Persecution Complex

“If you want money for people with minds that hate. I’ll tell you brother, you’ll have to wait.” — John Lennon

There is an episode of South Park where some of the boys go watch “The Passion of Christ” by Mel Gibson. They concluded that it was a snuff film that sucked. They embarked on a pilgrimage to Gibson’s house to get their twenty dollars back. They found a downright batty Gibson who seemed determined to be tortured.

I suppose that plot line follows. If you watch a number of his movies that seems to track. He gets tortured or beaten down in most of them. He was Jesse Pinkman before Breaking Bad. I suppose conservative thought seems to be arriving at the same place as Gibson.

As some of you may know, Ellis is one of the attorneys that was supposed to help Donald Trump overturn the election. Unfortunately, she is probably a C level attorney in an A level world. For those that don’t want to go down the rabbit hole, she is essentially saying here that if we want to cancel their Christianity then she will go down fighting. Good for her.

Studying conservative thought these days is a fascinating study for those of us with some psychology in their background. Sigmund Freud came up with his defensive mechanisms and the password here is projection. See, when your movement is about canceling stuff (abortion, CRT, history, LGTBQ+, ect) then I suppose it makes perfect sense for them to believe everyone else thinks the same way.

As you might surmise, there were a ton of good responses to her twitter. My personal favorite was the woman that retorted that Donald Trump spent more time in Stormy Daniels than he has a church. Well played ma’am. This projection goes beyond just Christianity into just about everything else. If you want to guess about their plans and their confessions you can simply wait to hear what they are accusing you of doing.

The idea of converting any human being into a god is distasteful. We don’t have Biden flags. We don’t camp out at Biden rallies. We don’t paste Biden bumper stickers all over our cars. We don’t worship the guy. So, you can focus on gaffes, past cringeworthy statements, or his son’s laptop. We simply want a decent human being and not a deity.

When you worship the golden calf you will find that calf threatened or stolen. We’ve seen what happens to those folks. Our number one objective is not to become one of them. If you are picking up your arms to combat the phantom menace you need to ask yourself who is telling you to do this. It certainly isn’t God.

The Shift

“It all looks fine to the naked eye but it don’t really happen that way at all.” — Pete Townsend

Before the days of Nate Silver and 538 there was Reader’s Digest. Readers Digest had accurately predicted every presidential election and then came the 1936 election. They proudly announced that Al Landon would be the next president of the United States. In fact, it wasn’t going to be particularly close. They did a simple poll of all of their readers that had a home phone. Oops.

CNN didn’t make as big a blunder as Reader’s Digest, but they are facing the same kind of cruel reality. See, they are beginning to rebrand themselves as a more conservative outfit. Obviously, they can’t outfox Fox News and they certainly don’t want to go crazy like OANN or Newsmax, so they will struggle to find their place in the landscape.

See, most networks focus their attention on the 18-49 demographic group. They are usually the group with the most disposable income, children in school, and make up a majority of the population. Fox learned a long time ago that they weren’t the key demographic to focus on. They focused on the 50+ crowd and that is why they made all their money and grew their influence.

Two things are happening that impact the traditional way that television networks look at news coverage. First, the under 50 crowd doesn’t watch nearly as much news under even old-fashioned conditions. We consume television differently. It’s hard to say whether that will change for us as we approach our fifties. Maybe we will somehow morph into the guy that wears his pants around his stomach and shakes his fists at the younger neighbors. Maybe we will be different from our parents. I just don’t know.

What I do know is that the second factor is one area where we will never go back. We cut the cord over ten years ago and is it turned out we were slightly ahead of the curve. As it turns, the under 50 crowd makes up a huge majority of those cutting the cord. Cutting the cord may or may not impact network shows. Essentially, streaming services like Hulu, Paramount Plus, and Peacock offer those shows after the fact. What they don’t do is offer full episodes of the news after the fact. Why would they?

So, CNN is learning the hard way that there are fewer and fewer people in that key 18-49 group there to watch their network. That leaves the over 50 crowd and the over 50 crowd skews conservative. So, of course they will try to do the same. It’s probably the same reason that talk radio has always been conservative as well. It’s simple demographics.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it. Watch the commercials on network television the next time you actually have access to it. During the day, it is focused at people that likely aren’t working. Why aren’t they working? Personal injury? Need more training? Let’s show a Jim Adler commercial or a ITT Technical Tech commercial. If it’s something like Fox then maybe it’s alternative investing options like gold or reverse mortgages. Maybe it’s one of those apparatus’ that puts on your socks for you. Advertisers have figured it out. It was only a matter of time for CNN.

This is both scary and hopeful at the same time. On the hopeful end, nothing will ever be as bad or scary as it seems. The mainstream media will seemingly have us believing that the world is more dangerous and more right wing than what we think. If the only real options are right wing news then that will be who gets to shape the narrative. The American public is actually more progressive than those sources want you to believe.

The bad news is that people do not remain stagnant. They will change based on the information they receive. If they only receive information skewed to the right then they will also shift to the right. MSNBC has cast their lot. Fox, Newsmax, and OANN have cast their lot. CNN will need to be creative to find their niche in the market. Fox unfortunately has a head start.

Lucky Man

“A bullet had found him
His blood ran as he cried
No money could save him
So he laid down and he died.” — Greg Lake

My life seems to be filled with doctor’s appointments these days. I shuttle between one or another each week and it can seem hard to keep up. I have no idea if this is normal or if it is my new normal. One of them sticks out though. I get to visit an Oncologist next week. Like many people I made the mistake of looking up what they do. Cancer. My other doctors talked me off of the proverbial ledge by assuring me that they do other stuff. The diagnosis could be completely benign or the sum of all my fears. As you might suspect it probably will be something in between.

It doesn’t help that the American health system is a mess. I promise I won’t get too political, but it seems ludicrous to wait more than a month on something that could be cancer. Ironically, the long wait has been both a godsend and special brand of torture. Like most people, I prepare myself mentally for the worst. So, it won’t come as a complete shock either way and I may have even gained some perspective.

There is a conversation I watch when I come up to moments like this. It was a conversation between Stephen Colbert and Anderson Cooper shortly after the death of Gloria Vanderbilt (Cooper’s mother). I present to you as a special gift you can watch when you need it most.

I sometimes repeat these stories because they revolve around my mind on endless loop. My mother in law was tasked with writing the obituary for her sister this past summer. Her sister was unmarried, had no children, and really hadn’t worked in more than 20 years. The task was a difficult one. She eventually turned to Pinterest for help. She used a cookie cutter obituary that ended up being like a Mad Libs obituary. Insert “she loved God” here and “survived by” there and maybe a few other generic lines.

The whole business seemed incredibly depressing. I went into a brief panic. I joked with my wife and daughter that they only needed to say that I loved God once. However, on the inside I began running an informal inventory. What had I done to make our world a better place? Had I had a positive impact on people’s lives? What would be my lasting legacy on this planet? At the end of the day I really don’t know. It’s something we don’t bother to tell each other or even think about on most days.

Every time I watch the video above, different portions stick out. The one that sticks out this time is when Cooper told us that his mother would often ask, “why not me?” when something would befall her or her family. It goes back to that nasty word I’ve talked about before: deserve. What exactly do I really deserve? Both my grandfathers scarcely made it to my current age. Any of us could walk in front of a bus tomorrow for all we know. We are guaranteed today and that is really it.

We spend most of the time in this space talking about the issues of the day and complaining about specific people in the news. Perhaps if most of us thought in terms of that final obituary or eulogy we would be better off. Whether we believe in heaven, hell, reincarnation, or nothingness, we each can leave our mark on the world. Let’s leave it better than we found it.


“It’s getting harder
Just keeping life and soul together
I’m sick of fighting
Even though I know I should.” — Nik Kershaw

As all of my regular readers know (all seven of you) this used to be a blog about baseball. I wrote two books with the same title (“The Hall of Fame Index”) which essentially broke down players’ qualifications for the Hall of Fame. I went through a number of different tests and statistical gymnastics to determine whether particular players were a good fit.

One of those tests is what has often been called the Player A and B test. I certainly didn’t invent it. I couldn’t tell you who did, but it has come in handy more than a few times. Essentially, you simply look at two players’ numbers and remove their name. From there, it becomes pretty easy to figure out which player was the better player.

Baseball is a peculiar sport where numbers become sacrosanct. Spit out enough numbers and most of us could identify the player anyway. However, the methodology is important. We develop emotional attachment to guys in a positive or negative way. If we can remove that emotion we can make better decisions with the ballot and we can make better arguments in the sports bar.

WWHG stands for What would Hillary Get. Hillary is no longer relevant in our politics. At least she shouldn’t be. She will never run for public office again and so she should not be particularly relevant. Of course, certain people will try to keep her relevant for their own purposes. For our own sanity, you can replace her with whoever you want. Essentially, we can turn our politics into a Player A and B test.

So, when we consider what to do with ex-presidents we can ask the simple question: what would Hillary get? If she (or Bill) had brought home boxes of confidential documents and stored it in their attic what would happen to them? Even more important than what would happen to them is the question of what should happen to them? What would you argue for?

Obviously, this is where the concept of “but the emails…” will come up. Let’s keep in mind, the FBI not only investigated that multiple times but announced less than a week before the election that they were still investigating. Nothing came of it because it was determined that she did not have any secret or sensitive information that she shouldn’t have had on the private server. Was that the right ruling? I’m not an expert on email servers or confidential documents. However, we can easily apply the same test in reverse.

Our politics has become so tribal that we reflexively defend or accuse based on which team we play for. Criminalizing politics has always been distasteful for that reason. However, sometimes you have to do it in order to protect the sanctity of our nation. WWHG needs to plastered on every billboard. We need those rubber wristbands. Some people need it tattooed on their chest. If you are willing to excuse a guy taking home boxes full of sensitive documents that he had no legal right to then you better be ready to excuse the same for those on the other side.

The Liberal Song

“And then they showed me a world where I could be so dependable. Oh clinical, oh, intellectual, cynical.” — Roger Hodgson

This is a question I get every so often. It was a question my college roommate asked me when we first started rooming together. He noticed that I lived a fairly conservative lifestyle. I never did drugs, smoked dope, or drank excessively. I wasn’t sleeping around. Of course, that one may have never have been an option for me, but you never know until you try I guess.

The fact that we are still very good friends probably says something. Yet, the question was a good one. How could I live a conservative lifestyle and be a liberal politically? Of course, one issue is in how we define these things. What is the appreciable difference between a liberal, progressive, and leftist? I really don’t know and so I will simply describe where I am and let other people do the heavy lifting of applying a label for that.

I classically divide politics into two halves. There are social issues where we try to define how much personal freedom individuals should have. We each acknowledge that perfect freedom does not and should not exist. You literally can’t do anything you want to do. So, the hard work for any society is deciding where to draw that line.

What I decided long ago is that my lifestyle is not necessarily for everyone. So, the logical dividing line in my head meant that others could do whatever they wanted as long as it had no negative impact on others. So, that may include sexual activity, drugs, and other things. We all agree minors deserve special protection and usually go from there. We all agree that harder drugs are impossible to use responsibly and usually go from there.

Where it gets difficult is when I go into the second category of politics and that is with economic issues. Simply put, I subscribe to two truths. The first truth is that a free market economy will always have winners and losers. If we are to call ourselves a Christian society then we have a responsibility to make sure that everyone has at least a minimal standard of living. We can disagree as to what that looks like, but we cannot leave anyone behind. We cannot let anyone starve, freeze to death, or be without a basic level of care. Again, how we prevent those things is open to debate and what exactly that looks like is also open to debate. What isn’t open to debate is our responsibility to humanity.

The second truth is that most people when left to their own devices will do whatever benefits them and them alone. This really isn’t a bad thing necessarily by itself. We are self-interested beings. We should not be surprised when businesses take advantage of consumers. Without regulation, most of us would do the same thing.

So, we need regulation. We need rules. We need guardrails. The difference between the left and the right is view of big business. The right views business as a benevolent force that brings good to the world. Leave them unfettered and they will do the right thing. That’s a bunch of hogwash. Big business does what is best for people and society when that is the profitable thing to do. The minute that profit motive points to doing something else they will do that something else.

Gas and education are perfect examples. We have been discussing college loans recently and the cost of education. The right sees those things as natural consequences of government action. If that government action weren’t there then the cost of those loans and that education would be far less. That’s patently ridiculous. The reason those costs have exploded is that right has been eliminating regulations one by one to free those loaning institutions and higher education institutions to charge the prices they want.

The same is true of the gas prices. Brandon doesn’t set the gas prices. We live in a market economy. If it were really Brandon’s fault then the gas companies would have made less profit than they did before. Instead, they have made more than ever did before. It’s almost as if that were by design. That’s because it was. It comes down to human nature and my belief that ambition must be made to counteract ambition. I seem to remember reading that somewhere once. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

How Societies Work

“I can be someone‚Äôs and still my own.” — Shel Silverstein

I suppose I have to be a teacher because I find that I repeat myself quite often. I honestly couldn’t tell you if I’m a good writer or not. That’s not really for me to say. The best writers are the ones that offer lines like above. I’ve used it more than once in this space because it packs so much into such a tiny place. It’s simple and yet more profound than probably anything I’ve ever come up with. When you read great writing like that it becomes ridiculous to consider yourself a good one.

We’ve been talking about student loan forgiveness for a few days now. I have tons of responses on Facebook and the other site I write for. Those negative responses usually fall under a few different categories. These are categories I’ve addressed before. You see? I keep repeating myself after all.

The main word we come to in all of these discussions is the word deserve. These students don’t deserve to have their loans forgiven. They haven’t done anything to earn that. Either that or we will cite the fact that they willingly entered into this contract, so they should suffer the consequences of that decision. Of course, the mere fact of suggesting that anyone should suffer anything should make us pause.

As I said in a previous piece, the idea that any of us deserves anything is presumptuous. Certainly, in a philosophical/theological sense that is definitely untrue. We don’t deserve a damn thing. However, one could claim that everyone should get a measure of human kindness. Silverstein’s quote above eloquently points out that we may think we are lone wolfing it, but all societies have a certain interconnectedness that we cannot deny. We can belong to someone else and still be our own. We can support each other and still maintain a measure of self-reliance.

We all acknowledge that the government does not have an infinite amount of cash to spend. We all get this. So, when we ask the question of whether we should forgive loans we have to look at it as an investment. What do we as a society get for that? Is that enough to justify the investment? It’s a fair question especially when thrust against other opportunities where we can invest in people.

For instance, the second argument levied is why these people get assistance and not those people. Someone asked why they should forgive student loans and not cancer patients. Of course, no one bothered to consider that we could conceivably do both. Sure, it means that other things may not be funded, but opponents love to present a false choice.

Like I said on my Facebook page. You don’t have to support loan forgiveness. Heck, I didn’t commit to it one way or another here. What we need to do is avoid those logical fallacies and myths that really don’t further the conversation along.

The Student Loan Debacle

“Holdin’ on to sixteen as long as you can
Change is coming ’round real soon
Make us woman and man.” — John Mellencamp

Yesterday, social media was all abuzz when Joe Biden announced his plan for student loan forgiveness. The upshot is that most borrowers can qualify for up to $10,000 in total forgiveness. There was a ton of rhetoric and a ton of snark yesterday on both sides. The crisis (yup, I’m calling it that) has three underlying causes.

College Costs have Exploded over the last 20 years

Nationally, the average cost for a public college was over 20,000 a year. That ballooned to over 30,000 for private colleges. The average cost in 2000 was just over 8000. I’m not good at math, but by my eyeball test that amounts to a 150 percent increase over 20 years. That obviously is well beyond the rate of inflation for that time period.

Now, we could go into the whys this has happened, but if we dive down that rabbit hole we may never make it out. The question is one of responsibility. For instance, had I known that I was going to become a teacher I probably wouldn’t have gone to a private college. I wouldn’t give up that experience for the world though. So, this problem has to be attacked from multiple directions. Students bear some responsibility for choosing an institution that’s as cost effective as possible. Yet, it cannot all be on them. There is no good reason for costs to go up that much over 20 years.

College Degrees aren’t worth what they used to be

This is where our straw man enters the conversation. One commenter yesterday made reference to “Mesoamerican Lesbian Studies”. Yeah, we all know it’s an exaggeration, but still we need to define our terms. As much as people might laugh at liberal arts degrees in general, they are not necessarily coming from a genuine place.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s you could get a college degree in anything and still get a good job. That was less true in the 1980s and 1990s, but it is far more true than it is today. Saddle someone with 80,000-150,000 in debt and then force them to work a minimum wage job and you see the dilemma. Somewhere along the way the rules of the game changed. It’s not students’ fault they changed, but they need to adapt.

The issue is more acute for those without the means to pay for college or support at home. My wife and I can advise our daughter on college. We can coach her into choosing a major that makes sense. Some kids don’t have that at home. Buyer beware goes only so far. It is an issue that needs to be addressed on more than one side.

The Nature of the Loans Themselves

One commenter showed their loan expenditures for their undergraduate and graduate degrees. The totals ended up being well over 150,000 with total monthly payments coming in at over 1000. That by itself is bad enough. Then you throw in the fact that those 1000 payments didn’t touch the principal at all. On top of that, if that person comes into dire straits, they cannot discharge the loan through bankruptcy.

Again, this is where some people added snark to the conversation. They were responsible. They repaid their loans. It is not fair that the current generation is “too lazy” to take care of their own loans. Again, it’s not that simple. At some point we have to realize how ridiculous it is to pay twice as much as what was loaned to you because of the nature of the loan. Mortgages don’t work that way. Car loans don’t work that way. Why should student loans work that way?

Putting it all together

Those that oppose forgiving loans or subsidizing 100 percent of public college tuition have a point. As I said in an earlier post, monies spent by the government are an investment of sorts. It is fair to ask whether that is the wisest way we could spend our tax dollars. I would argue for a measured approach that addresses these issues from multiple angles.

The first question we should ask is how many kids (I’m old now, I can call them that) are majoring in something we might consider frivolous? I imagine it is lower than people think. However, it wouldn’t be difficult to target certain careers and subsidize students studying those things. It wouldn’t be difficult to require graduates to work in certain fields for a fixed period of time in exchange for forgiving their loans. We already do that in limited circumstances. It probably should be expanded to other things.

Finally, we have to admit that college is just too damn expensive. We educate students in Texas for less than 9000 a year. That includes people like me that are support staff. Colleges don’t have nearly as many of those. They aren’t serving students with severe disabilities in the same way we are. Yet, they cost more than twice as much. That money isn’t going to the professors. So, where is it going?

I “know” I’m right

“It isn’t the things people don’t know that get them in trouble. It’s what they know for sure that just ain’t so.” — Mark Twain

A number of these articles are simulcast on another site. You get the original version. In many respects it is like a rough draft, but it is also that this site affords me the opportunity for more extended commentary. That other site doesn’t like me to go beyond 600 words. For those that don’t know, that ends up being the length of a typical opinion column in the local newspaper.

Even then, there have been a number of complaints about length from the readers. in some respects this is a sad commentary on our collective attention spans. If a newspaper column is too long to maintain your focus then maybe we all need to take some Ritalin and call it a day.

Earlier this week I talked about Henrietta Lacks. I did make an inadvertent mistake in the retelling of the story. She went to Johns Hopkins for testing and not the Mayo Clinic. Of course, this is a good lesson for me and others. Sometimes when we go forward based on our own memories of the story, so we can get details wrong. However, there is another lesson in there as well. That lesson is to focus on those details that are actually meaningful. In this case, the hospital in question really has very little bearing on the story. She was diagnosed with cervical cancer and they did the best they could at the time. The most important part of the story was the harvesting of cells after the fact and the fact that they did not obtain permission from the family to do that.

In the process of posting on this site, you endure the many comments that follow. Most are intelligent comments that add historical tidbits that I either didn’t mention (remember I’m lifted on space) or wasn’t aware of. Then, there is the local troll. He has popped up before usually to insult me or complain about the length of the post. He told me I got the story all wrong.

This brings to the point for today. I’ve never been sure whether this is a natural reaction or whether I am alone in this. When someone like that comes back I always go back and look at what I wrote and the sources I used for my information. Did I get it right? In the case of the hospital I did not. In the case of most of the other details I was on point.

Nobody likes “well actually” guy and that is particularly true when they correct me on a point I never made. In this case, he questions whether they were justly compensated by getting free care. Yeah, I’m sure getting a free stay to fight a disease they ultimately failed to cure is worth someone else making billions on research and development of medicines through the use of her cells. Even Johns Hopkins admits that they did not obtain the consent they should have.

So, the fact that her free care was worth the harvesting of cells is not indeed a fact. Her family is suing the company that eventually sold her cells to labs around the world. As you can see by the article, the final outcome has yet to be determined, but by virtue of the fact that they sued is an indication that her free care was just compensation is at least questionable if not insulting.

Of course, the last retort was my favorite. “The treatment was not effective bt that was the standard in those days.” I had to go back and re-read my article. I don’t remember saying anything about the treatment she received. I didn’t. However, that comes back to the original point. My gut reaction when someone questions me is to go back and check. I’m just not sure whether that is a normal reaction or whether that’s my own insecurities.

In many ways, I am envious of people that are so sure about things that are just objectively wrong. You can present them with evidence to the contrary and it just doesn’t matter. I have never been capable of doing that. Even when I know I’m right I will check and double check just to be sure. Of course, when I teach these things we go by the source we are using. So, it isn’t me teaching them anything from personal memory. So, at least there’s that. The constant questioning is either an example of humility or neurotic doubt. I just don’t know which.

They were right

“You may be right, I may be crazy.
Oh, but it just may be a lunatic you’re looking for.” — Billy Joel

I remember like it was yesterday. The late 1990s were difficult times for self-described Democrats and progressives. It was soul searching time for me in those days. The president of the United States became only the second president to ever be impeached.

There were numerous defenses for the president and his behavior. Yet, most of those defenses were permutations of the same defense. Essentially they said that what a man (or woman) does in their personal life does not impact them in their professional life. As long as Bill Clinton was a good president from nine to five then what does matter that he isn’t a good man after those hours?

French president Jacques Chirac famously had multiple affairs. The joke was that he kept replacing each significant owner with the same woman minus ten years. The French people accepted him as their leader then we should have accepted Clinton as our leader. As we know, that argument won out. Except, it really didn’t win out.

There were enough people in 2000 that felt the same way I did. It helped Bush win the election over Al Gore. I ended up voting for Gore because he was a different man and an infinitely better one than Clinton. However, there were millions that punished him for the mistakes of his former boss. Yet, that debate ending up lingering like a fart in an elevator.

We often have difficulty separating a message from the messenger. It’s one of the important things I point out when teaching Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. One of the steps he mentions before a direct action campaign is self-purification. It’s a challenging concept for students. Yet, it is absolutely crucial. Listening to someone like Newt Gingrich (at the time) prattle on about character is hilarious. However, it doesn’t mean the point is wrong.

If we have learned anything over the last seven or eight years it is that personal character is absolutely a big deal. We just endured a presidency of someone that has no character. We saw what happened. We saw how that spilled into everything. We saw the abject cruelty. We saw the inhumanity and indifference. We saw the lack of a fundamental understanding and empathy.

Whether this inhumanity is merely a reflection of the people that supported him or whether his inhumanity rubbed off on them is hard to parse. His grotesque existence brings forth any number of questions. However, the most important one is whether those that support him really reflect his inhumanity or do they support him simply because that inhumanity bothers us. Either is equally likely.

One might ask what the difference is and I suppose it is a minor detail, but it tells me that in one case there are millions of sociopaths/psychopaths out there. In the other case, they have human empathy, sympathy, and concern in most cases, but just enjoy the political nihilism. In a blunt world it can be rather difficult to decipher any difference between the two.

Humanity itself is a fragile thing. Everyone we encounter in our lives is flawed. Look at us in the perfect angle and we can be angels or demons. Both of things make us human. We are walking contradictions and so choosing any one to lead us can seem like an impossible task. The former guy may be human in the purest scientific sense, but lacks any redeeming human traits. Such a statement seems impossible and yet objectively true. There isn’t a positive human trait there. Some of us thought those things weren’t necessary to lead. They were absolutely wrong.

Lock Her/Him Out

“Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.” — Monopoly

It’s hard not to sound like a broken record these days. I was working out with my trainer yesterday when she took the time to compliment a guy on his Trump hat. She’s a Trumper herself, but I suspect she knows where my wife (who also trains with her) and I are at. So, she does not bring up politics during our sessions.

She was just trying to be nice to the guy. It is a similar greeting as “hello, how are you doing?” Some people make the mistake of actually answering the question. He went through the normal talking points. I didn’t say anything, but it made the reps just a little easier. It was the final one that got me.

They want to throw Dr. Fauci in jail. This is in spite of the fact that Fauci has announced his retirement before the end of the year. Ask them what he should be jailed for and they really can’t answer that. It will be something about him lying about the pandemic. Somehow, this devolves into a diatribe about how he and the CDC changed their tune multiple times, so they must have been lying. It couldn’t possibly be a learning curve for a novel virus that no one had seen before.

So, why are they arresting him again? They are the last vestiges of rage from a group that can’t quite grasp why their hero had his home searched earlier this month. It was an illegal raid. It was an invasion of privacy. It was an specious attack on a great man because we just so jealous. The fact that literally none of those things are true doesn’t really matter. It wasn’t a raid. It was a search warrant signed by a judge. The search was due to behavior that would land any of us in Leavenworth for the rest of our lives if we were lucky and drew a sympathetic judge and jury.

So, what must the response be? When you impeach our guy for inciting a violent insurrection then we must impeach your guy. What would we impeach him for? Well, er, um, ah, yeah well I’ll think of something. Somehow fair and balanced means both sides get the same treatment. Again, it comes down to the difference between calling balls and strikes and making sure each side has the same number of walks and strikeouts. Those aren’t the same thing.

That’s why they are so desperate to bring up Hunter Biden’s laptop. That’s why they were so desperate for the FBI to keep investigating Hillary for Benghazi and her emails. It’s why they still bring it up nearly ten years after she’s left her government post and six years after she lost the 2016 election. If you are going to investigate our guy then we have to investigate yours. That’s whether they did anything worth investigating or not.

Facts are facts. Republicans in Republican administrations are 38 times more likely to go to jail than Democrats. Does it mean they are 38 times more corrupt? Does it mean that Democrats are more ethical than Republicans? I’m sure we are adult enough to know there is a difference between results and reality. Maybe Democrats are just more obsessed with rooting out corruption. However, that says something in of itself.

A symmetrical world is just easier to understand. When one side is investigated for a crime then we should investigate the other side. That’s of course until we realize that one side committed crimes and the other side didn’t. That’s until we realize that one man took confidential and secret files outside the White House to his home while the other levied his opinion of how to handle a novel virus. One of those is not like the other. Let me see if I can figure out which one of those is illegal.