My deplorable point of view

img_2473

Cimarron, Kansas, Highway 50

by cheri sabraw

I heard Robert Shapiro speak this past month at a small dinner in Irvine, Ca. In case his name does not ring a bell for you, Mr. Shapiro was on O.J. Simpson’s defense team and helped to secured a not guilty verdict in Mr. Simpson’s high-profile murder trial. I wanted to ask him how he could participate in such a case but I knew what his answer would be.

As that trial came to a close, I was teaching English at our local high school. When the verdict was announced, my 9th graders cheered that O.J. had been acquitted. I was stunned and had to abort our discussion of Of Mice and Men. 

It seemed to me that O.J. had been living off the “fat of the land” and it was time for Lennie to stab him, just as O.J.  had done so viciously to Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

Shortly thereafter, President Bill Clinton was caught in yet another affair but this one was different: he had enjoyed himself in the Oval Office with a young intern and then lied about it. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice but was acquitted by a Congress full of men.

As the impeachment process came to a close, I was teaching Journalism I and II at our local high school. My seniors, many of whom who had enjoyed the same type of sexual experience that Monica Lewinsky had given to Bill Clinton, saw little wrong with such activity happening in the Oral Office. The grammatical gymnastics that our president sought to inveigh in his impeachment hearings did provide me with an opportunity to teach verb tense and the manipulation of “is.”

I remember most specifically that one of the lead Economics and Government teachers, a fellow whom I will call Bob Ericson, told me it wasn’t important or relevant what a president does sexually with whom, when, and where.

It seemed to me that Bill Clinton had openly stained the Presidency and lied about it.

So.

As we approach the final two weeks of this unconventional presidential election period, I am reminded often by well-meaning friends via conversation and email attachments that a vote for Donald Trump is a vote into oblivion, that no sane person could possibly consider someone other than Hillary Clinton, a person, at least, with experience.

You know.

How.

People justify.

Their self-interests.

I told one of my shocked friends that if Satan himself were running against Hillary Clinton, I would vote for Satan, since as a Jew, I am going to hell anyway.

That’s how much I abhor Hillary and Bill Clinton and everything they stand for.

And what about the boorish blow-hard (some pun intended) Donald Trump?

When I ponder the duplicity of Hillary and Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, the IRS, the Department of Justice, American news outlets, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and all of the other corrupt institutions that heretofore, I thought really stood for something of value and integrity, he is a logical middle finger for some of us.

So.

There.

You.

Go!

 

 

 

Advertisements

About Cheri

Writer, artist, cable television host, grandmother to four!
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to My deplorable point of view

  1. Brig says:

    I too am voting for TRUMP, for much the same reasons as you listed.

  2. A “logical middle finger” is an oxymoron. I understand your sentiment, but it’s entirely emotional, not logical. You have taken a position against Mrs. Clinton, primarily because of her husband’s transgressions, and would vote for her opponent no matter who it was.

    • Cheri says:

      Thanks for your contribution, Invisible Mikey.
      The last paragraph lists just a fraction of the reasons I will not vote for Clintons (we get them both, unfortunately). They are quite diverse in nature but all have the Clinton’s manipulative fingerprints all over them.

      I’m still thinking about your first sentence. Is it really an oxymoron?

      • Of course it is. One uses the “middle finger” as an obscene insult gesture meaning FU, so it really can’t be applied “logically”.

        And it’s understandable. People do make their vote choices out of emotion more often than out of thoughtful consideration. We enjoy pretending we choose with our intellect, but it doesn’t square with all the anger and shouting and mammalian aggressive displays.

  3. Suzanne Snow says:

    PERFECT!

  4. Christopher says:

    As a non-American, and living in a next-door land, I’m looking at this looming election from the perspective of L’Étranger.

    So, I’m asking myself, who’ll win? Big Television and the Big Newspapers are declaring in so many words that it’s all over, that Lecherous Donald is about to be put to the sword (so to speak) by Crooked Hillary, who appears now to be acting like (sic) she has it in the bag (so to speak).

    Why then is the historically most accurate election pollster (IBD/TIPP Tracking) consistently showing either Lecherous Donald slightly in front, or the race tied? And why are crowds at Lecherous Donald rallies so significantly larger than those at Crooked Hillary ones?

    Is it any wonder that cognitive dissonance is what ah’m experiencin’?

    Bertrand Russell famously wrote, in so many words, that when the experts are agreed on anything, its opposite cannot be held to be certain. Was Bertrand right?

    • Cheri says:

      Hello Christopher! I thought you might respond to this post and was hoping so.
      My trust in the IRS, the Congress, the current president, and many other organizations that can be manipulated politically, has deteriorated under the Obama administration. (Wait until everyone begins to receive their new health insurance costs! What a lie he fomented.)
      Anyway, I don’t trust pollsters…so we will see. Pollsters are people too.

  5. Paul Costopoulos says:

    Poor USAers, you have only a two party system and you are caught in a bind or between a rock and a hard place. Well, if bad comes to worst,, as for Viet Nam,, our doors are wide open for you guys.

    • Cheri says:

      Thanks Paul, how thoughtful of you! Do you really think that the Judge (although with Canadian roots, could be happy in your country? Let’s see…has has several beautiful shotguns, my father’s gun collection and hundreds of rounds of ammo, we like our doctors who we can on demand….I’m not sure he could cope. He does love your beautiful provinces and the many kind people (like you!) so let me think about your offer.

      • Paul Costopoulos says:

        I guess we have different standards. About guns, our border guards have been increasingly, especially in B. C., , seizing guns from U.S. tourists entering the country. If happiness is measured in guns, no, the Judge will not be happy here.

        • Cheri says:

          Ha! He does not measure happiness in guns. Guns are a means of personal protection here in California. The criminals have guns. Burglary and robbery are on the rise. Even if we lived in the middle of nowhere, a rifle would be a necessity. As you observe, we have a difference of opinion.

  6. Sharon says:

    Oral Office…cracks me up!
    Well said and written!

  7. ShimonZ says:

    I can’t help but agree with you as to the logical middle finger. It would be nice if I could view this race with complete dispassion, as a foreigner, a citizen of another country, and living on the other side of the globe… but you know… we used to have such faith in your country. The superpower looks somewhat pathetic these days, and it brings sadness to the hearts of old folk.

  8. Cyberquill says:

    Bill Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice by the House (by 228 and 221 votes of guilty respectively), then acquitted by 55 Senators. So a “Congress full of men” not only acquitted him, but a lot more of these men found him guilty in the first place.

    I just received my absentee ballot in the mail. It came with a cover letter in five languages, each on a separate sheet of paper and neatly stapled together: English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese (or Korean, I’m not sure), and something else (might be Arabic or Indian or God knows what). No German. Why are they sending me a ballot to Austria without including German?

    Haven’t filled it out yet. I find myself tending toward the write-in option. Might vote for Kasich, who struck me as the most rational of the whole lineup. (Depending on which camp someone is in, he or she will view this as a de-facto vote for either Clinton or Trump.)

    Inveigh … you mean inveigle?

    • Richard says:

      I had to look the words up only to find I have always mixed the meanings or used both in entirely different senses. Still, I’m nothing to go by, Cicero.

      Even now I find it difficult to choose between one or the other. It’s like flaunt and flout, or their derivatives Trump and Clinton. I tell myself the world changes and language evolves.

      My preference is for flaunters – at least you get what you see. But nobody’s asked me to vote.

    • Cheri says:

      All USA ballots should be in English.Period.
      When you vote in Austria, are your ballots printed in any languages other than German?
      And I did mean inveigh but I like inveigle better. Nice catch!
      Oh, go ahead. Waste your vote.

      • Cheri says:

        This previous reply was to CQ. Not sure what happened.

      • Cyberquill says:

        I’ve never actually voted in Austria, so I couldn’t tell you. Maybe I’ll go vote on 4 Dec, the next scheduled attempt at electing a new Austrian president. (The already-repeat runoff set for earlier this month had to be postponed because the glue for sealing the ballot envelopes for mail-in voters was found to be too weak to actually seal.) Austria has had no president since July, and the country seems to work the same as before.

        Regarding the U.S. election, I have a NY ballot. As goes for CA, Hillary’s NY victory is a foregone conclusion anyway, so any vote against her, be it for Donald Trump or Donald Duck, works as a symbolic middle finger just the same.

    • Cheri says:

      My comment to you is below Richard’s.

  9. Leslie Grgurina says:

    Hi Cheri,

    Great to see you here — love your blogs! Would love to catch up – send me an e-mail with the best way to reach you.
    Leslie

  10. Judi Campbell says:

    I.
    Am.
    Horrified.

  11. Judi Campbell says:

    This morning,
    I.
    Am.
    Horrified

    • Cheri says:

      Dear Judi,
      Well, first of all, thanks for even reading my writing and congrats are in order for your marriage. As for the results of this election, each of us has personal reasons for supporting or not supporting a particular candidate. I respect a divergent opinion as I know you do. We all have pressure points. Mine came when Obama pushed through the Iran Nuclear Deal. That was it for me.

      I plan to write a blog post following Hillary’s loss but must prepare for our olive harvest this weekend.
      My best to you, Judi!

  12. potsoc says:

    You got your wish, now the whole planet will have to live with it. Mars is not yet available. Hope for the best, that is all we can do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s