Gosh. It's not even worth my time to get annoyed about it; only the bookies are interested (and anyone who's interested in bookies).
If it was possible to rank them, it wouldn't be worth their while to have playoffs, would it?
Arch
... For more than a decade. He was thwarted. But after Trump's presidency, where it seemed that it was impossible to do a worse job as President than Trump had done, and when it seemed that whoever would win the presidency needed to convince some Republicans as well, Biden was a good choice.
And Biden did his best to hold the economy together while the country was dealing with the Covid epidemic. Ɓut the retail sector (i.e. businesses that sell things) saw an opportunity to make extra money, and raised prices.
Now, if they were raising prices for food they already had in their warehouses, that's immoral, and illegal. That started off the inflation, which made the government very unpopular. So Biden was blamed for it, and did not get a second term.
Wanting to be president with all your might doesn't guarantee that you'll make a good president. Trump, I think, doubts that he will be able to deliver an administration that will be remembered as being at all successful. The best he can do is to be honest that his administration is going to be a parody of the worst administrations ever heard of, and then say, "I meant to do that!"
Arch
Every election year, I get myself into a frenzy, worrying about how the general voting population will vote. But now I'm thinking, it's time to let them vote in any fanciful way they choose, and observe the consequences. (With calmness.)
Some candidates will promise:
I will reduce inflation!
I will reduce gun violence!
I will eliminate corruption!
I will ban abortion!
I will make abortion freely available!
(Of course, nobody can promise both those last two things.)
Each voter has to decide which promises are plausible, and which are not. Unfortunately, reporters are interviewing Republican voters, and they seem to be voting based on the most blatant lies they hear! It's nice to be innocent, but to be that gullible ought to be a felony! In the face of that sort of trustfulness, anyone who is more pragmatic will be bewildered.
So, will all the politicians voted in be able to deliver on all that they promised?
Arch
I can't remember why I began to think ... oh yes, I do. My wife and I, who're both of us 'non-believers', are both involved in causes that would have been classed as Christian service (my wife a lot more than I). We often find ourselves 'praising the Lord' with fellow workers who are sincere Christians. This happens a lot to my wife, who is heavily involved with service projects that are strongly supported by Christians. Of course, these conversations are heavily burdened with expressions of how much God directly influenced some outcome.
My wife relates these incidents to me, and deplores that religion has to come into it; what it usually means is that some person was simply persuaded to do the right thing. (Many people, even if we expect them to be hardened cynics, still have the ability to do something altruistic.) At times, both of us feel like screaming: no, it isn't God! It is just common decency!! But of course we can't; there is a delicate network of beliefs inside the heads of these people, that makes their—sometimes amazing—work possible. They often see the light of the 'Love of Jesus' shining out of my wife's eyes. But she has given up on that sort of belief for well nigh 15 years! That does not, of course, mean that she has turned her back on what was called Christian Service. It's just service, since the 'Church' has hijacked the word 'Christian'.
Throughout the world, people are abandoning the various mythologies, the different dogmas with which they were saddled as children. The paths on which they arrive at this de-mythologization are varied, and often unique to each person. But often—and this is important—it leaves behind a lot of cognitive damage. We're quite familiar with the phrase 'trust issues' in psychology. But trust issues are also involved here. The secularization of individuals (making them non-religious) causes problems for that individual's functioning in society.
I write all this not as an expert, but simply as an observer. Over the last several years, we have observed the cynicism of numerous, numerous Congressmen and even some Senators, supreme court justices, and all sorts of people who were believed to hold the public trust. When they're revealed to be complete hypocrites, we're essentially secularized from the dogma of civic responsibility. We become atheists of declaring our assets truthfully to banks. Much of how a president was expected to behave—let alone supreme court justices—were seen to be only suggestions, that were ultimately myths.
Much of the practices that seem to have been abandoned by these new, improved conservatives, are just the simple extensions of the process of abandoning religious dogma.
We cannot shove the genie back in the bottle. Quite irrelevantly, it is the conservatives, who realize that something is not as it should be, and try to encourage a new religiosity on the population, via very large gospel churches. Ironically, the ministers of these churches confirm, rather than dispel, the cynicism of a typical person.
The phenomenon that is the engine of the attraction of mega-churches is nothing more than entertainment, and a desire to influence, or be recognized by, an enormous number of people.
Despite the culture of cynicism that we live in, many of us have altruistic instincts which emerge intermittently! In the weeks and years ahead, we're going to see a lot of that.
Arch
Well, everyone who is not a radical Republican is wondering how to bring the temperature of Politics back to levels at which any sort of work can be done.
Radicals are all about disrupting the status quo, to overturn an oppressive status quo, and focus attention on problems, and replace the traditional hierarchy with a different one, more sympathetic to their aims, and one that will work for them.
But while this upheaval is going on, a lot of processes will come to a halt, processes on which a lot of people depend. I have feeling that the MAGA crowd doesn't have the sheer imagination to anticipate the problems. Issuing food stamps, seeing doctors, going to school, getting groceries, etc. Even bringing people up before judges, complaining about bad behavior, and such.
The Republicans don't always care about these sorts of activities (in fact, they might be delighted at being allowed to misbehave a little, and, you know, grab some pussies, like the big boys.) But pretty soon they're going to find that a lot of the things they want to do are going to be impossible, or difficult.
There's a price everyone pays for breakdown of order. All the work that the big shots wanted done efficiently by low-paid workers (about whom supposedly only bleeding hearts like Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, and Alexandria O. C. cared) might be disinclined to work as hard as they used to, once they realize that the Red Leadership seems to be neglecting them.
Operation 2025 will shut down many services that are more important than the MAGA crowd realizes.
Arch
The Democrat Leadership, such as it is, is trying to figure out the answer to this question.
In times gone by, people who had the job of planning a campaign for a Party, could hope for a definitive answer. They had gone to college, and they had been taught that there was such an answer. But what has emerged in this election—from polls and interviews, and all sorts of ways, is that the voting population cannot be herded into corrals like that; there are too many slivers of attitude to take account of.
To add to the confusion, Trump made millions of completely untrue statements, and what is more, got very angry when one moderator called him on it ("We know for a fact that Haitians in Springfield have not been eating pets ..."). Trump said it was very unfair that the pet-eating statement was challenged, but Kamala Harris wasn't challenged on any statement she made.
So now, Trump supporters have to be split up into groups: (1) those who believed that Haitians ate pets. (2) Those who did not believe that Haitians ate pets. (3) Those who did not believe ... but who thought it was unfair to fact-check Trump in real time. (4) Those who believed that Haitians ... but who thought the fact-checking was fine, and so on, and so forth.
You can easily see that these groups of people are very different sorts of people, and Trump was completely loosey-goosey, talking to them. A scientific calculation about what to say was inconceivable. Their only common denominator was that the government and the laws were decided by college-educated lawyers, and they wanted no more of that.
There are a lot of people who think the "learned language" that Congressmen and Senators use is difficult to understand. Obviously, some lawyers intentionally use hifalutin language to confuse uneducated people. But often, when a speaker is being very careful, he or she uses cautious language that goes over the heads of normal people. So the suspicions of uneducated folk is easy to understand. Trump found it easy to persuade these people that he's on their side simply by talking slowly, frequently repeating himself, and exaggerating what he would do (throw people in jail, etc.) So, many of his followers are probably thinking, "He just says stuff like that all the time, for the sake of entertainment. But knowing Trump, he might throw some people in jail—for the sake of entertainment, of course.
What's going to go wrong for everybody is that, intentionally or not, Trump has endorsed a culture of cheating. Cheat on taxes. Cheat on marriage. Cheat on elections. Cheat on declaring your assets. Trump thinks he can surf the rough seas of anarchy. But he can't.
Added later:
To an enormous extent, this election was all about talk. Trump promised lots of things, lots of things he'd do, lots of things he'd be. Lots of things to beware of, with a so-called progressive in the White House. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris warned about all the bad things that will happen if Trump gets another four years in the White House. It was all about promises and warnings. Trump was boasting about his achievements. He stole many of Obama's achievements, and took credit for them. He boasted about the size of his inaugural crowd back in 2017, but in fact it was a small crowd, as Democrats proved with photographs, but the Maga folks would believe anything that Trump told them, and distrusted anything the Press reported.
So, there was sadly very little actual achievement that voters could go on. All of Biden's achievements were painted as 'failures', and amazingly hung on Harris. Meanwhile, all of Trump's actual failures were painted as glorious achievements. In the face of a tragically gullible bunch of voters, there was little or nothing the Democrats could do.
Traditionally 'bad' things were painted as 'very, very bad', especially socialism and communism. Traditionally good things, such as honesty and order, were painted as suspicious. And finally, Trump and his friends at Fox declared that it was 'wrong' for a wife to vote differently from her husband.
As we reported earlier, Democrat theorists are doing an analysis, a post-mortem, on the loss of the election.
But should we trust their reasoning? The Democrat Leadership was largely shadowy figures in the background, who seldom showed themselves, for this precise reason, I suspect, because they feared being tagged with a probable loss.
What to do going forward?
Trump is going to create massive chaos. But his army of gaslighters are going to do two things: (1) Blame Biden / Harris, and (2) Paint the disasters as actual glorious triumphs. The Maga crowd will eat it up. In ordinary times, the actual performance of the administration was a counter to the wild claims of its PR machine. But these days, the 'News' has been coopted into the PR machine itself. And what's more, everything that the Dems say is painted as PR from the other side. The frenzied complaints of progressive media sources—late night comedians, etc—are successfully dismissed as mere noise and propaganda.
The Democrat theoretians will now create a careful analysis of what went wrong, but we will be hard put to believe them. For us, belief is in short supply!
Arch.
Some Americans probably think: Oh, we're all different, while others think: not at all; we're basically all like, well, me!
I think the first response is more correct, though in some ways there are common thought-patterns that are shared by a huge variety of people.
A lot of people think that getting through college will help them get a good job. (Have you noticed how the really, really wealthy don't look for jobs at all? They go to work for Mom or Dad, or don't work at all!) This is partly true; if you want a really high-paying job, then you probably want a college degree. But there are a lot more low-paying jobs for those without a college degree. I don't really know the statistics; I'd be interested in knowing what proportion of young people choose not to go to college, and what the median income is for every sort of educational experience.
It's interesting that how the voting preferences of the population is split up is described in terms of college experience, etc, which is a sort of 1970s approach to politics, even now, 50 years later.
A lot of people don't pay any attention to newspaper analyses of the polling data. Honestly, it is expressed by the experts in language that immediately puts off anyone without a college education, or even a good high school education. I think younger voters are suspicious of anyone who writes in that style (I know; I write in that style too. Some of the ideas are difficult to explain using grade school language), which means a lot of voters are easy for populist like Trump to persuade, because they don't see any of the downsides of Trump's speeches. And, honestly, Kamala Harris did not do a great job of really arguing against them. There is a good reason: she and her team assumed that a lot of voters had really bought into Trump's arguments, and strongly opposing them might hurt or insult those voters. (Voters who aren't used to arguing politics in school or college can be expected to take any sort of argument personally, and feel insulted.)
There's a lot to be said for believing that there is a deep-seated feeling that any non white, non male will find it impossible to govern this country. There is a strong belief, certainly among older white men, that blacks and minorities really can't handle leadership. And if they can't 'see' a woman in the white house, well, they're not going to vote for them.
And Trump has won. I'm very disappointed, and feeling vaguely inclined to retaliation, but I realize that my 'bubble' is strongly liberal. When I started teaching here in Billtown, I began to realize that there was a stubbornly xenophobic group among the students, with whom I had continual run-ins. In retrospect, it seems obvious that the general population is similar. 'We want to do things the way we're used to doing it,' was their war cry, and that's the attitude Trump has seemingly adopted.
But is there room for an old- style robber baron in our government? The people said: well, sure! If he's our robber baron!
Is there some way that, if left alone, the country will see the benefit of—what Democrats would call—a more balanced approach? Probably not. Can the Republican spin doctors fix the disastrous results of Trump's wilder schemes? Easy. For four entire years? Easy. Particularly easy with an audience that doesn't read straight news much.
Arch
He does not care about the economy. He does not care about guns. He does not care about Israel. He does not care about immigration. He doesn't care about the Democrats. He doesn't care about the Supreme Court (though he doesn't want to look silly). He doesn't care about Health Care
Of course, he doesn't want to go to jail. What he really wants is to make a lot of money, eat a lot of KFC, attract a lot of attention, and win the election. At his age, there's not a lot that makes one excited. He still does get a little excited when he sees a cute girl, but it's not for long.
Arch
The Washington Post (famous newspaper in the D.C. area) chose not to endorse either candidate, at the urging of its owner, Jeff Bezos (a millionaire, and former owner of Amazon).
I had no idea that it was usual for newspapers to endorse one candidate or another in most elections, and (in another forum) I wrote that it would not have been proper to do so. I soon learned that endorsing a candidate is quite normal around here.
But this means that the entire newspaper endorsed someone, rather than one columnist endorsing him or her! That seems so weird to me. When I was a kid, noticing elections for the first time, in a galaxy far far away, many newspapers refrained from endorsing a particular party or person, leaving the columnists free to do so. That may have been the right way to do it, but things have changed since then.
It's extremely disconcerting as to how naïve most people are about politics. Some people think it has to do with education. Well, not exactly; but quite likely educated people might be just a little more sophisticated about seeing behind the façade of politics-speak. But everywhere—even in other countries, it seems—people have lost the particular kind of cynicism that enables them to vote for the most useful candidate for an office. They tend to take candidates at their word, a huge mistake. I don't even take Kamala Harris at her word, though she's a lot more trustworthy (for a politician).
In our family, we always talked over the political situation, and each of us might suspect how the other will vote, but we never expected them to vote the same way. Now Fox News is making a fuss about how someone—I'm not sure who, it might be Trump, or it might be Tim Walz*—seems to be encouraging wives to vote differently from their husbands. Oh, what a shame! They're making it out to be positively un-American, if not downright immoral, or unChristian!!
I never thought twice about it, but I guess these days, when those who lean one way—I guess lean is too mild a word for how it is—consider those who lean the other way as quite unhinged, spouses voting differently might be considered as betrayal. I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that during the Civil War, wives and husbands sometimes found themselves on different sides of the question.
There is a guy called Jesse Waters (or is it Watters?) on Fox, whose emphatic positions on things are quite incommensurate with his knowledge of facts. He was waxing indignant about the whole issue of husbands and wives voting differently, and declared that if his wife were to do that 'behind his back' he would consider it the same as having an affair. Of course, Fox News considers (like Trump) that hyperbole should be expected as a matter of course, many wives would feel uncomfortable about how their husbands might react to them voting for reproductive rights, for instance. I wish I could tell you who—quite innocently, I'm sure—precipitated this crisis.
*Actually, it was Megyn Kelly amplifying something that Liz Cheney implied.
Arch
One interesting thing about Vice President Harris is that she always speaks in complete sentences. That might be annoying to some of Trump's most ardent supporters, but for those who are drawn to his style: four years is all we've budgeted for you. For those who run with Trump supporters for fear of taxes: you can hope for compromises. For those who fear for the economy: the Dems are doing fine; there's nothing better for the economy than a myriad middle class families stocking up on luxuries. For those who are anxious about immigration insanity: that's not a uniquely Republican issue. Straightening up the border problems will be a bipartisan objective, even if Republicans like to pretend that they own it. Ẅhat the Dems do not like is unnecessary cruelty for the sake of deterrence.
Interesting that Trump thought he would be hale, and in full possessions of his faculties through a second term. But this second term, delayed by four years, has pushed Trump past his shelf life.
We can only hope that Kamala Harris will be the first of a new generation of younger, more capable presidents.
[Added later Oct 25:]
Once again—and this is becoming common inthese latter years—the election is likely to be decided not by how people vote, but rather by which voters decide to turn out on election day. There certainly are a few voters who haven't made up their minds yet—and I'm not going to waste my scorn on them!—but they are few. (Lots of analysts are persuaded that these 15 voters are going to decide the election, but I doubt it.)
On the other hand, voters are getting lazy and unmotivated to actually leave their houses and go vote! This is yet another instance of the decline in discipline that I'm seeing; people don't do what they know they should do, so parents (and schools, and colleges, and governments, and churches) have to make everything easier. There's doordash, and bluetooth, and starter buttons on cars, all to make things easier. I'm certainly not to be excused; the only reason I'm still alive today is because all the things that a diabetic is supposed to do have been made easier, e.g. taking insulin.
Anyway, don't read this post now, read it shortly before election day, like, for instance, the day they do Fall Back (November 3rd), to get motivated.
I wish I could get some AI apps to write this blog post for me, but I'm afraid that it will have terrible spelling and grammar (more terrible than usual, anyway).
Arch
By now, my readers have concluded that I was not born in the US, but elsewhere, though you might still be uncertain as to exactly where! I was born, and grew up in Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon. ('Sri', in Sri Lanka, is equivalent to 'Great' in Great Britain, so we could leave it out, really.)
In 1505, Portugal invaded Ceylon, aiming to cut out the middlemen in trading for spices. (They might have aimed for India, and hit Ceylon, due to the vagaries of the currents.)
Later, the Dutch invaded Ceylon—again with a trade motivation—and colonized the entire seaboard. Unlike the Portuguese, the Dutch shipmen were encouraged to marry among the native population, and over the years, influenced Ceylonese cuisine quite strongly.
The British succeeded the Dutch (I apologize for not giving the dates of these incursions, but I'm only confident in the 1505 date.)
The Dutch colonists picked up English quickly, and established a symbiotic relationship with the British. But, most importantly, they set up some businesses that specialized in livestock. It was no surprise that they also created stores that were effectively delicatessens.
When I was a kid, there were outlets all over the country, which were pastry shops. Unlike the pastry shops we have around here, most of the snacks that they sold in these stores were savories, not sweets!
There were patties, which were circles of pastry, with a meat filling in the center (the pastry would be folded in half, and pasted together). Cutlets were balls of beef, or chicken, or fish, or simply mashed potatoes, seasoned nicely, dipped in beaten egg, then in breadcrumbs, and deep fried.
There were baked snacks, too; hard-boiled eggs, sometimes with a morsel of bacon, rolled in bread dough, and baked. Pancake rolls were made to accommodate Ceylonese tastes, and were a meat curry mixture, with shredded vegetables, rolled inside a thin pancake covering (much like Chinese Spring Rolls), covered in breadcrumbs, and deep fried.
When I visited Colombo around 2010, these sorts of stores were flourishing. Most of the Dutch colonials—descendants of the original Dutch colonists, who had inter-married with Ceylonese—had emigrated to Australia around the 1970's. But Sri Lankan businessmen had taken over the pastry shops, and though to some degree the quality had declined, the variety of offerings was being maintained.
This brings me to my sad point: are there no businesses that offer these sorts of foods in the Eastern US? Pigs in Blankets come close, and—I just remembered—some offerings in gas stations are a little like Ceylonese pastries. But there really aren't anything that comes any closer to the pastries that I remember!
Arch
For a long time, I have deplored the spelling, the grammar, and the choice of words used in posts on Facebook, and now on YouTube as well. Earlier, I would make a comment, correcting the mistake; that's easier when the mistake is merely bad spelling, or a bad choice of words. But sometimes, the correction requires a complete reformulation of the sentence; something that is a much bigger undertaking.
So, I kept noting these errors glumly for years, and it began to dawn on me that these mistakes are not commonly made by Americans at all; they certainly appear to be authored by foreign folk. I don't know enough about these things to be able to identify what nationality the posters belong to, except that they're very likely not native English speakers!
All around the world there is a thriving industry of establishing fake IDs, on Facebook and YouTube, and posting messages and videos intended to make readers angry. (Whoever pays these jokers to methodically establish IDs, and then write these incendiary posts, doesn't realize that angry citizens are more likely to vote.)
We're within a month and a half of the elections. We now have to just make sure everyone goes out to vote on Election Day. I'm new to this business, so I don't know how mail ballots and stuff work. But normal ballots: you go to the poll place on November 5th, line up, sign in, and vote. There are some older people there who compare your signature with one that they've got in a book, if they approve, they give you a ballot (for us it's just a scantron form), you sit at a table with screens on either side, mark in your votes, take it up to the girls who manage the voting machines, and feed the ballot through the slot.
I usually find out who is running for the local races (mayor, DA, dogcatcher, etc), because if you don't know their names, it becomes messy. There have been times when the Democratic candidate was a bit of a number, while the Republican wasn't too bad.
It's hard to keep up enthusiasm for such a long time, but because of Trump's shenanigans, it's a little easier.
Honestly, I do not want another debate—except, a walz-Vance debate might be entertaining. Someone should give Trump a Word Find puzzle book.
'Ti's the season for candidates to accuse their opponents of flipflopping on the issues. In border policy, on abortion, on tax policy; practically everything.
(I'm not talking about the Republican candidate, here, though I think he should be allowed the same degree of flip-flopping as anyone else.) I'm talking about Kamala Harris. When deciding on what, and how much to tax, it all depends on what everyone can tolerate. During debates, of course, each side is trying to trip the opponent up, making them say things that can be used as fuel for TV ads, and so on. But it makes no sense to hold them to opinions they expressed five years ago. Conditions change. Trump himself trotted around the globe, destroying diplomatic agreements, making threats, threatening allies; he changes everything, and sucking up to national leaders the US has generally regarded with suspicion. (One of his stated goals has been to build a reputation for himself as being difficult to anticipate. Which could also mean that he's undependable.)
Arch
There are a huge amount of books that have been published, both by commentators, and by politicians themselves. This disclosure may completely discredit me with the cognoscenti, but I haven't read any of them, except Andy Borowitz's 'Profiles in Ignorance.'
I might have remarked about that one soon after I read it. It was tough to read, but I learned a great deal from it, basically how widespread conservative ignorance was. Well, it's probably a matter of choice; conservatives just don't want to know data that they consider irrelevant. Like Sherlock Holmes's fictitious brain, they must consider that their own brains have finite memory capacity, and unlike frantic liberals, they're not going to go out and get a larger memory, just so that 'socialists' can persuade them to their cause. 'Profiles' was a groan a minute, but it was fascinating to look back on Reagan, in particular, and see how he ran away with US—and World—politics.
There are non-books, like 'The Art of The Deal', and real books, like 'Profiles in Courage', and Hitler's 'Mein Kampf', and similar books. The closest thing to a book like that in my library is 'Life, The Universe and Everything', by Douglas Adams, but then he went and killed himself (I think), which gave the book the flavor of a long suicide note! (No, it isn't; I should strike that out, and perhaps I will, someday.)
Joe Biden is a man from Pennsylvania. We Pennsylvanians are cursed with being surrounded by New Yorkers, and New Jerseyites, and (now even) Ohians, writing books, and making noise with their elegies, and it drives our native sons to settle elsewhere, and yearn to leave a legacy. Throughout his long political life, Biden has been driven by the desire to get something done for his home state of Delaware, and for the country at large, and to be remembered for his achievements. He did lead us out of the Covid pandemic, with the help of Anthony Fauci, but there is so much misinformation flying around, and so much disinformation being desperately passed around MAGA circles, that it would be hard for someone with the unique character of Biden to see himself as a hero, worthy of writing a book. The laughable, but menacing character of Trump hangs over him, like a toupée, ruining everything. But Biden will be remembered, mostly, for being the one who firmly put a stop to runaway Trumpism, though it was a laborious process that still hasn't ended.
I feel bad at throwing shade at 'The Art of the Deal' without having read it. But in my defence, there are numerous, more highly respected books, that I also have not read.
Archimedes
If you watched the final night of the DNC—and earlier too—you would have seen members of the Republican Party, supporting Kamala Harris. Their main point is that the post-Trump GOP has developed (or regressed) into a personality cult. The last straw was when they shut down a bi-partisan immigration and migrant control bill, at the orders of Trump. It had not been an easy bill to put together, but it had somehow been gotten ready in December; but Trump did not want there to be any political victories for the Democrats, or for Biden. So he called for that bill to be abandoned.
It was a foolish mistake, that few people would have made. What did Trump think would have been the response of the Democrats to being denied the opportunity to pass the bill, and put it into action? Of course, the Dems are mad as hell. But the MAGA faithful in The House are content to take their cues from The Savior. ("He knows what he's doing," they're thinking, against the evidence of four years.)
And, that action has given the leadership of the Dems so much ammunition to attack Trump! Did he think they would be decent, and pull their punches? Did he think the Dems would say: it was all our fault? What an idiot.
Of course, when the Dems are a minority in the House, they had to do a lot of compromising. But this elections, there must be lots of Republicans coming up for reelection. What are they to say when their electorate asks them what they did about the border? They'll have to invent some fiction such as: "The Dems came up with a bill, but it was rubbish. So Trump advised that we should not push it forward. So that's what we did."
The main engine of the MAGA faithful and Trump is: dislike of foreigners. If you remember, Trump signaled this by insulting the parents of an immigrant, a marine who was killed in battle. Trump got a thorough scolding by the father, during the 2016 debate against Hillary Clinton. This gives us a clue about how big this border control issue is, for both Trump, and the MAGA/Tea Party people. It's almost as though there are only one issue for them. Well, an issue and a half: how to fix the border, and prevent the wrong sorts of people from voting.
What a sad thing.
Arch
An interesting thing I have observed is that Mr Vance replies to questions a lot more intelligibly than Trump.
If Vance is asked about some action of Trump's that is not in line with what is expected of a presidential candidate, Vance has a response. One time he said that the reason Trump entertained some Nazi sympathizer at his home, is that Trump is always willing to talk to anyone. This is actually an excellent response; probably a better answer that anyone could have got out of Trump himself.
One of the things I'm hearing from political commentators is that perhaps Harris should not have picked someone "so far to the Left" to be her running-mate.
This is silly. The initiatives that Tim Walz has supported in Minnesota are barely significant: breakfast and lunch for school kids? Access to tampons? Availability of health care and reproductive care for women?
These are more notable as being irritants to die-hard far right individuals, than matters to be noted by centrist Democrats. They need hardly any budget.
Of course, setting the ACA into law, and encoding Abortion rights will make the testosterone-infused religious, misogynistic, right-to-"Life", MAGA morons get colon cancer, but that's fine; they're a minority within MAGA anyway. They will, of course, have costs, which the Federal Government will subsidize.
I don't know whether Walz encouraged any legislation about library censorship. I don't have strong feelings about that; it simply underscores the general anti- intellectual culture of the Trump camp. But from those who resent having their freedom curtailed, censorship looks like hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is real, you can't gaslight it away.
British politicians had been feeling sidelined by European politics for a long time, when they were a part of the European Union. In particular, Nigel Farage, and Boris Johnson, and a few other members of Parliament, whose fortes were local politics, were eager to remove Britain from the big pond of Europe. They pushed for a referendum on the question of breaking with the Europeans in 2016. David Cameron, the British prime minister at the time, eventually resigned, probably sensing that complete withdrawal from the European union would be painful for Britain.
The referendum indicated 'Leave', much to Farage's satisfaction. Boris Johnson became the prime minister, and by 2020, Britain was out of the Union, and there began a painful sequence of economic hardships for the island nation, only vaguely anticipated, or not at all. British governments since then have struggled to cut taxes—a priority for the conservative government left behind by Cameron, headed by Johnson, and a sequence of other prime ministers—and handle the economic chaos brought on from the separation of the British economy.
I assumed that Farage and the other leaders of the Leave wave would be remorseful, once the full impact of Brexit became clear, but following the political developments in Britain was so annoying (not any more annoying than following American politics must be for Brits, I'm sure) that I'm not aware of what Farage has said about his role in the fiasco. I get the impression that it was a 'miscalculation' on his part, and lack of information on the part of the population.
In calling for a referendum on Brexit, or anything even remotely as complex, a thorough information initiative would be a no-brainer. The people could never anticipate the huge repercussions of Brexit without a great deal of help. But the detailed anticipation of the disaster would have looked like propaganda. Cameron, and other intellectuals who were leading the conservatives, cautiously distanced themselves from the analyses of the situation, and allowed Johnson to soak himself in the clown show.
Big decisions, like Brexit, supported by marginal politicians, are almost certain to have unintended consequences. That's why incremental change is advisable. Excited, relatively thoughtless Congressmen espouse dramatic legislation, for the way in which it gets them notoriety. It's left to voters to discern whether it's glamour that the proponents crave, or genuine, positive, life-improving change.
Arch
Feelings—resentments, excitements, humor, pleasure—quietly add up, sort themselves into big piles, and, after a while, put us in political groups.
One of the biggest causes of frustration, and bad feelings, is the changes in the way we have to do things. In the old days, if you got sick, you knew what to do. If you got into an accident. If a new couple moved in next door. But these days, a lot of us aren't sure what to do! Everything seems different; even taking a picture at an anniversary celebration. It used to be that a guy from a studio would stand us all out in a nice array, get out this huge camera, and a picture would be ready in about a week, ready for framing. These days, anyone can take a picture, and ... email it to everybody.
The immediate reaction is to long for the old days. Take me back, to an older, simple time! (To Constantinople! No, it's Istanbul...) All of us want this (except for our youngest relatives, who have just figured out how everything works); and some people think of the old times as the good old days, when America was great.
'Great' might not be the best word to use. What the MAGA crowd means is that it was great for them; not necessarily that great in the view from, say Japan (or even from the homes of the poor in any large city). Take me back to the time before UPS! Before cell phones! Before traffic lights in every intersection! Before the Democrats had set it up so that you had to do a ton of paperwork to apply for a permit to get a new fence around your property! Prevention is better than cure, you know. But prevention goes with a lot of paperwork.
The gun lobby, especially, is all about reducing paperwork. We should be able to stroll into Walmart, say, pay for a gun, and walk out with it, just like that. But then so can any resentful psycho who wants to kill everybody.
Fortunately, I still have a sense of humor—which many of my friends identify as my biggest liability—and I can laugh at myself. And I can adapt to the times without hurting myself too much. My daughter forced me to get a smart phone around 2005, when she got her first Droid, and she wanted to be able to send me photographs, and music, and all that sort of thing, and I was forced to learn the ins and outs of life in the 21st century. Who knows, but if not for that, I might still be thinking in MAGA terms.
The baffling thing is: how ľoyal the Republican base is, to Don Trump. I guess I'm more comfortable with rejecting anyone who isn't up to their job pretty quickly. Times change fast, that's true, and we have to cut people a bit of a break, give them time to figure things out. But if you want to be a political leader, you just have to be competent right from the word go.
Trump, though, was a terrible manager. The only way he survived, as a businessman, was to hire competent managers. Even then, he didn't pay them properly; he was becoming notorious for being hard on his underlings, and his business associates not being able to rely on his word. I think the only reason he has lasted this long is that his followers are too embarrassed to confess that he wasn't even trying, and wasn't as bright as he said he was.
Arch
First off, as the election draws closer, some politicians don't say what they mean. For instance, JD Vance has said that he's a never Trumper. He was being careless, and didn't realize that some people would remember those words. He must have thought that, since 'nobody' seems to remember what nonsense Trump spouted, he could pretty much shoot off his mouth, too. (Of course, Democrats remember! But we can cut them a few breaks, because at election time ...)
All this talk vilifiying 'Socialism' has been carefully implanted by major businesses. They do not want poor, unemployed people helping each other, or the government helping them. They do not want Healthcare that comes directly from the government (single player plans), they want health care that comes through regular insurance companies, which helps to support the millions of people who work for insurance companies (which is why health care is so expensive). Also, health insurance stocks have done well on the stock market, and a lot of these oil billionaires have stocks. Bear in mind that Congressmen and senators have fantastic Healthcare. I believe they have that even if they get voted out; I'm not sure.
There are various sorts of Socialism. In America, we only have very limited socialism. Anyone who thinks that Tim Walz's socialism is destroying Minnesota business should just head over to that state and take a look. It's completely harmless, and businesses should quit portraying socialism as a horrible evil.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is being labeled a leftist, or a progressive, and Tim Walz, say the Trumpees, and Fox News, is worse. But all he has done is made a Minnesota law that makes abortion safe and available, made school lunches and breakfasts available to all kids, and a few basic things like that, which only die-hard antisocialists are really unhappy about. And the fossil fuel lobby. I had a few more points which I have forgotten ....
Jonah Goldberg, a conservative columnist writing in The Greenville Post, has explained the Trump phenomenon in a way that I understand.
Republican politics have (has) always been a serious thing; their ideas have usually been serious, Ted Cruz notwithstanding. Trump, however—Goldberg says—is primarily an entertainer. A freaky set of circumstances, and some chaotic ideas, most of them in Trump's head, came together, and Trump found himself President. The GOP played along, and on the way, a different set of people took control of the party.
But, says Jonah, in time, Trump and his policies have become unpopular, a fact that has a difficult time penetrating into his Trump's) awareness. He lost the 2020 election, which he could not accept. And, Jonah Goldberg says, J. D. Vance was a way Trump sought to balance his candidacy. But Vance is serious, not an entertainer, and things are not going well for them. In fact—if Goldberg is right, and I think he is—a soon as the mainstream of the GOP realizes that being led by an entertainer is a liability, things are going to soon get a lot worse.
Furthermore, he says, there is a thing he has called the Greenland effect: when Trump adopts even a reasonable conservative idea, he poisons it with his unpopularity.
So this is the first notice of the closing of a public library that I have noted. Corpus Christi is a famous town in Texas. But it appears the town is finding it hard to balance their budget, so this idea to close down the library was thrown out. The mayor was quick to say that they're still discussing it.
In the modern world, there are both those who say that libraries are outmoded, and no longer useful; and those for whom the town library is a cultural nucleus, which cannot be sacrificed for any reason.
What does a library have? First of all a library has a great number of books. Some gifted, perhaps by the library founder, some given to it over the years, some bought by the Library, from the suggestions of library users. Some of these books circulate; that is, you can take them home and return them later.
Others are for reference only; usually bigger, more expensive books that library users cannot afford to actually own; such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, atlases, directories, indexes. Compilations of official information sent out by the government.
Then there are indexes: the catalog of all the library holdings, usually in the form of index cards.
Magazines, some of them in bound form, journals, and catalog entries for them.
There is archival data; that is rarely requested documents in tiny, tiny prints on transparency especially.
LPS, CDs, tapes, videos on videotape and DVD disc's.
Computers that link to other libraries all over the world, that often can find a book or other resource that isn't available at the library.
Last, but not least, there are the librarians, who care for the materials, inspect them for wear, help patrons find what they're seeking, receive books which have been sent for from other libraries, and see that whoever asked for them gets them; and send out any books the library has which have been requested from another library.
Ït will be clear that the library building contains lots of materials but also lots of people working. All these people must be paid; they're specialists, and ideally are paid at a rate higher than minimum wage.
Much of these resources can be obtained by anyone who has access to the internet. Bit it's also true that ordinary people often do not have the training to Find this information for themselves. But the fact remains that salaries are a major ongoing expense of any library.
Books, long regarded as the only material holding of a library, are potentially the most easily sacrificed resource. There's nothing to prevent the library acquiring new books in electronic form. (This will probably require extra staff, to help users get the books they want.) Borrowing books in digital form is more complicated, and vendors usually want a given e-book to be restricted, so that only a specified number of people can borrow a particular e-book at the same time.
What if the number of days the library is open is reduced to just Monday, Wednesday and Friday? Library workers could be told that they will be paid less, and they can save money that way. Librarians will hate that plan.
What if the library only lends books out for a fee? Libraries, in the past, charged penalties for everyone who were late with their returns.
Professional librarians hate the thought of charging fees at all. A librarian is only happy if all their books are out on loan!
Clearly, if a library is shut down, the town loses a great deal. People have nowhere to go, to find job listings. How do you repair your car? How do you sew an apron? How do you cook a meatloaf? The library was the place you went to, to find out. If the library were to be shut down, you'd have to go buy a book to find out.
Trump visited a meeting of black journalists, and tripped over himself while trying to make the point that Kamala Harris was a DEI hire. This describes someone who is hired for the sake of making the workforce of some organization more diverse.
When Tea Partiers, Trump, and other MAGA-heads accuse someone of being a DEI-hire, they mean that the person concerned has no skills or qualifications except that of being a minority. (Belonging to an underrepresented minority.) So they're accusing Kamala Harris of having been selected as Biden's running mate solely because she was non- white.
They're saying more: they're implying that she was unqualified for any of the positions she has held. Well, she has been a senator, I believe, and done an excellent job, but I don't know enough to argue the case.
But, you know, this brings up the question: has Trump been qualified for any post he has been elected to? Hasn't he been elected solely because of being a TV personality? And he got on TV solely because he was rich? And he was rich solely because he got a lot of money from his father, and cheated on his taxes?
So they're trying this tactic, a slight variation on the 'Birther' attack. They're probably going to call for Kamala's birth certificate next. Bear in mind that Trump refused to make public his college records, which suggests that he bought his way into a college diploma.
Arch
I had a fellow student in graduate school who had a broad Western PA accent. One time, I said that something was made out of bamboo, and she exclaimed "Biyam-BEW??"
That was the first time I really noticed her accent, and of course there was no going back after that!
We were very fond of each other, but I was—essentially—happily married, and I never drank beer, which she regarded as a serious shortcoming. One afternoon, she hauled me out to a little bar, and ordered a pitcher of Stroh's. I had never seen a pitcher of beer, and I was intimidated. We started out drinking the health of mathematicians in alphabetical order, starting with Archimedes! By the time we had got to Helmholtz, the beer tasted pretty good. (For those of my readers who haven't tasted beer, try a pitcher. Or what is known as a flight, which is just a sampler, a tray of small-ish glasses filled with a variety of different beers that the bar stocks. You might find one to your taste.) Beers are not intended to be sweet. If you're only comfortable with sweet drinks, you'll have to get the advice of your friends. Very few beer drinkers are inclined to take the time to work with a non-drinker, unfortunately. I'd say they're more interested in getting you well and truly sozzled that to help you find a beer you'd really like to drink. Sue me, beer drinkers.
Which is why I was so impressed by my friend helping me to get my feet wet. (She also wanted me to smoke, but that wasn't happening.)
I don't know what switches on these important flashes of reason, but they are often wonderful, and far too infrequent.
What made me sit up and take notice is a quote from Nikki Haley reported in the New York Times. Neil Vigdor, writing for The Times, says:
Nikki Haley, who was one of Donald J. Trump’s Republican primary opponents, and is the daughter of Indian immigrants, rebuked members of her party for calling Vice President Kamala Harris a “D.E.I. hire,” using the abbreviation for diversity, equity and inclusion. “It’s not helpful,” Haley, who was South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador during the Trump administration, told CNN. Haley, who endorsed Trump months after she lost a bitter primary campaign, urged Republicans to focus instead on Harris’s record, which she said was far left. “You don’t need to talk about what she looks like or what gender she is.”
I could not have expressed this any better than Nikki Haley has. Nikki Haley has echoed lots of Donald Trump's idiocies; a greater number than any intelligent person should have been able to make herself go with. But politicians are a strange animal; sometimes they make themselves say things that are really weird, for the sake of positioning themselves politically. But evidently, maligning Kamala Harris's and her own cultural backgrounds was going just too far for Nikki to tolerate. By describing Kamala as having no qualifications except for her racial identity (which is, I think, a typical racist miscalculation) suggests that all people of foreign descent currently in politics owe their positions merely to DEI considerations.
Of course, that's the type of consideration that Trump's allies sorely miss being able to make. When they were kids, insulting immigrants was allowed. But in this uncomfortable New World (out of which they have faith that Trump will lead them) they've got to watch what they say. PC. This is why they've hated PC so much.
Arch
Just got the news that Biden has dropped out, and endorsed Kamala Harris to be the nominee.
I'm excited; the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this choice will work. Some Democrats ,unfortunately, will be acutely discomfited by the prospect of the nation—and the Party—being led by a black person. There will be, no doubt calls to verify her passport, and so on. Well, on principle, I don't object to that sort of thing: see what happened with George Santos. More on this later.
They won't like the fact that Kamala Harris had Indian parentage, either. Remember that Britain survived a Prime Minister of Indian descent (even if not very well).
This situation has so much going for it! I don't want to get too excited; I still have reservations about how dynamic the DNC is, and whether they have the vitamins to jump in and capitalize on the circumstances.
I know that Bernie Sanders wanted Biden to run; I'm not sure exactly why; perhaps he had some instinct about how well Biden would do against Trump. I also know Pete Buttigiege (?) was solidly behind Biden. I would guess that those who were rooting for Biden to hang on were mainly opposed to having the party force him out, and we could say that the party didn't; it was probably COVID that did it.
Let the wheels resume turning! It is a good day.
Arch
When I was a student, and just getting interested in politics, I was told about Paulo Freire, the author of the book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed". He wrote:
The oppressors do not perceive their monopoly on having more as a privilege which dehumanizes others and themselves. They cannot see that, in the egoistic pursuit of having as a possessing class, they suffocate in their own possessions and no longer are; they merely have. For them, having more is an inalienable right, a right they acquired through their own "effort," with their "courage to take risks." If others do not have more, it is beause they are incompetent and lazy, and worst of all is their unjustifiable ingratitude toward the "generous gestures" of the dominant class. Precisely because they are "ungrateful" and "envious," the oppressed are regarded as potential enemies who must be watched.
Various experts—notably Jon Stewart—have been urging the Democrat Party to urge Biden to step aside, and field a fresh candidate/nominee.
I know where Jon Stew is coming from. He is, ultimately, a member of the Press, and their stock in trade is: words. When Trump spouts his nonsense and lies, there has to be someone who jumps down his throat conclusively. Someone who can spot a non-sequitor, and debate. A lot of Democrats can do this. It would be nice to even have a speaker who can articulate why Biden stuttered at the podium. It was because of Trump's onslaught of lies. Trump talked fast, but they were all the standard lies of his stump speech.
But there are negatives. If Biden is switched out, the Trumpees will twist it to look as if the Democrats are admitting the failure of Biden's administration. Obviously this is not the case, but something doesn't have to be true for the Republicans to make it convincing.
If, however, Kamala Harris is the nominee, there are lots of advantages. Trump will try to make fun of her as a woman, and that will not go down well with Suburban women. I suspect there is a little racism in the Democrat Party as well. They'll just have to deal with it. There is a little sexism in the party as well. They'll have to deal with that, too.
Arch
The title of this post was written with tongue in cheek! But the motives of the Republican leadership is very opaque, and we have to wonder: are these motives as despicable as they seem?
Soon after the Covid pandemic broke out, and the administration was trying to get as many citizens vaccinated as possible, I remember the Republicans accusing certain Democrats' vaccinations as "Theatre"! You know, that gives us some insight into the thinking of the Republicans; at least some Republicans. Some of what they do is theatre. Trump indulges in a lot of theatre. I sometimes wonder whether the marginal Republican members of Congress, such as these sundry Bobert's, Taylor greens, and Gaetz, recognize the Theatre for what it is. Also, do the MAGA faithful recognize the Theatre? Or do they think it's all theatre?
Well, I digress. If we're driven by hate, it actually detracts from our effectiveness. Some people can motivate themselves by hate, and keep focused on what has to be done, like Madame Defarge. Others get distracted and derailed, and lose sight of their tasks. I'm one; hate just distracts me.
Our task is to keep aware of the Republican theatre, and vote.
Arch
One major argument for keeping Biden on as the candidate for 2024 is that a change of candidate (or nominee, or whatever it's called) will be disruptive. That was an idea invented when people began to realize that the US voter was not the sharpest pencil in the box.
Is it true that people would get confused by seeing other names than 'Biden' on the ballot? Will Republican poll workers capitalize on the situation, and design a ballot that would result in huge numbers of spoilt votes? Who knows?
I was watching Bill Maher just now, and this is what he was saying. Ignore the off-color jokes:
Donald Trump was just shot at during a rally yesterday. Lots of letters are being written to newspapers; people have a variety of concerns: how to protect presidential candidates; are the secret service guys trustworthy; are there too many guns out there; but most of all—are people losing trust in the political process, especially younger people???
Many are probably thinking: tell us something we don't know, why don't you? The fact is clear to see. To be president, you must either be rich, or come from a wealthy family, or have the support of a wealthy cabal.
Why did the SCOTUS give the Citizens United decision? Money has such blatant power over everything that it's hard to believe the voters have any power at all. Asking the Demicrats, the ones who most often speak for those who have little or no wealth, those who represent the poorest constituents, are marginalized as The Ultra Left.
Get guns out of the hands of violent people.
Get money out of politics.
The news media has been anxious about the Democrats' presidential nominee ever since the first Debate, between Trump, and Biden. Not just the Press; we've all been stunned: what will we do? What will we do?
It's really not up to us, the common people, the so- called 'rank and file', to do something. The party elites, as Biden called them, made a miscalculation. Instead of declaring that Biden had gone past his Elect By date, they had taken him at his word, when he said "Lemme at him! I'll beat him again!!" partly, I think, so as not to be rude. Who wants to be rude to an elderly gentleman? We understand. But it was a serious miscalculation.
If the only ones voting in this election are going to be the Demicrat Faithful, and the GOP Faithful, it would be unpredictable enough. But these so- called Undecideds are out there, being confused and frustrated in the fringes, and they could run in any time and vote! But they probably ain't gonna do it.
But today, I want to talk about the two Presidential Teams. You see, we must take into account the entire packet of President and Vice President.
In the case of the Democrats, we know the team well. In the case of the GOP, we know Trump, and that's all.
Trump, we know, had a tendency to pick people and things as if they're accessories; will they look good together? Will the accessories be easy to manage? We don't know, but Biden just might be doing something that's distantly related to the same idea, except that it has far more to do with electability, representation, politics, and experience.
And we know Trump tends to lie. Lies come easy to him, and his electorate expects him to lie. So the decision is easy for us.
For the Undecideds: Democrats have historically tried to make things cut and dried for them. Well, this time we have to take a deep breath, and let them make their own calculations. Abortion? Gun Control? The SCOTUS? Up to the Undecideds.
Arch
In my opinion, the paper towel sheets that our rolls come pre-perforated with, are too wide. It wasn't too long ago that they were about a half-inch narrower, which seemed a perfect size to me. But someone must have whispered in the ear of the manufacturers: "Hey, are you crazy? Are you trying to sell them more paper, or less? Make those strips wider!"
"How much wider?"
"Well, the tree-huggers wanted narrow paper towels, to save paper!"
"Make them as wide as you can, without attracting the attention of the tree-hugger police."
Too bad; the tree-hugger police is on to you.
Perhaps in the Project 2025 Appendix they probably have 'Make paper towels wider, so you can wipe your butt with a single sheet.' (Never mind that you're not supposed to use paper towels as toilet tissues.)
Arch
We all were dismayed after watching the debate between Trump and Biden. Each of us to a different degree, because we've been getting accustomed to unsteadiness, the unpredictability, the inconsistency, and the lack of mental stamina of the two debaters. (In the case of Trump, the word stamina doesn't even really apply, because he doesn't really exert himself intellectually at all. But during certain public appearances, Trump's physical effort has failed, and he has relapsed into total unintelligibility. The MAGA crowd does not mind, because they're motivated mostly by his appearance: he looks like a president of the good old days, and is a lot of fun, too!)
I was thinking that perhaps Biden ought not to debate anymore. Biden can only reliably duel using moves he has prepared in advance, and Trump throws too much at him, too rapidly (a deliberate strategy) for Biden to prepare for. Trump doesn't need to properly duel Biden; he just needs to generate the right kind of noise, and his people will love it!
So, as far as voters who watch the debates to choose the man with the superior ideas, it's time to abandon that hope. Trump won't stop lying, so that's out of the question. Biden has realized that seriously refuting Trump is tiring, and doesn't get him anywhere. The only thing that will work against Trump is (?) more and better insults, but that does not come naturally to Biden. It would also do permanent damage to the idea of the debate itself.
Thinking people are going to be terribly disappointed with live debates this election year; I for one will vote without reference to debates. But we all fret about the undecided voters.
Well, the very fact that someone is undecided, that someone even entertains the possibility of voting for Trump, or worse, Kennedy, tells us that these are people who cannot be trusted with any damn thing. They must be so desperately feeble-minded that they may as well be MAGA.
In other words, nobody's mind is going to be changed. It's just a matter of getting out the vote.
Arch
I have noticed, in my moderately long life, that there are people in certain occupations, who have a tendency to forgive themselves quickly, for any pain or discomfiture they cause anyone. Principal among these occupations is: commercial real estate.
One can only speculate as to why this is the case‐--and I'm surely not the only one thinking along these lines, seeing as this was the occupation for one of our least truthful and altruistic presidents--- and many of the most troublesome and stubborn citizens are real estate developers.
One reason could be that they have discovered---or been taught, by parents---that there's really hardly any downside to being ruthless and vindictive to anyone. (This must be broadly true about any capitalist, and is the driving force today for forming trade unions.) Great wealth conveys great power, and power, most of all, to punish and retaliate against perceived slights and transgressions. 'An eye for an eye' is much too mild for some of these people. They are primitives, and follow a code that predates the Mosaic law: if a man wrongs you, exact twice, and even many times, what he took from you. Some people admire this attitude, which they call 'strength'.
In Clinton County, for instance, there are laws that any real estate constructions—parking lots, for instance—must satisfy certain rules, especially to accommodate water runoff. (A large parking lot, for instance, can result in a veritable river of water, that can erode the surrounding soil, if careful preventative measures are not taken.) Naturally, large developers are impatient with these regulations. "We should be allowed to build anything, anywhere we want!" And the response of some of these entities is to go ahead and build, leaving the paperwork until county administrators draw attention to them. And then, too, drag their feet as long as they can. This makes it impossible for the county planners to insist on any construction details that would have minimized the environmental impact of the development.
And now, our former president is exploring the possibility of unconstrained presidential action. He has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on this principle, to which they have wisely responded in the negative. A good executive, Trump seems to say, like any scofflaw real estate developer, should be permitted to exercise his creativity. (Judging from his buildings, unless we're careful, we might end up with very garish ('Beautiful!') things.
It's coming home to me just how much the outcome of this upcoming election is going to depend not on how the electorate feels, but on exactly who is motivated enough to come out to vote.
The GOP is a fragmented group of people. They've always been that; whoever runs for president on the Republican ticket has to persuade people that he supports all the numerous things that that confused party has under its umbrella: anti- socialism; US jingoism aka neo conservatism; opposition to welfare (including opposition to 'Obamacare', the IRS, Public Education, and other topics that fall broadly under the heading of Racism); opposition to immigration (which can be construed as also falling under the 'Racism' heading, but deserves it's own bullet point); opposition to Gun Control; opposition to Clean Energy; opposition to postal ballots; opposition to birth control; opposition to abortion; LGBTQR+ folks, and a number of other things. There are a few things that they are for, such as school prayers, Christianity as State Religion, packing the Sipreme Court with conservative judges, lowering taxes for rich people, etc. The Bush presidents didn't have trouble doing this. Mitt Romney did; we know how that turned out.
Lately, though, Democrats have also been fragmented. Some, frustrated with the decades of compromise where the Democrat administrations have given breaks to big corporations, hoping they will be nice to their employees, want more definite pro-worker agendas. The Republicans were quick to label these as Socialists and Communists. In fact Trump declared that Global Warming was an invention of the Chinese government.
You can easily see, therefore, that if Biden isn't charismatic or glamorous enough to entice the entire Democratic Party to come out to vote, and if by some twist of fate, the entire, discouraged GOP, most of which has lost faith in Trump, and which is currently egged on by strange people such as Large Marge, and others of doubtful mental capacity, we have an election in which it would be hard to get people motivated to vote.
One thing that would get Democrats motivated, is the fear that Trump might really destroy the Washington government structure (which all Republicans hate, though it hasn't been as tough on them as it should be). Trump is a bigger embarrassment to the US than he was before. But Democrats-- despite the accusations of the Republicans-- are not a vindictive lot. We're protective of minorities and women, to a certain degree; we're cautiously supportive of teachers and higher education, though the anti- intellectual conservatives have been grinding away at the universities.
College-educated liberals will definitely vote, and against Trump, (except the MBA's, who expect that Elizabeth Warren will make life hard for businesses). This could become a mess.
Arch
More about Bruce. Aka Brucie, or Bru-bru. Over the years, he has gotten very fond of Katie. When it's getting close to mealtime—5:15 p.m.—he goes and sits in front of her and makes puppy eyes at her. When she makes as if to get up, he races over to his water bowl, and starts drinking. ("Now you have to give me dinner.") All this Katie worship doesn't prevent him from turning to me when he wants to go out at night, etc.
When we come downstairs first thing in the morning (the critters are forbidden from going upstairs without supervision, because of shedding), Brucie is ready with his little blanket to greet Katie! Same, if we've gone out anywhere; he races up to welcome Katie back from, you know, foreign parts. Katie's sister calls his blanket The ceremonial Blanket, very High Church. Sometimes he forgets the blanket, and races back into the house to fetch it and present it.
Sometimes when we arrive at home from some sortie, Katie says, I'm going to water the flowers, just take my purse in, please, so when I open the door, Brucie sees just me, but he's all set to jump up and lay a kiss on Kate, so he gets me on the face instead. Thank God he isn't any taller; at least he doesn't get me in the eye, you know.
That dog is sort of insane, but getting pretty affectionate. But the barking has to stop.
Arch.
So our dog, Bruce, is named for famous Scottish leader, Robert the Bruce. At night, he often tries to herd me towards the back door; this means he either (1) wants to check whether there are any enemies out there, or little defenseless possum babies, or (2) obey an imperative of nature, namely to pee. It should be noted that Brucie came with an extended reservoir, which enables him to water every tree and suspicious shrub he encounters in our walks around the neighborhood.
I walked up to the back door, and looked out through the glass. Very often, there is our (indoor/outdoor) cat waiting to gain admittance. Sometimes Brucie hears her at the door, and lacking the means to be specific with what he wants, he uses the old 'Want to pee, or something' routine.
So I looked out, and announced to Brucie "There seems to be a watering-can that's trying to come in. Be careful, Brucie."
He just looks at me like, OK, OK, this is all good, lemme out! And I let him out.
He races to the bottom of our yard, ready to bark at anyone or anything that moves. All the squirrels know his limitations, and just stop what they're doing and freeze when he's looking in their direction. He then barks at cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. (Hey, I'd bark at pedestrians walking in our back alley at night. What the heck?)
I call him in, because the wife does not appreciate the barking, which offends her sensibilities. He's half Beagle, which we verified through an impartial agency. The rest of him is poodle, and other things.
Next door, there is a canine bulldozer of a dog, called Tex. I call him T-Rex, for short. T-Rex's BFF is Brucie. When he gets bored--usually in the daytime--he issues a quiet 'woof!' The wife does not mind that. In contrast, when Brucie gets excited, he issues a full bore howling bark, which we can hear inside the house, 100 feet away. (I mean, the wife can; I'm half deaf, for reals.)
I don't have a punchline to end this post, but it's clear that I'm practicing all my Dad Jokes on little Brucie. A watering can that desires ingress? I ask you ...
Arch
"Was ist das?" you might ask.
It's a way of making hamburgers that's liked by a large number of people, including me! I recently had a hurried hamburger at Burger King, and it was so good that I cudgelled my brain, to try and remember exactly what the reason for the yumminess was. Then I saw a lot of hoo hah about Smashburgers, and I put the two together and got this blogpost!!
All you need to do is sift through the six million links that come up when you search on smashburger, and you're set for life. I'll give you an abbreviated introduxion.
Get some hamburger, some garlic powder (o), some onion powder, some salt (o), and some pepper (o), mix them together, make into a ball, and put the ball on a cold griddle (or frying pan, or frypan, as they say in parts of the country). (o)=optional.
Turn the heat on the griddle to medium-low.
Use a heavy wooden spatula, or those weight things they use on bacon, to SMASH the patty into a thin disc. Flip the patty when the edges are brown, scraping up every bit of crunchy crusty burger.
I'm told on good authority that it's those crunchy bits that make the burgers special.
Once both sides have been fried (bim* the second side fries a lot faster) put on hamburger bun. Add any extras you want, e.g. onions, cheese, ketchup (if you must), mayonnnaisse (if you must), bbbaaconn (if you must), and pickles, put on its headdress, and there you go!
Today, for lunch, I made a tiny slider-sized hamburger this way, except I forgot the salt. I sprinkled garlic powder and onion powder on top, since I had forgotten them too. (Halfway through, our dog trotted up, and I guessed he liked the way this was going.)
Fried the thing to a turn (a phrase I never figured out, but this blog is a place where I try things out! Oops) and put the corpus delecti on a slice of Aldi bread. I'm not sure what sort of bread it was, but the patty was so small I had to cut the slice in half.
Delicious. Just like Mom would have made, if she had ever made one. I don't think this recipe alone is enough to establish my reputation as a cook, but— give it a shot!!
Arch
P.S. I can't remember what I intended "bim" to mean.
I found myself calling out: 'I see a little silhouetto of a dog!' And I added, Scaramouche, Scaramouche ...
Can you believe how much Queen has impacted our generation—and those immediately following?
When our daughter and her OM team had gone into regional competition—usually at Berwick SD—they usually had "Another one Bites the Dust" playing over the speakers (and, of course "We will rock you").
A friend of mine, from our choir days (Messiah, Nelson Mass, Christmas Carols) brought 'A Night At the Opera', and we (and Umanga) thoroughly enjoyed "I like to ride my bicycle" and other jewels!
And last, but certainly not least, there was 'Somebody to Love', and let's not forget the version with George Michael!
They were the Champions. I should have posted this on the other Blog ... Maybe I can talk our Band "The Encores" into playing a Queen song.
Bertrand Russell was one of the most clear-thinking people whose writings I have encountered.
“All who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things. That it is better to be alive than dead, better to be adequately fed than starved, better to be free than a slave. Many people desire those things only for themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies should suffer.
These people can only be refuted by science:"
(Actually, refuted by logic. Bertrand Russell was a preeminent logician, and it would be justifiable if he were to conflate logic with science; they were so much the same thing in his mind. He continues:)
"Humankind has become so much one family that we cannot ensure our own prosperity except by ensuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy.“
— Bertrand Russell, The Science to Save Us from Science, The New York Times (19 March 1950)
━━
I only just heard about the graduation address delivered by this football player at Benedictine College on February 5th. Apparently, he told the graduating women that their diplomas would not be as important as their marriages.
This is a complicated statement to unravel; first off, it is an opinion—I hope he presented it as such—rather than an incontrovertible fact. (A wife or a mother could very well find her diploma extremely useful, even after marriage.) And how is one to assess the importance of these things, except relative to their usefulness?
It was a graduation address at a Catholic school, so it is possible that Butker's statement was intended to be theological in nature, in which case, who am I to disagree? It just seems to me that Mr. Butker's point would have been more appropriate to wealthy women who plan to live a life of leisure and child-rearing, than to hard-working women of today, who have to work at professional jobs as well as raise a family.
Arch
This poem is by Christina Rossetti
