So Many Questions

     Should an old lady be prosecuted for working from home? Is it more of a crime if, as you might stereotypically expect, she doesn’t know how to work the computer quite right?
     If the answer is yes, then we’re going to need to build a lot more jails.
     I have my doubts, though. Which is why I’m having some trouble understanding the importance of the controversy over the Hillary Clinton’s home email server.
     Yeah, it was probably not the smartest thing to do.
     Yeah, she may have been a bit untruthful about what happened.
     But so what? She wasn’t conspiring with enemy agents or deliberately giving away state secrets. She wasn’t making a personal fortune at the expense of the government or unsuspecting consumers.
     She was working at home.
     For some reason this doesn’t strike me as a crime that needs to be prosecuted.
     Picture Hillary meeting her new cellmate:
     HILLARY: What are you in for?
     LANA SKULLCRUSHER: Armed robbery, mayhem, dining on my lover’s liver and kidney with grilled onions. You?
     HILLARY: Setting up a server at home with insufficient security protocols.
     LANA SKULLCRUSHER (panic-stricken): Guards! Get this lunatic away from me!
     Hillary’s behavior, though, does reflect a possible lack of judgment and intelligence, and that isn’t the best thing for a potential president.
     Still, when you consider the only alternative …
     My prediction: We’ll soon be seeing bumper stickers reading, “Don’t blame me — I voted for Bernie.”
     Are most cops really good?
     I ask this because when you listen to almost anyone criticizing police brutality, they seem to be legally required to preface their comments with the statement that most police do a great job.
     But do they?
     Do we have any evidence of this?
     Maybe most of them actually do a wonderful job, but it’s awfully hard to tell when you don’t hear all those wonderful officers complaining about the guys doing the shooting and beating.
     Instead, what you hear is a lot of whining from police unions and spokespersons when anyone dares to criticize the police. Remember the cops turning their backs on the mayor of New York for having the audacity to be critical?
     Until all those “good cops” start showing the same outrage that the rest of us feel about what’s been going on, we need to stop prefacing our comments with how wonderful they are.
     If you’re good, show us.
     Should old people be allowed to be president?
     Hillary can’t work a computer. Donald seems to be suffering from dementia. I’d have a problem allowing either one of them to drive.
     This is not an easy thing for me to ask since I’m relatively elderly myself — but then, I don’t want a doctor with a shaky hand operating on me when it comes time to put in new organs.
     A president with uncontrollable trembling is probably a bad thing too and there’s also the issue of succession. An old president could drop dead at any moment.
     Now think of some of the vice presidents we’ve had in recent decades.
     Imagine if John McCain had won eight years ago and then expired.
     Double yikes!
     The Constitution already has a minimum age requirement (although I have no idea why), so why not a maximum age requirement? Or at least a basic health and mental state requirement.
     I prefer my presidents sane, healthy and competent.
     And I’m almost always disappointed.
     Does it seem to you that the Supreme Court is getting a whole lot more done lately now that there’s an even number of justices?
     It sure seems that way to me. Maybe I’m imagining it, but this could be the solution we’ve been waiting for to end Congressional gridlock.
     We need to get an equal number of seats for both parties. That way no one gets anything done without compromising.
     Write your legislators and urge them to quit if they’re in the majority.
     What about Texit and Flexit?
     That British thing may actually be a good idea. Consider how happy everyone would be if, say, Texas and Florida left the American union?
     With a little rearrangement of the population, we could have one country with gun control and one country requiring arms for everyone and then see who turns out to be right.
     It could be a significant social experiment.
     The nuclear weapons, however, definitely need to be kept on the non-gun side.

%d bloggers like this: