I Couldn't Have Said it Better Myself

"If you can only choose between the lesser of two evils there will never be the opportunity to have more choices."

On the other hand, we had lots of choices in the Republican presidential primary, but what good did it do us? I originally intended to vote for Rand Paul, but he dropped out early on. His name was still on the ballot, though, and I might have voted for him, but I thought that Cruz had the best chance of beating Trump. Now it looks like Hillary is going to win, and my one vote isn't going to change that. Besides, I don't like Trump any better than Hillary, so there is no lesser of two evils for me in this one. I used to be a card carrying Libertarian, and I'm not anymore, but I'll take a Libertarian over Trump or Hillary any day. In our recent general primary, my candidate for congressman came in dead last in a three way race. I'm not crazy about the guy who won, he's a retired Marine general with no political experience, but I'll vote for him. With Hillary in the White House, we will need all the Republicans in Congress that we can get. My favorite choice for state legislator did win, so it's not always the lesser of two evils for me.

I looked up Evan McMullin on Wiki today. He seems like a nice enough guy, but not for me, for my hypothetical wife. She doesn't like the Libertarians any better than Trump or Hillary and was planning to not vote for any presidential candidate until Evan came along. She planned to go vote but she was going to leave the presidential part blank. Now she might vote for Evan if he gets on the ballot in Michigan. Because he is starting so late, he might not be on the ballot in all states. I don't understand how a vote for somebody else can be considered a vote, or even half a vote, for one of the other candidates. That idea seems to presume that, if I didn't vote for one candidate, I would automatically vote for another. What if I don't vote for any of them?

I'm pretty sure that I knew some gays in the army, but they used to keep a low profile in those days. What makes me suspect is that there were some guys who constantly made crude jokes about homosexual behavior. I mean, if they had taken the word "suck" out of the English language, those guys wouldn't have been able to talk at all. Funny, nowadays they say "suck" on television and everything but, in those days, suck literally meant suck. Maybe that's how the word lost it's literal meaning, misuse and overuse. "Fuck" was already like that in those days. We used to worry that, when we got home, we would casually say "Pass the fucking salt." at the family dinner table.

Okay, the men and women have separate barracks, but what about the gays? If you put all the gays together, it would be like putting men and women together. Nothing wrong with that, except that the ones who didn't have partners would be jealous of the ones who did. That's why they don't put the males and females together. It would be fine if there was an equal number of each and they were all paired up, but that seem unlikely because it doesn't work that way on the outside. That's okay on the outside where you can get away from each other but, when people are all crammed together like that, the "haves" and the "have nots" are bound to get on each other's nerves.

So Old Dog used to work in a print shop. Cool! I worked at a paper mill for 23 years, and I really got to like those machines. Indeed, when it closed down, I missed the machines a lot more than I missed any of the people with whom I had worked. Funny, I was kind of a Luddite when I was a kid. My fondness for machines must have developed gradually over the years because I don't remember when it happened.