Go Ahead, Make My Day (That Day is Tuesday November 8th)

The fact that Hillary Clinton has been accused of many corrupt and "crooked" dealings is surely proof that she is corrupt and "crooked".

The fact that she has never been convicted or even charged with any of the crimes that she so surely has committed is proof that she is above the law and can get away with being corrupt and "crooked".

Does the cognitive dissonance that holding the above ideas cause blood vessels in your head to spontaneously explode?

I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton is as pure as the driven snow, or that she doesn't possess a healthy portion of arrogance, but why has that suddenly become a requirement for a Presidential candidate?

People have been gunning for Hillary Clinton for years, and yet nothing sticks. If she's guilty of all that she is accused of, then she apparently has control over the criminal justice system and the Republicans in Congress, because after the longest Congressional investigation in history, which followed seven other Congressional committee investigations, the purpose of which, the committee chairman admitted, was to bring down Hillary Clinton, they came up with nothing.

The idea that the Hillary Clinton is corrupt and "crooked" is part of the media narrative that has been stoked and lovingly nurtured over the last two decades with little or no real evidence, and latched upon by not only the Republicans, but by other Democrats to whom she isn't progressive enough. Everything she does is interpreted in light of this narrative...it makes a good story. And for most people, they dislike Hillary Clinton because they are told that they should.

Us vs. Them

It is possible to support the police and the job that they do without supporting the continued killing of unarmed men and boys.

I realize that there are circumstances when a police officer has to shoot someone, and yes, kill them. If someone is pointing a gun at an officer, or at a civilian; if someone is holding a gun and ignores an order to put it down; if a fleeing  armed suspect presents a threat if he escapes. Police officers are charged with protecting the lives and property of the people. I might even admit that someone trying to disarm a police officer, or charging at him (or her) with a weapon that isn't a gun could be acceptable.

But why do we think that it's acceptable to shoot someone if a police officer thinks that there's a gun, or thinks that someone is reaching for a weapon. Since when is it worthy of a summary execution to run away from a police officer? Sure, you can rationalize that someone wouldn't run if they hadn't committed some crime, and statistically, you'd probably be right, but is it really necessary to shoot a shoplifter who runs from a cop? Is resisting arrest by struggling to break free from a choke hold a capital offense?

My father and brother were both police officers. It makes me angry to hear people speaking hatefully or disrespectfully about the police. But anyone who thinks that the police are not profiling black people, poor people, inner-city people, is fooling themselves. I have never had any problem with the police, mainly because I didn't commit any crimes, but also because I don't look like someone who commits crimes. But about 15 years ago I moved into a little run-down apartment building downtown. The place was a dump; I was the only person there who actually went to work every day. Everyone else was doing drugs, selling drugs, thinking about drugs...you get the picture. The police were out there a lot. When I was in or around the apartment I found that the police treated me very differently. One example was the 3:00AM knock on the door by a cop with a police dog, shouting questions at me. The police assumed I was a criminal, or at least criminally inclined, because of where I lived. After that experience I find it hard to believe that it doesn't happen on a larger scale.

Despite the vicious circle nature of what's been happening: cop shoots unarmed black man, black people riot, loot and taunt the police, police are more on edge and shoot another unarmed black man, crazed black man shoots some cops, cops get very on edge - the onus lies with responsible people to stop the violence. And that starts with the police. The police cannot become "just another gang" as Commander Sam Vimes says in Terry Pratchett's Night Watch. The police are the representatives of civilization, of order, they cannot conduct vendettas and acts of revenge, large and small. They cannot close ranks and pretend some of their brothers haven't acted badly. They cannot use the actions of the criminal element among poor blacks to justify waging war on all poor blacks. We expect criminals to committ crimes, that's why they call them criminals. We expect the police to fight crime, not to participate as principals in a gang war.

Before you say it out loud, yes, black-on-black crime is a problem, and not a small one, but it's a different problem that has little or nothing to do with police killing of unarmed citizens. And yes, rioting following or during protests is wrong and makes things worse, but again, it's a different problem. None of these different problems justifies killing unarmed citizens, unprovoked. Black lives matter (too) - the only reason that it had to be said is that it often doesn't appear that black lives matter at all.

Third Party or Independent Candidates

There are more people running for President than the presumptive nominees of the two major parties. It is true that we have (and always have had) more than two choices. The problem is that, due to ballot access laws differing from state to state, there is no third party that is on the ballot in all 50 states (although the Libertarian Party is projected to be on the ballot in all 50 this November). Therefore a third party cadidate starts out behind right at the starting line, since he or she can receive no electoral votes in the states where his or her party does not appear on the ballot. But wait, what about write-in and independent (on the ballot, but not affiliated with a party) candidacies? According to Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates) a candidate must petition each state separately in order to appear on the ballot. The rules vary from state to state; Ballotpedia estimates almost 900,000 signatures would be required nationwide to ensure appearing on the ballot in all 50 states. Another option is write-in candidacies. This is something you hear a lot about. Many major party voters, unhappy with their party's nominee, muse about voting for their preferred candidate by writing in their name. The problem with this scenario is that in seven states write-in voting for President is prohibited. You jus can't do it, so even an organizeed write-in run would start out seven states behind before the voting even starts. 35 states require some kind of paperwork be filed before the election. The remaining 8 require no paperwork for a write-in candidates votes to count. So you can see why a vote for a third party, independent or write-in candidate is often derided as a wated vote. The system is designed to exclude these other choices. 

In many states, ballot access is granted when a party polls a certain percentage of total votes cast in a state election; in Nebraska it is the gubernatorial election. Exceed the benchmark and you have a spot on tyhe ballot for your party's nominee. The problem is that you have to do this every election. Years ago the Libertarian Party was on the ballot in Nebraska, but lost that spot when they failed to maintain the minimum numbers of votes in elections for governor. They are back on the ballot again, but staying there is not guaranteed. 

For those who want more choices for President, it should be obvious that much needs to change. 

Yes, I'm Voting for Clinton

There are some of you out there who would never vote for Hillary Clinton mainly because you think she's a liberal, some because she's not a liberal, some because you believe that she's a liar, or corrupt, or that you "feel" that she's untrustworthy, or because of Benghazi or the email server or because she "rigged" the Democratic primaries & caucuses. Some of you don't like her because she stood up for her husband, or just don't like her husband - or maybe you think she had Vince Foster killed.

The political things I won't address in this article. If you have a principled stand against her politics (not a strawman version of her politics, but her actual politics), good for you, you're thinking before you vote. But if you're of the opinion that's she's the only politician that's every shaded the truth, prevaricated, attempted to divert attention or outright lied, you sir or madam, are living in a fantasy land where enlightened rulers make everything alright...all hail King Ellasar! (had to work in the Lord of the Rings reference). She makes speeches and gets paid for it; I'm not too worked up about that either - is she the first politician to ever do that? She vilified as being crooked and corrupt, yet nothing manages to stick. Some of you believe that that's evidence of a massive conspiracy to allow the Clinton's to get away with what no one else could get away with, despite the seemingly never-ending "investigations", the goal of which the Republican committee chair admitted were to bring down Hillary Clinton...not to discover the truth.

Hillary Clinton's positions on most things are in line with where I sit on the political spectrum" left-leaning centrist-moderate. Although she's a little more hawkish than I would like, she does have the respect of many top generals and admirals and does understand the international situation. The fact is that Clinton has more relevant experience, not only than her Republican Party opponent, but than anyone else who was interested in the job. She would be a steady hand - she's not an idealogue. A criticism that I heard earlier this year was that no one was passionate about their support for Clinton. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not voting for someone who can raise hell and inflame the masses, I'm voting for someone who can reasonably and rationally lead our country as chief executive and represent our country abroad. I'm not worried about her supposed lack of charisma either - we're not electing a prom queen.

Parenthood

There's a lot of ways to be a good parent. There's lots of ways to be a bad parent. It's a given (at least in our Western culture) that you do your best to love your kids, protect them and give them every opportunity to succeed in life. Oh yeah, feed them and clothe them too! My main objectives as a parent where to guide my children toward the ultimate goal of being responsible adults. After all, for the majority of their lives they would be adults. Part of this long-range goal was to encourage them to think, to be able to figure out how to solve problems on their own and to take responsibility for their actions. One school of parenting thought is to do everything for your kids and cater to their every want and need; enroll them in every sport and activity, drop everything to drive them to parties, buy them whatever they want. There are definitely some long-range benefits to giving your children a wide variety of experiences and to allow them to enjoy their childhood, and I'd never fault a parent for sacrificing in order to provide a spectrum of opportunities for a child. But what I have observed is that in many cases a sense of entitlement develops in a child who is given everything. They see this as the natural order of things and have little or no appreciation for the lengths which their parents go through to give them this life. Parents are treated disrespectfully in private and in public. This entitlement and disrespect carries over into school and eventually into the wide world of employment.

Giving your child everything, without also teaching them to value what they have been given isn't doing them any favors. It's not the giving and the doing that is the problem, it's the failure to teach that a price is being paid  by someone for all that opportunity.