Trump, Ryan and the NYTimes: Today's news for November 14th

Fox News:

Trump repeats vow to build border wall, but admits 'there could be some fencing'

President-elect Donald Trump, in his first television interview since his surprise election victory, repeated his vows to build a wall across America's southern border, deport criminal illegal aliens, and repeal and replace ObamaCare.

But Trump also appeared to back off from [committing] to build a solid wall, telling CBS' "60 Minutes" the barrier might look more like a fence in spots.

"Certain areas, a wall is more appropriate," Trump told interviewer Lesley Stahl. "I'm very good at this, it's called construction."

Trump emphasized that securing the border is his very first immigration priority, but he also promised to deport people living in the country illegally who had committed crimes beyond their immigration offenses.

"What we are going to do is get the people that are [criminals] and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers," Trump said. "We have a lot of these people. Probably two million, it could be even three million. We are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate.

After the border is secured and after everything gets normalized," Trump added, "we're going to make a determination on [other undocumented immigrants] ... But before we make that determination ... we want to secure our border.

At least he has his priorities straight. It is impossible to deal with an immigration problem without a secure border.

Regarding Obamacare:

The real estate mogul also echoed remarks he made to the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, in which he said he favors keeping the prohibition against insurers denying coverage because of patients’ existing conditions, and a provision that allows parents to provide years of additional coverage for children on their insurance policies. 

"It'll be just fine. We're not going to have, like, a two day period and we're not going to have-- a two-year period where there's nothing," Trump said.  

It will be interesting to see if Trump pursues a plan favored by Ben Carson, which was high deductible health insurance combined with health savings accounts. That would be a far better solution.

On Hillary Clinton:

Trump also appeared to back away from his promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, over her use of a private email server. Trump made such a promise during the second presidential debate against Clinton during a rhetorical duel that ended with Trump saying if he was president, "you'd be in jail."

"She did some bad things, I mean she did some bad things," Trump said, to which Stahl responded, "I know, but a special prosecutor?"

"I don't want to hurt them, I don't want to hurt them," Trump said. "They’re, they’re good people. I don't want to hurt them."

I am relieved he said that. It is time to move past that.

On the protests against him:

Trump touched on the protests that have broken out across the nation since his election, [complaining] that the coverage represented a "double standard."

"If Hillary had won and if my people went out and protested, everybody would say, 'Oh, that's a terrible thing,'" he said. "And it would have been a much different attitude. There is a different attitude."

There seems to be a common view that it is ok to hate Trump, so anything in service to that is considered good, even if it chips away at the foundations of our country, namely the peaceful transition of power following an election.

Finally:

However the president-elect said that he was "saddened" by reports that some of his supporters had harassed minorities since Tuesday's vote. 

"And I say, 'Stop it.' ... I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it."

Contrary to what the MSM says, Trump is no racist. Sexist, yes, but not racist.

Speaking of misunderstanding Trump...

Fox News:

New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly

The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly. 

Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support.

Letter to NYT readers from Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Dean Baquet pic.twitter.com/jORqzx3BA9

— Sydney Ember (@melbournecoal) November 11, 2016

Sulzberger does fine until he says, "We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign." If so, why does this letter even have to be sent? Why would you have to "rededicate" yourself to your "fundamental mission"?

On the topic of biased reporting...

Talking Points Memo:

Ryan Plans to Phase Out Medicare in 2017

Pretty scary headline. Unfortunately, that isn't what Ryan said during an interview with Bret Baier on Fox's Special Report (quoted from the TPM article):

BRET BAIER: Let's tick down these things. You have a debt ceiling coming up. How is that going to work?
PAUL RYAN: Thankfully, we're doing it with a republican president and congress. We can tackle our fiscal issues. We can tackle the oppressive taxes that are stifling job creation and business and making America uncompetitive. Having a debt limit, which occurs -- March is around the time this occurs. With president-elect trump -- with president trump and a congressional republican and congressional senate democrats in the minority and senate republicans in the majority makes a world of difference better. We can use this as an opportunity to get good things done.
BRET BAIER: Your solution has always been to put things together including entitlement reform. That is Paul Ryan's plan. That's not Donald Trump's plan.
PAUL RYAN: Well, you have to remember, when Obamacare became Obamacare, Obamacare rewrote medicare, rewrote medicaid. If you are going to repeal and replace Obamacare, you have to address those issues as well. What a lot of folks don't realize is this 21-person board called the ipap is about to kick in with price controls on Medicare. What people don't realize is because of Obamacare, medicare is going broke, medicare is going to have price controls because of Obamacare, medicaid is in fiscal straits. You have to deal with those issues if you are going to repeal and replace obamacare. Medicare has serious problems [because of] Obamacare. Those are part of our plan.

The article even says:

...I've heard a few people say that it's not 100% clear here that Ryan is calling for Medicare Phase Out. It is 100% clear. Ryan has a standard, openly enunciated position in favor of Medicare Phase Out. It's on his website. It's explained explicitly right there.

So click the link and go to Ryan's website, where Ryan says:

We have to save Medicare to avoid disruptions in benefits for current seniors and to strengthen the program for future generations. 

Josh Marshall, the TPM writer, is lying.

Speaking of insincerity...

USAToday:

Kaepernick: Election 'didn't really matter' to me

Colin Kaepernick has no regrets about sitting out Tuesday's presidential election. 

The San Francisco 49ers' polarizing quarterback did not vote and said Wednesday he "didn't really follow" the results as Donald Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States. 

"I've been very disconnected from the systematic oppression as a whole," Kaepernick told reporters in a conference call Wednesday. "So, for me, it's another face that's going to be the face of that system of oppression. 

"And to me, it didn't really matter who went in there, the system still remains intact that oppresses people of color."

Kaepernick became one of Trump's targets when he refused to stand for the national anthem, later opting to kneel instead, to protest police brutality and racial injustices. Trump suggested in August that Kaepernick "find a country that works better for him," with the quarterback responding that the sentiment was "ignorant."

That is a rich sentiment, coming from a multi-millionaire football player. He has it so rough, doesn't he?

Continuing:

But Kaepernick spoke out against both Trump and Hillary Clinton after the first presidential debate. 

"It was embarrassing to watch that these are our two candidates," Kaepernick said. "Both are proven liars, and it almost seems like they're trying to debate who's less racist. 

"And at this point ... you have to pick the lesser of two evils. But in the end, it's still evil."

Agreed! But that is why you vote for a third party candidate. Don't complain about the state of the country if you don't at least vote. It makes your protest appear insincere.

The Racist Syllogism

Lately, there has been an incredibly naive syllogism going around (Salon's David Masciotra is guilty of it in his editorial, "White flight from reality: Inside the racist panic that fueled Donald Trump’s victory"). It goes like this:

1. There is racism in America.
2. Donald Trump is racist.
3. Ergo, all Trump's supporters are racist.

There were plenty of reasons to vote for Trump that were not related to racism.

For example, there are plenty of people who will vote Republican regardless of who is running. And being Republican does not equate to racism, contrary to what many Leftists think.

In addition, Trump's idea to build a wall on the Mexican border is NOT racist. It is based on a flawed idea that immigration is somehow taking jobs away from Americans. It isn't anti-Mexican, but rather poor economic thinking that drives this idea. But when people lose their jobs and see plenty of illegal immigrants working, they tend to equate the two. In reality, one did not lead to the other.

Trump's plans to renegotiate our trade agreements was also popular, and again reflected the flawed thinking they are responsible for lost jobs in America.

There was also the Hillary Clinton problem. While both candidates were flawed, Clinton represented the elite establishment, which gave us Wall Street bailouts, Obamacare, and over a decade of war on Islam. And she was a criminal on top of that. While Trump's flaws are legion, Clinton was just too chummy with the elite establishment, and showed far too much disregard for middle class America. (For example, when Bill Clinton suggested the campaign should target middle class whites, the campaign scoffed at it.)

Actually, the racist syllogism is dangerous. It reflects a dumbing down of the concept of racism to a conspiracy theory, whereby whites are all guilty of a hidden conspiracy against other races (but especially blacks). In effect, "racist" becomes a code word for "white". If being white makes me a racist, so be it, but don't expect me to hate myself for it. If anything, the overutilization of the racist charge in our culture has opened the door for people like Trump, and some of his truly racist supporters, and not just the white folks.

Weekly finale: RIP Leonard Cohen

As this week has come to an end, so did the life of songwriter Leonard Cohen this week. He was 82.

I cannot claim to be a fan of Cohen's songs, although his lyrics were more poetic than many songwriters. His best-known song, and best in my opinion, was Hallelujah. The best known version was by a little-known singer Jeff Buckley, who had been dead 10 years before it was released as a single:



But the beauty of the song is in its lyrics:

I heard there was a secret chord
That David played and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you? 

Well, it goes like this, the fourth, the fifth
The minor fall and the major lift
The baffled King composing Hallelujah 

Hallelujah 

Well, your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you 

She tied you to her kitchen chair
She broke your throne and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah 

Hallelujah
Baby, I've been here before
I've seen this room and I've walked this floor
I used to live alone before I knew you 

I've seen your flag on the marble arch
But love is not a victory march
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah 

Hallelujah 

Well, there was a time when you let me know
What's really going on below
But now you never show that to me, do you? 

But remember when I moved in you
And the holy dove was moving too
And every breath we drew was Hallelujah 

Well, maybe there's a god above
But all I've ever learned from love
Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you 

It's not a cry that you hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah 

Hallelujah

And on that note, I shall take my leave of this week also. God willing, I will be back Monday for more. Enjoy your weekend folks!

The mote in the New York Times' eye

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"--Matthew 7:3

I was reminded of the Biblical quote above by the latest self-serving editorial in the New York Times, "Denounce the Hate, Mr. Trump", wherein they state:

In his victory speech early Wednesday morning, Donald Trump pledged that he “will be president for all Americans,” and he asked those who did not support him “for your guidance and your help so that we can work together and unify our great country.”

Here’s some guidance right off the bat, Mr. President-elect: Those sentiments will have more force if you immediately and unequivocally repudiate the outpouring of racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic and homophobic insults, threats and attacks being associated with your name. Do this in a personal plea to people who supported your candidacy. Tell them this is not what you stand for, nor is it what your new administration will tolerate.

While that request is reasonable coming from an objective observer, it is laughable coming from the New York Times editorial board, which did everything it could to promote hatred of Trump.

I won't argue that Trump is worthy of disrespect, but the hatred shown to him by the MSM and others on the Left was every bit the equal of that which they accuse both Trump and his supporters.

The mere fact that the Times provides a forum for Charles Blow speaks volumes. Blow's column "America Elects a Bigot" is nothing more than a public venting of spleen against Trump. Consider this line:

Also, let me be clear: Businessman Donald Trump was a bigot. Candidate Donald Trump was a bigot. Republican nominee Donald Trump was a bigot. And I can only assume that President Donald Trump will be a bigot. 

It is absolutely possible that America didn’t elect him in spite of that, but because of it. Consider that for a second. Think about what that means. This is America right now: throwing its lot in with a man who named an alt-right sympathizer as his campaign chief.

In the vacuum of the Left's echo chamber, Trump as bigot naturally equates to his supporters are all bigots too, completely ignoring the failure of the establishment's policies over the last 16 years, which Hillary Clinton fully supported. Nope. It's all about the bigotry. And because Trump is a bigot, he and all his supporters must be hated.

You don't change hate with more hate.

Perhaps the Times could lead by example, and end their hate campaign against Trump? Sadly, I doubt they will. In today's PC environment, hating the haters is considered ok. And the chasm in our political discourse just grows a little bit wider, as both sides talk past each other when they aren't hurling invectives.

Clinton's post-mortem: Today's news for November 11th

Politico:

Clinton aides blame loss on everything but themselves

Sexism. The media. James Comey.

On a call with surrogates Thursday afternoon, top advisers John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri pinned blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss on a host of uncontrollable headwinds that ultimately felled a well-run campaign that executed a sensible strategy, and a soldier of a candidate who appealed to the broadest coalition of voters in the country.

They shot down questions about whether they should have run a more populist campaign with a greater appeal to angry white voters, pointing to exit polls that showed Clinton beat Trump on the issue of the economy. They explained that internal polling from May showed that attacking Trump on the issue of temperament was a more effective message.

They get the shark for that:

Especially in light of this:

There was little the Clinton operatives could do about the “scandals” they inherited when they signed up to work for the former secretary of state. But Clinton allies are also faulting the campaign for failing to develop a credible message for downscale white voters, arguing she could have won by a larger margin on the economy.

And some began pointing fingers at the young campaign manager, Robby Mook, who spearheaded a strategy supported by the senior campaign team that included only limited outreach to those voters — a theory of the case that Bill Clinton had railed against for months, wondering aloud at meetings why the campaign was not making more of an attempt to even ask that population for its votes. It’s not that there was none: Clinton’s post-convention bus tour took her through Youngstown, Ohio, as well as Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, where she tried to eat into Trump’s margins with his base. In Scranton and Harrisburg, the campaign aired a commercial that featured a David Letterman clip of Trump admitting to outsourcing manufacturing of the products and clothes that bore his logo. And at campaign stops in Ohio, Clinton talked about Trump’s reliance on Chinese steel.

But in general, Bill Clinton’s viewpoint of fighting for the working class white voters was often dismissed with a hand wave by senior members of the team as a personal vendetta to win back the voters who elected him, from a talented but aging politician who simply refused to accept the new Democratic map. At a meeting ahead of the convention at which aides presented to both Clintons the “Stronger Together” framework for the general election, senior strategist Joel Benenson told the former president bluntly that the voters from West Virginia were never coming back to his party.

For all of the Hillary campaign's mistakes, this is the biggest. Here they had the greatest politician alive today in their camp, and they ignore him. It doesn't matter if you are running for president or dog-catcher, if Bill Clinton offers you political advice, you take it to heart. Bill is THE political zen master, capable of coming back from every bad thing that ever happened to any of his campaigns, and Hillary's campaign was a cesspool of never-ending bad news.

The lesson for other campaigns: Don't believe the crap you're shoveling. Don't confuse your campaign's message with political strategy. You control the message, and not the other way around.

Speaking of the Clintons...

New York Post:

Chelsea Clinton being groomed to run for Congress

While some pundits are declaring the Clinton political dynasty dead, sources tell us that it is far from over. Chelsea Clinton is being groomed for the New York seat held by Rep. Nita Lowey.

Chelsea could run for the seat in NYC’s 17th Congressional District once Lowey, a 79-year-old respected career politician with nearly 30 years in office, decides to retire, we have exclusively learned.

Lowey’s district includes parts of Rockland and Westchester counties and, conveniently, Chappaqua, the Clinton family home base.

In August, Hillary and Bill Clinton purchased a home next door to their primary residence in Chappaqua for $1.16 million, which is intended for Chelsea, her husband, Marc Mezvinsky, and their two children, Charlotte and Aidan.

While Chelsea currently lives, and is registered to vote, in Manhattan, she could easily make Chappaqua her legal residence in order to run for Lowey’s seat when it becomes vacant.

Before you groan at this, it should be noted that it was Chelsea who tried to root out corruption in the Clinton Foundation. While the concept of an honest Clinton defies belief, she might be it. If so, she should pursue a political career. With her father's political mastery, and her mother's attention to detail, her pedigree could be very formidable.

In other news...

Oregon Live:

After Donald Trump victory, Oregonians submit ballot proposal to secede from the union

Two days after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, two Portlanders have submitted a petition for a 2018 ballot initiative to have Oregon secede from the United States.

On Thursday morning, Jennifer Rollins, a lawyer, and Christian Trejbal, a writer, filed the Oregon Secession Act.

"Oregonian values are no longer the values held by the rest of the United States," Trejbal said over the phone Thursday.

Those values? "Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness," Trejbal said, "plus equality." 

While everyone should support Oregon's right to secede, what exactly do they mean by "equality"? Nobody will question that everyone deserves equal rights and opportunity.

But what about equal results?

Too often the Left uses results to measure opportunity, and that doesn't work. Not everyone applies themselves in equal ways in order to gain equal results.

However, if the new Oregon country decides to use equal results as a standard measure for equality, expect their country to look a lot like the old Soviet Union. Dasvidania, suckers.

Speaking of Trump...

Bloomberg:

How Trump Could Walk Away From Decades of Climate Deals

It took more than two decades for nations around the world to forge an agreement to save the planet from global warming. Within one year, Donald Trump could leave it in tatters.

Trump, who has said climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, has vowed to “cancel” the Paris agreement brought into force this year by more than 190 other countries. While he can’t rip up the entire accord, the real-estate tycoon and reality-television star-turned president elect has several options for pulling the U.S. out.

Global warming? You mean that hoax which says mankind is responsible for global warming? The hoax perpetrated by Left-leaning scientists looking for big government grants to support their phony research? The hoax supported by scientifically-ignorant elitists in government and business? The hoax which completely ignores the impact of that big glowing ball in the sky as the source of all warming on this planet? Trump wants to leave the silly agreements made by the elitists?

Just one question: How soon can he make this happen?

Trump has at least four options. First is to exit the Paris deal, which was signed in December. Yet, the exit clause of the agreement means the U.S would still be bound by it until 2020. Trump must now wait three years to formally submit his intention to withdraw and then another year before the U.S. can exit. 

There is a quicker way. Schmidt of the NRDC referred to it as “the nuclear option,” which would allow the U.S. to leave by early 2018. That would entail withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty that established the entire process. 

That deal was unanimously adopted by the U.S. Senate and signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. Trump could pull the U.S. out with one year’s notice, Dan Bodansky, an Arizona State University law professor who studies international environmental agreements, said in an interview. 

While faster, that option would raise the diplomatic stakes. 

“It will negatively impact his ability to get the co-operation of other world leaders on issues he cares about such as trade and terrorism,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group in Washington. “Climate change has become a geopolitical issue of the top order.”

Meyer doesn't state how the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change relates to trade and terrorism. It just does.

Quack.

Other things Trump can do:

Trump could dispose of the accord by sending it to the Senate, where it would be dead on arrival in the hands of Republican lawmakers, said Myron Ebell, a director at the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute. When President Barack Obama’s administration negotiated the Paris deal, his envoys avoided structuring it as a traditional treaty, bypassing the need for approval from two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

“There has been a tradition of shared power in the Constitution,” said Ebell, who has also pushed for the U.S. to stop funding UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. “President Obama has broken that precedent. So it seems to me the Senate can also break the precedent and simply take it up now.”

Finally, Trump could simply ignore the U.S.’s climate goal under the Paris agreement. He could kill Obama’s Clean Power Plan. And he could refuse to take any steps to reduce emissions. There is nothing in the agreement that would penalize the U.S. for flouting its commitments. 

How about "all of the above", as quickly as possible?

The Trump haters

hater: 

A person that simply cannot be happy for another person's success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.  

Hating, the result of being a hater, is not exactly jealousy. The hater [doesn't] really want to be the person he or she hates, rather the hater wants to knock [someone else] down a notch. 

--from the Urban Dictionary

I take difference with saying it "is not exactly jealousy", because it is (it is frequently confused with envy, to the point it is almost defined the same by most people). In a social hierarchy, one can be jealous of those they perceive to be challenging one for their social status, even if both are on the bottom rung.

Regardless of your definition of "jealousy", let us accept the definition of "hater" as stated above, for the sake of discussion. To be a hater is effectively to want to knock down someone (or a group of people) within the social hierarchy. Frequently, the term is appropriately applied to racists and sexists.

While most reasonable people will agree that racism and sexism are undesirable qualities, how do we deal with them?

Case in point: President-elect Donald Trump.

While many people have called him a racist, I am not quite sold on that. His followers may be, but that isn't his fault. And not wanting people immigrating illegally from other countries does not make him racist. It does make him law-abiding. And the birther controversy over Obama's birth certificate was reasonable considering Obama's father was from another country and Obama himself spent much of his childhood growing up in other countries.

No, where Trump has issues is his sexism. That is quite clear by many of his comments about women (both specific and in general) over the years.

So how does a reasonable person deal with such a man?

A reasonable person doesn't vote for him for president. Even "not voting" might be preferable. (Note: This does NOT mean you vote for Hillary. That is a separate discussion with other considerations.)

But let us consider the opposite question: How does a hater deal with Trump? I mean someone who hates racism/sexism so much, that they need to bring the racist/sexist down a notch? In other words, they hate the sinner more than the sin itself.

Clearly, that person would vote for Hillary Clinton, with no consideration for Clinton's qualifications or flaws. It becomes a decision based on the political calculus of keeping Trump out of the White House at all costs. It is a vote for the candidate most likely to defeat Trump, and not for the "best" candidate or the candidate most likely to help the country. In other words, it is a vote based on hatred alone. No other personal/political/philosophical values are considered. (Mind you, I am not saying this is representative of all of Clinton's voters. Only the Trump haters.)

So what happens now that Trump won/Clinton lost? Before you throw the "Clinton won a majority of the popular vote" at me, consider this:

So the final numbers for #ElectionDay are:

231,556,622 eligible voters

46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted Clinton
25.5% voted Trump

Wow.

— Ethan Spibey (@EthanLDN) November 9, 2016

I don't know if those numbers are accurate, but I am certain they are close enough for discussion. Also note the unmentioned 2% who didn't vote for Trump or Clinton. In other words, Clinton did NOT win a majority. She won a plurality, which means more people did not vote for her than did. So even if you want a popular vote winner to decide it, she didn't accomplish that. In democracy theory, majority rules, not plurality. Regardless, we are still a semi-republic, so the electoral college decides it, and Trump won, no tiebreakers required.

So how do these Trump haters deal with losing? When the object of hatred is successful against your wishes, there are two typical reactions: Anger or depression. Or to put it in instinctive terms, "fight or flee". The anger response can be seen in yesterday's protests across the country. How can one reasonably protest against a victorious candidate? The same way we see the KKK holding protests long after the Civil Rights movement decided blacks were entitled to equal rights. Haters gotta hate.

But let's not ignore the depressed Trump haters. I can't even begin to count the number of tweets I read yesterday from depressed Trump haters. My daughter, whom I love dearly, had to stay home from school yesterday because she was deeply depressed over Trump's victory. While I haven't had a discussion with her yet, it is coming. I won't tell her what to believe politically, but she has to learn to leave emotion out of it.
   
That is the key: You vent your spleen by voting, not after the results come in. If you win and you want to cheer, great. But if you lose, accept your loss graciously. If I have learned nothing as a third party voter, it is that losing happens. You accept it, and look forward to the next election with the hope that things will get better.

I just hope the Left's Trump haters can learn something in this.

The National Tantrum: Today's news for November 10th

Half of America had a nervous breakdown yesterday over Hillary Clinton's loss/Donald Trump's win. The number of drama queens in this country is actually startling. 

For example:

Reuters:

Thousands of anti-Trump protesters take to streets of U.S. cities

Demonstrators marched in cities across the United States on Wednesday to protest against Republican Donald Trump's surprise presidential election win, blasting his campaign rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims and other groups.

In New York, thousands filled streets in midtown Manhattan as they made their way to Trump Tower, Trump's gilded home on Fifth Avenue. Hundreds of others gathered at a Manhattan park and shouted "Not my president."

In Los Angeles, protesters sat on the 110 and 101 highway interchange, blocking traffic on one of the city's main arteries as police in riot gear tried to clear them. Some 13 protesters were arrested, a local CBS affiliate reported.

An earlier rally and march in Los Angeles drew more than 5,000 people, many of them high school and college students, local media reported.

A demonstration of more than 6,000 people blocked traffic in Oakland, California, police said. Protesters threw objects at police in riot gear, burned trash in the middle of an intersection, set off fireworks and smashed store front windows.

Police responded by throwing chemical irritants at the protesters, according to a Reuters witness.

Two officers were injured in Oakland and two police squad cars were damaged, Johnna Watson, spokeswoman for the Oakland Police Department told CNN.

An appropriate response to what was effectively a temper tantrum. Spoiled children respond similarly when you tell them "no", which is what the election did.

The list of protests continued in the article: Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, and University of California-Berkeley (no protest movement would be complete without them!).

Now that they have gotten it out of their systems, it is time to get back to work and school.

Speaking of Hillary...

New York Post:

White House open to a Clinton pardon

The White House isn’t ruling out the possibility of Hillary Clinton receiving a last-minute pardon from President Obama — even though she hasn’t been charged with a crime.

Asked at Wednesday’s press briefing whether Obama had considered utilizing his unique executive power, press secretary Josh Earnest was cryptic.

“The president has offered clemency to a substantial number of Americans who were previously serving time in federal prisons,” Earnest said.

“And we didn’t talk in advance about the president’s plans to offer clemency to any of those individuals and that’s because we don’t talk about the president’s thinking, particularly with respect to any specific cases that may apply to pardons or commutations,” he added. 

When President Gerald Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon, there was much public outcry over it. However, Ford did the right thing. It was time to put Watergate behind us as a country.

In this case, the same measure is logical here. I would hope that if Obama doesn't pardon Clinton, then Trump should just let the issue of Clinton's illegal behavior drop, or even pardon her. A president should be above the behavior of a mob's bloodlust, and there are times when a country needs to move beyond certain events. While Clinton's behavior was wrong and illegal, to obsess on it beyond the election would be unhealthy for our public discourse.

Speaking of Obama...

International Business Times: 

Could Michelle Obama run for president in 2020?

As millions of Americans are left reeling from Donald Trump's victory in the race for the White House, many already have one eye on the 2020 US presidential election – and a particular candidate in mind. The current First Lady, Michelle Obama, is the name on many people's lips to challenge the Republican in four years' time.

Having not even left the White House yet, the calls on social media for Obama to run for commander in chief underline her huge popularity. Thousands have tweeted using the hashtag #Michelle2020 and while many are light-hearted, others seem to be quite serious about the prospect.

"So......we may have to start gearing up for Michelle Obama to run in 2020, can we get that campaign started now," wrote American TV personality, Tami Roman.

Another commentator said: "The only potential future candidate qualified to resolve the US economy is Michelle Obama."

Yes, because she has so much experience in economics, being a trained lawyer. Where is my bear...

Michelle Obama has absolutely zero qualifications for the White House. She has no political experience, or experience in anything even remotely political (at least Trump has run a business, even if he did it poorly). If her politics are anything like her husband's, then why would we want a round with the wife of one of the worst presidents of modern times?

If Michelle wants to run for the presidency, let her follow the Hillary Clinton path: Run for senate or governor first. After a term or two of that, then we can talk about a White House run.

And in one last bit of leftover election news...

Fox News:

Soda tax measures pass in 4 US cities

Sugary soda is about to get more expensive in several cities.

On Tuesday, San Francisco, Oakland, Albany, Calif. and Boulder, Colo. voters passed measures to tax sodas in landslide victories.

...In California, sodas will be one-cent-per ounce more expensive while people in Colorado will have to pay two-cents more for every ounce of sugary soda purchased. The tax applies to energy drinks, sweetened tea and sports drinks-- but not to diet sodas.

Admittedly, those taxes are insignificant, but they are still regressive. Who drinks sugary sodas most? Poor and low income people. Even if everyone drank sugary sodas equally among all income levels, the tax would hit the poor harder.

On top of this, what is the tax revenue going towards? Just more money to support local governments.

In summary, we have a tax that will hit the poor and low income hardest, in order to support local politicians. As the old Mel Brooks joke goes:

(hat tip to PandaWhale for the gif)