of the debate, no germane, cogent discussion is possible. 

This installment is to describe a debate tactic. It is called the “even if,” argument. “Even if” a certain fact is, in fact, true, how does that change the tenor and course of the debate? We aver that the fact in question does not change the thrust, nor results, of the proposal and is either irrelevant or, possibly, contradictory to the opposing position.

An excellent example of this tactic, but, unused to this point as far as I know, is from the contest for Senator from Georgia. Senator Warnock’s supporters have accused Herschel Walker of encouraging and even facilitating former girl friends to abort their shared children. Walker is campaigning on a platform, of among other things, of being against abortion. The ironic part of this argument, is that Warnock, himself, is in favor of abortion.

In short, Warnock’s campaigners’ position is, that Walker is wrong and unreliable because he changed his mind. In fact, it would seem that the fact that he now opposes something that he allegedly supported in the past is the “burr under the saddle.” Or more likely, a “spur to the neck.”

To my knowledge, Walker’s response has been to deny the validity of the charge that he was involved in advocating for an abortion. Let’s apply the “even if” analysis to this question. Even if the incident in question were true, how does that change the force of the debate? If the position of favoring abortion was wrong, and he changed his mind, then why should he be excoriated and condemned? On the other hand, is it the direction of the change that is the sticking point? If he had changed from anti-abortion to pro-abortion would they still be against him?

Let’s explore other “changes of mind.” Here is a quote on a notable change of mind reported by that conservative bastion, CNN. (https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/joe-biden-abortion-draft-opinion/index.html)

“Long one of the Democratic Party’s most moderate voices on abortion, Biden has reckoned with personal qualms rooted in his Catholic faith.

“He said early on in his career that while he supported individuals’ right to an abortion, he opposed federal funds paying for them. Later, he backed Republican efforts to ban so-called ‘partial-birth abortions,’ a non-medical term describing rare late-term procedures, and said he would have liked to go further in restricting them.

“In 2006, two years before he was elected vice president, he told an interviewer he did “not view abortion as a choice and a right.” A year later, he spelled out his internal conflict in an appearance on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’

“‘I was 29 years old when I came to the United States Senate, and I have learned a lot,’ he said. ‘I’m a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility.’”

Here he admits that he changed his position, only in the opposite direction from Walker. It appears that Warnock’s supporters oppose the fact that he is now against abortion, rather than for it. “He is unstable and unsuited for the position.” Even that charge is illogical. If he is indeed, unstable, then he might change back to favoring abortion. That would be a win for the Democrats. Sounds like an argument that a Republican might have used in the primaries to vote for another candidate. If he changes now, it would be in favor of the pro-abortion position.

So “even if” Walker has changed his mind, it merely shows that he has evaluated the the facts and decided that he was wrong. It is alive, it is a baby, it is a baby person. And it has worth. We should not call it, an “it.” “He or she” is more accurate. However that evokes another debate, which I will forego. ("Whew," goes the crowd.)

Personal Postscript: If the voters of Georgia base their votes on a pro or anti abortion stance, they are pretty shortsighted. Soaring prices for the necessities of life, soaring crime rates, soaring numbers of illegal immigrants, and plummeting confidence by our allies in the resolve of America to defend them, and other critical issues obscure the import of whether a woman can “terminate a pregnancy at will.” If the entire Congress were for abortion, or against abortion, these issues would still dominate the lives of citizens for years to come. Focus on the critical issues.

Abortion Questions

Many abortion advocates has suggested that abortion bans subject medical personnel to unreasonable threats of legal action for performing some medical procedures that are deemed to be abortions. This, in turn, has the potential of harming a woman’s health by unreasonable delay in performing life-saving interventions. One example often cited is D and C, also known as: dilation and curettage.

There are times when a successful birth is not followed by the successful expulsion of the afterbirth. This retained placenta, according to Dr. Google, happens in about 3% of vaginal births. The treatment for this can include our friend, D and C. Is that a post-delivery abortion, and thus subject to abortion bans? (If such a thing could actually be or could be construed in that manner.)

To answer this question we go back to my college debate and subsequent coaching of high school debaters. No academic debate can proceed without the definition of terms. If the meaning of the terms used are not agreed upon, the debaters do not know what they are talking about. Or what their opponents are talking about. Often a debate hinges upon the definition of the terms involved.

Here we define “abortion” as a procedure that is performed with the intent of producing a dead baby. A “medical procedure,” such as D and C in the instance in question, is administered with the primary intent of preserving the life of the mother, and secondarily, producing a live birth if at all possible. Any conflict in those two conclusions must be resolved according to the priorities: live mother first, then live birth.

Concerning D and C, since it is used in some abortion procedures, an objection has been raised that any D and C would be considered an abortion, in violation of the law. This is irrespective of the intent of the procedure. Obviously, this argument is flawed and blatantly false because it does not meet the definition of terms. If it is used in the preservation of the mother’s life, it does not qualify as a violation of the law.

Going further, some abortions are effected by the administration of medication. So would the administration of any medication to a pregnant woman be considered, abortion” No reasonable, logical person would interpret it that way. Anesthesia can be administered during an abortion, so would sedating a pregnant mother, even in the process of delivery, be prosecuted as an violation of the abortion ban? We are getting pretty ridiculous here. In debate, we called that reductio ad absurdum, reducing to absurdity. 

Incidentally, should an over zealous prosecutor take more than one such incident to trial and have  it summarily dismissed, he or she would most likely be subject to some legal reprimand, censure, and even sanctions. 

What about other instances? If a baby is stillborn and some placental fragments remain within the mother’s uterus, would that removal be prosecution worthy? Asked and answered. How about a little more obscure example. A baby is still born, dead, but not delivered. Would the surgical removal of the dead baby be abortion? We answer that by asking a simple question: Did a medical intervention deliberately result in the death of the infant? If the answer is no, then the answer is, “No.”

The final and most difficult situation is when a living baby utero is threatening the life of the mother, for some reason.  And here we defer to the experts. (https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/20/what-about-woman-whose-life-threatened-pregnancy-o/)

And I quote: While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”

Further: Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” Dr. Landrum Shettles says that less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life. End quote.

You can read the entire explanation of the options at the above referenced location. So in conclusion, it seems that the abortion advocates have failed to consider the definition of terms, and literally, do not know what they are talking about. 

Abortion Complications

 On Wednesday, July 20, the Tennessean ran an article bemoaning the fact that OBGYN training and practice has become extremely difficult and convoluted due to the overturning of the Roe decision. In essence, the article spelled out the difficulty for doctors in knowing how to “treat” pregnant women (or “birthing persons,” as some say). “What if there is a complication and the doctor does not know how to proceed?”

Just as a helpful piece of advice, they might pull out the medical texts from the 1960's. I do not recall doctors or OBGYN practitioners struggling with how to handle problem pregnancies. With maybe one or two outlier exceptions, the doctor treats the mother (bp) in order to save her life. No problem or controversy. Incidentally, ectopic pregnancies are not considered true medical pregnancies as there is no chance that a live birth will occur. Generally, “abortion” refers to the termination of a viable pregnancy which has a reasonable likelihood of producing a live baby.

What the article failed to mention is that the practice of abortion has become so commonplace that many medical practitioners use it as a standard operating procedure when any difficulty occurs. It can be abbreviated as SOP. And unfortunately, it has become a literal sop to many. And that is the root of the supposed problems. As any insurance agent knows, insurance coverage is normally restricted to “medically necessarily.” Any medical procedure should conform to that standard. “Is this necessary?”

That would even simplify the hullabaloo over juvenile sex treatment. Statistics show that gender dysphoria, especially among young adolescents, clears up by middle to late teens. It is not hard to find reports from individuals who regret early choices, especially the irreversible ones. 

Me thinks the abortion advocates doth protest too much.

Abortion: Red Herrings and Facts

I have tried to read every article, letter to the editor, opinion piece, and editorial since the Dobbs decision was rendered. And I searched in vain to find a justification for why so many people in our country, including the present administration, are so rabidly intent on acquiring and assuring the right to kill babies. There are several “red herrings,” which in debate language identifies an argument, which is non-probative, but emotional or sensational. This tactic, in forensics, is to distract the opponent into wasting time and resourses in refutation of nonessential points, leaving the consequential arguments untouched. This leads to victory in the debate for the opposition.

Red herring number one: President Biden dragged this smelly carcass across the trail with his reference to a ten-year old girl who had to leave her home in Ohio and go to, gasp! Indiana, for an abortion of a baby fathered by her perverted father. Incidentally, my daughter and her family live in Indiana, and I was not aware that it was such a repugnant and repulsive place. But I digress.

Fact number one: Six states were surveyed* which seem to be representative of the nation as a whole, and the statistics showed 0.39% of abortions were performed on babies who were conceived by rape or incest. This is consequential to the victim, but the procedure imposes a second trauma on the unwilling mother, and an end of life for the baby who has done nothing worthy of capital punishment. Hard cases make bad law.

Red herring number two: Many women will die because a potentially lethal pregnancy will not be terminated. A second argument is that the baby will be born with life threatening deformaties.

Fact number two: In those same states, 1.14% were done to save the life or physical health of the mother and 1.28% to preserve her mental health. And all states have exceptions that deal with the well-being of the mother. As for deformed babies, 0.69% of abortions were done for fetal birth defects, or eugenics. Bad logic makes bad law.

Red herring number three: These babies are unwanted and destined to grow up in a terrible and deprived environment. This will spare them.

Fact number three: For this, exact stats are very hard to acquire. But I have heard testimonies of abortion survivors. There is very little more that will convince a person that they were unwanted, than an attempt to end their existence. Every one, without exception expressed gratitude for life and many are actively working to reduce and even eliminate abortion. I have not read nor heard any person testify that their deprived live or unhealthy surroundings have convinced them that abortion would have been a better alternative than being born and living.

The 3.50% of all the hard cases combined merely illustrate that 96.5% of abortions are for less than substantial reasons. They are executed for social or economic reasons, which, I might add, are not incumbent on the baby. Selfish decisions make bad law.

“Even the Guttmacher Institute puts the number of abortions done for the hard cases under 7% after doing several surveys of women obtaining abortions (the Guttmacher Institute was the research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the largest chain of abortion clinics in the United States. It is considered the most reliable provider of accurate statistics on abortion).”*

We live in a civilized nation that is responsible for approximately 61 million, or more, baby murders. And using the most liberal numbers, over 90% of them are for non-medical reasons.

If you have not read the actual Dobbs opinion, but are depending upon the rantings of the rabid abortion adherents, do so. All of their so called reasons for objecting to the decision are refuted in the opinion. Justice and democracy, let alone reason and sanity, demand an end to this atrocious practice.

*Source of statistics: https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/

Just a thought: If V. Putin is invading Ukraine to liberate oppressed Russian sympathizers, why have 1.5 million of them fled to other countries?  Just a thought.

New Fad/Response

 

It is difficult to find an interview with anyone that does not begin with the introductory conjunction, “Absolutely!” Is anyone else tired of this trivial use?

Let’s make up a new one, and see how long it takes to permeate our society. How about, “Indubitably?” When somone asks a question or makes a comment, reply with a hearty, “Indubitably!”

Let’s give it a trial run. “Are you looking forward to the SuperBowl?”

“Indubitably!” The (fill in the blank) will certainly win.”

“Can you believe the weather?”

“Indubitably!” “I have never seen such weather in February.” (Or any appropriate time frame.)

“Is your family doing well?”

“Indubitably!”

You get the point. Let’s indubitably change the conversation, shall we?

“Indubitably!”

Like Clockwork: Electoral College

Just as surely as day follows night, every election for President is followed by the plaintiff cry, “Abolish the electoral college!” That plaint is always from the losing side, ironically. Or not. Only this year, the screed preceded events by appearing on the day before the election. (11/2 Tennessean) Was that a premonition of loss? We will know by the time you read this, probably.

I recall this argument being waged in the early 1960's. Same arguments, only different sides. Then the Republicans feared losing the electoral college vote to the “big states” after winning the popular vote. And that exact thing happened, not considering contested and fraudulent ballots, in the 2016 election. Only to the other side.

And the actual “justifications” for changing are exactly the same. The article referenced above presents a couple of the arguments. First, “Supporters say the measure would force candidates to campaign in states that today are often taken for granted because they vote so reliably Democrat or Republican that they can be safely ignored.”

And a “popular election” would remedy this, how? The “states that are often taken for granted,” would only receive candidate attention if they were among the most populous. And that is, not many, in fact. Candidates would concentrate on population centers to the exclusion of rural areas. So the “solution” to the problem of ignoring some areas, is to ignore other areas.

The second argument is that a major portion of the population is disenfranchised by a President for which they did not vote. Well, wake up, Buttercup. That happens in every election that has ever been held. Except for the ones in totalitarian countries that routinely offer only one candidate. These are “big boy” elections. Someone wins and someone loses. Interestingly, in kiddie games where no score is kept to avoid branding anyone a loser, the kids–and often parents–keep score in their heads and everyone knows who “won” and who “lost.”

These Presidential elections are not “one man, one vote.” And again, I quote the author of the article. “Unlike most elections in the U.S., the presidency is decided not directly by voters, but by members of the Electoral College, who are assigned based on the results of the popular vote in each state.

And that was the exact intent of the founding fathers. The general population chooses the Senators and Congressmen and women. The judiciary is appointed by the elected officials, and the President is elected by the States. “But that ain’t fair!” Well, on a partisan decision based on numbers of voters, that may be correct. But that can and does change. The Republicans were the most populous party in the 1950's and 60's.

State representation does not change. There are 50 votes. Well, not really. The system is an ingenious hybrid of absolute state equality with population numbers factored into the system. Every “explanation” for the imbalance in “voter representation” by electoral votes, includes the number of Senators assigned to each state. If we compared the “electoral college voting” representation calculated on 435, we would find that each electoral vote represents substantially an identical number of the population–not actual voters, incidentally. And that might be another issue to pursue. 

If we are truly interested in “one man, one vote,” oops, “one person, one vote,” then electoral college votes should be apportioned on the basis of how many people actually voted in any individual state. But I digress.

The solution proposed by the article in question was to institute the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which gives each states’ electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote. Then every election would result in a 535-0 election. Voila! Problem solved!

Except for one small matter. The original complaint was that large portions of the population have their votes annulled by the Electoral College. So to resolve that problem we will annul the votes of a different portion of the population. 

And old beer commercial had some guy proposing some common-sense idea, with his partner exclaiming, “Brilliant!” The only thing “brilliant” about this proposal is that it will deliver the candidate preferred by the writer.

Actually, the Founding Fathers were “brilliant,” excuse the reference to a beer commercial, in balancing population centers with the vast areas of rural enterprise. A cursory look at a map displaying voting patterns illustrates this. Vast areas of red cover the preponderance of the country with blue dots interspersed, coincidentally, at the population centers of the east and west coast and minimal spots throughout “flyover” country.

The Electoral College, instead of threatening our republic, strengthens it. (By the way, the United States is a Republic, not a democracy. And that is another topic for another day.)

May the USA win.

The Election

Does anyone remember class elections in grade school or junior high? “No more spinach or vegetables in the cafeteria!” “Everyone gets two cookies at lunch!” “ No more homework!” “Everyone gets all A’s!” “Three-hour recesses!” And the coup de gras, “George’s Mom will bring treats for us to eat on the bus, every day!”

We chose “leaders” based on the best promises and most appealing characteristics. It was a beauty pageant or a personality contest. Here is some advice that I heard from a Catholic priest, Rev. Ed Meeks. (You can look him up on Facebook or YouTube. Link Below.) We are not electing an eighth-grade class president.

This is a “big boy” election; a “big girl” election. When we vote, we are literally voting for the platform on which the candidate is running. If you vote on the basis of any other factor, you should reconsider your decision. We are electing the Leader of the free world, and not the most pleasant personality or the most profligate promiser.

I would never tell anyone not to vote. But if you choose, based on such immature motives, you will get what you deserve: an eighth-grade leader. And do not be surprised if his promises are forgotten or discarded on November 4.

https://www.drjamesdobson.org/video/whats-stake-election-day?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8hphL-SJ-eNBAiAYI_j_Gv_pOgLr52bPN0PhDZu-4mU59Ol9zUfZFA283hcAkdREJw3uVEvRS_Z5-5VOY433oznV62GA

“UnPresidential Debate”

The debacle of two junk yard dogs contesting a heckling debate, improperly labeled “Presidential Debate” on 9/29/2020 demonstrated the validity of two Scriptures from Proverbs. These two verses are variously cited by skeptics as invalidating the Bible since they contradict each other. They are Proverbs 26:4, 5. 

“4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

If you respond to foolishness with similar foolishness, you are descending to the lowest common denominator. On the other hand, if a foolish act or statement is not rebuked and disputed, the one lacking wisdom believes he has carried the argument and won the debate. The differentiation is in the definition of “fool.” Behaving sophomorically, or more accurately, in a junior high, juvenile manner, must be countered with a wiser, more mature response. And in some instances, ignored completely.

The “Babylon Bee,’ in a satirical a couple of months ago predicted the winner of this year’s Presidential election: The winner will be the candidate who can keep his mouth shut the most. Tuesday night’s exhibition seemed to fulfill that scenario. That seems to validate the advice from Proverbs.

Conversely, allowing such behavior to go unchallenged and without refutation will encourage the perpetrator to believe that the action or statement was acceptable and effective. As we can clearly see, the two verses do not contradict, but complement each other.

Please excuse the somewhat vulgar illustration, but it seems appropriate: last night’s interaction between two candidates for the highest office in the land devolved into a p...uh, let’s forego the vernacular and substitute a technical term, a urinating match, which neither won nor escaped with dry clothes.

Vice President Biden, notice the use of the honorific as opposed to demeaning nicknames or descriptions, Vice President Biden won the “contest” because he incited President Trump, notice  again the honorific as opposed to “clown,” into behavior coincident with the image that has been painted of him. The Democratic position is that the current occupant of the White House is a rogue, rule-breaking, bulldozer of a man who will stoop to any level of activity to accomplish his goals. Last night’s behavior reinforced that image.

On the other hand, Mr. Biden, likewise “peed away” his success by descending to the same behavior of name calling, rudely interrupting, and attempting to outshout the Incumbent. One commentator characterized the 90 minute exchange as “mud wrestling.” Seems apt. In a “live debate” in college, our opponents were extremely loud, vociferous, though pretty articulate and polished speakers. After one episode of literal shouting by our opponents, my colleague stepped to the podium and commented, “Wow! That speech had a lot of  heat but no light. Let’s shed a little light on the subject.” (We won the debate.) Another way to phrase that would be, “Volume does not equal veracity.”

As a former debater, debate coach, and debate judge, this observer would rate this “debate” as a double loss. Debate rules do not allow for such an outcome and a draw goes to the negative. So, depending on how the topic is couched, we determine the winner by the negative position.

“Resolved, Joe Biden should be the next President of the United States.” Negative wins, No.

“Resolved, Donald Trump should be the next President of the United States.” Negative wins, No.

And to the organizers of this spectacle, we give an unqualified, unmitigated grade of “F.” Academic, scholarly debate consists of opening statements by both contestants in which they state their positions and responses to the opposition’s position. In some formats a short period of cross-examination follows each “constructive speech.” These periods are followed by rebuttal speeches where each side variously attacks the opposition POSITION, not personnel, and defends their own position. These rebuttal speeches alternate for a series of two turns for each team, followed by an appeal for the decision. The judge then makes his decision and we all go home, or on to the next round of the tournament.

There are cardinal errors which, in a properly judged contest, precipitate defeat for one side or the other. The first is not adhering to the topic of the debate. In contemporary terms, a Justice of the Supreme Court should not be confirmed during an election contest period. Both candidates must respond to that question and not introduce alternate issues, such as the repeal of the Affordable Care Act or inadequate response to the pandemic. Not topical.

Mr. Trump had a perfect opportunity to respond, AFTER that comment, that Mr. Biden had strayed from the focus of the issue and supported his position with the declaration from Justice Ginsburg four years ago. Instead he interrupted and engaged in a near shouting match.

A second immediate cause for failure in the debate is failing to respond to the opposition arguments. Instead of focusing on pointing out errors in the premise, logic, or application of the proposed policy, the opponent draws attention to an alternative problem. Case in point from last night. The coronavirus threat was mishandled by the current administration. A misdirected approach was offered by coupling the “robust economy” of the previous administration to an abject failure of the current administration to maintain the economy and instead plunged the country into a disastrous economic decline. Not responsive.

First analysis was that the introduction of the current state of the economy was non-topical. Instead of engaging with increased volume rebuttal, the President should have waited until the comment had been completed, then, refuted the comment with first the “zenophobic racist” comment made by Mr. Biden immediately after the China travel restrictions were imposed. Then, with a comment on topicality, address the “robust economy” that had accelerated to the highest Dow Jones point in history, and incidentally surpassed recently, plus the lowest unemployment figures in decades.

Oh, yes. And never, in the course of academic debate does one contestant ever interrupt or talk over an opponent. If this were basketball or football, it would result in an immediate ejection. I love soccer and gross violators get a red card and ejection. Most sports have a cumulative rule, stating that several lesser, not ejection worthy, offenses also accumulate to merit ejection. I, and probably Moderator Wallace, wished for such a ruling last night.

One final caveat, that my debate coach stressed repeatedly was, “Never address your remarks to the opponent. You will never convince him, and indeed, that is not your goal.” The object of debate is to convince the audience, often a single person, the judge. Talking to the opponent is both a waste of time and a losing strategy. Talk to the crowd. Win the debate. Mr. Biden addressed his remarks to the camera, and the watching audience on several occasions. Obviously he was aiming for the “Reagan effect,” evoked by Ronald Reagan when debating Jimmy Carter. “If you are better off than you were four years ago, vote for Mr. Carter.” Masterful.

My analysis of the “debate” is as follows. A drowning man thrashes wildly, and madly grabs anything or anyone in the vicinity. My lifesaving instructor, some four or five decades ago, counseled us, as novice lifesavers-in-training that our best opportunity to save a drowning man is to knock him out, so that you can pull him to safety. Otherwise he will fight you, even to the extent of grabbing you in a bear hug, resulting in both of you sinking...and you know what. That image came to mind last night as President Trump flailed about in deep waters.

Vice President Biden returned the favor by flailing his “arms” violently about, splashing water everywhere, but making no progress. Ultimately, both sunk. Mercifully it ended after only about 95 minutes.

Next debate: No common open period for comment and dissection of each other’s statements. Absolutely no interrupting or talking over the other person. A specified, enforced time limit must be imposed on each participant’s speeches and rejoinders. The Senate and House of Representatives operate by such rules. All courts in the land impose penalties on lawyers who violate protocols of the court and the Judge. Give the moderator a gavel, and have him literally bang it on a table to overrule and drown out violators. (Maybe a switch on the microphone of each contestant should be activated or deactivated in a appropriate time and manner.) 

And finally, kindly and gently remind each candidate of the rules, or that he did not respond to the question at hand. Pre-prepared diatribes, rants, and accusations should be summarily ruled out of order. Hockey has an interesting rule. Violations result in the guilty party being sent to the penalty box for a specified period of time. Cut the microphone of violators and allow his opponent to deliver his remarks without interruption.

And with that, I invoke my original observation. I endeavored to not fall into the same morass of “fool vs. fool” myself as I wrote this at 3:00 in the morning. There was an old cartoon, called “Spy vs. Spy” which consisted of two inept, undercover agents competing with each other to perform the most outrageous, and counterproductive antics. Our national situation is far to serious to descend into such shenanigans. 

Nuff said. Over and out. The Old Debate Coach and Logician

PS. This only cost me about 85 minutes of sleep, after spending a couple of hours in bed cogitating about it. That was about the amount of time required to produce this angst. Nighty night.

PSS. Could someone with connections get this over to the President or at best his campaign office? And, while we are at it, go ahead and communicate it to the Biden camp. I am an equal opportunity, unbiased judge.

Fourth of July Cogitation

Well, the gang attempting to destroy America has dropped the gloves. They accused President Trump of divisiveness because he defended America. Did the President claim that no one in American history committed an atrocity? No. Did he even justify these atrocities? No. He merely pointed out that America is a great nation and he even recognized that we could have done better and will do better in the future. But surely no one believes that America is all bad. Or do they?

Here is a question that I would ask the protesters or even the apologists who make blanket condemnations of America. Before we begin, this is no screed to deny any historical wrongs. We can even trace unjust actions to recent history. Our intention here is not to deny that wrong and unjust things have happened, but to put them into perspective.

Here is the question. Currently, which nation in the world would treat the subjects of the perceived wrongs in a better manner than they “suffer” in America? This is not to deny that there are injustices. But are they all-pervasive and comprehensive? And where would similar or worse treatment not occur? Even in our allies, we can identify instances of intolerance and injustice.

And, as we examine the world landscape, where could protesters exhibit the behavior we have seen recently expect to not be censured–at least–and/or incarcerated? Or maybe even executed. Check Hong Kong, for instance, where people asking for the “freedoms” we have here are routinely jailed and worse. There are people extolling the wonders of Argentina and other socialist countries. How would these protests be addressed in those “culturally inclusive domains?” Anyone want to try Saudi Arabia? And they are even an ally.

And even looking back in history, which countries in history would or did treat minorities with more dignity and respect than the United States. For instance, the first country in the world to ban slavery was...wait for it, The US of A. Granted, England did actually enact the enabling legislation before the United States did it, but the actual law passed in America first.

While we protest past American treatment of any and all minorities, please identify where in history any group was not mistreated. And while we are at it, what nation would have developed the freedoms that we enjoy in America. No country on earth was founded on individual rights until the United States opened the door. Some, thankfully have followed our lead, but no nation in history offered the freedoms and rights that we find first in American documents. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have enshrined and ensured individual freedoms and well-being.

And the fact that we express shame and remorse at the lack of complete preservation and presentation of these freedoms also shows a determination and desire to continue to the golden goal of liberty and justice for all.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Are we there yet? No. Are we abandoning the pursuit? That is the question that we all must answer. And, personally, I would rather try to accomplish that here rather than any other locale in the world.

Protests and Elephants

Pro athlete protesters have been, and aver to continue, to kneel as a response to “police violence” and other grievances. Since they conduct this demonstration during the National Anthem, some have accused them of disrespecting the flag and our country.

Strong denials claim that the protest has nothing to do with the flag or country specifically, but is conducted to speak out against racial and social abuses. So how about a protest that will satisfy both claims?

Either before or after the playing of the National Anthem, the athletes, and anyone else, including the fans in the stands (if there are any in this year) can respectfully kneel in agreement with the protesters. In fact, we could even have a moment of silence for all victims of abuse.

A reasonable protest is Constitutionally protected and, in fact, encouraged by American history. However, the “poke in the eye” approach of some protesters has, and will continue to fail as the focus of the protest is lost in the egregious behavior of the participants.

The “Floyd protests” and others were hijacked by hoodlums intent on mayhem but operating under the umbrella of the peaceful marches and gatherings until they found an opportunity to unleash their own atrocities.

“One nation, under God, indivisible...” has been lost in the deliberately divisive actions of protesters. Seems like some wise person once pronounced, “United we stand, divided we fall.” And if our nation cannot unite in disgust, revulsion, and punitive action over despicable acts of injustice, we will never agree over some “minor,” political issues. With this, the demise of this nation is assured.

One more platitude. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Will we solve our elephantine social, economic, and racial problems in one bite? No. But we can begin to nibble around the edges and make progress.

But that will not happen if we continue to poke one another in the eye and slap away their “spoons.”

Hoist on Its Own Petard

“Don’t lump us, the peaceful protesters, with the hooligans, rioters, and terrorists!” This, and other similar mantras are chanted by the mobs inhabiting many cities. A second version is that “‘All’ lives matter.”

Well, let’s take a look at these two statements and see how they stack up with reality. If any and all lives really matter, then why are our “peaceful” riot-testers continuing to congregate in the wake of several additional lives being lost, both of police and protesters? These meetings have shown themselves to be deadly, so continuing to pursue these courses of action only endangers other, putatively innocent, lives.

I have read numbers of up to 10 people who have died that are directly attributable to the “gatherings.”  (It is hard to verify, however.) So how does the expenditure of, let’s just say, several, lives align with the claim that all lives matter?

And second, the blanket blame for all police officers due to the “bad actions” (undeniable and indefensible) of some, also fails to square with the chant that “we are not all like that.” A specific example was the fact that I saw one post that said only one of the four police officers involved was charged with a crime. Well, if standing by while the incident was in progress is a crime, why has not the photographer who filmed the torture and death for over nine minutes been charged? Didn’t he just stand by and let it happen?

This is not a screed to excuse or justify the actions of a rogue officer or officers. Neither should his, their actions be a blanket justification for rioting, mayhem, destruction, and even murder.

Our society is falling apart right before our eyes. It is not a slow deterioration, it is a calamitous collapse. The right to assemble and protest is sacrosanct in the Constitution. But just to protest for the purpose of protesting is pointless at best and counter-productive at worst.

Instead of decrying “white privilege,” “inherent racism,” or “institutional bias,” give the society some positive, definitive solutions. I am against tornados and hurricanes. But protesting them neither protects anyone from their effects nor prevents the occurrences of the calamities.

I am against illiteracy, so I propose reading programs. I am against poverty, so I propose work-study, savings, and entrepreneurial programs. Don’t just complain about the alligators. Give us a roadmap out of the swamp.

An old cartoon called “Pogo,” which ran during the Viet Nam War depicted one character on a horse, charging wildly around the countryside. When asked what his intention was, the response was that he was too busy “wildly dashing about” to formulate a solution. He was just against things. Pogo is back.

And to avoid “my own petard,” the root problem in our society is a heart problem. We are all sinners by birth and need a new heart, a new creation, to remake us as our Creator intended in the beginning. He sent a Substitute to pay for my sins, and yours, and give us new hearts. And new outlooks on life. We are to bring glory to Him.

Not everyone wants to hear this, but no one can challenge the fact that change is possible and effective in solving our problems. We choose to continue in confusion and calamity. Jesus stands ready to answer our prayer for cleansing and a course correction. We need to turn around, and stop “Pogo-ing” all over the place.

Monday Morning Quarterbacks

We all have watched a ballgame and confidently told our buds that the one play that swung the game was totally the fault of the quarterback. “If only he had....” And our likewise, sedentary comrades readily agree and jump in with their own magic bullet play that would have won the game.

Our media talking heads and print pundits are jumping into the fray with, “We were woefully unprepared for this pandemic.”

Well, Einstein, do you have any other salient and profound observations to share with us, the vast “unwashed” and unaware pedants? Did you ever stand in the middle of a rain storm and have a friend inform you that it was raining?

“Brilliant observation, Sherlock.” Or should it be, B O, Watson?” We all know that this is a disaster. No need to breathlessly exclaim that fact.

And, I have yet to hear any of our putative experts point to any documentation where they warned us last year, or last quarter, that this was coming. And, what specific actions did they propound that would have definitively deflected this dire situation?

Hold your horses, Hosay. The guys who said that something big and bad was coming don’t count any more than the Hurricane predictions made in March. (More this year than last.) But did they tell us the category and trajectory of the storms? I can predict that there will be hurricanes and tornadoes this summer.

When we hear these solemn pontifications from these intellectual “all-pros” we should simply reflect on where their gluteus maximi were parked on “Sunday afternoon.”

Yes, we were not prepared for such a disaster. And, pray tell, which nation on earth was prepared? Not even China where the thing originated or at least was released. The question is not what we woulda, coulda, shoulda done, but what we will do. Then get out there and do it.

Will there be a “second wave?” What are we doing to prepare to meet it and possible deflect, if not “flatten it?” And, honestly, I have not heard any of our “Monday Morning Experts” explaining the steps we should take. Well, I have to back track.

“We need to get ready!” Thank you for your profound and incisive advice. It is a little long on rhetoric and a little short on specifics. And to top it off, some of the members of Congress are anxious to spend ANOTHER three trillion dollars on Corona Virus Relief. Incidentally that includes about one trill for the bankrupt states, and a pretty piece of change to study the demographics of Canabis producers and retailers. Obviously that is a critical component of the Covid Recovery. Bring it on.

I heard of a little boy who planted some seeds and then dug them up every day to make sure that they were sprouting and growing. Incidentally, he harvested nothing from that crop. The first three Covid Recovery infusions have not had a chance to sprout yet.

The best thing we MMQB’s can do is sit back and watch the game. Or to be blunt, stay out of the way. We can pool our collective ignorance at the end.

Of Scrolls and Speeches

During the State of the Union address last night we could not help but notice the antics of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She should get an Oscar or Grammy award for her spot-on impression of an eighth-grade girl. It was interesting, and disconcerting, to watch her literally drip disdain for the Leader of the Free World and his Office. Several times she was signaling to someone in the gallery with her fingers. The cameraman had the good sense not to pan to the audience and identify whoever was misbehaving. When my Mom finger signaled me in church, it meant that I had better straighten up or thunderation would ensue at home. I guess Madam Nancy had some miscreants to control from the platform.

And her piece de resistance was her “performance” at the end of the speech. As President Trump was winding down his address, our heroine was conspicuously shuffling the copies of the address, I assume. She was paging through some type of manuscript all during the speech and now she gathered them up, collated them, and “straightened” them by tapping the batch between her hands to align them in order. Then, astoundingly, she proceeded to take a few pages at a time and, holding them deliberately in front of her chest, tore them in two. She continued the charade until the entire pile was “shredded.” (I wonder who gave her that “ingenious idea.” Is she bright enough to think of that herself? Her female adolescent advisor may have had a hand in that.)

Or, maybe she copied it from the Bible. There is an interesting story in Jeremiah 38. The prophet had written the warning that he received from God and sent it to the King, named Jehoiakim. Ironically, the scroll instructed Jehoiakim not to rebel against the King over him, one Nebuchadnezzar. (Can we read, “disrespect,” here?) So the scribe sent from Jeremiah took the scroll to read to the King. Follow the text beginning in verse 20.
So they went to the king in the court...and they reported all the words to the king. 21 Then the king sent Jehudi to get the scroll, and he...read it to the king as well as to all the officials who stood beside the king. 22 Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning in the brazier before him. 23 When Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe’s knife and threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier. 

Not only did Jehoiakim have the temerity to desecrate a President’s address, he sliced the Word of God and burned it in his fireplace. Too bad Ma’am Nan didn’t have a charcoal barbeque handy.

Well, just glance down the chapter a little ways. Verse 27 continues the tale.
Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah after the king had burned the scroll...saying, 28 “Take again another scroll and write on it all the former words that were on the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah burned. 29 And concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah you shall say, ‘Thus says the Lord, “You have burned this scroll, saying, ‘Why have you written on it that the king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land, and will make man and beast to cease from it?’” 30 Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, “He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night. 31 I will also punish him and his descendants and his servants for their iniquity, and I will bring on them and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the men of Judah all the calamity that I have declared to them—but they did not listen.”’”

As Dr. Phil asks, “And how did work out for you?” Old Jehoiakim ended up “tot” which is German for “assuming room temperature.” And his descendants followed his ways and died without sons. If I were a voter in California, I would look long and hard for an alternative to send to Congress to represent my district and State in November, not named Pelosi.

The mind roams back to junior high days. I had a crush on the queen of the class, the head cheerleader, and the girlfriend of the team captain. And she was all the same person. So I screwed up my courage and wrote her a note, professing my profound admiration for her. I anxiously watched as she discovered the note in her desk and, curiously, opened it.

Then, with a determined “Nancy-esque” look on her face, she proceeded to rip my missive to shreds. (Excuse the anachronism.) And, sadly, I was not emotionally decimated by her crass dismissal of my affections. I had expected it. And, undoubtedly, President Trump was not surprised by her perverse behavior, even in the Congress of the United States.

Let’s see what happens now. And the Democrats want this, and possibly another, near octogenarian to run the country for the next four years?

Impeachment

The biggest controversy, outside of when Pelosi delivers the papers, is will witnesses be called. Besides the fact that no witnesses were called in the Clinton Senate proceedings, there is another reason for not doing so that I have not heard anyone mention.

The Constitution, as I understand it, says that the House is the one who brings the charges. The Senate is the “jury” that hears the case and makes a decision. Despite the fact that the term, “trial” is bandied about with abandon, this procedure is not like a civil trial. The “trial” has already occurred in the House, and the proceedings are presented to the jury.

A civil trial does not send witnesses to the jury deliberations. All that the jury is allowed or even supposed to use it the transcripts of the actual trial. The same is true of the Senate proceedings. The House developed the “case” and presents it to the “jury.” All of the testimony has been entered for the jurors to consider and will be presented by the House handlers.

If, as they seem to imply by requesting/demanding witnesses, they failed in their burden of proof, they should be censured for incompetence. The hue and cry was, “This is so urgent that we cannot wait to get it done.” But “done” is like baking a cake with half the ingredients. Instead of being fast, they were “half-fast.” Or as the Senate leader McConnell described their investigation, “slapdash.”

Let the Senate deliberate and render its verdict.

Read the Transcript

Whoa! Have any of the Democrats read the transcript of President Trump’s call to the President of Ukraine? If you have not read it yet, do so. There is nothing left to discuss. (But I will for the sake of the record.) And ignore the scurrilous paraphrase that Chairman Schiff made. He could make a decent living writing sitcoms for CNBC. Except that his monologue went longer than the dialogue between the Presidents lasted. Maybe we should say, “An indecent living.”

At least two critical things pop out. Well, maybe three. First, the original query was about the European contribution to Ukraine. Nothing too intimidating there. President Trump wanted to encourage our NATO allies to pull their fair share of the weight of supporting this ally.

Then he segued into the internet server involved in the Russian allegations. President Trump asked if it belonged to Ukraine. President Z said that he was checking on that.

The third question was about the corruption in their country and the fact that one of their prosecutors was pulled off the case. (No mention of “you know who,” whom we now know was the instigator of that action, by his own confession.) President Zelenskyy lamented that the investigation had stalled and he was going to reinitiate it.

Then, President Trump mentioned “Biden’s son,” in passing and that was that. Schiff was right. That was a terrible story and wouldn’t last for a single four week run on network TV. It needs more spice and drama. His story was much more compelling, and, a bunch of his colleagues “drank the kool-aid.” You can follow the race of lemmings off the cliff on TV.

Frankly, I am embarrassed that this, and I love Senate Majority leader, McConnell’s description of “slap-dash investigation,” that this has gotten as far as it has. It is no wonder that the American people are turning it off in droves. The “Dick and Jane” novels were more credible.

Oh, by the way, keep reading about the previous Ambassador. It sounds like she was actively and aggressively opposing President Zelenskyy. So much for representing the USA and keeping out of local politics. It would seem that there are two “actionable” items in the conduct of foreign policy in Ukraine, and neither has caught the attention of our “diligent Congressional watchdogs” who claim to protect and preserve the Constitution.

Maybe we are hoping that someday pigs will fly. In case your browser is handicapped, here is a link to the actual document.

As they say, “Read it and weep.” Or, just watch the TV and “read it and sleep.”