On the Day of the Last

Embed from Getty Images

The last Trump-Clinton debate is later today. As a matter of fact, many are readying themselves to watch … especially the partisans. To my non-U.S. audience, excuse this lengthy post about US politics, so I understand if you switch to my previous post about Walktober, which you will probably find more interesting and satisfying.

I’ve enjoyed following politics for a long time. I liked conventions because of the good speeches. I watched debates out of curiosity and being informed to make a judgment. I started this blog in August 2008 around politics and sports. I’ve morphed since then, but politics is still in my gut – although I’ve been more silent this year than in the past.

The 2016 election is (unfortunately) different. I didn’t watch either convention. I didn’t watch any of the debates during the primaries of either party, nor any of the debates in the past few weeks. The list of why not was always longer than the list of why. Tonight isn’t any different because I’m going for the shutout.

One reason to not watch is simply because the chances of a candidate answering the question is (at best) remote. The moderator will ask a question, then the candidate figures out a way to segue from the question to the prepared talking point. (In my debate rules, the microphone would be turned off and the candidate would enter the Cones of Silence.

Candidates have been doing this for years, but that doesn’t mean we the people don’t deserve better. Because I’m tired of it, watching would be a waste of time – so, instead, I’ll probably spend my time writing a future post about my recent trip.

2016 is also interesting in other ways. It seems that Hillary Clinton was proclaimed the nominee-in-waiting many years ago. I wonder what the Democrats would have done if she didn’t seek the nomination? After all, I never got the impression they were grooming anyone.

Nonetheless, she is the nominee – she’s also smart and experienced. On the other hand, besides being a polarizing figure to many, I don’t trust her. Although the email issue is mainly an issue for her partisan opponents, it’s a non-issue for me … but, it is an example of why I don’t trust her. Deep down I sense that she means well, but the Clintons are who they are. (Note: Overall, I think Bill Clinton was a good president.)

Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. When he announced his candidacy way back when, I stated (and repeatedly stated) that he wouldn’t be the nominee. I admit missing that one, but I’m still amazed he did so, thus wonder, why have Americans lowered themselves to that standard?

Regardless of “knowing more about ISIS than the generals”, Donald Trump’s candidacy has never been about issues and never been about substance. The man lacks intellectual depth that a U.S. President requires. Several times he promised to be more presidential and talk issues. Each time he failed as he reverted back to his ways. That’s simply him being him.

His candidacy is based on fear and shallow promises. His based his candidacy on making fun of people as low-energy Jeb – let alone other unnecessary personal attacks on individuals and groups. His candidacy is based on false information, misconceptions, and misleading statements. His candidacy is based on saying anything – even contradictions of his own words – all in the name of exciting his base that gives him a free pass on most things he says simply because he isn’t Hillary Clinton.

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton’s candidacy really wasn’t a secret or a surprise – and she was very beatable. The Republicans countered by nominating:

  • A candidate who is finding it difficult to beat a beatable candidate.
  • A candidate who stoops low.
  • A candidate with pathetic moral fiber, yet flying under the banner of the party of family values.
  • A candidate who used his personality to effectively use the media to get the nomination, but one who now blames the media for his current troubles that he brought on himself.
  • A candidate who claiming the election is rigged. (For the record, states run the election … and most states have Republican governors, officials, and legislatures.)

Elections shouldn’t be about likability because the major question in 2016 (now more than ever) is who is most fit and capable of leading this country? Election 2016 much less about ideology. Likability aside,and given the choices, the answer is more than obvious. Whether one supported Mitt Romney in 2012 or not (and I didn’t), there was no question in my mind he was fit to serve.

Fortunately for me (and others), two alternatives exist in Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. The latter had no chance of my vote, but I listened to Johnson as I looked for an alternative. To me, he lacked substance during a time when I was looking for substance.

I’m having a difficult time understanding how so many people can support Donald Trump. The two main reasons (in my opinion) must be blind partisanship and a total disdain for her. The sheer numbers raises my concerns about my country much more than the concerns I have about each candidate.

The Arizona Republic (Phoenix newspaper) have never endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate in its 126 year history. This year their endorsement headline was the following: Endorsement: Hillary Clinton is the only choice to move America forward.

Because of their stance, the newspaper received many threats. So many that it wrote a second op-ed responding to the threats. This column is worth reading (and the endorsement is linked within it).

Under normal circumstances, I would leave my presidential spot on the ballot blank. I’ve done it before and am willing to do it again – but in 2016, the stakes seem too high for me. On Election Day 2016, Hillary Clinton will get my vote – but it is more of a vote against Donald Trump than it is for her. She is unquestionably better than the alternative.

Back to me watching the final debate. No, no, no … I’m still not watching because the odds of something changing my mind are between slim and none. Besides, I would rather watch this clip from Ellen.

On Science & Technology: The Forum

Embed from Getty Images

The odds of actually seeing this take are someplace between slim and none – so, why not here? After all, these two topics are more important than ever, and are the center of numerous important issues that the candidates frequently ignore, skirt, or poorly answer.

We should note that neither political party would agree to these rules and the debate topic because they prefer rules that favor them – not the voters. Therefore, our aim is getting the answers that Americans need to hear or identifying the fraudulent candidates.

Introduction
Welcome to the aFrankAngle Theater for the Performing Arts as it hosts the Presidential Forum on Science and Technology. This first-ever event is co-sponsored by the aFrankAngle Center of Blogging Decency and the aFrankAngle Foundation for Candidate Accountability and No-Campaign-Bullshit. We’ve invited all the candidates from both major parties

First, the rules.
Rule 1) The moderator makes the rules, asks the questions, and runs the debate. Anyone disagreeing with any of the moderator’s questions, rules, or actions during the debate should always refer to Rule 1.

Rule 2) When answering the question, talk back to the audience through the moderator. For instance, start your answer by paraphrasing the question as your introductory phrase. For instance: (Q) What is your favorite color? (Ex) My favorite color is blue. Bad examples of starting an answer include (which some, maybe all, on this stage have used):

  • I think a better question is ….
  • Let me tell you what I think.
  • I’m not going to talk about that, but I will say …
  • That’s a good question, and I’m happy to be here.
  • I believe the American people are looking for someone to speak the truth.
  • First of all, …

Rule 3) After your answer, provide several supporting statements for your answer. (Ex) My favorite color is blue because it was the most prominent color at my grandparent’s house. I would spend time with them each summer amidst all that blue. I would go outside to work and play with all that blue sky – endless on the open plains – simply beautiful. I also resemble my grandmother, and wouldn’t you know it, I inherited her blue eyes. Those are the main reasons why blue is my favorite color.

Rule 4) Focus on answering the question and staying on topic. If you babble, go off topic, criticize the current administration or any fellow candidate, the moderator will turn off your microphone and enclose you in the Cone of Silence. On the third offense, you will be removed from the stage in an unexpected manner as a trap door, hooked cane, or a vaporizer.

Rule 5) If you answer the question to the moderator’s satisfaction, there will be no follow-up questions.

Also note that we prepared as many questions as possible without an introductory premise because we want to avoid leading questions and bias. The audience should know that the candidates did not receive the questions in advance, however, received a list of topics as science/science processes, evolution, genetics, health, technology, energy, and the environment.

Topic 1:Science
Q1) What is science?

Q2) Give examples of good science and bad science – but each example of one requires an example of the other.

Q3) Does science have limits on its area of study?

Q4) How do you define a scientific theory?

Q5) Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

Q6) Do science and religion compete against each other?

Q7) Explain why Intelligent Design and 7-day Creationism should or should not get time in the science classroom.

Topic 2: Genetics
Q8) The field of genetics has exploded possibilities. What is the right policy balance between genetic advances and potential risks?

Q9) What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?

Q10) Assuming health insurance companies cannot deny health insurance, is the information from genetic testing/screening the same as a pre-existing condition?

Q11) How should we use and not use genetically modified plants?

Q12) Scientist created seedless watermelons by chemically changing the chromosome number in watermelons. Should seedless watermelons be banned?

Topic 3: Health
Q13) How do you see science, research, and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?

Q14) How do you protect citizens from pandemics?

Q15) What role do vaccines have in our society today?

Q16) Should a public school and a private school have the authority to deny admission of a student whose parents decided not to vaccinate their children?

Q17) In a time of fiscal restraint, how do you secure more funding toward combating mental illness?

Q18) Should the Federal government financially fund research in science topics as health and energy?

Topic 4: Technology
Q19) Should the internet be considered a public utility?

Q20) How can science and technology spur innovation?

Q21) In an era of budget cutting, how can promote research while reducing spending on research?

Q22) What role does science and technology play in national security?

Topic 5: Energy and the Environment
Q23) Water is necessary. Should the Federal government provide financial assistance to arid states and/or states with considerable droughts?

Q24) What role do alternative energy resources have in our society?

Q25) What role does the United States have in the global community regarding climate change?

Q26) Explain 3 concerns you have about the climate change issue.

Q27) In the recent nuclear negotiations with Iran, why or why not should physicists be on the negotiating team?

Q28) Would you abolish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? If not, why not? If so, how would environmental regulations be protected and enforced.

Topic: Questions From the Audience
Because all the candidates have been removed from the stage for repeated rule violations, let’s bring back all of them because it’s time for questions by the audience.

What questions do you have for the candidates? (Caution to questioners: Respectfully ask your question in nonpartisan manner; plus the question is to all candidates, not a specific candidate.)

A reminder to the candidates. Let’s see if you’ve learned anything about answering questions in a debate. The rules still apply, and to see if you’ve learned anything, no leniency.

Mr. Producer, is the buzzer ready?

Opinions in the Shorts: Vol. 264

Embed from Getty Images

Jeb Bush (R-FL) ended the suspense (and Super PAC fundraising) by officially announcing his candidacy for president. Here’s The Onion’s profile on him.

Donald Trump (R-NY) officially announced his candidacy with buffoonery. The process requires candidates to provide certain disclosures, so time will tell he is serious, thus complies. He loves attention, so announcing gave him that, thus I hedge on him actually being in the race. As a bombastic egotistical Bloviator-In-Chief, talking with conviction doesn’t mean he’s truthful. Here’s the Fact-Check on his speech and his profile from The Onion. For those needing more, a reminder that The Nincompop (aka Sarah Palin) praised Trump’s candidacy.

It’s easy to find something odd in the news, but the Rachel Dolezal (the former NAACP chapter leader) has my head spinning.

My post about what initially attracts one person to another (On Selection) fostered good discussion. I encourage everyone to start taking note of your casual observation when you encounter people at the grocery store, walking down the street, or at any gathering.

The US Open, my favorite golf tournament, is this weekend. After the first day of competition, I’m withholding my endorsement of the course and layout until later.

Remember the mural honoring Martha, the last passenger pigeon? ArtWorks recently announced 10 new murals for downtown Cincinnati. Click this link to see the current look and projected new mural. The slidebar on the images provides an opportunity to see before and after.

Some personal updates

  • For those recalling my eye issue of a year ago, it never fully recovered, thus giving me a new normal
  • I’m involved with a major watering project in the neighborhood
  • Next week I’m transitioning from a sub in the golf league to a regular
  • After boasting last week about visiting many blogs, this week wasn’t very good
  • Yes … we’re still dancing

Meals: The Musical continues next week with an act featuring songs with an alcoholic drink in the title. Act 7 starts Wednesday, 9:30 pm (Eastern US). In case you forget, there’s always the Hear Ye page.

Another Explore will appear on Saturday.

For those of you that get email notification regarding Likes, I’m curious … which 3 posts are listed for me?

To lead you into The Onion, here’s the Republican response to climate change statement made by Pope Francis. The headline is worth the look.

Embed from Getty Images

This Week’s Headlines from The Onion (Combos welcome)
Sexist pig had no idea when Team USA plays Nigeria
Co-worker who threw fit and stormed out of room looked like total badass
Man forced to come up with 45 seconds of facial expressions while server lists menu specials
New law determines bullets no longer responsibility of owner once fired from gun
Dept of Interior sets aside 50,000 acres of Federal land for anonymous sexual encounters

Interesting Reads
How each US President viewed God 
Europeans and the Bronze Age
800 years since the Magna Carta
Language of Apes
(Photo Gallery) California drought (Washington Post)

Have a safe weekend and in the words of Garrison Keillor, Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.

On a Pathetic Lot

Simply put – as a collective, those occupying the hallowed halls of the US Congress are, at best, a very pathetic lot. I’m not going to call them clowns because I recognize both the viciousness and the shrewdness involved, so pathetic remains a suitable adjective.

We elect members to the House of Representatives on two-year terms – thus they make selfish decisions in light of their upcoming re-election bid that is always just around the corner.

We elect members to Congress who make decisions based on their needs, their party’s needs, and their donor’s needs – with the country’s needs no more than a selective sound bite.

We elect members to Congress who get outstanding financial support from special interests, so the elected legislate to the needs of the donors. Open Secrets is a great resource about campaign donors, PACs, and lobbying.

We elect members to Congress who fail to accept responsibility – just listen to them for proof.

We elect members to Congress who use their position to secure their next job. Not all, after all, but this applies to too many.

We elect members to Congress who get favors from the law for which is illegal for private citizens – such as insider trading.

We elect members to Congress so they (as a body) can determine their leadership based on their fund-raising ability for the party.

We elect members to Congress who regularly speak to financial accountability but regard Congress’s own operating budget as a well-guarded secret.

We elect members to Congress who are not the problem because it’s those from the other districts and states.

Meanwhile, with most of 2012 lying ahead, do not expect much from Congress in 2012 for this reason – both parties are rolling the dice with hopes of gaining power from the November vote so they can drive their agenda. Yes, they are truly pathetic.