Bears Ears National Monument

Revenge in a small way.

The hateful articles in the National Enquirer were instrumental in defeating Hillary Clinton. When I go through the line at the grocery store, I always pick up the Enquirer, browse through it, and replace it in its holder, with the cover facing inward. Makes me feel good. I suggest you try it and see if it makes you feel good, too.

An ethics question for ourselves.

For many years, we have accepted large amounts of campaign money from interests the government is supposed to regulate. Some of our candidates are good friends with prominent people who work for those interests: corporate officers, investors, lobbyists, etc. We appoint some of them to important posts in the federal and state governments. We ask them to help us write legislation to regulate their businesses. We goon vacations and fact finding missions with them. We serve on their corporate boards, and they are officers of our foundations and charities. In general, we become very close friends with some of them. We insist this has absolutely no effect on how we govern, where tax breaks go, whose taxes get audited, etc.

Now the incoming president seems to be appointing his friends, based on their loyalty to him, business relationships, and some other criteria we can't quite pin down. Should we be criticizing his appointments on the grounds of financial ties? How is it different when he appoints his foxes to guard the hen house? Is there any difference? Qualitative or quantitative?

Conspiracy theory news from ham radio land.

I am reading my ham radio magazine, and I run across a story about HAARP, the high frequency active auroral research project near Gakona, Alaska. There are many people who believe HAARP is a government weather modification weapon, intended to cause tornadoes and violent weather events.

But a couple of Georgia men, evidently intent on doing the Lord's work, planned to blow up the facility because it was used to capture souls, and those souls needed to be released. I wish I had more details, but I think the story captures the feeling of our times, and it gives us a glimpse of the sort of thinking of that contributes to the success of someone like Donald Trump.

Bernie supporters try to make something of the wreckage.

In my area, Bernie supporters are taking over the party apparatus at the local and county level. They are replacing county central committee members, and running for office. They're working at the grassroots level, so we'll see if they have the patience and perseverance to stick with the process for the years it will take to displace the entrenched party regulars. The real challenge will be trying to disconnect the party from the financial industry, but that may work out OK, since money isn't winning elections for us anymore. Here we go. The revolution is underway, for better or worse.

The Hillary sex crime ring.

If somebody started a similar rumor about Trump, would it be widely circulated? Perhaps right here on DU? We would like to think not, but some of the stuff that gets posted here is pretty wild.

Dueling conspiracy theories.

1. Jill Stein is scamming money from frustrated Democrats. She has no intention of paying for recounts. It's a dirty trick.

2. The people warning against giving money to Jill Stein are just trying to stop the recount. It's a dirty trick.

Trump bubble coming?

The financial markets are booming, probably looking forward to easing of regulations, and the opportunity to create more risky financial instruments. There appears to be another bubble building, based on the same sort of leverage, credit swapping, etc that caused the 2008 depression.

Kanye West said WHAT?

If he had voted, he would have voted for Trump.

I think we're going to be OK, president-wise.

The pundits lie to remind us that Hillary Clinton is sometimes annoying, not able to fire up the crowd, not inspirational, too much of a policy wonk, not always tuned into her audience, etc, etc, etc. Yes, those things are true, to some extent, depending on the context, but this does not make her "not a good candidate," as some of them like to conclude. She's good enough. If you didn't know either candidate, and your first impression of them was the debate last night, how would you vote? Personally, I would not be enormously inspired to vote for either one, but I would resolve not to vote for Trump. I think most reasonable people would reach the same conclusion, assuming their introduction to both candidates was last night.

I hope our candidate puts more emphasis on the "vision thing." This is what emphasizes the difference between her and the other guy. The whole "Make America Great Again" theme implies some sort of plan, program, something to make the dream come true. But Trump's speeches and debate performance reveal it's just a pipe dream, with no substance, no "vision thing." This creates a huge opportunity for Clinton to convince voters her dream is achievable, and will make a difference for them.