2016 August 21^st

Here are some election odds from the people at Paddy Power the Brit betting folks where betting on US elections is legal. The odds of Hillary winning are 2/9 meaning that you put up nine dollars to win just two dollars if you’re right. In short, Hillary is a substantial odds on favorite. For Trump the odds change drastically; he is 3/1. This means that you bet one dollar on a Trump and if you are right you win three dollars. It’s obvious that the folks at PP don’t believe that Trump has much chance.

There is a new bet available at PP: Will the current nominees be the nominees at election time? The odds that Clinton will remain the nominee are 33/1; the odds for Trump are less than half that at 14/1. It will be interesting to see how the odds against Trump holding the nomination change as his campaign organizers churn and churn.

And now we return to yesteryear, actually August 21 of 2015. Cal Thomas, our old friend from the moral majority provides the incentive:

Aug 21^st

Cal Thomas provides some nonsense for me to disparage today. Good old Cal, whatever would I do without him? In his very first paragraph he says, “America appears in decline under a disengaged President.” This “disengaged President” has just negotiated an agreement between six nations, including Russia and China, to limit Iraq’s development of nuclear capability. Now he must fight against our “ally” Israel’s desperate attempts to sabotage it. He has also managed to get the Affordable Care Act passed and declared constitutional by SCOTUS. He has also managed to make same sex marriage possible in this country. He has reestablished a diplomatic relationship with Cuba in spite of screams from the right that the fifty year old boycott of Cuba had “just begun to work.” The result of his constant appearances to lobby the public for these and other programs, we have George Will claiming that he is “overexposed.” Can you be disengaged and overexposed at the same time? This is possible only for conservatives who are criticizing the President.

Moving right along to the next sentence Cal Thomas tells us that “We can’t seem to win wars, or know why we are fighting them.” Who started those wars Cal? Who claimed that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” and then destroyed the careers of Ambassador Wilson and his CIA wife, Valerie Plame, when they didn’t find the required evidence? You might read “The war they wanted; the lies they needed” in Vanity Fair.

Then he claims that “People are afraid of losing their jobs or are unable to find one. While the treasury takes in record amounts of money from working people, it outspends its income.” Cal Thomas should know that the treasury can’t take in record amounts of money from people who aren’t employed. So of course Cal isn’t stupid enough to claim employment is low but he can claim people are “afraid of losing their jobs.” The evidence he gives for this assertion is what? Then he claims that some are unable to find jobs. That’s true and it has always been true even in Ronald Reagan’s administration.

Cal Thomas finally attacks liberal politicians whom he claims are “providing ‘benefits’ in exchange for votes.” My goodness Cal, what a cynic you’ve become. I’m sure your church has a pantry where indigent people can get food. Most churches are not big on allowing people to go hungry because they can’t find work that pays enough to pay the rent and to feed their families. So, would you subscribe to the notion that your church just supports their pantry to increase the church’s membership? Perhaps the pantry is there to increase membership enough to qualify for another pastor? Perhaps your cynicism about people wanting to help others only applies to those who don’t share your political views.