The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
 by Laramie Boyd
Flip a Coin, Even if it's a Bad Penny
2016 Spectator Ron - The Spectator All Rights Reserved
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
        Wouldn't it be great if we all could be so observant and honest with ourselves so as to see things as they really are, and not be so pig-headed about what are only our biased personal opinions, at best. Below are quotes from Thomas Sowell, National Humanities Award winner and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Note how he doesn't dwell on a dialogue that consists of insisting that a one-sided political point of view is the only truth, as most political writers do. Sowell spells out the reasons why neither candidate for President of the United States is worthy of the job. That is not the usual one-sided party-line hype. His article appears in the Sunday, August 7, 2016 edition of The Desert Sun newspaper of Palm Springs. When finished reading the quotes, ask yourself how many writers you know who are so forthright with such a lack of political self indulgence?
         -"No one knows how the election will turn out, but - given the awful presidential candidates in both parties - the worst case scenario may be only marginally worse than the best case scenario." Is there really a "best" one?
        -"There was booing in both conventions and there are other signs that those who lost are not taking it kindly." Some losers announced they would not support the elected candidate. Will they then support the winning candidate of the other party, I wonder? Who is the real loser here?
        -"If Hillary Clinton inspires distrust, Donald Trump inspires disgust. Even if Trump disappears from the political scene after a defeat, his reckless, ugly and childish words will live on in innumerable videos that can be used for years to come to taint the Republican Party. With Hillary Clinton as President and Democrats in control of the Senate, she can appoint Supreme Court justices with as much contempt for the law as she has demonstrated herself. She has made no secret of her desire, among other wishes, to have the Supreme Court reverse its decision that corporations and labor unions both have free speech rights." Is free speech to her, apparently, only the Constitutional right to say what agrees with her agenda?
       -"A president Trump, however, might possibly be sobered up by the responsibility of the presidency. But someone who has not matured in 70 years seems unlikely to grow up in the next 4 years." Would it surprise anyone if Trump might even rather lose the election, or drop out of the race, than pretend he will be more politically correct if he wins? His 2nd Amendment comment insinuating, some say, that Hillary could be silenced with gunfire, and his remarks that Obama founded ISIS,, stand out as bizarre, to say the least. If he has proof, that's another matter. Let's see it, Donald. Does he have a "right" to say those things? Certainly, but where is he headed with these remarks I wonder? Does he even know?
        - "The Second Amendment right to have a gun is at least as threatened as the First Amendment right to free speech would be if Hillary Clinton gets to pick Supreme Court justices." She's already said she wants justices that agree with her agenda, and that's a scary admission for a potential member of the executive branch of the government to make regarding the judicial branch. I guess she doesn't believe that justice should be blind. How far will she take that approach to the separation of the three branches of government, I wonder?
        -"Much has been made of Hillary's "experience" in politics. But it has been an experience of having been proved to be wrong, time and time again. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton carried out foreign policy decisions that led to major setbacks for American interests as far as the eye can see- Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, North Korea, and China." And her e-mail cover-ups when she said "I may have short-circuited it and for that I...ah...you know, will try to clarify. Shouldn't it be I apologize? No, she just regrets getting caught". Her "What difference does it make" remark when the Libya ambassador was killed resulted in the polls showing she is not even trusted by her own party members. Are these the "experiences" in politics she touts? These thinly veiled apologies Hillary is pandering to potential voters is getting worn thin. They clear the way for any misunderstandings about her lack of integrity.
        -"Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian roulette with the future of this country," while "Voting for someone with the track record like Hillary Clinton's is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. And not voting at all is just giving up. Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy." I can't count the number of people I've talked to who said they can't, in good conscience, vote for someone you can't trust and who has a compulsion for lying, nor can they give a vote to such a glib, inexperienced, dangerous- talking buffoon. They are baffled by no-win choices.
        Now, do you find that you are tempted to say things like, "Well, those things about Hillary, they just aren't true", even though Mr. Sowell has a good case? Or "True or not, I don't care, I like Hillary". Or maybe you think, "Hey, we need a new, fresh non-political outsider like Trump who tells it like it is. He couldn't be any worse than Hillary". Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. Seems there are a lot of people brave enough to take that chance. Americans need some serious re-thinking at this time in our history. Is what's going on now what we want to repeat every 4 years because qualified candidates don't want to enter a nasty arena like the one being fought in now? How can the voters assure that they get at least marginally qualified candidates to choose from? Is there a need for a minimum number of requirements, besides age and citizenship, that must be met before someone can even run for the presidency? So many questions and so few answers. At least Mr. Sowell has the intelligence and guts to say that neither candidate is capable of leading America out of the pits it is in. Would a good write-in candidate be what we all need to consider? A third-party candidate? Now is not the time for a "gender vote" nor a thoughtless "refreshing slogan" vote. But, sadly, what's left?
       And Donald Trump's never ending repetitive and maybe even dangerous dialogue about all the "good" things he's going to do for America is laced with promises that we surely know can not all be fulfilled. And most agree that we've heard enough of that sort of platform. And his attacks on his opponent are getting stranger and stranger. All in all, can't we agree that there seems to be no end in sight to empty pledges, excuses, lies, and politicking in the free-for-all campaign that is running amok in the media? Like so many changes in the social fabric of America, should we all just get used to it? Maybe a long list of victories at the Rio 2016 Olympiad will lull Americans into believing that things are back to normal, that the U.S. is still the best country in the world, and that our children and grandchildren will have a better life than we had. The coming election, I fear, will be a wake-up call to any such pipe dreams. It's crunch time, folks, enjoy yourself while you can. Come tomorrow, today will definitely not be the "good old days".