Sunny day today after a stormy night. If the weather forecast is accurate we should have some dry, cool, and sunny days before the temperatures go back to above normal again. The cool nights have taken a toll on the warm season plants. I plan to start culling the gardens and rearranging things before things freeze.
Stray thought: I don't expect the election result to settle anything. No matter who wins or loses no one will be satisfied or accepting of the results. A lot of words have been bandied about concerning "our democracy" and the importance of voting. But no one is mentioning directly the importance of respecting the outcomes whether you voted with the winning side or agree with the results. We are seeing the intensification of a trend I first noticed about 30 years ago when a ballot initiative concerning gambling came up over and over again in successive local elections. The pro-gambling side would win and the anti-gambling side came back to rally their side to defeat the resolution the next time--and on and on it went till finally the proponents of the measure won back to back elections by very large margins. Even then the opponents tried to undo through the legislature what the voters had approved. We have seen that repeatedly over the last couple of decades. Voters in Florida approved an initiative to restore voting rights to felons who had been released from prison. The Republicans in the Florida legislature passed add-ons which basically reversed the intent of the voters who voted for the initiative. We watched as the Republicans in Ohio tried to rig the electoral process to prevent the likely approval of a Constitutional amendment protecting a woman's right to decide on abortion. They are still trying to nullify legislatively the amendment voters approved by a nearly 60-40 vote. We have a large part of the electorate who respect voting ONLY if the results of what they support wins. That ISN'T democracy.
Aurelian has an interesting post this morning that I think touches on the stray thought above. I have kept the post on my e-mail to read again because it is quite long. But several points resonate. For instance, the growth of what I have called "rampant individualism." Our society is geared to producing psychopaths who are utterly self-centered. The former (and hopefully not future) president is the prime example. There is much more in the post which I need to ponder.
17**************************************************************************************************************
Another sunny but very cool day. I have been chilling out with a couple of computer games and my needlework. But it is now time to go through the blogs I find in my e-mail.
Reading Bill Astore's post today I had a couple of stray thoughts. First, I like the title and subtitle on his post: Remember When Politicians Made Promises? Want Meaningful Change? Forget About It. He basically says that Trump and Harris are sticking with a status quo program while Stein is the only choice for, as he puts it, "meaningful change." But the source for the graphic is the Stein campaign and it deliberately paints both Trump and Harris with the same black brush. Harris has proposed universal health care, capping medical costs, dealing with the high cost of housing and education among other proposals. Two, Astore evidently tells us to forget about "meaningful change" because only the candidate he prefers is proposing the changes he (and I would guess a lot of other Americans) want. But the only way Harris or Stein can get their programs enacted is if enough of the legislators to be elected in November also agree. The chances of Stein being elected are low to non-existent and the chances of a Harris winning with a majority in both the house and senate aren't much better. I don't expect "meaningful change," by any definition of "meaningful" or "change," no matter who occupies the White House.
Another Stray Though: many of the problems listed in that political ad will be solved or made meaningless over the next decades simply because people will act on their own to find their own solutions. College is too expensive? Over the last decade or so various universities/colleges have found their enrollment figures going down among their traditional pool of "customers:" recent high school grads. Actually the problem has been on the horizon for at least three decades because that is marks the time when they made efforts to bring in middle aged adults. But that hasn't made up for the loss of younger people. Housing too expensive? A lot of younger people whose jobs are in cities started some time ago to rent. Or, if they are really intent on buying a house, the follow the maxim that became popular about 15 or so years ago: drive till you qualify. And their needs are being accommodated. Our city has bus service connected to the commuter rail system going into Chicago and commuter bus service into the Loop during the rush hours. Cost of living too high? Well, multigenerational households have been increasing for the last two decades. Young people who find their incomes don't cover rent and other expenses (like student loans) have been moving in with parents who may also have grandparents living in the same household. That, however, doesn't bode well for the politicians because, if people find their own solutions, they will start wondering what the hell good is government and why the hell are they paying so much in taxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment