Let's hope the number of shadowboxers in Congress who are interested in smart solutions outweighs those who are just looking for opportunities to justify their harmful haymakers with statements of belief.
A while back, two young Mormon missionaries stood at my front door; two very nice young Elders who'd stopped by to check on the previous occupant of my apartment, who evidently was a member of their church. Upon meeting me, they asked about my religious beliefs, and when I told them I'm an atheist, they politely informed me that I can't disprove God.
My answer to the "you can't disprove God" argument is this: Back up a step. We haven't gotten there yet.
See, there's a process. Disproving something before you've ascertained whether there's sufficient reason to even follow the process would render the whole thing - even the disproof - meaningless. The first step in the process is to ask the basic question. In this case, the question is this: Does God exist?
Next, we do some background research,and this is where we run into a little snag. If one wishes to support the eventual hypothesis that God does in fact exist, one is in trouble, because we find NO physical supporting evidence to support that hypothesis. The closest thing we can find to actual evidence of the existence of God is hearsay and feelings, as in, "I know God is real because I feel him in my heart."
And in the complete lack of physical evidence, are we justified in even continuing with the process? I say no. Anything beyond this point is pretending. We cannot support processing even to the stage of creating a hypothesis, much less conducting experiments to ascertain whether we have proof or "disproof" of that hypothesis. Not only do we not find evidence to support the existence of God, but we don't even find enough evidence to justify concerning ourselves with it.
I know, I couldn't believe it myself.
Well, actually I could. See, it's no secret that I'm not a huge Trump fan, or at least I wasn't during the campaign. He was a boorish ignoramus during the campaign, who inundated the American public with ignorance, bigotry, xenophobia and mysogeny from the first day of his campaign to the last. He said things that were outright racist, sexist, and even insensitive to people with disabilities. He said things - and repeated them over and over - that showed his complete ignorance of current world affairs, foreign relations, foreign and domestic policy, military strategy and military use policy. He proved over and over again that he wasn't even interested in learning about these things, in taking the time to study these important subjects at all.
But now that he's about to be President, I want to stand behind him. I've been yearning for a president I could support for a long time. I never thought it would be this boorish imbicile, this moronic, jerky troglodyte, but someone. And if it has to be Trump, then I guess it's Trump.
Something Tom Hanks said stuck with me (quote might not be exact): "I hope he does such a great job that in four years I can't wait to vote for his re-election." While Trump is clearly a huckster and a con man, he has already done three immensely positive things, each with its own downside. First, he effectively retired Hillary Clinton, and rendered the Clinton political machine a relic of the past - the deep, dark, collectivist past. Second, his election avoided the mass hysteria of panic gun-buying we were guaranteed to see in the event of a Clinton victory, and virtually guaranteed our continued second-amendment protections for a few years. And third, we're starting to see how he'll work toward keeping American jobs in America.
I love his efforts to keep Carrier jobs in America. Obviously, there are pitfalls to having the government (meaning, the president) get directly involved in offering tax incentives to companies on a case-by-case basis, but if it's keeping jobs here, it has my support. If his involvement really does keep a thousand Americans employed, whose jobs would otherwise have gone to Mexico, then I don't care if he's promising tax incentives to the company. I've been on the losing side of a layoff - more times than I want to talk about - and I know what it's like when your hard work isn't enough to keep your job, when mismanagement and corporate profit incentive outrank you and overpower your ability to keep putting food on your table. If some grandstanding politician had stepped in to save my job at the last moment, I'd have voted for that politician. Period. He can grab all the pussies he wants.
Now, I'm reading that Sarah Palin might not like it, because it sets a precedent that doesn't sit comfortably with a lot of people on either side of the aisle. I like Sarah Palin (aside from her crazy-ass religion), and I completely understand her point here. Her concerns are mainly with the appearance of what they like to call "crony capitalism", which is a polite way of saying crooked politicians, helping out their corporate buddies. As it's being reported, the Carrier Corporation is due to receive fat tax incentives and other benefits from this deal. Remember, though, that Palin herself has been accused of crony capitalism, after a freeway bridge contract award in Alaska that went to someone in her family's inner circle, or some shit. I was always sure that the charge against her was bullshit - just more political attacks from the left, against an immensely popular governor - and I'd imagine that she'd be reticent to just throw that kind of accusation at Trump in this case.
Politically, though, she may have a point. For me, it's all a whitewash anyway. A thousand people keep their jobs - that beats anything anyone can throw at it. A thousand families who get to buy unnecessary shit for their kids this Christmas because they're not going on Unemployment. Trump didn't save every job at the plant, and some people will still be laid off, but this is a success, and it's a yuge step in the right direction.