Thoughts On A Sunday

It looks like we have survived yet another week in Coronavirus America.

Thinks are “cranking up” in preparation for the upcoming Fourth of July weekend. Restaurants have reopened fully (though with social distancing in place), a number of the summer amusements have opened, and plans have been made for the traditional fireworks displays. I am sure there will also be the traditional “charring of mammal flesh and consumption of mass quantities” to go along with all of the other festivities.

I expect to be spending quite a bit of time on the Official Weekend Pundit Lake Winnipesaukee Runabout, weather permitting. (So far it looks like the weather will be cooperating, assuming the Weather GuysTM are right.)


Speaking of coronavirus, the MSM has been going out of its mind with the surge in new cases. However, the one thing that hasn’t been mentioned other than in passing in one news story (by ABC News) is the demographics of the cases being reported. The other thing not being mentioned are the severity of the cases, more specifically what percentage are asymptomatic, what percentage show minimal symptoms, moderate symptoms, and so on. That could be due to the lack of granularity in the data, meaning the data doesn’t include those determinations. (Somehow I doubt that as the various health agencies would use that data to determine the severity of new cases and the measures that need to be taken.)

On the other hand, if the media included that information and it did not point to something that generates fear, they would leave it out. (The media likes fear as it generates viewers/readers/clicks. How many times have we seen stories along the lines of “How the coffeemaker in your kitchen could be killing you! That story after these messages….”? This isn’t that much different other than it is nationwide and already in the public consciousness.)

How can anyone figure what’s really going on if we aren’t properly informed? The media used to do that at one point. Not that the media wasn’t partisan in the past, but they tried hard to provide balanced reporting. That is no longer true.


Is the 2020 election going to be about something other than Trump versus Biden? If Victor Davis Hanson is correct, the answer is “yes”.

What does VDH believe be driving this election? Anger.

The old 2020 election was supposed to be about many familiar issues. It is not anymore.

Up until now, the candidates themselves would supposedly be the story in November. The left had cited President Trump’s tweets and erratic firings as windows into his dark soul.

The right had replied that an addled and befuddled Joe Biden was not really a candidate at all.

Instead, he was a mere facsimile who would have to be carried to the Election Day on the shoulders of the Democratic Party, only shortly to fade away.

Issues themselves are no longer likely to decide the election either. Not long ago progressives argued that the miracle Trump economy was in shambles, done in by plague, quarantine and riot.

The right had countered that deregulation, energy development, tax reform and reindustrialization that made America Great would make American Great — Again.


For nearly a month, the nation has been consumed by massive protests and chronic riots, looting and arson.

The Internet is aflame with self-appointed sleuths. They scour hours of video, and millions of words, searching for an indiscreet past remark — as fodder to take out a political opponent, a rival for a job or a personal enemy.


The angry and the demonstrating are loud and visible; their opponents are angry and quiet.

The election will reveal not just who is more numerous — but sadly also who is the angriest.

Do we want people voting based purely on anger? I know I don’t. Anger short-circuits reason and logic. The last thing anyone should be basing their votes upon is just emotion, i.e. feelz. From history we know that is a bad idea.


From the “Just When I Thought They Couldn’t Get Any Stupider” Department comes this from California.

It appears the California Legislature has voted to remove protections against discrimination from the state constitution, specifically Article I, Section 31 which states:

(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section’s effective date.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

There are five more subsections that go into detail about definitions, penalties, and so on, so I didn’t include them. However, the full text can be found here.

Is it the intention of the legislature to allow discrimination based upon race or sex? Why? What purpose does it serve allowing the state, counties, and municipalities to discriminate? I can think of a number, most which shall allow the legal creation of a system of government discrimination to address past wrongs. Could it lead to a racial/sexual spoils system to punish past discrimination by people long dead? (Yes, that may be pushing it, but then we are dealing with California, so anything is possible.)

Fortunately the California Legislature does not have the last word on this. The proposed amendment, ACA5, will be placed on the November ballot for ratification by the voters. Unfortunately it only takes a simple majority, just over 50% of voters, to ratify state constitutional amendments, the lowest of the 50 states. (The 49 other states require anywhere between 60% and 75% to ratify amendments to their constitutions.)


And that’s the news from Lake Winnipesaukee, where summer is in full swing, preparations for the Fourth continue apace, and where it will be a very short workweek for me this week.