a question for the silent week

I think TV was a factor in Trump's rise.  It kind of got people the idea that they knew him, like some crazy old uncle.  I watched the Apprentice a bit because it was so awful, you know how that is.  And he was an SOB, he was shitty to everybody.  Well except for his panel.  He had this panel of kin and employees that he consulted, and by consulting I mean they agreed with everything he said.  I think that is his concept of leadership.  I don't know why people liked such a mean guy, but when I was subbing the first thing I tuned in when I got home was Judge Judy because she was so mean like I could never allow myself to become in front of those awful kids.

And Fox liked him, he was always dropping into their shows.  I remember once they were talking about some national crisis and they talked about bringing in an expert and I thought it would be like some former diplomat or a guy who wrote a book, but instead it was Donald Trump.

The debate was on CNN.  It started at 7:30, well actually 8:00.  It was kind of a snooze.  The word on the street is that Trump's advisors had told him to act 'presidential,' so there he stood at the podium like some kid in church, all dressed up and not allowed to play in the mud.  He didn't look too happy.  Lil' Marco and Lyin' Ted (Trump's nicknames) came after him and he answered back, but he waited his turn to talk, and they waited for him to be done before they answered back.  I'd say your man, Lyin' Ted did the best, then Lil' Marco.  I suppose the guy from Ohio did ok to, but I was always out to the bathroom or to get a beer when he came on.

And there is yet another debate on the 21st, though I think the election will be settled or close to it on the primaries of the 15th.

No particular reason to go to New Orleans, though I have always wanted to see it because it is so exotic.  My friend Debbie, who lives in St Joseph Mo, just north of Kansas City, wanted to go somewhere warm towards the end of winter, and she wanted to leave from Kansas City and there aren't that many flights south out of there.  I don't expect we'll get caught up in any mad revelry, we'll probably just do arty and historical things.

When I got my new cable there was a TIVO option, but it cost more money so I didn't take it.  There are shows that I could record, but I prefer kind of crappy shows that I only have to watch with half an eye while I fiddle with the computer.  And I have enough problems just fiddling with the buttons on my DVD machine.  I pause it to go to the kitchen or the bathroom and when I get back I hit the wrong button and I am back at the beginning and then this and then that until I don't know where I am.  You'd think I was some old guy or something.

We never did go through all the details of the Republic and the Democracy of the USA, and I don't think we would ever be able to get through the details, things generally fall apart in the details and they are boring besides.

One of my assumptions though was that one side would do better than the other side and people would flock to it, and eventually there would be nobody left on the one side and that would prove that liberalism or conservatism was better.

Naturally I assumed my side would win and I wondered if, in the face of that, Beagles would become a liberal.  But the trouble with us liberals is we are always thinking and then the thought came to me, what if (not that this would ever happen in a million billion years), but what if the conservatives won?  Would I, believer in the crucible that I am, admit that conservatism is the proper path?  Ouch, it hurt just to type that.

I hate to admit it, but probably not.  Being a liberal is part of who I am.  It would be like a Cub fan, which I am, rooting for the White Sox, ugh. 

I'm sure I would come up with all kinds of ways that the contest wasn't fair, the game was rigged, 

But what does this do with my theory, and what I thought of as one of the founding beliefs of The Institute, that men of good will and common sense could get together and submit their issues to the crucible of logic and come up with an answer they both could agree with, if I, the ideal of logical thinking, would not admit I was wrong, even if it was proved right before my eyes?

Something to think about this long week of thinking and not writing.  In parting let me ask you, if the liberals won out in that Republic/Democracy thing, would you admit that you were wrong?