“Not My President!” Hmmm. Let’s analyze that. Since Donald Trump has not yet been sworn into office, does that mean that these guys are anxiously anticipating the day when he is sworn in so that they can proudly announce, “My President?” (That reminds me of Hosea who named one of his kids, “Not My People.” Later on, the name was changed to “My People.” What a touching story. (Hosea 1:9, 10; 2:23)
Do our protesting friends mean that? Or something else? Well, a little analysis might turn up a little angst and anger. Are these guys proclaiming that when there is a President Trump in the United States that he will not be their President? Does that include a recision or denunciation of their citizenship? If so, this is pretty unusual.
Looking back a ways, I recall a certain LBJ who sparked wholesale protests. No citizenship renunciations that I recall. Then he was replaced by RM Nixon. Whew! The streets were crawling with protests. And stores were smashed and looted as well as cars. What a scene. No cancelled citizenships. Substitute Ford came along and all the protesters were either relieved or so worn out that they seemed to go into hibernation.
I do not recall any uproar over J. Carter. Everybody loved the bumbling peanut farmer from Georgia. They just did not want to elect him a second time. R. Reagan was loved by everyone who did not hate him. When the air traffic controllers announced that they did not want to work, President Ron graciously gave them time off. In fact their leave was indefinite. Whoa! The protest networks burst out of their caves.
First Bush had a pretty easy course, thanks to Saddam H. Bill Clinton “felt their pain” so not one protested that. The second Bush did not evoke too much negative emotion as the country was recovering from 911. I recall some initial complaints that the Supreme Court had “pronounced” him President, but what else could they do? He won the Florida vote in every way that it was counted, except the method he, himself initially proposed. SCOTUS used the rule of Law and then the several method of counting confirmed that they had not erred.
Seems like the protesters, looters, and crybabies are not as active during Democratic administrations as in the other one. There did seem to be some “One Percenters” objections, but again no revoking citizenship during the current administration. Most of the hoopla now is about a pipeline across the northern plains. The chances are good that it will not spread to the general population. We all burn gas and appreciate the lower costs compared with oil shortage days and $5 gas.
Now the protests have again begun all over the country. And groups of disillusioned and disappointed protesters have been marching all over. And have you seen the signs? “The Cubs are not MY World Series champion!”
Our protester friends are ignoring some basic facts. One, the protest must concern a specific incident that has precipitated a demonstrable harm. Second, the protest must encompass a specific, actionable remedy to the resultant condition. And finally, the specific action must not, itself, inflict a harmful result to innocent parties.
Our heritage in the South, of sit-ins fell within all of these constraints. The restaurant sit-ins were by specific individuals who had been denied service on account of skin color. The bus protests were initiated by a lady named Rosa who refused to yield her seat to a polite gentleman who demanded that she give him her seat. “There’s plenty in the back, Bub. Help yourself. I was here first.” Whatever happened to “ladies’ privilege?” But I digress.
At least our Cleveland protesters are not breaking rule number three. No one is hurt by their silly protests, unlike the seemingly orchestrated actions to protest the election results. They have not suffered any damage. Second, they have no remedy to propose other than to behave like spoiled children. And third, their escapades appear to be designed to inconvenience the maximum number of non-affected, and probably uninterested parties.
When I was a kid, we played all kinds of ball games. Every once in a while, the guy who owned the ball would be offended and behave like a spoiled rich kid. “I am taking my ball and going home.” The protesters are further handicapped by not owning the “ball.”
Our response to the ball-boy and to the protesters is pretty much, “So long. Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you in the....” (Back) One proviso that was self-imposed was that he was no longer playing ball. The rest of us “made do” with whatever we had. But for him, the game was over.
Those who proclaim that “Trump is not my President,” have not thought through the ramifications of their declaration. Mr. Trump will become President, so if they are removing themselves from under that Constitutional overlay, they must repudiate their citizenship. Game over.
Consider the consequences of rash statements. That is a mark of maturity. Little kids can declare, “You are not my mommy.” But if pressed, they will repudiate that when Mommy walks away. They eventually learn to think before they speak.
When is the next protest? One about a hurricane or tornado? How about an earthquake? Do black lives matter? The majority of aborted babies are black. And why not protest the murder of innocent, often black, teens in many, if not all, of our major cities? Don’t their lives matter? Protest away.
There is a demonstrable harm. There is a viable solution. There is no “collateral damage” to bystanders in protesting such matters.
Protest away. Make it count. Don’t be like a spoiled rich kid. There is one other option. Instead of protesting, pray. Prayer changes things.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Election Apologetic
The election is over. It is an appropriate time to examine the statement, “I could never vote for XXX because of their ethical and moral failings.”
At the outset we must admit that all of us have moral and ethical failings. During this election, we have an unprecedented disclosure of the failings of the candidates. At least before the fact of election, instead of the normal timing of “later.”
First we will address the specific charges. “I will not vote for a man who denigrates and demeans women, minorities, and the handicapped.” And, by implication and occasional declaration, “Anyone who does vote for him either condones or participates in those same egregious activities.”
Using that logic, then those who backed the other candidate condoned and committed acts of prevarication, murdering babies, scofflaw activities including using unsecured emails to manipulate classified materials, and contributing to terrorist murders of American citizens.
Obviously neither of these characterizations is accurate. We all have failings, or shortcomings, or to be frank, sins. The act of voting for one candidate did not validate the peculiarities of the candidate nor signal collusion in those activities. Quite simply the electorate was presented with a set of two flawed candidates. (The alternatives demonstrated the futility of their selection by their election day statistics. I tol’ ya so.)
The question was not “voting for the lesser of two evils,” but which accompanying platform is preferable. The choice was very clear. The direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 to 30 years and the concomitant social issues that have and will continue to face the judiciary is one critical consideration.
A second is the role of government in personal freedoms, ranging from freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and others. The present administration had clearly signaled the direction in which it purposed to proceed. One candidate promised to continue that train while the other was adamantly opposed.
The third, but not necessarily in any specific order, deals with the fiscal policy of the country. The present administration has nearly doubled the national debt from 10 to 19 trillion dollars and counting. One candidate enthusiastically endorsed that policy, much as Rehaboam threatened to do upon his succeeding of King Solomon. (Although the current administration may not be charged with possessing the wisdom of King Solomon.) The other proposes to move toward a more balanced budget.
The final issue, but not the only one left, is the role of the United States in international interactions. These range from control of borders to interactions with established allies to responses to announced and potential adversaries.
The two parties lined up in exact opposition on all of these issues. The choice was not complicated by conflicting priorities, to many minds, anyway, on these competing issues. It seems like there was a perfect alignment of values on all of these policies. Based on the political, and not moral, inclinations on these concepts, a number of “offended” voters, including this one, chose a Presidential candidate.
Those on both sides of the political spectrum must resist the temptation to align the “other side” with the foibles of their opponents. The ongoing unity and strength of our nation hangs in the balance.
Abraham Lincoln gave us our marching orders in his second inaugural address. “With malice toward none, with charity for all....” Notice the order. No malice first, then charity for all. Thank you for the good advice, Mr. President. (Who was selected by the Electoral College, by the way. See the preceding post.)
At the outset we must admit that all of us have moral and ethical failings. During this election, we have an unprecedented disclosure of the failings of the candidates. At least before the fact of election, instead of the normal timing of “later.”
First we will address the specific charges. “I will not vote for a man who denigrates and demeans women, minorities, and the handicapped.” And, by implication and occasional declaration, “Anyone who does vote for him either condones or participates in those same egregious activities.”
Using that logic, then those who backed the other candidate condoned and committed acts of prevarication, murdering babies, scofflaw activities including using unsecured emails to manipulate classified materials, and contributing to terrorist murders of American citizens.
Obviously neither of these characterizations is accurate. We all have failings, or shortcomings, or to be frank, sins. The act of voting for one candidate did not validate the peculiarities of the candidate nor signal collusion in those activities. Quite simply the electorate was presented with a set of two flawed candidates. (The alternatives demonstrated the futility of their selection by their election day statistics. I tol’ ya so.)
The question was not “voting for the lesser of two evils,” but which accompanying platform is preferable. The choice was very clear. The direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 to 30 years and the concomitant social issues that have and will continue to face the judiciary is one critical consideration.
A second is the role of government in personal freedoms, ranging from freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and others. The present administration had clearly signaled the direction in which it purposed to proceed. One candidate promised to continue that train while the other was adamantly opposed.
The third, but not necessarily in any specific order, deals with the fiscal policy of the country. The present administration has nearly doubled the national debt from 10 to 19 trillion dollars and counting. One candidate enthusiastically endorsed that policy, much as Rehaboam threatened to do upon his succeeding of King Solomon. (Although the current administration may not be charged with possessing the wisdom of King Solomon.) The other proposes to move toward a more balanced budget.
The final issue, but not the only one left, is the role of the United States in international interactions. These range from control of borders to interactions with established allies to responses to announced and potential adversaries.
The two parties lined up in exact opposition on all of these issues. The choice was not complicated by conflicting priorities, to many minds, anyway, on these competing issues. It seems like there was a perfect alignment of values on all of these policies. Based on the political, and not moral, inclinations on these concepts, a number of “offended” voters, including this one, chose a Presidential candidate.
Those on both sides of the political spectrum must resist the temptation to align the “other side” with the foibles of their opponents. The ongoing unity and strength of our nation hangs in the balance.
Abraham Lincoln gave us our marching orders in his second inaugural address. “With malice toward none, with charity for all....” Notice the order. No malice first, then charity for all. Thank you for the good advice, Mr. President. (Who was selected by the Electoral College, by the way. See the preceding post.)
Electoral College Part One
The quadrennial hue and cry has begun already. “Change the electoral college!” May I be blunt here? That is like going to a cricket or rugby game and demanding that it be played like football or baseball. Each game has its own laws and they designate and control the conduct of the game.
The typical, and expected complaints are lodged. “Unfair, archaic, chaotic, terrible, etc., are adjectives and not indictments. They are based, again, on the characterization above. The critics are 1) unaware of the true nature of the enterprise, 2) are driven by sectarian by motivation, and probably most important, 3) ignoring or discounting the historical context of the Electoral College.
Let’s begin at the beginning. The critics, like teenagers are declaring that they know more than their elders. And, like in “real life,” a semester or two of college sends them/us home with a new appreciation for how much Mom and Dad know and how little I knew back then and how far I have to go.
Another salient complaint is that the elector college is undemocratic. The founding fathers knew and understood history. Every democracy began with the idealistic goal of citizen rule. But once 50.1% of the voters discovered that they could vote to have the other 49.9% support them, the enterprise was doomed. The founding fathers opted, instead for a representative or federal republic. It incorporated the crucial concept of separation of powers. They subdivided the country, retroactively, into states and delegated the division of states into representative districts.
The representative districts elect the representative by popular vote in all of the states. (Their decision.) The senators are elected by a majority of the whole state. (Again determined by the individual states.) Then each state is allotted one electoral vote (elector) for each representative and senator. How the states apportion the electoral votes is up to each state.
So far, none of the “complaints” have not cited a specific fault in the process, except that their preferred candidate did not win. Counting popular votes is akin to going to a football game and counting the fans for each team to determine the winner of the game. The fans may inspire and tangentially affect the game, but they do not determine the winner. The electoral college is the states electing the President.
One other complaint is that the electoral college is designed to elect rich, southern white men. Check the 2000 election during which two rich, southern white men ran against each other. One had to win and the other lose. Then the 2008 and 2012 pitted two northern, and western rich white men against a supposedly poor, black man. The white men lost. 2016 pitted a rich northern woman against a rich northern man. The complaint, me thinks, is a moot point.
In conclusion, the electoral college works as it was designed for the country to elect the President. It was designed to avoid the dominance of massive population centers. Taking a look at the county by county results demonstrates the efficacy of this approach. The population centers dominate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by virtue of their overwhelming number of voters. If they likewise controlled the Executive branch, the separation of powers would be effectively circumvented as they would control two of the three branches of government. And consequently by appointment and confirmation, they could conceivably establish control of the third branch, the judiciary.
Them old boys were not ignorant, bigoted farmers. Their wisdom and governmental acumen survives and is validated in current events.
The typical, and expected complaints are lodged. “Unfair, archaic, chaotic, terrible, etc., are adjectives and not indictments. They are based, again, on the characterization above. The critics are 1) unaware of the true nature of the enterprise, 2) are driven by sectarian by motivation, and probably most important, 3) ignoring or discounting the historical context of the Electoral College.
Let’s begin at the beginning. The critics, like teenagers are declaring that they know more than their elders. And, like in “real life,” a semester or two of college sends them/us home with a new appreciation for how much Mom and Dad know and how little I knew back then and how far I have to go.
Another salient complaint is that the elector college is undemocratic. The founding fathers knew and understood history. Every democracy began with the idealistic goal of citizen rule. But once 50.1% of the voters discovered that they could vote to have the other 49.9% support them, the enterprise was doomed. The founding fathers opted, instead for a representative or federal republic. It incorporated the crucial concept of separation of powers. They subdivided the country, retroactively, into states and delegated the division of states into representative districts.
The representative districts elect the representative by popular vote in all of the states. (Their decision.) The senators are elected by a majority of the whole state. (Again determined by the individual states.) Then each state is allotted one electoral vote (elector) for each representative and senator. How the states apportion the electoral votes is up to each state.
So far, none of the “complaints” have not cited a specific fault in the process, except that their preferred candidate did not win. Counting popular votes is akin to going to a football game and counting the fans for each team to determine the winner of the game. The fans may inspire and tangentially affect the game, but they do not determine the winner. The electoral college is the states electing the President.
One other complaint is that the electoral college is designed to elect rich, southern white men. Check the 2000 election during which two rich, southern white men ran against each other. One had to win and the other lose. Then the 2008 and 2012 pitted two northern, and western rich white men against a supposedly poor, black man. The white men lost. 2016 pitted a rich northern woman against a rich northern man. The complaint, me thinks, is a moot point.
In conclusion, the electoral college works as it was designed for the country to elect the President. It was designed to avoid the dominance of massive population centers. Taking a look at the county by county results demonstrates the efficacy of this approach. The population centers dominate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by virtue of their overwhelming number of voters. If they likewise controlled the Executive branch, the separation of powers would be effectively circumvented as they would control two of the three branches of government. And consequently by appointment and confirmation, they could conceivably establish control of the third branch, the judiciary.
Them old boys were not ignorant, bigoted farmers. Their wisdom and governmental acumen survives and is validated in current events.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Politics
This is being written before the results are in on the 2016 election. It is a bipartisan critique of voters. Time after time, throughout the campaign people have declared that they could never vote for XXX because of some activity. For the Democrats, they abhor the cavalier way Donald Trump acted with regard to women. Republicans, on the other hand focused on Hillary Clinton’s lying and other ethical failures.
This is not to depreciate the importance of morals and ethics, but the election is for the policy leader of this country and by default, the free world. None of the “never XXX’ers” ever mentioned any policy issue, whether social, financial, national, or international. Their focus was on the purported unscrupulous actions of one party while ignoring the failures of their choice.
If ever there was a case of speck in the eye of the examined and log in the eye of the examiner, this is it. And yes, these character flaws will have an effect on the ruling efforts of the victorious candidate. But looking back in history we see the Presidency rife with men who would be classified as unscrupulous (Johnson), womanizing (Kennedy), adulterous (Eisenhower), unrestrained (T. Roosevelt), and who knows how many other moral and ethical deficiencies.
But their national policy was the salient determinant of their place in history. Our voting efforts should be focused on ferreting out the candidate who will best pursue the overall interests of the country. The party platforms are the area from which this decision should arise.
It is too late to affect the outcome now, but one would hope that such “shallow” thinking will disappear into the past as this election fades. Whatever happens, the USA is “stuck” with the results of this exercise in representative governance.
We can only hope and pray that this will not be our last opportunity to participate. And even more that we get it right next time, regardless of how “lucky or unlucky” we are after we evaluate the present results.
This is not to depreciate the importance of morals and ethics, but the election is for the policy leader of this country and by default, the free world. None of the “never XXX’ers” ever mentioned any policy issue, whether social, financial, national, or international. Their focus was on the purported unscrupulous actions of one party while ignoring the failures of their choice.
If ever there was a case of speck in the eye of the examined and log in the eye of the examiner, this is it. And yes, these character flaws will have an effect on the ruling efforts of the victorious candidate. But looking back in history we see the Presidency rife with men who would be classified as unscrupulous (Johnson), womanizing (Kennedy), adulterous (Eisenhower), unrestrained (T. Roosevelt), and who knows how many other moral and ethical deficiencies.
But their national policy was the salient determinant of their place in history. Our voting efforts should be focused on ferreting out the candidate who will best pursue the overall interests of the country. The party platforms are the area from which this decision should arise.
It is too late to affect the outcome now, but one would hope that such “shallow” thinking will disappear into the past as this election fades. Whatever happens, the USA is “stuck” with the results of this exercise in representative governance.
We can only hope and pray that this will not be our last opportunity to participate. And even more that we get it right next time, regardless of how “lucky or unlucky” we are after we evaluate the present results.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Advertising and Articles
Do you have Asteroid Anxiety? Good news! Now the cumulative resources of mankind have been able to map the heavens and identify “near earth objects” which might, at some time threaten to crash into the earth and become devastating meteorites. (Meteors that penetrate the atmosphere to strike the ground or water.) Well, “we” have identified 90% of them, mainly the larger ones.
So imagine that an imminent impact is identified. The response is to get FEMA and other disaster agencies on alert to help mitigate the damage. I do not know about you, but that certainly relieves my asteroid anxiety. If and when the “big one” hits, our disaster agencies will be on high alert. As Speedy, the AlkaSeltzer boy used to warble, “Oh what a relief it is.”
A Medicare advertisement shows two attractive women roughly in their twenties or thirties smiling as they peruse the new Medicare Advantage offerings. Guess the advert guys have not been told that Medicare is for those over 65.
One particular auto advertisement that runs mainly on the “off channels” is one that says, “You pay your premiums for your car insurance faithfully and on time, and now that you have an accident, you have to pay more.” Obviously it is referring to the deductible that we choose when we pick insurance.
They act like it is such an affront to humanity and decency that they do that. It is possible that we can have a zero deductible (possibly what this company offers), but at a much higher premium. Obviously the company would prefer the higher premium as they get to keep all the money if you do not have an accident.
If you do file a claim, they will pay it, but you may rest assured that in the long run, they “get” more than they give. Now they are advertising to entice the potential client to pay even more into the kitty on the pretense of not being cheated by the greedy insurance guys. Is it any wonder that all of those tall buildings downtown are named for Insurance companies?
On the topic of advertisements, does anyone else get a little tired and even irritated at the advertisements that assume that their potential clients are dumber than a box of rocks? Listen to the implied statements, and try not to be so offended that you refuse to buy the product even if it is one that you prefer. Or on the other hand, why prefer one from such a doltish company?
So imagine that an imminent impact is identified. The response is to get FEMA and other disaster agencies on alert to help mitigate the damage. I do not know about you, but that certainly relieves my asteroid anxiety. If and when the “big one” hits, our disaster agencies will be on high alert. As Speedy, the AlkaSeltzer boy used to warble, “Oh what a relief it is.”
A Medicare advertisement shows two attractive women roughly in their twenties or thirties smiling as they peruse the new Medicare Advantage offerings. Guess the advert guys have not been told that Medicare is for those over 65.
One particular auto advertisement that runs mainly on the “off channels” is one that says, “You pay your premiums for your car insurance faithfully and on time, and now that you have an accident, you have to pay more.” Obviously it is referring to the deductible that we choose when we pick insurance.
They act like it is such an affront to humanity and decency that they do that. It is possible that we can have a zero deductible (possibly what this company offers), but at a much higher premium. Obviously the company would prefer the higher premium as they get to keep all the money if you do not have an accident.
If you do file a claim, they will pay it, but you may rest assured that in the long run, they “get” more than they give. Now they are advertising to entice the potential client to pay even more into the kitty on the pretense of not being cheated by the greedy insurance guys. Is it any wonder that all of those tall buildings downtown are named for Insurance companies?
On the topic of advertisements, does anyone else get a little tired and even irritated at the advertisements that assume that their potential clients are dumber than a box of rocks? Listen to the implied statements, and try not to be so offended that you refuse to buy the product even if it is one that you prefer. Or on the other hand, why prefer one from such a doltish company?
Sunday, October 16, 2016
The Talk 2
We recently discussed having “the talk” with our kids. That is the one where a wise dad instructs an adolescent on how to interact with a police officer. “Use respect, as if he has a gun. He does!”
There is a second “talk” that is even more important, and at a younger age. That is what to do when a child encounters a gun. If it is lying on the ground or exposed somewhere, do not touch it. Get away without doing anything else. Get an adult, preferably police, to take possession of it.
But more likely, is when they are visiting a friend’s house, someone will produce a gun. At that point, the child should immediately leave. Say, “I got to go home.” Do NOT give a reason or make a joke about it. Do not warn that this is dangerous. Just go and tell an adult.
If a child is manipulating the weapon, it is dangerous. If you mention anything about it, they may, in their immaturity, point it at someone as a joke. If you try to take it away from them the ensuing struggle may result in a discharge. All of these things can, and often do, lead to disaster.
And of course, Dad, talk to yourself. Any guns in your house MUST be secured and assuredly unavailable to any child, yours or any other. Incidentally, that is where gun legislation and prosecution comes into play. A responsible gun owner will absolutely ensure that no child can access his weapons. Period. No exceptions. No slip ups. No extraneous circumstances. And even then, keep them unloaded and apart from the ammunition.
Imagine it is like a live rattle snake. You would not “accidentally” leave it lying around or “forget” to it away. The gun potentially can be more deadly than the snake. Treat with due respect.
Gun tragedies are almost uniformly preventable. If we publish the responsibility caveats and then enforce them, careless gun owners will shape up or be locked up.
Our kids are worth it. Talk to them.
There is a second “talk” that is even more important, and at a younger age. That is what to do when a child encounters a gun. If it is lying on the ground or exposed somewhere, do not touch it. Get away without doing anything else. Get an adult, preferably police, to take possession of it.
But more likely, is when they are visiting a friend’s house, someone will produce a gun. At that point, the child should immediately leave. Say, “I got to go home.” Do NOT give a reason or make a joke about it. Do not warn that this is dangerous. Just go and tell an adult.
If a child is manipulating the weapon, it is dangerous. If you mention anything about it, they may, in their immaturity, point it at someone as a joke. If you try to take it away from them the ensuing struggle may result in a discharge. All of these things can, and often do, lead to disaster.
And of course, Dad, talk to yourself. Any guns in your house MUST be secured and assuredly unavailable to any child, yours or any other. Incidentally, that is where gun legislation and prosecution comes into play. A responsible gun owner will absolutely ensure that no child can access his weapons. Period. No exceptions. No slip ups. No extraneous circumstances. And even then, keep them unloaded and apart from the ammunition.
Imagine it is like a live rattle snake. You would not “accidentally” leave it lying around or “forget” to it away. The gun potentially can be more deadly than the snake. Treat with due respect.
Gun tragedies are almost uniformly preventable. If we publish the responsibility caveats and then enforce them, careless gun owners will shape up or be locked up.
Our kids are worth it. Talk to them.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Piling On
Whenever there is a fumble during a football game two or three guys “fall” on the ball and begin to wrestle for control. At this point about 13 other guys leap onto the pile. They do not have a chance of even seeing the ball, but they jump on. Some of the leaps are even pretty artistic.
The focus of the game is not to pile on to the stack. It is to win the game. While they may not affect the outcome of the struggle under the pile, they get the aggression relief of building a big pile. (Note: Usually a replay shows one guy capturing the ball and curling up around it. Then the pile hits.)
To my Republican friends: Today’s application is a political fumble. Actually one that happened over 10 years ago. Mr. Trump clearly fumbled the ball and even loyal Republicans cannot wait to jump on the pile. Back on the playground we called it piling on. But in the hurry to leap the pile, we need to remember, like a football player, that the object of the game is not to make a big pile on the ground. It is to win the game.
And to those who sanctimoniously proclaim that we should, “Vote our conscience,” where was this conscience back in January and February when internecine disputes could have been resolved. Instead three conservatives spli the vote and left the path open for Mr. Trump. Rather than utilizing conscience, concern for the party, and more importantly, to a lot of us, concern for the country, we had three factions selfishly fighting for about 2/3 of the voting block. Splitting that base was a heady, self gratifying action. But in the long run, none of the three were able to prevail and now these same loyal party guys are busy throwing Mr. Trump and the party under the bush. (Oops, freudian slip) Under the bus.
Republican alert! Even if you do not like the head of the ticket, examine the competing platforms. If the Democrats win, it will be more and more of the same. And more. If your social conscience is guided by the platforms, you have to vote to stop Hillary. Yes, Trump is a former Democrat. That is great. There is hope that others will “see the light.”
If “voting our conscience” paves the way for another devastating attack on social mores and constitutional government, then your conscience was not well informed. And do not forget the $1 trillion dollar addition to the national debt every year that the H-camp will undoubtedly pile on. Don’t be like the boys on top of the pile. They have no idea of what is happening underneath. They are just piling on.
The game is more important than the pile. Let’s win the game.
The focus of the game is not to pile on to the stack. It is to win the game. While they may not affect the outcome of the struggle under the pile, they get the aggression relief of building a big pile. (Note: Usually a replay shows one guy capturing the ball and curling up around it. Then the pile hits.)
To my Republican friends: Today’s application is a political fumble. Actually one that happened over 10 years ago. Mr. Trump clearly fumbled the ball and even loyal Republicans cannot wait to jump on the pile. Back on the playground we called it piling on. But in the hurry to leap the pile, we need to remember, like a football player, that the object of the game is not to make a big pile on the ground. It is to win the game.
And to those who sanctimoniously proclaim that we should, “Vote our conscience,” where was this conscience back in January and February when internecine disputes could have been resolved. Instead three conservatives spli the vote and left the path open for Mr. Trump. Rather than utilizing conscience, concern for the party, and more importantly, to a lot of us, concern for the country, we had three factions selfishly fighting for about 2/3 of the voting block. Splitting that base was a heady, self gratifying action. But in the long run, none of the three were able to prevail and now these same loyal party guys are busy throwing Mr. Trump and the party under the bush. (Oops, freudian slip) Under the bus.
Republican alert! Even if you do not like the head of the ticket, examine the competing platforms. If the Democrats win, it will be more and more of the same. And more. If your social conscience is guided by the platforms, you have to vote to stop Hillary. Yes, Trump is a former Democrat. That is great. There is hope that others will “see the light.”
If “voting our conscience” paves the way for another devastating attack on social mores and constitutional government, then your conscience was not well informed. And do not forget the $1 trillion dollar addition to the national debt every year that the H-camp will undoubtedly pile on. Don’t be like the boys on top of the pile. They have no idea of what is happening underneath. They are just piling on.
The game is more important than the pile. Let’s win the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)