Political Tuesday

IT'S SAT 6/27! THIS, TOO, IS AN EDITED, RE-POST of the entry I originally posted on TUE 6/23. Decided to start over.

Although “Political Tuesday” doesn’t have the same pleasing alliterative tone as “Mental Health Monday,” we’ll roll with it & give it a try. Once again, my blog is still in its infancy, so I’m still playing around with styles & colors, trying to establish a rhythm, messing around with some regular or semi-regular themes, trying to make use of the advice I’m getting from useful(?) sources, such as Larry Noack, who helped me set up my first blog; & my son Nathan, who is the author of a blog I admire very much (Twin Cities Runner, I think.) He’s actually helped me get this blog set-up & has done some editing for me.

My first post, as some of you know, ended up on Lois’ FB page, & Nathan tried to explain to me last night what I did wrong. The next evening (at 6:20p, CDT) I wrote an entry as a Word document, which I cut & pasted into my blog later (or so I thought).

So Tuesday blog entries are meant to be more political in nature, & I have a few thoughts to share today. [DISCLAIMER:  If you didn’t already know, it should be obvious from this post that I shade toward the right side of the political spectrum, or as we like to describe ourselves, “thoughtful & reasonable.”]

• NBC announced that the addition of Brian Williams to MSNBC (or was it CNBC—nobody watches these networks anyway, so it’s hard to remember) adds great credibility to that network. My two cents worth:

Is the implication that even the parent network must acknowledge the almost total lack of credibility of the daughter network up until now?

Isn’t NBC giving props to one of its daughter networks similar to Eric Holder giving props to Hillary Clinton for her record as Secretary of State?

• Speaking of Hillary Clinton . . . Several weeks ago I said it was time to stop Hillary-bashing. My new standard would be the following. Anytime a new story broke, which I assumed would be often, linking Bill, Hillary, and/or the Clinton Foundation to a scandal or ethical conundrum (you gotta love that word!) or even a hint of such, before casting judgment, I would substitute George W. and/or Laura Bush in place of the Clintons & see how it made me feel. So, when just a few days ago Hillary pretty much blamed Donald Trump’s rhetoric for inciting the shooter in Charlotte, I applied my standard. Sorry, Hillary. Your statement was wrong-headed, poorly reasoned, irrational, & utterly lacking in every way re:  any hint of sympathy for the victims, their families, or an attempt at healing. Would that you have spoken out like the son of one of the victims did. [I saw him on, gasp, shudder, Fox News.] Score this one for the Bushes.

• Having spoken my mind about “she whose name shall not be spoken as the very likely next POTUS, I will now speak my mind about Donald Trump. What a fatuous (another word I just love) ass he is, is he not? Of course he immediately expressed his outrage at her comments, & rightfully so, but I have little to no sympathy for him, because

His motives for a presidential run appear to be totally bogus again; and

He has 0% chance of winning but will waste the media & other legitimate candidates’ time & resources during the campaign; and

A few of his policies actually make sense but his braggadocio (a rather pedestrian word but a big one nonetheless, so I’ll use it) overshadows any credibility they might be given.

• Finally, there’s the recent matter of Rachel Dolezal, the NAACP chapter leader from somewhere or other [it wasn’t Omaha] whose long-term claims to be African-American have turned out to be bogus.

According to some polls, many are saying it doesn’t matter, she should retain her leadership position, because she identifies so strongly with Black American culture.

Some "progressives" (I really, really don’t like that term but won’t take time to elaborate now) are suggesting that she relates as a Black American because of her ideology much more strongly than Clarence Thomas or Dr. Ben Carson, due to their conservative politics.

I.E., ideology trumps biology, because Clarence Thomas & Ben Carson have a truly more authentic Black American experience than Ms. Dolezal’s. (Sorry, hate to break this to her apologists . . . she made up stuff. That makes her a liar. Lying, the last time I checked, is still a sin.)

This is yet another sad commentary on “the age we live in.” Apparently if you follow the right ideology, you can be what you want to be. Another example? Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner. (Sorry, don’t feel like getting into that debate now either.)

To summarize, this kind of gives proof that far too many people accept a world view that believes that standards, values, ethics, morals are based on floating feelings, not on any lasting, truthful standards. Therefore, based on Lois & my recent 40^th Anniversary Odyssey out West, & especially in light of Custer’s crushing defeat by Lakota, Cheyenne, & Arapahoe warriors at Little Bighorn, I have decided that I identify much more readily with the winners, not the losers. Hence, beginning this moment, I am choosing to be a direct descendant of Cheyenne warriors, specifically, those who personally participated in killing that pompous Indian killer, George A. Custer. What a jerk he was! [I’m quite sure he was a Republican, although he apparently hated President Grant.] I apologize IF I have offended any descendants of George A. and/or any remaining Custer apologists (but I think history is on my side).

Your comments & feedback are most welcome . . . In light of my “Mental Health Monday” post, please keep in mind my fragile mental, emotional state.