Semi-Random Thoughts

Hollywood Stupidity

I'm sorry. I'd like to be more ... tactful, but I can't. Just plain stupid. Raven-Symone of The View has announced, "If any republican gets nominated [for president], I'm going to move to Canada with my entire family." Probably should go now, since she hasn't a clue. By the way, Raven, a republican will be nominated for president. It's the way the system works. A republican will always run against your democrat in a presidential election. Sigh.

On Modern Racism

I'm just wondering out loud here, so to speak, on a matter of racism. Why is it that "Black lives matter" is not a racist concept but "All lives matter" is?

In 2014 CNS News reported that in 2012 in New York City there were more black babies killed by abortion than were born. The story said that 42.4% of the abortions in that city that year were black children. According to CDC statistics, cumulative deaths for African-Americans since 1973 totaled up to 245,322 due to AIDS, 354,392 due to violent crimes, 2,568,040 due to cancer. The biggest one should have been cancer, but beyond that some 15.5 million African-American children died from abortion. In other words, abortion is killing far more black people than cancer or bad cops are.

But "All lives matter" is racist.

Poisoning the Well

Perhaps you've heard of this concept -- "poisoning the well". It's classified as a logical fallacy. The idea is that information opposed to a particular person or idea is sent out preemptively so that no one will listen to the person or idea. It is classified as an argumentum ad hominem because it is aimed at preventing the person or idea from being heard rather than disputing the person or idea. And I know good Christian people who use it regularly (and, in my opinion, wisely) to help prevent their children from going places they should never go. You know, things like "That behavior is a sin" before "that behavior" is even a glint in their child's eye.

Welcome to American politics. I'm truly amazed that this constitutes the bulk of the process of running for office. So, we have ... what ... 17? ... candidates that are, say, running for the Republican nomination. We've got to pick one. (Just an example. The Democrats are doing the same thing.) So, the candidates get up before their constituents and they tell us, "Here's why I make the best candidate for your vote." Oh, wait, no, that's not what they do. They tell us, "Here's why my opponents are failures, losers, even dangerous. Here's why you should not vote for them." You know, "He's not eligible to run" and "She's not qualified" and "This guy stands for everything you hate" and "That one is opposed to America" and so on. Oh, sure, they'll tack on "And I'm better than that", perhaps, but you get the idea. When it's all said and done, you and I vote for what appears to be the least worst candidate (according to all the other candidates). And then we're supposed to stand together (all who voted for their own "least worst", who may not have been the same as yours) on the one who won and back him or her to the presidency. The Democrats play the same sort of game and in the end we get to vote for the two least worst candidates by popular vote and when that vote is done, we're all -- Republican and Democrat and everyone else -- supposed to stand up and cheer, "He/She is our president! Hooray!"

Never mind the years (it at least seems this time around) of messages informing us that the selection we made at the primary as well as the selection we made in the final election was the wrong one. Don't even think about all the accusations offered in the entire course of the contest. This one is our best hope. Run with it. In other words, we spend entire campaigns poisoning the well and then are asked to imbibe the water ... and like it.

I have to wonder how this seems like a good idea. I have to wonder why it is that candidates cannot simply argue, "I'm the best candidate because ..." without attacking their opponents. I have to wonder why the best method of getting votes is the attack method. Well, welcome to the poisoned well at its best. Please be sure to vote for your least-worst candidate when you can. And let's all rally together behind the loser we select.

The Meaning of "Democratic"

So, we understand that the Democratic Party is the party of the people, right? I mean, doesn't "democratic" mean something? As it turns out, not so much. In the caucuses and primary elections held thus far, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have won precisely the same number of delegates based on the votes. But if you look at the media's count -- the standings of the two -- Sanders has 70 delegates and Clinton has 502. Now, wait a minute. How is that? Why such a vast discrepancy between the two? Well, it's the "superdelegate" or "unpledged delegate" system at play. These are Democrat heavies who get to be delegates for whomever they wish regardless of the vote of their people. So while Sanders has gathered 51 (at the time of this writing) delegates thanks to voters and 19 superdelegates because they like him, Clinton has gathered the same 51 due to voters but 451 superdelegates because they like her. Currently, then, Clinton has 502 delegates and Sanders just 70 and the media correctly reports that Clinton is running away with the nomination. It would be a mistake to report that she's doing so at the behest of the voters. They appear evenly split. No, this is the Democratic Party ignoring the voters and putting in whomever they please. Because in this application "democratic" doesn't mean what you think it means. In this application, "democratic" means "You people don't know what you're doing; we know better."