Yeah, and I'm angry, too, elite and privileged though I am

This is a sort of random set of thougths and observations. I'll see if there's a common thread running through them all before I give it a title...

Yesterday at the gym I saw a middle-aged guy wearing a red t-shirt with this question on the back of it: "Martyr or Marines/Which will get the most virgins?" I worked my way around to see that the front read "USMC," so I assume he knew the answer to his question. Offensive in many directions, in my estimation.

Eligible US voters have no excuse for not voting in this Presidential election. None. Even if you think your state's officials (you can vote them out, you know) are making it more difficult than it needs to be for you to vote, you can push yourself and get it done. Of course, I urge you to vote for Hillary Clinton (see my previous posts for my unassailable reasoning), but vote you must.

Speaking of the Clintons, Inc, I really wish they'd all announce that win or lose, they are going to build a wall between their Foundation and themselves, such that no one could ever, ever get the slightest notion that they could ever profit personally from it in any way. The Republicans have announced they've got enough on Hillary for at least two years of congressional inquiries, etc., so for the nation's sake don't even SEEM to give them any more.

Today the news is that Mr. Trump is edging up in "the polls". (Tomorrow it will probably be different). One reason given: Independent voters are deciding to vote for him, deciding their preferred candidate won't get elected. Makes me wonder how many Libertarians are in fact much closer to Donald Trump (and the Repulicans) than they are to Hillary Clinton (and Democrats), but they won't  admit it. Which is probably news to no one but me.

A headline in yesterday's online USA Today read something like this: "Slab found on which Jesus Laid." Grammar police: should the word be "lay", or "was laid", or "was lain"? (And, while you are at it, where should those commas go?)

By the way, I voted for Ted Strickland for Ohio Senator, deciding that although the Democratic party is guilty of forcing a very poor choice upon us before the primary season even began, that is not reason enough to risk being responsible for maintaining the Republican majority in the Senate. Rob Portman seems more level-headed than many in (or hanging onto) his party, but I judge him by the company he keeps.

Wrote a letter to the local paper a couple of weeks ago in which I took on another letter-writer who claimed that from day one President Obama has fanned the flames of hatred toward police. I asked what our President had done since "day one" besides being black, and stated that the claim was clearly racist. The only printed response came from a man who called me a communist fellow-traveler and "useful idiot." He didn't even mention the issue I raised, so I conclude I am not as useful as he gives me credit for being.

I am trying to be the reasonably good president of the Board of a local non-profit musical organization. Please, please, let me pastor a church again! This presidency is tough, kind of like it would be if a whole church were made of choir members and their leaders. That church choirs are "The War Department of the Church" is an observation I've heard all my life, though I must admit I never had too much trouble with them. Maybe because they thought I could sing. Maybe that's it: my musical organization knows better, and DOES NOT think I can sing. Maybe I should take a hint...

Brings me (at last) to Sparrow, who is running for President, and carrying out his campaign on the pages of The Sun magazine. He writes, "I am teaching myself to drop a glass, then catch it before it hits the ground. This will give me the dexterity I need for the Presidency."

Good luck, Sparrow. I'm voting for Hillary anyway, and you should, too.

Thoughts for those who don't think they can vote either for Mrs. Clinton or for Mr. Trump

I know that many are so disturbed and disgusted by our two major party presidential candidates that they plan either not to vote at all, or to vote for one of the "third party" candidates. To some one or all of these candidates seem a more palatable choice than either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. In some ways I can see why.

More importantly, I understand where you are coming from. I've taken lonely, principled stands myself sometimes. It is lonely, but somehow exhilarating, to know you've done the right thing despite all.

But if you care about our democracy, your principled stand may turn to sand if Hillary Clinton does not win by a decisive, overwhelming margin. Donald Trump's clear assertion that he will only accept this election's results "if I win," is so wide of the mark of our nation that it threatens to shred its very fabric, a fabric he has been stretching and cutting up for over a year now anyway.

If you think President Clinton will not further your priorities, think again about what President Trump would do about them.

Perhaps you like Mr. Trump's threat of non-acceptance and the kind of disruption and even violence that his supporters might inflict on us all if he doesn't win. Perhaps you think that kind of chaos fits your desire to break up the too-cozy major party stranglehold on America. But how will what you want come out of that kind of crisis? Where will it come from? Who will have the power to implement your goals in such a situation?

I am all for principles. But sometimes my personal principles must take a back seat to principles that serve the common good. This is one of those times. Flaws and all, Mrs. Clinton is our only viable option in this election for President of these United States of America. Vote for her. Then go back to work for what you believe our government really needs to be and do.

"If Donald Trump were a true American Patriot..."

If Donald Trump were a true American patriot, he would immediately stop his unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of our election process and system.  Nothing he has said or done so far in his campaign has been more dangerous and more disingenuous that his claim that "this election is rigged."

He would also make it clear to the American people, including his followers, that he is prepared to accept the results of the election as the expression of the will of the people unless and until there is verifiable reason to believe otherwise. He would urge everyone to do the same.

Finally, he would let the public know that he understands that we are a nation governed by laws, and that violence, personal threats, and intimidation have no place in the American political process.

It would be great if he did all of these things in his opening statement at tonight's debate. It would be better if he did it in the next five minutes. He owes it to each of us and to us as a people.

Deserve What?

At the end of another media discussion about the failings of our Presidential candidates, one of the talking heads sighed and concluded, "The American public gets the kinds of candidates it deserves." Not the first time–nor most likely the last–hearing that.

Such statements are demeaning and off-putting. I'm not saying we deserve perfect candidates because we are a perfect people. People and nations are never perfect. But for the most part we are a decent people, trying our level best to make the good we are and have better, and to overcome what's wrong. We make mistakes, and sometimes worse than mistakes. But there is an impulse in the vast majority of us to create "a more perfect union." What we deserve is candidates who speak to our national aspirations, and who genuinely want to help us achieve them together.

When those who run for office are so compromised that we get lost in their faults and failures and no longer dare to entrust them with our hopes and dreams, we are getting far, far less than we deserve.

The Frustrating Hillary Clinton

I probably don't need to make public the fact that I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton in November. Not only do I think she is by far the best qualified candidate to serve as President, I also believe a Trump presidency would be disastrous for our country and world and the things I care about. And I am among those who believe that voting for either of the oft-mentioned third-party choices is not the way to go. Not only are they sadly lacking in qualifications, but Hillary Clinton will need every vote she can get to make it clear that our country does not want Donald Trump in the White House.

But I really wish there were something Ms. Clinton would or could do to make it easier for me to vote for her. For example, the email controversy. That it won't go away is in some ways as much her fault as it is the fault of her detractors. No doubt, there are people out to "get" her,  and they will not stop until they do.

Why did she use a personal email server in the first place? I've never understood it. You are one of the most influential persons in the whole world engaging in online communications about matters upon which the fate of millions depends, and you write from your home email? Come on!

But she did it. And now she tends to say things that make it worse, either because they are later shown to be untrue, or because they try to cast the blame somewhere other than with her. The latest example is claiming Colin Powell said it was okay. Did you ever let your kids off the hook because someone told them to do something they shouldn't have done? After a while most of us learn (usually the hard way) that such excuses hardly ever work. No she and Powell are into a "did not/did too/did not/did too" exercise.

I like Hillary Clinton for President. I like her a lot. But she is really frustrating...and the only real choice I have.

Presidential Vacations in a Changing Climate

I really do not mind that US Presidents take "vacations," since I cannot believe they are "vacations" in the sense most of us think of the word. I understand that they must choose locations where their security and the security of their families will not be compromised, and where they can be in touch with the whole world at any time they need to be. What fun is all that?

As to whether President Obama should have gone to Louisiana, the clear answer to that seems to be "No, not right away." All they needed was a whole 'nother set of complications to worry about in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.

Maybe we ought to spend our time evaluating politicians' responses to flooding in Louisiana (and to fires in California) by talking about what they plan to do to deal with climate change, since these two kinds of natural catastrophes are clearly what we've been told for decades that climate change will bring. The denial of a changing climate can no longer be accepted; the reality of it threatens us all. Who is going to lead us toward at least slowing it down? (Hint: not the guy who wants to revive the coal industry.)

No Ideas for the Future? Focus on the Past!

USA Today reports that Benghazi will be "the focus of one of the nights at next week's (Republican) convention."

It has struck me the past two weeks that although the focus of the nation's attention has been on bloodshed in our streets, the focus of the Congress has been on Benghazi and Clinton's emails. Even granting that these are important issues, they are in fact in the past, and nothing can undo them. We can learn from them, of course; but it is clear to everyone that the constant attention to them is not driven by what can be learned from them but by who might be ruined by them. The Republican leadership, lacking ideas about how to solve current problems, concentrates on selectively-chosen past mistakes.

The fact that the RNC will spend one whole evening of its air time on Benghazi is further proof of the lack of ideas in the Trump camp or in the leadership of the Republican party. It's disgusting.