Republics

 Another stupid thing that I keep hearing from Electoral College fans (which seem to all be Trump fans as well) is that we can't have direct, i.e. popular vote elections for President because "we're a Republic, not a Democracy". Both the terms refer to rule by the people. "Republic" comes to us from the Latin res publica, i.e. a matter of the people; "Democracy" comes from demokratia, Greek for "power by the people". "Republic" came to mean a government of elected representatives, as distinct from a monarchy. "Democracy" indicated a political system where 'the people' had a vote. Most early republics did not have universal suffrage, even the United States limited voting rights to white, male landowners at its founding. "Democracy" was often used to refer to direct democracy or mob rule, the tyranny of the majority. However, over time, Republics where the representatives weren't elected by the people became common; examples include Socialist Republics and Islamic Republics, where there were representatives that were elected, or more precisely selected by the ruling party or by religious elites. The term Democratic Republic came to be used for systems where the people elected their representatives, and often "Democracy" was used as a shorthand. Those who attempt to make a distinction between a Democracy and a Republic are defining "Democracy" as "Direct Democracy" when in fact most people are not using the term that way.

Even if the Trumpists were correct in their claim that we're not a Democracy, there is nothing about being a Republic that prima facie precludes it from directly electing a President. The people are still electing their representative, the President.

It's Exhausting Keeping Up With Fake News

It has been exhausting keeping up with all the lies, half-truths and distortions that emanate from Trump and his minions. What is truly frightening his his apparent reliance on fake news stories and his tendency to tweet ill-considered opinions about the last thing that he heard about.

The term fake news and fake news sites has gained prominence in this election, mainly due to how often people formed their opinions based on these sites. A current example is the gunman who fired his weapon in a pizza place in D.C. because he has read in a fake news site about a Clinton-run ring of pedophiles operating from there. Donald Trump has been complicit in the legitimizing of fake news; he made a distrust of the mainstream media a major point in his campaigns. He kept the press sequestered in "pens" during his campaign rallies and accused them of colluding with Clinton to rig the election in her favor.

The mainstream press is not always right. Sometimes they get a story wrong. Sometimes individual reporters make things up. Sometimes their implicit bias influences a story. Other times a lack of resources will determine what gets covered and what doesn't. But the press in general wants their stories to be accurate. They research, they interview, they fact-check. Sources are vetted. Impartiality is the goal. It not just, as Donald Trump speculated, some guy in his parents' basement. It's a business that has staked its reputation on accuracy.

Fake news is none of those things. Often it's just one or two people writing blogs. Or it's an organization with an axe to grind or a specific point of view. They traffic in wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Facts are unimportant if they get in the way of the narrative. Fake news is not a mainstream news outlet making a mistake, it's not a reporter embellishing his exploits, it's not even perceived bias; fake news is misinformation, it's propaganda, it's a point of view where facts are irrelevant. And now our President-Elect, in addition to relying on fake news to inform his policies, has been tarring real news sources as fake news when they disagree with him, or say negative things about him.

Early in the campaign I'd read a Trump tweet, or hear something he said, think it sounded off, and then do some research. More often than not I'd discover fairly quickly that he was wrong. Now I just assume that what he says and tweets is bullshit. The odds are in my favor that way.

Haha! Just Kidding!

Donald Trump's campaign was crammed full to overflowing with demagoguery. Some might say that this approach, filled with appeals to bigotry, unrealistic promises to bring back jobs that were never coming back, jingoistic calls to subdue our enemies and vague ideas about making America great again, was what won the election for him. Oddly, some of his backers justified their support by rationalizing that he wouldn't follow through with some (or all) of his crazier ideas. You know, the ideas that had huge crowds chanting "lock her up" and "build the wall"; the incitement to violence (including the reference to 'Second Amendment People' taking action against a Clinton presidency). But now we appear to be in the "just kidding" phase. On several occasions Trump has laughed off some of the things that he said during the campaign, in particular that talking about "locking up" Clinton "played well" during the campaign, but we didn't need it now; he joked about how he thought "drain the swamp" was a stupid slogan, but kept it up because it received a good response. You can see from his cabinet picks that he's putting the swamp under EPA protection and bringing in as many swamp creatures as will fit. In fact, for a self proclaimed political outsider, he's bringing in a lot of insiders. What will be the response of the people who voted for him? Will they turn on him like they turned on those who came in on the Tea Party wave? Or will they remain blind to his actions as long as he bellows what they want to hear?

Facts, Schmacts

During the campaign, my biggest problem with Donald Trump was that he just didn't know what he was talking about. This is not to dismiss the racism, misogyny, xenophobia and assorted bigotry; not to mention the incitements to violence and the continuous string of insults, but in addition to the deliberate lying, he just didn't seem to have any idea how things worked...at all. Granted, you can never know the enormity of the job until you're in it, but Trump betrayed an ignorance of basic facts, such as the need to restaff virtually the entire West Wing once he took office. Even his own business operations were shown to be a mystery to him when he claimed that his employees "were having a hard time with Obamacare" although most were insured by way of group insurance through the company. Time after time his statements revealed a woeful lack of understanding of economics, the Constitution, libel laws, and even basics facts about a variety of situations. Of course, a president doesn't have to know everything, he has a cabinet, advisors, assistants. He has to delegate. But when you have advisors, you should actually listen to them, when you have experts on your team who know more than you do, you should actually consult with them before shooting off your mouth. Trump has done neither.

For the next four years we will have a president who just doesn't know jack-shit.

Happy Holidays

Say Merry Christmas, say Happy Holidays, say whatever you want, but let it be because you are wishing someone a happy or a merry whatever, not because you are making some mind of point.

Last year I worked on a UPS truck, delivering packages throughout the month of December. As we got closer to December 25th, I started wishing customer with whom I came in contact a Merry Christmas - until I came across "that guy".

After wishing this customer a Merry Christmas, he stopped me and "thanked" me for not saying Happy Holidays and went off on a tirade about political correctness, and all "those" people who hate Christmas ad nauseum. I can't say it ruined my day, but it certainly left a sour taste in my mouth. I didn't respond, since I was wearing the UPS uniform and just didn't have the time.

A few years earlier, I answered the phone at the grocery store where I worked. The very polite man on the line, like the UPS customer, "thanked" me for our store putting "Merry Christmas" in our ads (in fact we were alternating "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays") and launched into a tirade similar to that delivered by the UPS customer. On that occasion, I spoke up. I let him know that I appreciated his input, but that I was one of "those" people who didn't celebrate Christmas and I hoped that he would take into consideration during the holidays that not everyone believed the way he did. I believe his response was along the lines of "Well...okay then".

So this December, when giving your holiday greetings, no matter what greeting you use, don't be a dick.

Sick & Tired

Yes, I am sick & tired. Sick & tired of the amnesia already setting in about how Donald Trump played on fear, hatred, and bigotry to stir up people with legitimate reasons to feel disenfranchised. I am sick and tired of the pretense that Donald Trump didn't get a great deal of his support by consistently and brazenly lying, lying about what he could and would do, lying about his opponents, even lying about what he himself had said. I am sick and tired of Donald Trump's intermittent tone of reasonableness, as if a calm voice and a speech read off a teleprompter erases all the megalomaniacal  ranting that went on during the campaign, and actually still goes on, usually via Twitter. I am sick and tired of being accused by Trump supporters of being "butthurt" (I have always hated that expression), that "Hillary won - get over it" and that we're all liberal crybabies when there are legitimate reasons to be wary of Donald Trump and indeed be fearful of what the country may become under his Presidency. I am sick and tired of the press being maligned and their competence and integrity undermined to the point that people will believe some nut who thinks the Jews are out to rule the world by way of blacks and that Sharia law is coming and that Obama hates America because he was born in Kenya and reflexively disbelieve the New York Times. I am sick and tired of facts being optional.

Sick.

And.

Tired.

Already...so very tired.

More Electoral College

Yes, yes, yes, the "libs" don't like the Electoral College when their candidate loses the election while getting more votes, in this case 2.5 million more 48.1% to 46.4%; the President-Elect didn't like it when he thought Obama won while losing the popular vote, but he guesses it's okay now.

I've heard some, in my opinion, ridiculous statements by people who are presumably Trump supporters. A lot of Clinton supporters, as well as others who were against Trump, make a point that Clinton got more votes, many more votes, than Trump did. While that's interesting, and points to (1) the fact that we are a very divided nation and (2) despite the big Electoral College win, there is no mandate from "the people"; it's largely irrelevant to the question of "who is our next President?". Both Clinton and Trump knew the rules and both campaigned in order to win the most electoral votes, not the most popular votes.  Although it's fun to prod Trump with the knowledge that he garnered less votes than "Crooked Hillary". One of the most ridiculous comebacks that Trump supporters, and even Trump himself, have put forward, is that Clinton really didn't win the popular vote, or that 3 million illegal immigrants voted for her, resulting in Trump gaining more legal votes. Another one that I heard is that if you count up the counties that each candidate "won", Trump received a majority of votes in approximately 2600 counties to Clinton's 500, as if this is somehow a significant statistic. Counties aren't like congressional districts, which each have similar populations (not exactly the same, since a state can have no less than one district) but are artifacts from earlier times. In Nebraska we have counties with less than 500 people, as well as counties with several million people. There are congruent situations all over the nation, so why bring up that meaningless figure? Because, somehow, Trump supporters can then assert that their guy won more of the nation, in addition to the electoral votes. They then derisively characterize the Clinton vote as having "won a couple of big cities", as if the almost 65 million votes were all from Los Angeles and New York City. The follow up to this is that we, as Americans, wouldn't want people "who are not like us", i.e. the city dwellers, to decide who our President should be, as if city folks aren't real Americans.

That brings us back to the recurring argument for keeping the Electoral College as it is: that by relying on the popular vote, the President would be decided by a handful of big cities. Los Angeles is 3.8 million, Chicago 2.7 million, and New York 8.4 million. That's 14.9 million out of 134.8 million total votes cast, those 3 huge, generally Democratic voting, cities together account for 11.05% of the votes cast, the number would be somewhat smaller if we added up the voting population. The total US population is 318 million, and since it looks like only 42% of the total population voted, the voting population of those 3 cities can be calculated as only 4.7% of votes cast. Add to that the fact that surely some  of the residents of these 3 cities voted for Trump, or even usually vote for Republicans and the steamroller that some imagine fades away. Add as many cities as you'd like, DC is only 0.6 million, Philly is 1.5 million, Boston and Detroit are 0.7 million each, and San Francisco is 0.8 million. That's only another 4.3 million, which only edges the voting population up to 6%.

There are other arguments against the Electoral College, but the argument that the big cities will decide the president under a popular vote system is not based on fact, or math.