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.”
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Wednesday, June 3, 2020
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.
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.
Saturday, May 16, 2020
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
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?
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?
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
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.”
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.”
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
"We Must Impeach"
Does anybody remember the infamous OJ Simpson trial? The pompous, and sadly incompetent, prosecuting attorney addressed the jury as OJ began the process of trying on the damning, blood-soaked gloves found at the murder scene. Mister DA somberly intoned, “If the glove fits, you must convict.”
Much to everyone’s surprise, and to his chagrin, the gloves, having reacted to the soaking in blood, had become hardened, and possibly even shrunken in size. OJ was not able to draw the convicting evidence over his rubber-gloved hand. He looked up with a helpless shrug and wry smile. “It won’t fit.” (I think I recall his comment, but it was obvious.)
That came to mind as I witnessed a recording of the announcement of impeachment. (Did not waste my time to watch it live.) In somber, sepulchral tones, one after another, the House bigwigs maintained their giddiness and glee as they announced the pending, potential, impeachment charges that they had developed.
I am not a lawyer, nor the son of a lawyer, but I have watched a few “procedural” dramas on TV. Even with that shallow and limited understanding, I pity the poor prosecuting attorney who will have to present this case to the jury. He is starting with three strikes.
Charge one: abuse of power. Even the rawest newcomer in the DA’s office would recognize the dearth of probity in this. Point A: The accused denies that he did anything. (Nothing surprising here. Most of the times this is the case.) Point B: The alleged victim denies that anything happened. (Again, a reluctant witness is not the worst impediment to conviction.) Point C: Nothing happened. Well now, that poses a little more of a challenge. The supposedly interrupted aid was delivered and no QPQ (quid pro quo) was received.
I remember noticing one case, an actual one in the news, I believe, where an obviously guilty man was acquitted on appeal because the prosecuting attorney had failed to establish the fact that a crime had been committed. Everyone in the courtroom “knew” that the victim was dead, but that fact was never actually introduced into the evidentiary record. An appeal court subsequently overturned the verdict based on the fact that the defendant had been convicted of a non-existent crime.
Quick, before anyone notices, turn to Charge two: The President obstructed Congress. (Aside: I saw a presentation of the “Wizard of Oz” where the curtain was drawn back, showing the “wizard” as a diminutive little guy frantically attempting to present an imposing image of the great wizard, replete with a bull-horn. He turned to the audience and commanded, “Ignore that little guy behind the curtain!”) I did not hear it, but can imagine that over half of the country was cheering when the House leaders lamented that Donald J. Trump had thwarted the will of Congress. Well, the will of the House of Representatives, but why quibble? “Ignore that swell of cheering!”
Now, if DJT had simply ignored the subpoenas they might have a case. But, dastardly, dirty, devil that he is, he appealed to courts, even the Supreme Court.
The cry rang out. “We do not have time for such frivolities! We want, what we want, when we wants it. And we want, what we wants, right now!” The response reminds us of a spoiled, five-year-old child stamping his or her foot, waving arms, and screaming, “I want it! I want it now!” (Well, both sexes of spoiled brats in this instance.)
And we have yet to consider the actual merits of this brouhaha. Did the President intentionally and overtly refuse to respond to the subpoenas? Well, an appeal is a response. If they refuse to consider the appeal process as being legitimate, what kind of justice system are they proposing? Obviously, one that differs from what we currently enjoy under the Constitution.
Oh yes, they continue to trumpet their respect and love for said Constitution. That is the one that they are violating. But let’s go on. Even if the President does eventually defy these tin-pot dictators, oops, that just slipped out. If DJT actually does defy a legal order that has been validated and confirmed by the appeals process, then, and not until then, is there an obstruction charge.
The poor novice prosecutor may even begin with four strikes. No crime. No obstruction. He has less chance than the proverbial tissue paper sail in a hurricane. So, is the declaration, “We must impeach,” making less and less sense? OJ was probably guilty. President Trump is not.
One minor thought, and we will retire for the time being. If the guy in the Ukraine oil company had been the son of John Doe, Bill Gates, or Mike Pence, would the Democrats have gone so berserk at the request to investigate the “corruption?” Or, conversely, had it been the son of Donald Trump, and it had NOT been investigated in these same circumstances, would we be right back here? “Abuse of power!”
(For the record, there are multiple videos floating around the internet, dated 2016, calling for an impeachment. Why did they bother to wait three years? They didn’t need any real charges then, and they seem to have no more now.)
George Washington warned the fledgling country against political parties. His valedictory warning may be translated today as avoiding “career politicians.” They get so caught up in their own games that they forget who the REAL Boss is. Hide and see. November’s appeal to the voters may surprise a lot of posers.
Hopefully, next time, someone with some smarts will advise, “If you find no grounds, you must not impeach.”
Much to everyone’s surprise, and to his chagrin, the gloves, having reacted to the soaking in blood, had become hardened, and possibly even shrunken in size. OJ was not able to draw the convicting evidence over his rubber-gloved hand. He looked up with a helpless shrug and wry smile. “It won’t fit.” (I think I recall his comment, but it was obvious.)
That came to mind as I witnessed a recording of the announcement of impeachment. (Did not waste my time to watch it live.) In somber, sepulchral tones, one after another, the House bigwigs maintained their giddiness and glee as they announced the pending, potential, impeachment charges that they had developed.
I am not a lawyer, nor the son of a lawyer, but I have watched a few “procedural” dramas on TV. Even with that shallow and limited understanding, I pity the poor prosecuting attorney who will have to present this case to the jury. He is starting with three strikes.
Charge one: abuse of power. Even the rawest newcomer in the DA’s office would recognize the dearth of probity in this. Point A: The accused denies that he did anything. (Nothing surprising here. Most of the times this is the case.) Point B: The alleged victim denies that anything happened. (Again, a reluctant witness is not the worst impediment to conviction.) Point C: Nothing happened. Well now, that poses a little more of a challenge. The supposedly interrupted aid was delivered and no QPQ (quid pro quo) was received.
I remember noticing one case, an actual one in the news, I believe, where an obviously guilty man was acquitted on appeal because the prosecuting attorney had failed to establish the fact that a crime had been committed. Everyone in the courtroom “knew” that the victim was dead, but that fact was never actually introduced into the evidentiary record. An appeal court subsequently overturned the verdict based on the fact that the defendant had been convicted of a non-existent crime.
Quick, before anyone notices, turn to Charge two: The President obstructed Congress. (Aside: I saw a presentation of the “Wizard of Oz” where the curtain was drawn back, showing the “wizard” as a diminutive little guy frantically attempting to present an imposing image of the great wizard, replete with a bull-horn. He turned to the audience and commanded, “Ignore that little guy behind the curtain!”) I did not hear it, but can imagine that over half of the country was cheering when the House leaders lamented that Donald J. Trump had thwarted the will of Congress. Well, the will of the House of Representatives, but why quibble? “Ignore that swell of cheering!”
Now, if DJT had simply ignored the subpoenas they might have a case. But, dastardly, dirty, devil that he is, he appealed to courts, even the Supreme Court.
The cry rang out. “We do not have time for such frivolities! We want, what we want, when we wants it. And we want, what we wants, right now!” The response reminds us of a spoiled, five-year-old child stamping his or her foot, waving arms, and screaming, “I want it! I want it now!” (Well, both sexes of spoiled brats in this instance.)
And we have yet to consider the actual merits of this brouhaha. Did the President intentionally and overtly refuse to respond to the subpoenas? Well, an appeal is a response. If they refuse to consider the appeal process as being legitimate, what kind of justice system are they proposing? Obviously, one that differs from what we currently enjoy under the Constitution.
Oh yes, they continue to trumpet their respect and love for said Constitution. That is the one that they are violating. But let’s go on. Even if the President does eventually defy these tin-pot dictators, oops, that just slipped out. If DJT actually does defy a legal order that has been validated and confirmed by the appeals process, then, and not until then, is there an obstruction charge.
The poor novice prosecutor may even begin with four strikes. No crime. No obstruction. He has less chance than the proverbial tissue paper sail in a hurricane. So, is the declaration, “We must impeach,” making less and less sense? OJ was probably guilty. President Trump is not.
One minor thought, and we will retire for the time being. If the guy in the Ukraine oil company had been the son of John Doe, Bill Gates, or Mike Pence, would the Democrats have gone so berserk at the request to investigate the “corruption?” Or, conversely, had it been the son of Donald Trump, and it had NOT been investigated in these same circumstances, would we be right back here? “Abuse of power!”
(For the record, there are multiple videos floating around the internet, dated 2016, calling for an impeachment. Why did they bother to wait three years? They didn’t need any real charges then, and they seem to have no more now.)
George Washington warned the fledgling country against political parties. His valedictory warning may be translated today as avoiding “career politicians.” They get so caught up in their own games that they forget who the REAL Boss is. Hide and see. November’s appeal to the voters may surprise a lot of posers.
Hopefully, next time, someone with some smarts will advise, “If you find no grounds, you must not impeach.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)