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.”