A Complicated World

A few years ago, I was walking back from a meeting on the Hill with a female colleague of mine and heard some guy holler at her from a passing truck.  It didn’t quite register what it was all about until I turned to my colleague to see her roll her eyes.

I asked her later if that happens often, and she replied quietly, “yes.”  Later that night, I asked another lady if that happens to her quite a bit, and she replied in the affirmative.

In movies, tv shows, etc., it is not uncommon to see this type of scene portrayed; but often seems so absurd to me that I just can’t believe it actually happens.  It’s just not a part of the universe I live in (which is to say, it’s just not something I would ever remotely consider doing, nor is “cat calling” at ladies something I have ever witnessed any of my guy friends do).

But on that day, on that occasion, I took the word of two women whom I greatly respect (aided in part by actually witnessing it on one occasion) and trusted that it happens far more often than I have witnessed.  Faith.

This is not without a parallel.

I have several friends and neighbors who are impacted by the heinous indignity of prejudice.  I do not witness these things, and I absolutely do not participate in these things.  But I know scores of people who are rational, respectable, and kind human beings who relate their experiences (mostly subtle; but nevertheless clear) of being discriminated against.  Much like the women I trust about “cat calling” (and other such things), I trust my friends and neighbors who speak of their experiences of discrimination.

I’m frustrated by the things I’m reading and seeing on my social media feeds.  There seems to be little effort put into nuance.  It’s as if otherwise rational and intelligent people have thought certain issues through in their mind, weighed both sides, determined they fell on one side of an argument, and then publicly announced themselves to be on “this side” or “that side” – but go out of their way to avoid showing they gave any consideration for factors on the other side of the issue.

That is my best-case-scenario.  Worst case scenario is that people aren’t considering factors that would pull the conversation to the other side of the fence.

Life is complicated, and I think that while most folks understand that, many don’t seem to be allowing for it when applying it to difficult issues being debated in the public square.

Cops have a ridiculously difficult job.  I’ve written about this.  Be sure to read that link if you start to think I don’t care for or appreciate cops.  But there are idiots in every group, bullies in every organization, to include law enforcement.  They have to be dealt with. The stakes are too high when you’re given a gun and authority to use the law, and then abuse that.  But let’s not have this embarrassingly foolish argument that the public should “defund the police”.  Law enforcement are there because people break the laws.  Laws are there because people don’t “put moral chains upon their own appetites.” (See Edmund Burke’s statement below.)

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites…in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” 

I see a lot of folks on one side of the political spectrum hurling accusations at the other of “trying to take away our freedoms” or “controlling us”, when in most cases its lawmakers simply looking at the reality of the people they are called upon to provide governance, and simply have to pass laws to place Edmund Burke's controlling power somewhere.

But rather than society taking a hard look at themselves and their lack of self-restraint, they set fire to the straw man that it’s all the politicians’ fault.  Meanwhile, the politicians aren’t doing themselves any favors, either, philandering, obfuscating, and/ or pandering as they often do.  And when a politician does stand up and tells folks things they don’t want to hear, most of them get thrown out of office (and without even a footnote in “Profiles in Courage”).

Years ago, I was caught in the middle of some office politics.  Many of us subordinates were frustrated by a senior staffer’s behavior and poor treatment of us peons.  I was new, so I just tried to keep my head low, observe, and maybe learn something.  But another colleague of mine raised hell at every opportunity in the form of arguing, raised voices, and outright insubordination. 

It got so bad that the big boss called me into his office and asked me what my observations were.  I told him something along the lines of “everything my colleague is complaining about is valid.  The senior staffer is treating us very badly.  I completely disagree with how my colleague is dealing with it, but he’s not wrong.  Don’t lose sight of the rightness of his message just because he’s delivering it poorly.”  From there, the boss conducted some more investigations, the senior staffer got reprimanded (and behavior improved), and my colleague got fired.

I can argue that the root problem (the senior staffer’s poor behavior) got solved because I handled myself with decorum and communicated effectively at the right time.  But would the “right time” have ever come were it not for my colleague who raised hell?  Maybe not.  Again, life is complicated.

This experience is the lens through which I see protests.  Protesting isn’t my thing.  It’s a valid (and sometimes effective) way of loudly complaining about grievances.  My personality leads me to different means of trying to move the needle in the direction I think it should go.  Some people (many, perhaps) are comfortable and effective at driving the change using a variety of methods.

But protesters that allow (sometimes enable) destructive elements come in and cause havoc – well, that’s akin to my colleague who crossed a line and was insubordinate in the office.  Fireable offenses; and so distracting that the correctness of his message would have been lost were it not for my conversation with the boss, and the boss willing to consider the views of a foul-mouthed, disrespectful, and insubordinate staffer.

This doesn’t happen very often, of course.  In the case of recent protests, the message of the 90% of upset protesters are overwhelmed and drowned out by the 10% who show up to set fire and watch it burn.  The 90% have to realize that if their message is going to be heard enough to be turned into productive action for their cause, they must expel from their numbers the 10% when they cross that line that separates peaceful (yet vocal) protests from violent riots.

Watch that youtube link.  Think long and hard about it.  It’s real and true.  I’ve spent enough time with law enforcement learning about the means and methods of nutjobs to know that, for a variety of reasons, some people arrive at a point in their thinking that burning the world down seems like a perfectly valid and actionable goal.  No one knows and understands that better than cops who have to go out there into the world and deal with them.  

So, when the guy next to you hurls a bottle of what looks like water at the line of cops, consider that the cops could see that as a flammable agent in that water bottle; or, as someone sets what appears to be a harmless fire in a garbage can, consider that those garbage can fires are actually set to allow several more fires to be started (much like a single lit candle being used to light other candles), burning down cars and churches.

Normal people just don’t consider these possibilities because it seems so bizarre; from another universe, or a cliché from a Batman movie…much like I thought it so unreal that some dude would actually holler at a lady walking on a sidewalk on a sunny afternoon.

Friendship

A long time ago I read an interesting few pages from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics detailing three different type friendships: 1) utility, 2) pleasure, and 3) complete friendships.  I was drawn to these ideas, and, over the years, took special note about anything I read that discussed friendship.  It’s a topic that fascinated me ever since.

The three aligned with another reading of mine that spoke of things that are good, better, and best in life.  It suggests that there are many things in life that are good, but we often stop short of better or best because we think whatever it is we’re engaged with is “good”, and that’s good enough, and we either shun or don’t realize that there are better or best things out there for us.

As these two ideas aligned in my mind over the years, I was drawn to the best kind of friendships – complete friendships.  As Aristotle defined them, “complete friendship is the friendship of good people similar in virtue; for…they wish goods to each other for each other’s own sake.”  I wrote about this idea years ago as it applies to politics, but now I write as it applies to friendship.  True friendship means doing things for the other because it is good for the other (not to get some personal advantage out of it).

I loved this idea.  There’s something to the purity of it.  What I found over the years (and still now), however, is that there were very few people in my life who would let me do good things for them, with no strings attached.  “Can I carry that for you?”  “Is there anything I can do for you?”  “Let me do that for you.”  “Can I get you something while I’m at McDonalds?”   The vast majority of times I offer assistance to either a friend or a stranger, they politely decline, probably for a variety of reasons.

But there are few – a few special souls out there – who allow me to serve them; to do things for them.  These are often things they can do for themselves just fine, but they let me pitch in, anyway.   These are those who become special to me, and I have a theory about this.

I believe that when we serve another person, a directional bond is formed between us and the person we serve.  If I help “Steve” with some yard work, I find I feel a small bond with Steve.  If I am allowed to continue helping Steve with things over a period of time (big things or small things), that bond I feel with him grows.  But, as I said, it’s a directional bond – a one-way bond.  For example, if Steve allows me to assist him, but I never let Steve assist me (or, he never offers to help me out), he isn’t bonded to me.  These are one-sided friendships that usually fail.

It’s only when we serve each other in whatever way we can, that we are able to form a “complete friendship”.  In this, I am not suggesting that it’s an apples-to-apples service (e.g. I rake his leaves, he rakes my leaves).  We simply do for each other what we can, when we can (e.g. I rake his leaves, he helps me with a plumbing project).

Can you think of any relationship in your life where you are eager to serve them, and that person not only allows you to serve them (with trivial and important things), but they are equally eager to serve you…and you let them?

Hopefully, that relationship exists between you and your significant other.  I’m blessed to say that happens with my excellent and beloved wife and I.  But, I am abundantly blessed to have just a few others in my life who I have this type of relationship with.  Complete friends.

There’s nothing more valuable to me than my relationship with these people.  Nothing.

I have “friends” of the other sort, some of them are good and some of them are better.  

But a few are best.

Guns: Again

I’ve been a gun owner for most of my adult life. I’ve been a conservative republican since I first registered to vote.  I believe the Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights, is a divinely inspired document. 

Qualifiers: 

Guns: I am not a “proud” gun owner, as so many of my friends characterize themselves. I believe that guns are a necessary evil, but at their core, they are an evil in that they represent a failure of people to be kind to each other.  

And yes, I am fully aware of hunting rifles used for getting food.  But let’s not kid ourselves, the vast majority of guns out there aren’t used for hunting, and even within the range of hunters, how many don’t have access to a Safeway?

Conservative Republican: 

I get a lot of flack for labeling myself this way. Most folks think I’m a moderate. I am conservative - I’m not a moderate conservative nor am I a right wing conservative (although, I used to be).  I am right down the middle conservative.

But I am also an incrementalist, believing we should find the ever-shifting balancing point by moving in increments to the right policy; not by leaps.  Because I’m willing to consider other options and smaller steps, many of my conservative friends think I’m wishy washy. I am not. I tend to think that most revolutions (or giant leaps) are like the French Revolutions - massive failures.

I struggle to call myself a Republican these days because the party seems no longer affiliated with the conservative philosophy. 

Constitution and Bill of Rights:

I do believe these documents were inspired by God to fit the nature of the people of the time, and to be adaptable to be improved as the people improve, or fall apart as the people fall apart. 

The Constitution was designed to be a living document. The Founders were inspired to recognize societies evolve and devolve; that the societies become more or less worthy of the rights outlined within the document. 

Active Shooters and Guns: 

For a more thorough look at my views on the gun debate, go read my blog from 2013. That’s where I was then. 

This is where I am now:

• I believe that as a society, we have mishandled our rights to bear most arms.
• I believe that as an incremental step, gun show loopholes should be closed; background checks should take however long they need to take to get it right. I also believe that the right to own and bear arms should be more narrowly defined. 
• I believe that something along the lines of the New Zealand gun buyback program should be discussed seriously by our lawmakers, to include facilitation of a new law banning the manufacturing and ownership of guns that are otherwise designed for use on a battlefield (and yes, that needs to be more precisely defined).  This will certainly not eliminate all of the guns out there, and yes, the bad guys will still be able to get their hands on guns.  But I can’t think of the last time an active shooter was killed because a bystander happened to have an AR-15 handy.  The law can be a teacher, and I believe we have regressed to that stage in our society. I am not convinced these will be effective, but I am open to the discussion. 
• I believe that we need to expend significant resources on mental health as well as address many of the other contributors. 
• I believe that our society is spiritually sick, and that is a massive contributor to our present crisis. I do see pockets of beautiful and soul-moving kindness; but far more often I see cruelty, harshness, and bullying. 
• I see much of this coming from the White House; a place that used to at least feign decorum.

There will likely be many of my “friends” and perhaps even family who will disagree with these beliefs of mine. Many of them will think this is a knee-jerk reaction to the recent shootings. While this post is prompted by these events, I’ve been stewing on these things for years. 

There will be a percentage who think I’m either a coward (as some have already accused me), or that I’m a traitor to the Constitution, or that I’ve lost my mind. 

I have not and I am not. I have been thoughtful about these things. Thoughtful and reasonable people can come to different conclusions.

There you have it, there you go.

Favorite Quotes from Harry Potter, and Why Like Them

“There are some things you can’t share without ending up liking each other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them.”

These words were written at the conclusion of the scene in which Harry and Ron save Hermoine from the mountain troll in the women’s lavatory.  I enjoy it for a few reasons.  Chief among them is that in it I see the divine principle that serving another person in a meaningful way bonds you to that person in ways that few other experiences can.

I’ve found this to be the case in my life.  I can go about interacting with a person over the span of years either at work, socially, or even in my own family.  And, in those interactions, there can be a degree of bond developed.  But more often than not, when the time comes that I evaluate the status of this relationship, or that, I tend to put these folks into the category of “associates”, rather than friends.  That is not to suggest that we are not friendly – we certainly are.

But friendly (or, civil) interactions do not account for what Aristotle would call “complete friendship”.  The type of friends who do things for each other for the other’s own sake – and for no other reason.  Harry and Ron didn’t run into danger to save Hermoine from the troll because of self-interest.  They did it because something in their character compelled them to.  And, in responding affirmatively to that good impulse, they bonded with Hermoine in a way that no other interaction could.

I believe that the spiritual laws of the universe dictate that when we serve another person, we are bonded to them.  And the more selfless that service is, the more pure and strong that bond is.

I have experienced this in my own life, and can attest that it is true.  When I have served someone selflessly, I have felt a special bond with that person.  My wife chief among them, but also my children, and a handful of friends who’s times of need happened to correspond when I was standing around and had nothing better to do than recognize they needed something I could give. 

What I don’t know (and have always wondered about) is whether the person who is served feels that same sort of bond.  One for the ages.

“We’ve all got light and dark inside us.   What matters is the part we choose to act on.  That’s who we really are.” – Sirius Black

Harry was struggling with the literal voices in his head, and fighting impulses he had to quickly turn to anger and impatience.  He was wondering if he were somehow broken, or otherwise doomed to become like Voldemort.  Then Sirius laid this truth upon him.

I feel akin to Harry in this respect.  Not that I feel tied to the Dark Lord (I’m more a Lord Vader kind of guy), but that I have impulses and what sometimes feels like an irresistible and unrelenting pull toward things that my better self know are unwise.  I think we all probably have this inner battle going on.

But that there is an inner battle tells me that I/we do know better.  Something inside us, something bred into our spiritual DNA informs the difference between right and wrong.  And that is reassuring to me.  The difficulty for me is not discerning between right and wrong, in most cases.  It’s making the decision to always side with the right, despite the rationalization that my creative mind (and the world around me) comes up with to go the other direction.

As Sirius said, “what matters is the part we choose to act on.”

“This mirror gives us neither knowledge nor truth.  Men have wasted away in front of it, even gone mad.” – Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

The first thing I thought of when Albus said this of the Mirror of Erised to Harry was television.  Then I thought of youtube.  Then I thought of more unsavory things “men” tend to waste away in front of on the internet.  And while I do consider that unsavory viewing habit of many men to be to the spirit what meth is to the body, it’s so unsavory, I don’t want to dwell on the topic any longer than I already have.

But how much time do we (men and women) spend in activities or entertainment that yield us neither knowledge nor truth?  How much time do we spend wasting away.  Another quote from another movie (but, delivered from the same actor who played Sirius): “How much of human life is lost in waiting?”, asked Professor Oxley at Indiana’s wedding ceremony in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

I think we are beings who were created and designed to act.  To make proactive decisions, to work, and to exercise our agency.  Sometimes, interestingly, I think there are times when we should affirmatively decide to wait.  But it’s important that we make the decisions that affect our lives, rather than allowing the outside world happen to us like we’re some sort of rock waiting for another outside force to bump into us and knock us downhill toward a river that will sweep us away.

Now, by this point, the irony of pulling this nugget of wisdom from something that I effectively watched on a television is not lost on me, nor on you, my fair reader.  So, it is important for me to say that there is nothing wrong in taking in a little entertainment, from time to time.  We can unwind, decompress, or even possibly learn from good forms of entertainment.  But I think entertainment can easily overwhelm us, and waste away what is otherwise a perfectly serviceable soul.

“Well, if I were You-Know-Who, I’d want you to feel cut off from everyone else.  Because if it’s just you alone, you’re not as much of a threat.” – Luna Lovegood

This one fell on my mind like ton of bricks.  I like to think of myself as a fairly self-sufficient guy.  In many parts of my life, I like to think that you can metaphorically throw me out of a helicopter over a wilderness, and I’ll do just fine.  And in most cases, that is the case.  I have proven it to myself and to others.

But somewhere along the line, I learned a few hard lessons.  First, when I am so self-sufficient that I don’t need help from anyone else, I short circuit the opportunity for others to serve me and bond with me in the special way described above.  I served people, but wouldn’t allow them to serve me.  Relationships that are worthwhile are relationships that are truly two-way. 

And it’s not a matter of doing an equal number of things for each other.  My wife and I, for example, don’t keep score on who takes out the trash or washes the dishes more often.  We each do what we can when we can.  When one needs more help, the other steps up and does it knowing that the other will do the same when the time comes.  We grow stronger together when we do this, because we are serving each other.

Secondly, the trouble with trying to do it (whatever “it” is) alone is that sooner or later your spirit suffers (as mine has when I tried this), and in the face of that suffering your brain translates the spiritual suffering into anger and resentment.  Harry was angry with some of his classmates, partially because he didn’t think any of them understood what he was going through.  He had the good fortune of stumbling into Luna who understood him better than he expected, and had the kindness to offer him the perspective that he needed to sort of reset his mind.

We all, in the trials of life, feel alone.  I don’t know why we do that.  I think it’s because it’s hard to know who around us are the Luna’s in our lives, and do actually know what we’re going through.  I think, however, if we do pay attention, and are open to being helped, we will find that we are not alone, and, with our "complete friends," can overcome that which afflicts us.

Election 2016 and Intellectual Honesty

***Note to readers: follow and review the content on the weblinks below if you want all of this to make sense.

I voted for John Kasich, governor of Ohio.  Let’s just get that out there.  

I did not vote for Hillary or Trump because I do not believe either of them satisfactorily meet the minimum criteria in order to earn my vote: good, honest, and wise (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).

That said, I don't believe either of them are the pure evil, as the caricatures out there would have most believe.

Let's start with Hillary, the public figure who represents to my side of the aisle evil incarnate.  Or, as one once suggested, the anti-Christ.  Let's start with this podcast.  I encourage you to listen to it so that what I discuss in the following lines make more sense.  The podcast, among other things revolves around this article in Politico, and concludes that Hillary was neither trying to cover her tracks with a private server, nor completely innocent of negligence.  Mostly, it concludes, she and the people around her were stupid, ignorant, and negligent.  These conclusions are reached by what I conclude to be entirely believable sets of statements and circumstances.

Again, my thinking, here, makes more sense if you actually listen to and read the content in the links above, but also if you've served in the types of government positions like I have for the last 15 years or so.  A few things suggested in the links that I can confirm based on my own personal experience:

• most government agencies and personnel are NOT capable of pulling off a simple conspiracy, let alone a complicated one.  As one colleague from a previous job once said, "we're not even capable of getting folks to mute their phones on conference calls, let alone pulling off (insert your favorite government conspiracy theory)."
• it is entirely believable that there are a host of senior officials in government service right now that do not have the slightest competency on a computer.  Most folks who are senior officials in government came to government service because they had already achieved some level of success in other fields.  And some of those achieved that success before the internet and personal computers became as ubiquitous as they are now.  So, they probably had staff who took care of "that stuff", and have never had urgent need or temperament to learn the new technology.

So, these things, which serve as a foundation to any rational thinker being able to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt as presented in the podcast, persuade me.  Being persuaded by this is consistent with my thinking evident in the first blogpost I ever penned.  So, at least I'm consistent, if not correct.

Now, at this point, I need to add a few things.

1. In September the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing with the FBI on this private server business and it became clear that Hillary violated the law by transmitting classified materials over her server.  However, as the FBI testified, they do not recommend prosecutions for cases that do not involve malicious intent.  If the FBI does not recommend prosecution for the violation of this law absent malicious intent; then, in my opinion, and if any of the podcast is to be believed, Mr. Comey's actions were correct (and, the content of the podcast really help Comey's testimony and logic make more sense).  Why then, you may ask, are Privates in the military sent to jail for violating the same law?  Not certain on this, but it might be because DOD can prosecute its own without going through the DOJ filter; and DOJ uses the additional (but not legally required) condition of malicious intent as a prosecutorial discretion filter.  (Someone please fact check me on this.  I'm happy to be wrong.)  In my opinion, I don't think the DOJ should use the "malicious intent" filter on cases such as these; but that's easy for me to say sitting from the armchair.  Prosecutorial discretion is often used as a tool by prosecutors to filter out less severe cases and focus their resources on the more egregious ones.  I know a guy (everyone in this town knows "a guy") who is a senior staffer on the Republican side of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (and had a prominent, behind-the-scenes role in the hearing), and he tells me that he believes Mr. Comey to be an honest and honorable man, dedicated to the law.  The real gripe of many on the R-side of the committee is that the DOJ, in the name of prosecutorial discretion, years ago determined to add malicious intent as a requirement to pursue prosecution - something Congress never intended.
2. The Clinton Foundation: As the bankruptcy bill story illustrated, few things are as simple as they appear.  I have no doubt that the Clinton Foundation does all sorts of wonderful things for humanity, and that many lives around the world are blessed and improved by it.  I also have little doubt it is also the basis for an enterprise established to enrich the Clintons and peddle influence - which may or may not be legally criminal, but certainly ethically and morally criminal.

Time will tell.

Moving on...

Trump: He's a blowhard.  There's a saying in politics: "he's a blowhard, but he's our blowhard."  The sentiment, of course, captures the party spirit that characterizes our nation's politics.  But Trump was a bridge too far for me.  He's an admitted and unabashed serial philanderer, and all the things that come with that part of his life.  That personal quality is enough to disqualify him from my vote.  If I'm gonna disqualify people on the other side of the aisle from my vote for doing that sort of stuff (and treating people like that), then I must do the same to the folks on my side of the aisle.

Then there's the things he says about matters of policy.  "Really?!?  Is that what he really wants to do?"  I have a theory about this.  It is admittedly a hopeful theory, but I am an optimist (as any Cubbies fan must be), so hang with me.  First, an analogy:

I once worked with a senior official in government who once used a metaphor to characterize a large number of employees.  Now, these are a type of employees who are already pre-disposed to feel like "second-class employees."  And then he used the metaphor, referring to them as "walk-ons."  Everyone in that category of employees took that as an insult of the highest order.  Some quit, some stayed and grumbled, but none that I have met have forgiven him these many years later.  Everyone in that category of employee that I've come across still view him and his decisions based on looking through the lens of the "walk-ons" insult.

I actually had occasion to visit with him not too long after he initially used that metaphor (and the roars of disapproval erupted), and he asked me what I thought of it.  My reply: "hadn't really given it much thought."  Him: "Do you want to know what I meant by it?"  Me: "sure."  Him: "When I was making those remarks, I was thinking of a college football bowl game when a field goal kicker came in, as the final seconds ticked off the clock, and kicked the game-winning field goal.  HE WAS A WALK ON, on the team."  His point being, these employees are not second-class employees; they're the ones who win the game for us.  

Every now and then one of these "walk-ons" and I will chat, and they will bring up the walk-on "insult."  Then I share them the story above, and they ask: "then why doesn't he just say that?"  Me: "Do you really think he's the type of personality who 'explains himself' very often?"  Them: "No, not really."  Some people just don't have it in them to explain themselves.  They say things that may or may not be an insult or literal, and if people get worked up about it, "that's their problem".

Transitioning back to Trump, let's take the "wall" at the US/Mexican border as an example.  For a bazillion years, it seems, politicians have been talking about strengthening border security, and despite real or pretended effort, the unprotected class of Americans just haven't seen much of a difference.  And this talk has gone on for so long that, right or wrong, the message either no longer breaks through, or no longer means anything.  People have gone numb to the promise, "strengthen the border" until Trump came along and said, "I'm going to build a wall!" in the most emphatic and absolute terms.  There were two types of reactions to this remark (follow the link): horror and rejoicing.  Both are valid responses.  Horror is valid because of some of the ways he used to justify the proposal; rejoicing is valid because people believe he will actually do something serious about border protection.

Now, I haven't taken the time to apply the same reasoning to every statement he made, and will more than allow that there is no justifying some of the things he has declared or suggested.  But, much like I offer the benefit of the doubt to one person I wholly disagree with (Clinton), I must also try to afford that to another (Trump).

Like I said, I try to be an optimist.  And, perhaps like a being a Cubs fan, it may not pay off for a long, long time.

Were Trump supporters a bunch of rural rednecks?  Go back and read that link "unprotected class of Americans" two paragraphs above.  While there are some nutjobs and genuine deplorables who supported Trump (some of whom are from rural areas), there were an equal number, I'm convinced, of nutjobs and elitists who supported Clinton (some of whom are from urban areas).  But, by and large, the supporters of both candidates either supported the candidates because they liked them and/or because they wanted to protest the other candidate (if the polls are to be believed, mostly the latter).

***A note to my friends on the left side of the aisle (I have many dear friends over there who have been on the receiving end of Trump insults and, in some cases, threats): you are my dear friends because you are good people.  Most people in this civil society can and do see your quality, and will continue to do so, and in doing so, seek to protect you from the nutjobs out there.  As per above, I think most of the people (not all) who voted for Trump voted for him either as a protest vote (against Hillary or the "establishment"), or because they saw past his insults and threats, and toward the policy direction he had in mind.  In other words, they voted for him in spite of those remarks, not because of them.

I couldn't do that, though.  Another of the reasons I could not cast my sacred vote for Trump is because, while he may or may not actually believe what he says, he was a candidate, and now President-elect, and soon-to-be President; and as such, has an influence over people.  I now join the sad fraternity of fathers from the 90s generation of parents who have to explain things to my small children that I never should have to explain to small children.  Additionally, young people and old people alike who are susceptible to the influence and example of a POTUS (or any public figure) now can justify the darker parts of their psychology because the POTUS said or did it.  I can't support that in any candidate, regardless of his/her jersey.

Be that as it may, I take some modest amount of optimistic comfort in the following statement by Dwight Eisenhower: "I have so often been through these periods of strain that I have become accustomed to the fact that most of the calamities that we anticipate really never occur."

Time will tell.
 

************

Some may wonder why I didn't vote for Evan McMullin, who was actually on my ballot in Virginia as a valid candidate.  I'm Mormon, he's Mormon.  I'm conservative, he's conservative.  I'm a decent chap, he seems a decent chap.  What's not to like?

Well, as I've said on posts past, I want someone who has experience in running something that is remotely like running the federal government.  Nothing is quite like it, but a massive organization it is, and someone who simply has the correct political philosophy is not good enough.  If I hurl verbal rocks at people who put someone as inexperienced as President Obama in charge of what is arguably the most expansive and complicated enterprise in human history, I must also hurl verbal rocks at people on my side of the aisle for doing the same.  I want an Eisenhower or a Reagan.  Someone who has lived a long life, has matured over the years.  Someone who has failed some, but succeeded at most endeavors.  Ideally, someone who has been a governor or a real-deal 4-star general who has proven him/herself.

Mr. McMullin, for all his moderating tone, even keeled personality, and even public service (public service he can't talk about), doesn't have anything like this on his resume.  That disqualified him in my book.  In the end, if voted for him (over Kasich, or another otherwise qualified candidate) only because he was Mormon, that would make me something akin to a racist, a sexist, or some other horrible 'ist.  I'd be voting for him because of his outward label, not because of his inward merits. I don't view people who supported him because of his religion as 'ists, but that's how I'd view myself.  And for those of you who did unapologetically vote for him solely because of his religion, can you really condemn folks for voting for Clinton solely because she is a woman, or Mr. Obama solely because he's African American?

Just a thought and a plea (all of this post is) for folks to be intellectually honest.  I constantly challenge myself to be, as I'm sure many who come to different conclusions also try to be.  Decent people can disagree without being disagreeable.

Cops

In my previous life, I had to write brief statements for my boss (the Senator) who could not attend some sort of an event or another. Usually, I would write the words, get my supervisor to approve the remarks, then go to the event and read them on behalf of my absent Senator.  

One time, I read some remarks at some sort of police function. It was an opportunity for me to recognize the tough job that cops have, and how much we (the Senator and the Oregonians he represented in the US Senate) appreciate them.  

After I read the remarks (which no one usually listened to, because I was just a staffer), and the other formalities of the event were done, a cop came up to me during the mingling and asked me if I used to be a cop. A little surprised, I said, no, but that my brother was a cop, and that I had worked with a lot of cops as a Senate staffer. He observed that the remarks I read made him think that I knew what it was like to be a cop.  

Cops have an impossible job. In their capacity of law enforcement officers, theirs is to largely interact with the dregs of society. The people who feel they can do what they want to whom they want, and no one can stop them. When the cops show up,  the crims are in many cases ready for a fight.  

In their capacity of peace officers, people call them up to help resolve a disturbance in a home, and seemingly all sides fight them every step of the way when they arrive.  Every time they pull someone over for speeding or some other traffic infraction, there’s a good chance they’ll get grief for it (in the best-case scenario). The worst-case scenario is that they might get shot at or run over. They never know.  

To deal with this, many have to flip a psychological switch in their minds – the “toughen up” switch, just to get through the day. Just to keep an even keel as they deal with fights and arguments, and non-cooperation from every call they answer, every stop they make, and every law they enforce. Sure, there’s the periodic “thank you” from a citizen, or a high five from a kid. But that is the exception, not the rule.  

Have any of you worked in a job where your boss/co-worker/or customer fought you at every step, questioned your every move, hounded you for doing what you know to be the requirements of your position?  

I have, and it sucked. It was miserable. For self-preservation, I had to build up a psychological wall to keep things together. And it was nearly impossible to switch it off when the workday was done. If you’ve had similar experiences either at work or in abusive relationships (which can require a similar need for self-preservation), then I suspect you, along with me, have an inkling of what it’s like to be a cop.  

The people you are trying to serve and help are fighting you every step of the way. Dealing with that is tough enough. Then, at the end of the workday, try switching it off and having a normal family life with the people you love the most. I suspect most people can’t do it.   

The remarkable thing is that the men and women who go into law enforcement usually know these types of challenges are part of the package. And they do it anyway! It takes a special sort of person to make that kind of sacrifice.  

Thank a cop.  

(There may those who read this who are acutely aware of the bad apples in the law enforcement bunch. You’re right. There are folks who aren’t so noble in the profession - the ones who get into the business because they want to boss people around as opposed to those officers who want to help. Well, Jesus had his Judas, George Washington had his Benedict Arnold, and the vast majority of cops have their traitors to their profession. Don’t curse them all. Just curse the traitors.)