Reactivating... and shaving with a double-edge razor

It's been a few years since I regularly posted here.  Mostly 'cuz I've been posting elsewhere and have been a bit too lazy to post in both locations.

So:

I'm going to start posting brief thoughts here.  Various subjects.  Some political, others not.  Some personal.

Shaving with a double edge razor.

I gave up on electric shavers many years ago.  Replacing the blade units got expensive, and it wasn't a totally satisfying experience.

After a bit of thought, I decided to try a double-edge razor.  Spent some time on the 'net.  Read reviews on shaving razor handles and blades.  Read reviews on shaving soap.  Read some articles discussing the differences between double-edge razors and those plastic/vinyl multi-edge razors sold everywhere.

Ordered Harry's.  Wasn't happy with the experience.  The razor seemed... floppy.  The blade cartridge was difficult to rinse.

Decided to try a double-edge razor.  Bought one on Amazon along with some razor blades.  Bought some Barbasol foam at CVS.  Brought it all home and tried it.

Um, about halfway happy.

So, bought some shaving soap, a brush, and a mug online.  Tried it - and decided I liked it.

Experimented with a bunch of razor handles and blades.  Experimented with different shaving soaps.

Then read a review online for Taylor of Old Bond Street shaving cream.  Ordered it.  Tried it - and was immediately sold.

Ended up in England a couple of years ago for my daughter's wedding.  Decided to spend a couple of days in London to satisfy a couple of bucket list items.

Went to Taylor of Old Bond Street - yeah, the actual store in London.  Bought a brush and razor handle.  Somehow, this seemed to "fit" perfectly.

Still using it.

There's something about using shaving soap and a brush to apply the lather, and then using a double-edge blade in a razor handle... traditional yet very satisfying... in a "guy" way...

Academic fraud is now APPROVED at Harvard

Here's what we know so far: Harvard President Claudine Gay has been accused of plagiarism by copying the work of others, inserting it into her PHD thesis, and not acknowledging it.

This is called "academic fraud".

If anyone else had done this and had been discovered, they would have had their PHD revoked and their academic record would indicate that they cheated.  If they were in a position of leadership and responsibility in a large multi-billion dollar company, they would probably be transferred somewhere out of the limelight and then quietly "let go".

But not Ms. Gay.

I won't speculate on why she isn't being punished for stealing ideas at a university and calling them her own.  Nor will I speculate on why she's being given a chance to "correct the record" and "modify" her PHD accordingly (which is a tacit admission that her PHD should never have been granted in the first place).

It seems like Ms. Gay is being treated with "kid gloves".  I won't speculate on why (he wrote, feigning naivete).

But the sad part of this episode is that it now confirms the fact that Harvard both approves and encourages falsifying academic papers.

So now, the question is: "How many other Harvard graduates received PHDs for work that wasn't their own?"

As they say, if there's smoke there's fire.  Ms. Gay's actions were the fire, and the Harvard Corporation (the BOD) has decided to allow the fire to burn in an uncontrolled manner.

It may not happen now.  It may take years.  But Harvard's action in not disciplining Ms. Gay for obvious and provable academic fraud calls into question whether a Harvard degree - at any level - is worth the paper it's printed on.

It ain't AI if it don't learn.

You read that right: you can't call it Artificial Intelligence if it doesn't fully imitate Human Intelligence.

I used to teach this stuff at a local college in their 400-level computer science curriculum.  The book was Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, by Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig.  It's considered the book to teach first-level concepts in artificial intelligence.  It's well written and very understandable.

HI (Human Intelligence) begins developing even before a child is born.  The child can recognize sounds in the womb and can (and does) react when certain sounds are heard.  After the child is born, the same sounds heard in the womb are now heard clearly by the infant with many of the same reactions.

Ever notice how an infant will all of a sudden stop and listen to a sound?  The infant hears the sound and checks its memory - it's "knowledge base" - for the sound and reacts accordingly.  Pleasing sounds bring a smile, unpleasing sounds cause a different reaction.

As the child grows, it "learns" by adding additional sounds to it's "knowledge base".  It experiments with motor actuation by first moving limbs, then discovering how to roll over, then crawl, then stand.  All the while, the infant is also hearing and repeating sounds and noticing the reaction to those sounds.  Eventually, the infant "learns" that certain sounds always cause the same reaction - or reaction that is reasonably similar.  The infant adds both the sounds and their reactions to its "knowledge base", and eventually figures out how to manipulate those sounds in ways that are far different than the original sounds.  Adults think this is "so clever", but it's actually the child's learning process being demonstrated.

Companies developing AI in today's market are not generating true AI.  They are populating the AI system's knowledge base - its memory - with predetermined stimuli and response algorithms. Those algorithms are designed for specific purposes: modification of preexisting data to achieve new views of that data (pictures, videos, and sound), using artificial vision to cause specific motor control (driving, assembly line robotics), and the manipulation of other preexisting data to achieve a desired output.

But none of these systems demonstrates the primary purpose of intelligence: to learn.  These systems do not take previously unconsidered data and incorporate it into their knowledge bases.  They can't - and the designers are wise to not do this.  Because these AI systems are incapable of doing the one thing that humans do, the thing that separates the human mind from all other animal minds.

The ability to reason.

And, by reason, I don't mean political or moral.  I mean the ability to understand whether a new piece of knowledge should be incorporated into its knowledge base.  Whether a strangely-designed light pole moving in a strong wind is a human or an object.  Whether a series of words pasted together makes sense even if it is grammatically correct.  Whether those generated sounds claimed to be "music" are pleasing or atonal.  And whether the picture generated is ugly or beautiful.

The current demonstrations of AI are not meant to show AI capabilities but to confuse the observer into thinking that the generated picture, sound, or object are human-generated or not.  In almost every case, it's possible to determine the difference under close examination - but that raises the question why try to confuse reality by a computer-generated fantasy?

But one factor remains: these systems are not generating new ideas or new connections between ideas.  They are merely exercising algorithms developed for a specific purpose. And for now, that purpose seems to be to demonstrate the capabilities of computer systems.

Alan Turing created a test to determine whether a system could demonstrate "artificially intelligent" behavior that would be indistinguishable from human behavior.  His test has been criticized as being "not realistic", but the critics miss the entire point.  If a computer system cannot demonstrate "artificially intelligent" behavior, then it isn't intelligent: it is merely exercising highly advanced algorithms.

The proof remains the non-human system's ability to reason.  And, as yet, none of the so-called AI systems have demonstrated this ability best described as whether, or not, to do something beyond the information stored in their knowledge bases.  And if so... what, then, to do.

... to the shores of ...

Ya gotta wonder why there are so many Americans siding with Muslim extremists and why the Biden administration is deeply bowing both to them and massive numbers of Palestinian "supporters" here in the US.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd guess it goes much further than payoffs to Biden: I'd guess that there are some major pockets of Muslim terrorists - and maybe some nukes - that are being used to blackmail the US into anti-American policies and the weakening of anti-American interests around the world.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, that is...

But then, we've been allowing (and practically importing) anti-American immigrants into the US and allowing them to settle here, and then standing by while they use Constitutionally guaranteed American freedom and liberty to undermine American freedom and liberty.

MIT has recently backed down from expelling violent Muslim protesters on campus because... well - because they'd lose their education visas and would have to leave this country and return home, which the MIT administration wants to prevent. So, by only suspending them for a short time, those Muslim protesters can stay here and continue to disrupt classes and intimidate non-Muslim students for the foreseeable future.

When John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," he was referring to those who would want to destroy this country...

...such as the descendants of the Barbary pirates from Algiers, Tunis, and other Middle East nation-states who were attacking American ships and taking prisoners as slaves in the early 16th century. We even fought a war - the Tripolitan war (ever heard of "Tripoli"?) against these Muslim invaders. (Related: The 1.5 Million White Slaves in North Africa.)

And yet, today, we welcome them in and then wonder why there are so many anti-Americans of Muslim descent here in the US.

We have learned nothing in the past 300 years...

 

Finally, I'm resuming regular posting

 I've been posting to another blog, but it's been taking days for my posts to make it thru the review process and finally get online.  Sometimes, by the time the post shows up, the delay reduces the post's impact.

So, from this point on, I'm going to post here first, and then maybe post to that other blog.

Time for a clean slate

I was always worrisome in my feelings about a two-state solution in Israel.  It always seemed to be so far away as to be almost unreachable.

Israel made many moves toward peace only to be rebuffed and then attacked by Palestinians. "Land for peace!" was what the Palestinians shouted, even as they attacked Israelis in the middle of those very "land for peace" negotiations.

In an effort to trade land for peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, leaving the area under the control of the Palestinian Authority.  In the resulting power vacuum, Palestinians elected Hamas as their political leadership.  When Hamas refused to renounce violence against Israel, the US cut off aid (which has been restored and increased several times since).  Gaza became a launching point for tens of thousands of rocket attacks against Israel by Hamas.

As part of a UN agreement, Jerusalem was split in two. The Palestinians were given half - which included some of the holiest Jewish historical sites, such as the "wailing wall".  Palestinians restricted Israelis from visiting those sites while demanding Israelis obey a host of restrictive policies meant to embarrass and abase Israelis who only wanted to visit those sites in order to pray.

Israel agreed to give up lands inside Israel that the Palestinians declared were "settlements", sometimes no more than a few homes.  Those Israelis were forced to relocate to non-Palestinian lands - within the border of Israel.  "Land for peace", they said.

Things changed this morning.

As of yesterday morning, October 7, 2023, I no longer believe that peace between Israel and Hamas is possible.  This attack, on one of the holiest days of the Jewish year, leads me to finally admit that Hamas has no desire for peace with Israel.  Hundreds of Israelis have been killed, thousands wounded, and yet more taken prisoner or treated inhumanely. Hezbollah, another anti-Israel group, has shelled Israel from Lebanon.  And yet more Palestinian groups from outside Israel are begging to join the fight against peace.

I lay part of the blame for this attack on President Biden.  His latest move, to give Iran "back" 6 billion dollars was probably the catalyst for this attack.  Money is fungible. Iran can now spend its own food budget on development of conventional and nuclear weapons, and get its food budget from elsewhere.  To think otherwise is to be naive and self-delusional.

Much of the civilized world has already made it clear that they support Israel's right to defend itself.  Some nations have said they "stand with Israel".  Others have decried the actions by Hamas.

Hamas has killed, wounded, and captured Americans.  This was a foolhardy attempt to divide America in the misguided belief that a few members of Congress would be vocal in their support of this attack.  Instead, the members of "The Squad" have been either silent or have released tepid statements.

It is time for Israel to wipe the slate clean, take back all of the land it granted to Palestinians in the name of a peace that will never happen, and tell the remaining Palestinians that they are no longer welcome in the State of Israel.  If they wish to stay, then they may stay.  But no longer as citizens with the right to vote (which was always granted to Palestinians who lived in Israel - look it up for yourself).  And if they wish to leave, Israel should provide them safe conduct to its borders.

Finally, I will say that Hamas needs to be wiped off the face of the earth along with their most vocal supporters, whether they claim to be "civilians" or not.  Those who offer support to Hamas, whether it be by fighting with arms or hiding Hamas insurgents are as guilty as those members of Hamas who started this war.  None of them have clean hands, and those with unclean hands can not be permitted to exist within the borders of Israel.

"Land for peace" was tried, and it failed.

The world will loudly condemn Israel for these actions, just as it has loudly condemned Israel for all actions it has ever taken in the search for peace - and just as it has loudly supported anti-Israel forces for actions they have ever taken to destroy Israel.

Enough is enough.

As a nation, we're growing apart

 

Something's coming. I don't think it will be violent and/or bloody, but something's coming.

The US Constitution is a compact agreed to by the individual States. Each State has its own 3 branches of government, passes and enforces its own laws, and can provide for its own "common defense". Each State holds elections for its own political structure. Hence, each State is an independent authority.

Prior to the forming of the United States, John Adams supposedly called Massachusetts "My Country". Each of the 13 original States were "countries" which came together in a common cause.

The Constitution capitalizes the word State to acknowledge the independence of those "countries" that came together to form the United States.

For the second time in this nation's history, that common cause is quickly vanishing, caused, in large part, and both times, by the overreach of the federal government.

We are heading toward another exercise in dissolution. However, this time, the federal government will be unable to call up troops to try to force individual States to remain together.

This time, the dissolution will be the refusal to comply with federal laws that compel behavior or directly conflict with Constitutionally-guaranteed rights as enumerated in its text.

It will be a slow drift apart - and there will be nothing the federal government can do about it.

Like-minded states will form their own compacts and cooperate based on their own best interests.

The dissolution will reduce tensions accordingly. The result may be 4-5 of those independent compacts, each finally able to implement the political controls that they wish. Some will continue to remain representative republics, while others will adopt "democratic socialist" forms of government.

And those in the "democratic socialist" areas will finally have what they want: full control over a compliant population.

I wouldn't be surprised if they built a "retaining wall"...

When excuses ring hollow

Then:

After decades of being treated as less than a man, and after watching friends and supporters have the crap beat out of them merely because they looked different, this man decided to do something about it.  He calmly walked down the street with his supporters, making the point that he and they were no different than others.  By walking peacefully, he demonstrated that he and his supporters were not the problem, and that those who were full of unreasonable hatred were wrong.

He also asked us to judge people by their character - their behavior, their speech, and their actions - and not by simple pigmentation.

Now:

The murder in Minneapolis was the result of a failure of a city government to obey the "3 strike rule": two legitimate complaints about a police officer's violence - whether on or off duty - should result in removal from any duties that require direct interaction with the public, and the third complaint should result in termination without pension or benefits.

The events in Minneapolis are less about the murder of one man by a police officer than it is about a city government's failure to remember that they are public servants and their jobs are to ensure peace and the safety of the public who elected them.

The Minneapolis city government continues in its failure to ensure peace and the safety of the public by putting aside any attempt to maintain even the illusion of law and order.

There is no excuse for looting and arson.  Those who intentionally destroy the property of others while using the excuse "I was angry about an unrelated event" are not deserving of pity or mercy.  They are willingly putting their morals and character aside.  Nobody forces anyone to loot or commit arson.  These are voluntary actions, motivated by greed and hatred, resulting in the damage and destruction of the property and livelihoods of people they do not know.  They put the lie to "we're all in this together" by showing that they stand apart.

That is why I feel that looters and arsonists should be shot on sight.  This is not a racist statement.  I don't care what race, gender, creed, or what that person is wearing.  I'd shoot a bishop in full garb if I saw him stealing a large screen tv from a Best Buy in the middle of a riot.  It needs to be said again: looting and arson are voluntary actions.  A person either decides to commit these crimes or to walk away.  Those who decide to commit the crimes have taken the action to deprive others of their livelihood: does anyone think that the looted Best Buy will reopen anytime soon?  Where will those employees find jobs?  At the other businesses that have been looted and firebombed?

And this is why I condemn mayors and other elected or appointed officials who permit the destruction of property with the excuse "people need to let off steam".  People get angry.  But it is the city's responsibility to ensure that one person's anger does not result in the destruction of another person's property.  Or, as we are already seeing, the full-on attacks or murders of others - whether in uniform or not.

When a mayor abdicates the responsibilities of office, that mayor has violated the trust of the voters and should immediately resign.  To stay in office after ignoring the duties of office is no different than the politicians in "banana republic" countries who, after election, enrich themselves while ignoring any promises they made to "make things better".

The events in Minneapolis should inspire all police departments around the country to re-examine the discipline records of their officers and to immediately implement all stages of the "three strikes rule".

The excuse "this is not the time" is completely wrong: this is the time, and it can be the first step in both healing the rifts between police departments and restoring the trust that they will not permit law enforcement officers to commit infractions of department rules or the law itself.

The time has come for the cleanup - and local police departments can lead the way by example.  And as far as bad cops go: no more excuses.

Guidance is one thing; law is another

Recently, the Board of Health of the City of Nashua NH recommended that the Board of Aldermen approve a new ordinance.  This ordinance, a reaction to the Covid-19 virus, is named Nashua Ordinance O-20-18, "Relative to Face Coverings."  The ordinance may be viewed at https://www.nashuanh.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/6403

Let me begin by saying that if someone wants to wear a mask because they feel that it would protect themselves from others, I’m fine with it.  If someone wants to wear a mask to protect others from themselves, I approve.  These are their personal choices.   

As “guidance”, the ordinance contains several good ideas.  But as a legally enforceable ordinance (obey or pay a fine, or possibly be brought to court), the ordinance fails.  There are far too many deficiencies that act as anti-business measures, and others that cause unnecessary confusion.

Keep in mind that this is a lawful ordinance, written and recommended by the Nashua Board of Health and approved by vote of the Nashua Board of Aldermen.  It therefore can be enforced by the Nashua Police department.  “The letter of the law” is how it must be enforced if it is to be fairly enforced.

So, let’s start with the requirement that every person must wear a mask in almost every circumstance in Nashua.  The City of Nashua will not be providing those masks.  Residents are expected to purchase them or purchase the materials needed to make one, or to use a cloth bandanna or some other non-medical approved material.  But the meaning is clear: purchase or otherwise obtain an object to conform to a new law.  NH RSA 31:39 provides that ordinances are enforceable through the use of legal means, from fines to a court appearance.

The PPACA required individuals to purchase insurance or pay a tax (originally it was a fine, but Justice Roberts would not have approved it if it was a fine).  In December 2019, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit determined that this “individual mandate” was unconstitutional.  Individuals may not be forced through an act of law to purchase something from the private sector.

Thus, the entire ordinance is unconstitutional on its face.  But let’s go further.

The preamble describes a mask as “cloth, fabric, or other soft or permeable material, without holes, that covers only the nose, mouth, and surrounding areas of the lower face.”  There is no specification for the kind of cloth to be used except for “without holes”.  Hence, any cloth – from gauze to nylon – fits this specification as “soft or permeable material, without holes”.  The specification is so imprecise that it fails on all counts to demonstrate how the mask “protects the spread of our respiratory droplets”.

In point of fact, the goal should be stated as “protects against the spread of our respiratory droplets”.  Let’s continue with the analysis.

Rule 2 requires the wearing of a mask in all areas in a business, whether inside or outside. 

This means that a mask must be worn when entering a bank.  Not only is this problematic, but many banks have signs upon entry requiring the removal of hats, sunglasses, and facial coverings.  The reason is obvious: security cameras need to see all of the faces of those entering the bank.

However, this ordinance makes no exceptions for banks.  If a bank asks a customer to remove their mask, the customer is immediately in violation of the ordinance.

The ordinance explicitly states that masks must also be worn inside government buildings.  Hence, a new driver license cannot be issued: the removal of the mask to take the picture would immediately put the new driver in violation of the ordinance.

Barber shops may not trim beards.  Beauty salons and cosmetic counters may not do facial makeovers – including for prospective brides.  And, for that matter, the same brides may not remove their masks during the marriage ceremony for their traditional “first kiss”.

And to make the point even more clear, congregants in the City of Nashua may not receive communion: removing a mask immediately puts them in violation of a city ordinance when they want to exercise a required religious rite.

Rule 3 allows outside seating for customers at restaurants.  However, there is no consideration for customers who, when permitted, would want to sit and eat inside the restaurant.  They must keep their masks on at all times.  This part of the ordinance seems to be aimed specifically at preventing restaurants from allowing customers to eat indoors.

As we can see, the goal as guidance fails when the guidance becomes a law-enforceable ordinance: it is impossible for business to proceed in a normal manner when normal behavior is not possible due to the threat of a fine or a court appearance.

Lastly, this ordinance has no end date, no sunset date, nor a test to determine when it will no longer be enforced.  It “shall continue in effect until rescinded by action of the Board of Health or the Board of Aldermen”.  Without an end date, a quorum of either board is required to permit normal business interaction to resume in the City of Nashua.  Not even the Governor of New Hampshire can rescind this order.  Hence, “normal” will not return in Nashua NH until the local city government determines that “normal” may resume.

The point here is a simple one: “Government is a hammer – and to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”  The ordinance contains excellent ideas as guidance.  But it removes the ability of business owners to determine how they do business inside their own premises and removes individual choice.  Instead, it is anti-business and anti-choice at its core.  This is not “the American way”.

There was a protest against this ordinance outside Nashua City Hall on the evening of May 24th.  Among the dozens who showed up to show their disappointment at the Board of Aldermen and the Mayor was a veteran holding a sign that read “This is NOT why I served.”

Reversal of attitude

Any political discussion about current events must start by conceding that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" don't have much meaning anymore, especially in today's pandemic-panicked society.

Let's explore this a bit.

It's interesting to see how "those on the left" have become the pro-government disciplinarians willing to force their will upon The People, and "those on the right" have become the anti-government libertarians who want to live their lives free of government controls.

One would think that a "liberal" would loosen the rules, and a "conservative" would tighten the rules.

But today's "liberals" - "the Left" - want more government, and "conservatives" - "the Right" - want less government.

That's the "reversal of attitude".

Looking at modern American history, especially the years during the Vietnam war, this is exactly the opposite of what I'd have expected.

There was a time when liberals fought for freedom against government regulation.  Protests.  Marches.  Demands for less government control.  "My body my choice".  And so forth.  Liberals used to be the "free love" generation.  Not any more.

Liberals now want control over the behavior of everyone and are using "the pandemic" as an excuse.  They demand that everyone changes their behavior so that they, the liberals, can feel safe.

I understand their fear.  Nobody wants to get sick.  The liberal-controlled media and their medical "experts" have scared the bejeezus out of everyone around the world.  "The Pandemic of 2020" has become big news, and the resulting panic caused the almost complete collapse of the world's economies.  All for fear of getting sick.

This is not to say that Covid-19 is "the flu".  It's much more serious than "the flu": more communicable, a longer incubation time, and a much longer recovery time.  But the survival rate for those with reasonably healthy immune systems is extremely high.  Well over 98% of those known to come down with it survived.  And that's only those who tested positive for it.  We don't know how many had a mild case and were not tested, or how many developed antibodies but were entirely asymptomatic.

(Let's not discuss elderly and/or those with immune compromised systems.  That's a discussion for another time.)

We all know that liberals live by their mantra "never let a crisis go to waste".  They use that as the excuse to force some truly ridiculous rules upon the citizenry.  Their latest mantra is "because of the pandemic".

And some of these "new rules" are truly silly and counterproductive.  Like painting arrows on sidewalks so you can only walk one direction on one side of a street, and the other direction on the other side.  Or telling people to walk only on the wet sand at the beach and not the dry sand.  Or drawing circles on park lawns to enforce social distancing.  Or to not swim in the ocean.  Go ahead and google - these are all true.

But don't question liberals.  Those who do are publicly shamed into silence and then are accused of being tantamount to murderers.  Facts that don't fit the narrative are ignored.  Once again, "the science is settled" because liberals say so.  And any conservative who disagrees is a baby killer who wants to starve grandma and then throw her off a cliff.

Everyone who asks the question "show me the facts that prove these restrictions work", and who points to recent studies that show that Covid-19 does not survive on surfaces for several days (those were the original predictions for the virus under ideal conditions) must be evil and must want you to die.  Because "the Left" says so.

Others wonder what will happen when the next virus hits - and it will.  It's inevitable.  Will liberals once again coerce human behavior to try to "prevent" sickness?

To paraphrase a line from a famous movie, "Fear will keep the local communities in line.  Fear of this coronavirus."

Meanwhile, conservatives try to warn against the creeping increase in government power and are thus shut out of the conversation by the media who, rather than "speak truth to power", are hiding truth from The People.

What is the truth?  The truth is that Covid-19 is not the harbinger of the apocalypse.  It is survivable.  This makes it "yet another disease" that mankind will have to live with.

It's just interesting to note that those who want the freedom to do as they wish have become willing to coerce others by means of government into obeying their orders.

How... Orwellian.

Voting by mail - a proposal

Voting by mail?  Really?  Sure.  Why not?

But let's do it right.  Let's do it in a way that's secure and verifiable.  Let's do it in a way that mostly eliminates fraud.  Let's do it in a way that could even support voting from your own web browser.

Let's use "multifactor authentication".

How many of us do online banking?  Ever notice how the bank will occasionally send a text to your phone before it allows you to access your account?  Notice how those "validation codes" only last for a short period of time and can only be used once?  That's "multifactor authentication".

Briefly, cyber security requires at least 2 verifiable factors: who you are, what you have, and what you know.  "Who you are" is your name.  "What you have" is a one-time validation code.  "What you know" is your password.

Now let's apply this to voting.

Every state has its own rules for voter registration, but most states require some kind of proof that you are who you say you are.  It could be a driver license, or an electric/water bill, or a tax bill, or some combination of all three.  Some pieces of information that provide verification of your identity.

Let's add two new pieces of information to your voter registration.

The first is a state-provided voter identification number.  No, not a "voter ID".  Just a number that the state keeps on file that relates directly to your identity.  It could be a driver license number, or a power/water account number (they are unique: one per household).  Or a property tax identification code (again, one per household).  But something unique to the individual that proves residence.  In the case of multiple voters in the same address, an electric bill account number is sufficient.

This is "what you have".  Something that shows you legally reside in the voting district.

Now let's add "what you know".  This is something that you provide to the voter registration authority.  It is something that only you know: something that you know that others should not know.  Think of this as a password or a validation code.  And, just like a bank's validation code, it can only be used once.

Here's how mail in voting would work:

You would be mailed an empty ballot by the town registrar (or whomever is in charge of mailing out ballots).  The ballot would have your name on it, but both the state-provided and voter-provided data is blank.

You fill in the ballot.  You enter both pieces of unique information: the data that the state gave you, and the data that you gave the registrar.

Then you put the ballot in the mail.

The ballot is received from the city.  The state-provided data is verified, the voter-provided data is verified, and the vote is counted.

Now, here's the anti-fraud protection: As soon as the vote is processed, the voter-provided data is deleted.  The voter-provided data was a one-time validation code.  Once used, it cannot be used again.  Thus, no other ballots with the same state/voter data can be counted.

All mail-in ballots must be processed at least 5 working days before the election.  If a ballot was sent out and nothing was received, the city would send a postcard or an email to the voter to let them know that "a ballot was not processed" with their data.  This provides "validation": verification that a vote was NOT received.  This allows the voter the time to appear at the polling place and physically cast a vote as long as the state/voter data has not been used.

In all cases, the same state/voter data cannot be used twice in the same election.

Lastly, the city provides a way to easily add a new voter-provided data item for the next election.  It could be via a form enclosed in an envelope, or a fold-over postcard, or a web page.

But in all cases, only one vote can be cast by one person, and only in a district where the voter has verified legal residence.

Multifactor authentication can provide a way for those who want to vote by mail to do so safely, in a validated manner, and in a way that mostly prevents fraud.

We're in the 21st century.  Let's use 21st century tools to allow people to easily and securely cast a vote - and let's motivate more people to vote.

A "New Normal"? Um... no.

A huge number of scolds (those who persistently nag or criticize) have been loudly telling everyone that there is a need for a "new normal" due to the current virological outbreak.  That this "new normal" will require the perpetual wearing of masks, the endless need for "social separation", and the constant washing of hands and avoidance of touching faces.

Some of those scolds have degrees in medicine, or have been appointed to "boards" or "agencies" because of their advanced training and/or education in virology or epidemiology, or some other branch of medicine dealing with disease.  Politicians do what these scolds tell them to do, and thus we end up with ordinances and health regulations that sometimes make sense - and sometimes don't.  Examples of both abound - I'm not going to list them here.

I won't argue about what causes non-genetically inherited disease, or how diseases are transmitted, or whether susceptibility to disease is based on some kind of behavior or some other environmental factor.  I don't have either the education or the authority to do so.

However, I am a student of human nature.  Some human behaviors are deeply rooted and have not changed in tens of thousands of years of human evolution.

We are social animals.  Since our earliest times in caves, we have lived in groups.  We touch each other both for support and affection.  We sit together - sometimes very closely.  We talk to each other, eat together, play together, and spend time just being around each other.

We have suffered pandemics throughout history.  Human core behaviors just keep returning afterward.

The Black Plague killed almost half of Europe.  And humans returned to their basic behavior patterns afterward.

The Spanish Flu caused widespread deaths and devastation.  And humans returned to their basic behavior patterns afterward.

And now, we are experiencing the Covid-19 virual outbreak.  Compared to previous pandemics, this one is relatively mild.  It has not caused the worldwide deaths of millions and probably will not be the huge "end of the world" threat that some have promised.

Once again, humans will recognize that "this too shall pass" and will return to basic human behavior.

Yes, the scolds will continue to demand that humans change their behaviors to satisfy the latest trend in disease avoidance techniques, because those techniques change over time.  Not necessarily because a change is needed in those techniques, but because none of those past techniques have been completely and totally successful in eradicating disease, whether it's an old disease that we have lived with for a long time, or a "novel coronavirus" that has recently been discovered.

Bacteria can be killed with the proper antibacterial agents.  But viruses are different.  They are rarely "cured".  Instead, methods are used to improve human resistance to a viral attack.  Immunizations do not cure: they only help the body to develop its own antibodies against the disease.

The latest professional scolds are telling us that we must adapt to a "new normal".  They want us to believe that wearing face masks, social distancing, and the avoidance of human contact are all part of that "new normal".  For them, it is yet another attempt to control the transmission of a disease.

Some people will follow those recommendations for an extended period of time, but they will eventually realize that they are the few who do.  For them, their self-imposed "new normal" will last a while longer.

But for the rest of us, "normal" will return - just as it has returned after the end of every previous pandemic, epidemic, war, or other disaster, whether natural-caused or man-caused.

It's only human.

Sine Qua Non COVID-19

"Sine qua non".

In legal parlance, it introduces the "but for" legal concept.

To quote from FARLEX: "In order to be liable in negligence, the defendant's conduct must constitute the proximate cause, or direct cause, of the plaintiff's injury. The concept of proximate cause encompasses both legal cause and factual cause, and the "but for" rule pertains to the latter. It is also referred to as the sine qua non rule, which means "without which not," or an indispensable requirement or condition. The "but for" rule is a rule of exclusion, in that the defendant's conduct is not a cause of the event, if the event would have occurred without it."

Why do I bring this up?

(The following is very long and may make some people very uncomfortable.  It may seem heartless - but it isn't meant to be.  It may seem cruel - but it isn't meant to be.  It is meant as analysis - nothing more.  And as unfortunate as it may seem, sometimes analysis appears heartless and cruel - even though it isn't.)

==

In a recent briefing, Dr. Birx said (can't find the exact quote) that any deaths involving COVID-19 are being counted as "COVID-19 deaths".

We also know, again from Dr. Birx, that those with preexisting medical conditions appear to be the most susceptible to the damaging effects of the COVID-19 virus.

But what we don't know is how many of those deaths would have occurred solely due to COVID-19, or - to put it more succinctly - how many of those deaths involved COVID-19 as the "proximate cause".

To make it even simpler: how many people with "pre-existing conditions" would have died from other similar medical conditions - conditions that severely attack an already impaired system - such as influenza, pneumonia, or non-COVID ailments?

Ok, let's reverse it.  Removing those who died due to complications arising from pre-existing conditions that had already weakened their systems, how many would have lived "but for" COVID-19?  How many previously healthy individuals died solely because of infection from COVID-19?

We're hearing some really distressing numbers about deaths.  But we're not getting the full picture.  ANY death due to a disease is tragic, but it would be even more tragic to blame a death on the wrong cause - or, in this case, to hold COVID-19 responsible for deaths that were (sorry) inevitable.

Governor Cuomo recently said the same thing.  He noted that all deaths are tragedies, but there were some people that could not be saved "no matter how hard we tried" (his exact words).  If some of those people had (as an example) COPD, they already had seriously impaired lungs and already had difficulty breathing (some are on oxygen all the time).  COVID-19 was a contributory cause of their deaths... but was it the primary cause of their deaths?

So the question is:  "if not for" COVID-19, how many of those counted as COVID-19 deaths would have fully recovered to their previous state of health?

Yes, it seems cruel to ask, but it's important to know the answer.  Here's why:

If 30% (just a guess, but a reasonable guess) of those who died would have died from another contributory cause (influenza, pneumonia, etc), then the number of COVID-19 specific deaths was inflated by 30%.  This brings the COVID-19 specific death rate down.  That would be good news in a time of nothing but bad news.

Consider this as well: CDC numbers show 30,000 to 60,000 deaths annually from "the flu" (yes, just plain "flu" - influenza).  Again, these deaths are tragic but probably not preventable due to the age and medical conditions of those who died.

We are not currently counting the number of people who are dying from only "the flu" (influenza).  That count has been suppressed because of the severity of the current COVID-19 outbreak.

How many of those who would have died from complications due to "the flu" died due to complications from COVID-19?  Is the number similar, or are there two "tracks" here: one specific to COVID-19, and one specific to influenza?  Are we keeping track of the deaths separately, or are we lumping all of the deaths together?

Moreover, have deaths due to "the flu" been reduced by "social distancing"?  Are those who might have succumbed to "the flu" still alive (thank goodness) because we are now more aware of the need for washing our hands, maintaining cleanliness, and preventing unnecessary contact that might spread non-COVID-19 germs and viruses?

THIS IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW.  We need to know exactly how dangerous COVID-19 is, especially considering the efforts we have taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  These efforts range from social distancing to the speedy creation of new testing machines and methodologies, the evaluation of existing pharmaceuticals for possible treatment, and the overwhelming pressure placed on the economy (people who aren't working can't pay for food, rent, insurance, or any of the other necessities of life).

==

When the immediate crisis has passed and we are able to finally begin the process to restart our lives, these questions should be answered if only to understand how to truly measure the impact on our lives for the next pandemic... and, to be sure, there will be another one.  It's inevitable in a world where bacteriological and virological agents can travel to the other side of the world in less than a day.

Is this how tyranny begins?

The governor of NH, Chris Sununu, has joined other governors of nearby states by closing restaurants and bars in the entire state of NH for an indeterminate time (currently until April 7 - but that could change).  Restaurants and bars may only provide take-out and/or delivery service.

Yes, COVID-19 is scary.  I'm not denying it, nor am I minimizing the danger we face from it.

BUT I have not yet been able to identify the law or statute that empowers the governor to order private businesses to change their business model or to close if they cannot adhere to his order.  Some restaurants "on the edge" will go out of business.  There doesn't appear to be a remedy to permit any of these businesses to recover their losses due to the governor's order.  Those that survive will be operating on shoestring budgets for a long time and may have to lay off employees merely to survive.

If the goal of this order is "social distancing", then I ask "what are the next businesses to be shut down?"  Will personal services - barbers, hair salons, acupuncture, chiropractic, etc - be next?  If the goal is to prevent people from "touching" each other or being in close proximity to each other, are supermarkets and movie theaters the next targets?

This isn't sarcasm.  This is deadly serious.

This is how tyranny begins.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  Those words were spoken by Benjamin Franklin.  Granted, the context was a different, but the question still stands: how many freedoms are we willing to surrender to attain the illusion of immunity from a disease?

And when the next crisis comes - whether real or something invented by the government - will we allow our governors to use authoritarian means to shut down all commerce "for the sake of safety"?

COVID-19 is a novel vaccine, meaning that we don't have an effective way to defer (immunize) or cure it.  The death rate is high, but it isn't the Black Plague or the Spanish Flu.  Unlike some "experts" in the media and doctors who are not experts in virology or communicable deases, I don't believe that "millions will die".  We may well see the death of thousands, but thousands die every year from influenza.

So, I ask the question again: what law or statute grants the governor of NH the power to arbitrarily order the closure of some businesses in NH, and what are the limits to that power?

What if the media itself is the problem?

(As I write this, at least one other Republican Senator is wavering on whether to vote for calling witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.)

Senator Lamar Alexander announced that he won’t vote for witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump.  He called the current impeachment proceedings “highly partisan” and that it is “tearing the country apart”.  He also feels that the highly partisan nature of the impeachment, both on the House and Senate sides, sets a bad precedent for the future.  The reports are that, without Senator Alexander, there may not be enough votes to call for witnesses.

“tearing the country apart”.  He’s only half right.  It isn’t the current process that’s tearing the country apart.  It’s the overwhelmingly misleading news reports and “analysis” that are failing to fully inform The People of the flaws and one-sided nature of the House proceedings that led to two textually-vague articles of impeachment.

The “press” has sometimes been called “the 4th estate” because, as an organ that implements a Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom, the press has incredible power.  It can shape both national opinion and politics by how and what it reports to The People.  The problem is that the press has failed in its responsibility to exercise “due diligence” far too often since the establishment of The Republic.  Instead of acting as a check against government to ensure that governmental power is not being misused, it has used its own power to interfere with the workings of government.  It has too often had a knee-jerk reaction to a story without following up whether the story was true.  And it has failed to correct the record when it - the "press" - is proven wrong.

In the movie “All The President’s Men”, the executive editor of the WAPO – Ben Bradley – refuses to print any of the rumors about the Watergate incident until Woodward and Bernstein have confirmed those rumors with second sources.  As well as finding witnesses and second sources, they have documents with names on them as well as eye-witnesses to actual conversations that took place, conversations that discuss actual crimes.  Eventually, even some of the accused members of the Nixon staff pled guilty, meaning that they did it and they knew they did it.

Ever since Watergate, it seems that every reporter on the Washington “beat” is looking for the next “big breaking bombshell” story.  Something big enough to earn a Pulitzer.  Every unsourced (meaning “anonymous” and thus unverified and sometimes unverifiable) rumor is printed as fact.  Every “news agency” is looking for a story to scoop all of the other “news agencies”.   Far too often, the “scoop” ends up being a nothingburger, a lie, or a huge distortion.  Instead of truth, the press prints speculation disguised as opinion.  Reporters bury the lede in the 20th paragraph of a 21 paragraph story.

There is no more due diligence, no more requirements for a “second source”.  Ben Bradley may be rolling in his grave over the lack of verification in today’s “press”.

“Because that’s what I think” is an insufficient standard to formally accuse anyone of a crime.  In court, what you think is not evidence: what was done is evidence.  And if you didn’t actually see it happen, your testimony is worthless – and can be thrown out.  The courts require due diligence, and the presiding judge can stop the proceedings if he/she believes that the prosecution is gaming the system merely for a conviction.  But in the 21st century, a media opinion writer’s “here’s what I think” takes on the imprimatur of fact.  The press gets away with it because it is relying on its own history and standing as justification to publish, and because the Constitution says that that Congress shall make no law "...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Freedom without responsibility: this should be the motto of today's press.

“The Newspaper Of Record” may have meant something in the early 20th century when the NYT was faced with printing facts to defeat the lies and deceptions of Hurst's “yellow sheets”.  And it may have meant something when the NYT and WAPO were fighting to publish the Pentagon Papers – actual printed evidence of corruption in the DOD - against the orders of the White House.  And it may have meant something during Watergate, when actual crimes were being investigated and “deep throat” was pointing Woodward and Bernstein toward actual corruption in the White House.

But something happened in 2008.  The election of Barack Obama changed everything.  The press had pushed “the chosen one” into the White House and were ready sell their souls and use all of their power to protect him and his administration.  The press knew about “Fast and Furious” and stayed silent.  They knew that the IRS was being used as a weapon against political enemies and stayed silent.  They knew of the numerous accusations of corruption in the Obama administration and stayed silent.  Why?  Because they had chosen Obama.  They were protecting “one of their own”.

Then along comes the most unlikely of candidates for President: Donald J. Trump, who is a creature of media.  He understands the media and how it can be used.  Trump begins to use one of the media's favorite social media platforms… and the mainstream media watches their carefully self-crafted reputation begin to crumble.  They use all of their power to try to stop Trump from being elected: everything from false accusations of sexual misconduct to replays of “locker room” talk to accusations of corruption in his past businesses.

But Trump is elected President – against the full-throated opposition of the press.

Trump immediately starts “pulling back the covers”, “turning on the lights”, and Tweeting about what he’s finding… and the press realizes that they no longer have control or influence over the highest official in American government.  So, the press turns its eye toward the public.  It violates Bradlee’s “get verification before we print” standard… and quickly begins to lose the public’s confidence.  The harder the media fights to regain the public’s confidence by reporting false evils about Trump, the faster they continue to lose the public’s confidence.  They enlist members of Congress to assist them ...

… and here we are, nearing the end of a process that began with nothing more than rumor and innuendo, consisting of nothing more than rumor and innuendo, with a set of impeachment articles based on nothing more than rumor and innuendo.

With at least one Senator now walking away from demanding witnesses that the House never called, and with at least one other wavering, Trump will be acquitted.  The media will go absolutely nuts, accusing the Left of betraying them, of being unable to prove the unprovable, and to convict without hard evidence.

I have a strange feeling that this episode – the attempt to impeach the president without a prosecutable crime – may be a turning point.  Either some in the press will begin the process of self-examination and ask “why didn’t we do our own unbiased investigation” and return to printing fact-based, verified, and unbiased reports , or some in the press will go even deeper into recrimination and accusation, thus proving – even to their friends – that they are irredeemably biased and untrustworthy.

Either way, it’ll be good for the country.  I’m hoping that the current press destroys itself.  This could actually free the public to find fact-based media reporters who can point back and show how “the press” corrupted itself in its own chase for political power.

Dazed and Confused

I have news for the MSM and the Left: the reason that there is such “confusion and indecision” about impeachment is that there is no clear-cut path to a legitimate and identifiable Constitutional offense.  Most Americans may not have the elitist penchant for barely connected and remotely-related nuance, but they can tell when they’re hearing a used-car salesman trying to make a deal.  Meanwhile, the attempt to distract attention by claiming “Nothing to see here” only attracts attention and makes people want to look closer.

Democrats think that their base’s indignation at Trump’s extremely boorish behavior is sufficient reason to justify any action to remove him from office – or to at least inflict traditionally political wounds in an attempt to “teach him a lesson”.

But we’re dealing with Trump, who isn’t a traditional politician and who doesn’t have political ambitions.  The politicians who such deep-seated hate for Trump seem to forget that he already occupies the top spot in American politics – and he did it on the basis of his own popularity without "climbing the political ladder".

"Political wounds"? Why would Trump possibly care about being “politically wounded” when he still has full Constitutional authority over the Executive branch?

When the Constitutionally mandated basis for impeachment – high crimes and misdemeanors - needs to be twisted into a confusion of pretzel-logic “justifications” for a non-criminal offense...

When the actions taken by a President mirror previous actions taken by high government (and elected) officials still currently serving in the Government...

When the MSM stops being a voice for the people and starts being a voice for one political party…

…that’s when you begin to clearly see what lies ahead.

The Senate will now take the baton in this meaningless impeachment exercise based on "charges" that reflect nothing more than a deep dislike for the current President.  Every president has been accused of "abuse of power" by the opposition party when the opposition party disagrees with the President's exercise of his plenary powers.  The charge "abuse of power" is thus meaningless, and using it as a means to impeach a president reduces impeachment from a serious charge to a joke.

Meanwhile, and as The People stand by and watch without doing anything about it, the United States continues the downward race leading to an inevitable outcome: the eventual dissolution of the Republic.

The descent became even more obvious during Bush 41’s presidency and continued during the Clinton and Bush presidencies.  Then came Obama’s actions to “fundamentally change” the American experience and destroy the underpinning of both the American economy and the republic itself.  The hope was that Hillary would finish the job – but she lost the election to an unexpected interloper.

Trump is hated because he interrupted the “fundamental change” and gave some Americans a brief respite to look around and finally see what was happening.  But the process was already well underway and supported by a majority of Americans who were taught to think that America is evil and must be destroyed.

America is done.  It’s been done for a few decades.  The only difference is that the depth of the rot is only now being seen.  Too late, tho:  the rot goes too deep to be fixed.

Nobody wins in a domestic argument

"President Donald J. Trump is going to abandon our friends and leave them to be killed in the streets by a vastly superior force."

Translation: President Donald J. Trump is withdrawing US troops from Syria, where we have been providing military support to only one side in a domestic dispute that has been going on for centuries.  This makes him "Orange Man Bad".

OTOH, we are bound by NATO treaty - a treaty approved by the Senate and signed into law - to support the other side in that same domestic dispute.  Turkey became a NATO member in 1952, long before its most recent fall (dive?) into Islamic authoritarianism.  But we are sworn by treaty to defend it - not attack it.

So, according to the Democrats and the MSM, we're abandoning our friends, the Kurds - with whom we have no written agreement - to support a "frenemy" named Turkey - with whom we have a senate-ratified treaty.

If we want to discuss Orange Man Bad's actions toward (against?) the Kurds, let's step back a bit and see what happened in the recent past in Bashar Assad's Syria.  Let's remember that Assad dropped poison gas on his own population while President Obama was in office.  President Obama publicly announced that the use of chemical weapons was a "red line" and that using those weapons would result in some kind of punishment.  But, to appease Russia and thus work toward the JCPOA (aka the Iranian "deal"), President Obama took no action against Syria.  He also took no action to help the Kurds.

To break an untenable and quickly failing stalemate, President Trump sent American troops into Syria to go after ISIS strongholds.  After destroying those strongholds and taking thousands of prisoners, he announced that the US would be withdrawing troops from Syria and that the Kurds - some of whom had fought alongside American troops - would be taking charge of the prisoners (some of whom were also Kurds).  We would leave some military advisers in place, but would withdraw most American troops from the area.

Now, the same politicians who demanded that we not get involved in Syria, but supported the "boots on the ground" to attack ISIS, are demanding that we stay involved in Syria.  Their excuse?  "We are abandoning our friends."

Um, no.  We aren't "abandoning friends" - we are leaving a perpetual war zone.

President Trump asked, rhetorically, whether we should be involved in a perpetual war "until the end of time".  He was completely correct to ask that question.  The Middle East was rife with internecine battles for centuries, long before Israel was created, and it will continue to be a war zone as long as Sunni and Shiite Muslims are at each other's throats (as they have been for centuries).  The presence of US troops won't stop this: in fact, US troops have become targets and have been killed all over the Middle East because they seen as interventionists and not peacemakers.

We - the United States - may be the most powerful free nation in history, but we - the United States - cannot be the world's policeman.  In truth, that's the job of the United Nations, which does have an armed force (the "white helmets" and "blue helmets").  If the general consensus of the United Nations is that these wars should end, then the United Nations should be the organization to enforce the peace.

But it is time for the United States to withdraw from active-fire zones where centuries-old hatred still results in firefights - sometimes between different members of the same family.

Withdraw from Syria first.

Then withdraw from Afghanistan.

Then withdraw from other Middle Eastern countries where Americans are seen as viable targets.

We should maintain a presence there in case American forces are needed, but it should be in non-combat operations in a frenemy country, such as Kuwait.

But until it is abundantly clear that we have an overriding national interest in being the world's policeman, and until the expenses of those operations are defrayed by the rest of the world, it makes sense for the US to reevaluate whether it makes sense to spend American money - and spill American blood - in an area of the world where "perpetual wars" are the way of life.

"A Republic... if you can keep it."

Recently, Hillary Clinton has been complaining - once again - about losing the 2016 election.  She has been making various claims that her candidacy was sabotaged, or that people didn't pay attention to the evils of her primary opponent, or that she won the "popular vote" and would be President if it wasn't for that nasty Electoral College.

Sorry, Ms. Clinton, but none of those assumptions hold true - for one simple reason:

The United States is not a Democracy.  It is a Republic.

There are various memes about a Democracy being "two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner" or "the majority voting on what to take away from the minority".  Aside for the ironic nature of those memes, the basic truth is that a Democracy can enable a majority to act in a tyrannical manner against the minority.  A Republic can't.

The Founders were wise enough to know that a pure Democracy would be a failure if implemented in an environment where each of the original 13 Colonies had its own customs, economies, and products.  They knew that forcing some of the Colonies to submit to the demands of other Colonies was a recipe for an inter-Colonial war (which actually happened in the mid-1800s, but that discussion is for another time).

Instead, The Founders designed a "federalism" system of government (remember, we are a "federation of States").  Each State would provide its own State-level governing structure.  The citizens of each State would elect Representatives to their State-level government.  The citizens of each State would also elect Representatives to the central Federal government as well.

The intention was to allow each State to implement laws that it felt were good for its citizens, and that the Federal Representatives would implement laws that all of the States could agree on.  The laws of each State would only affect the citizens of each State, but the laws passed by the Federal government would have supremacy over the actions of every State.

Since this is a Republic, how could a Federal chief executive be elected in such a way that the majority could not completely overwhelm the minority, and where the minority could defeat a tyrannical majority?

The Electoral College was the solution.  Here, "electors" from each state, based on the number of Representatives and Senators to that state, would elect the President.  In this form, a state with a huge population would be no more powerful than many smaller states bound together.

This idea works because the President is the chief law enforcement officer of Federal laws- but has no power over State laws.  He is also empowered to enact or veto Federal bills - a "check" on the power of the Legislature.

The President is not empowered to change State law, nor is he empowered to change Federal law.  Hence, the electors from each State must cooperate to determine who "runs" the Federal government.  The Founders solved that problem by using the same rules as the rest of government: the members of the Electoral College, each representing their own State, elect their own Representative - the "President of the United States".

It's actually a very clever system and one where no individual, group of individuals, or outside agency - such as Russia - can shift an election one way or the other.

We are a Republic, and the Electoral College enforced the same rules of the Republic

Now, Ms. Clinton wishes to eliminate the intent of the Founders by changing the most important aspect of the Federal government from a Republic to a Democracy.

This is the lip of the slippery slope.  If we begin to change the Constitution - the "rules" for the United States - we could destroy the United States.

Ms. Clinton is not happy that she lost the election.  I suppose that's only natural.  But changing the Constitution because you aren't happy that you lost an election?

Perhaps, Ms. Clinton, you were unable to convince citizens of several states to vote for you instead of your opponent.  Perhaps you counted too much on States that supported your candidacy and not enough on states that were "unsure".  Perhaps you depended too much on "status quo" politics when your opposing candidate played according to different - but entirely legal - rules.

In any event, you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the tearing down the current form of government because you depended too much on the "popular vote" and not enough on the Electoral College.

One last thing: if there was "interference" in the 2016 election, that interference would have had to be so extensive and so widespread that it would be obvious to a blind person.  It wouldn't be hidden from view and only seen through cracks and crevices by only those who make improbable connections between unrelated events.

You legitimately lost the election because there were sufficient States, and thus Electoral College members, who declined to support you.  And as I have explained, it had nothing to do with the "popular vote".

18 Years Later

My second cousin worked in the Woolworth building, a block north and a block east of Two World Trade Center - which is across the street from where one of the towers stood (the "north" tower). He was on the subway on his way to work when the train suddenly stopped and an announcement was made that there was an explosion at the World Trade center. It was election day and he had just voted in the primary, otherwise he would have been in his building - which suffered some damage when the towers fell.

My daughter was mad at me the previous week: "You're so unfair!" I hadn't allowed her to take a bus to NYC to meet with some of the faculty members of Boston's School of the Museum of Fine Arts. They were scheduled to have a "meet and greet" brunch on September 11, 2001 ...

... in the Top of the World restaurant at the World Trade Center.

She's not mad at me any more.

For me, 9/11/2001 is a day with mixed emotions. Anger and sadness that so many were killed or hurt, and thankfulness that my family remained safe.

Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a target.  A previous attempt to bring them down 10 years earlier using a car bomb wasn't successful, although it did destroy much of one of the underground parking lots.

Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a symbol of America's financial and economic strength, and that there were those in the world who hated us and them for what they represented.

Clinton treated multiple terrorist attacks as criminal acts, not as terrorist attacks.  Because of this, investigations were relegated to the local authorities instead of federal agencies.  Without calling these multiple attacks "terrorism", no agency or authority was tasked with "connecting the dots".

Post-9/11 recriminations ran rife with attacks against President Bush for not preventing the attack, even though the information about "airplanes being used as weapons to attack American targets" was so nonspecific that it was useless.  Questions were asked why President Clinton did not "take out Bin Laden" previously.  Accusations flew back and forth about emergency services being unable to communicate effectively.  Some in Congress blamed the Bush administration for "not connecting the dots" when the previous Clinton administration had not demonstrated the need to do so - and hadn't "connected the dots" either.

Some even ridiculed President Bush for not angrily racing out of a classroom during the attack.  He  had been reading a book to kindergarten children.Would frightening the children have solved a thing? The attack had already taken place, every plane in flight was ordered to land at the closest airport after the report of Flight 93 being hijacked, and Vice President Cheney was ready to give orders to Air Force fighters to shoot down any plane refusing to land.

18 years have passed.

In my opinion, we haven't learned a thing.  The proof is our failure to take actions to protect our nation since 9/11 and the proof that America is no longer protected by "ocean borders on either side".

We haven't strengthened our power transmission systems against EMP or other attack.

We haven't fully secured our southern and northern borders to prevent incursions (look at the statistics - some illegal entrants are from the Middle East).

We haven't significantly improved our methods to inspect goods received by container vessels at our multiple ports (marginal improvements, yes - but too many items still make it through the border).

We haven't reassessed our foreign policy to determine where the US military should be involved and where the US shouldn't even get involved.

These are only a few of the "open holes" in our nation's security.  Forums already exist where the question of national security are being legitimately discussed and where possible answers are being proposed.

For decades, we have paid attention to issues that some believe are necessary to demonstrate "who we are".  In many of the "who we are" arguments, some have argued against a strong military capable of defending America because "who we are" should not include using the military. Ever. At. All.  Even when necessary.  Some have even argued that we shouldn't defend America because this nation doesn't deserve to exist.

Maybe Washington is keeping itself occupied with nonsense issues because the big issues - the ones that need to be solved to actually protect America - are SO big and SO hard to solve that both sides are afraid to take the first move... and be accused by the other side of being "provocative".

9/11 both tore this nation apart and brought it together.  We were one nation for a short time - but only for a short time.  And then politicians on both sides of the aisle decided that "playing games" was more important than defending the nation.

Are we back where we were on 9/10/2001?

No point of no return

The comment du jour is that, as far as climate change is concerned, we’ve passed the point of no return.

The term “point of no return” is defined – in navigational terms – as the point along a route where the distance forward to the destination is now shorter than the distance back to the point of departure.  The point where you might as well keep going 'cuz - as the saying goes - "there's no going back".

If we’ve reached the “point of no return” climate-wise, then we’re reached the point where we can no longer return the Earth to a pristine “not affected by humankind” climate.

Taking this one step further, if we have reached the “point of no return” climate-wise, then there is nothing we can do.  Nothing. At. All.  We’re screwed.  Incapable of doing anything to fix it.  Humans are on their way to extinction, along with all of the other animal life on the planet.

The analogy is like being in a plane that has lost all power and is going to crash and nothing anyone can do will stop it.  This leaves you with a choice: you can spend your last moments screaming your head off in terror, or you can calmly reach for the drinks tray and get a serious load on.  Either way, it’s over and you know it.  Die with dignity?  Gimme a break.

If the environment has really passed the “point of no return”, then any attempt to clean shit up is useless.  Ya might as well stop worrying and get a gas-sucking big V8.  Or heat your home to 78 degrees in the middle of winter with your pellet stove.  Or get a camper and empty your black water tank all over the highway.  Remember: it’s over – and there’s nothing you can do about it.

In the 1959 film “On The Beach”, a US submarine arrives in post-apocalyptic Australia.  Nuclear fallout is wiping out human life around the earth and there’s no hope for a future (yeah, a really depressing film).  Some people give their whole families – including their children – suicide pills.  Others spend days in prayer in front of churches, hoping against hope for a miracle that will never come.  Others just sit and stare at the clouds in deep depression.

But a few hardy souls decide to do the stuff they’ve always wanted to do - but never did.  One of the protagonists enters a last car race with his rarely-used perfect-condition collectible speedster.  His reasoning? “Why not!”  It’s over.  Might as well enjoy your last moments on earth.

If we’ve reached the “point of no return” climate-wise, then it’s over.  Might as well enjoy our last moments on earth.  Why not?  If there’s nothing we can do about it, why not do whatever we want to do?

Unless, of course, the climate “point of no return” actually doesn’t exist, and the entire idea of a climate “point of no return” is entirely false and only exists in the mad fantasies of fear-crazed control freaks.  And if the well-publicized climate “point of no return” doesn’t really exist and it’s all just a scare tactic, what else are those fear-crazed control freaks lying about?

Oh, the guy in the car race… wins.  As if it really matters anyway: who’s ever gonna see the trophy?