Raggedy Ann Meets Raggedy Andy in NY

The august New York Times has a home page photo of Sarah Palin visiting Donald Trump in New York City today. Is this supposed to be meaningful? Are these two titans of the political realm people we should be listening to? Do my fellow Americans feel joy or nausea when viewing this set piece?

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Neither Trump nor Palin has ever impressed me as a deep thinker. I have not heard Sarah or the Donald propose a plan for how to extricate ourselves from two (or three, depending on how you're counting) wars, or get us out of the economic horse latitudes, or, most importantly, improve our morale and the way we deal with each other. Rather, they are exploiters and purveyors of fear, offering their leadership skills to a frightened group of Americans who seem to be unable to accept change and growth. Trump and Palin try to elbow each other out of the way of the 'mob' of their supporters. And when was the last time you heard of any mob running across town to do something good?

The rhetoric employed by these two stuffed dolls is simply appalling. They worry about the existence of a birth certificate of a sitting president instead of helping to deal with the very real problems facing most of us. And the media, like the Grey Lady herself, continue to give them front page space. They are not entertaining or amusing; they are an embarrassment to our nation.

Imagine, if you will, a President Palin and Vice President Trump.  What might be their agenda? Bomb the hell out of (fill in the blank)? Invade Iran? Would this be a government to be proud of? I mean, we jettisoned old King George III, who was batty, and our founding fathers were aware that in a dynastic monarchy you're going to get bad apples. They believed there was a better way.

But they also expected us, the electorate, to be more thoughtful. Roughly half of us feel roughly the opposite of roughly the other half. What are we doing to reach out to each other and find some common ground. Governing a nation is not a game where one team can change conditions for all of us when they have the ball. No one's winning elections with 95% of the vote. Candidates who win elections have to think and act not only for their voters, but for the people who voted for the other side. These two lightweights can't do that. And the media do us no service by continuing to highlight their comings, going, and tweets. Enough already!

Related articles

• 'One Nation' Tour May Be A Misstep for Palin (mediabistro.com)
• Sarah Palin, Donald Trump Meeting In New York City (huffingtonpost.com)
• Sarah Palin and Donald Trump: the Republican Dream Ticket meets in New York City (dailykos.com)

Knock, Knock! Who's There?

Image via Wikipedia

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States in Kentucky v. King held that police officers could enter a home without a search warrant due to "exigent circumstances" even if they themselves create those selfsame exigent circumstances. In this case, they passed by a door in an apartment complex and smelled marijuana smoke, knocked and announced they were the police, and heard sounds of people moving about inside. To their minds this was obviously to destroy 'evidence', so they kicked in the door.

All the justices but Ruth Bader Ginsburg (above) voted to overturn the decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court and hold for the police. Their reasoning has the same relationship to reality that fish does to ice cream--NONE! Justice Samuel Alito, declaring the police did not create the exigency, stated that they simply knocked on the door, something that "any private citizen might do." He then states that, "[w]hether the person who knocks and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak." Aaarghhhh!!!

Image via Wikipedia

Have these people ever had any interaction with the police? Do they really believe that a private citizen would have the cojones to tell an officer, "No, I really don't want to talk with you right now." This view of the world has become a severe problem for the Supremes. They do not see the world the way ordinary human beings do. Have they ever been stopped for speeding? (And, gotten a ticket?) Has anyone close to them ever experienced an arrest? There's just such an air of royalty in their tone and thinking that I would not be surprised to read a line in a future opinion expressing the thought that the people should eat cake if they have no bread. There is a real lack of the humanity of earlier justices. It bodes poorly for the future of law in this wonderful land.