HE NEVER CONCEDED

Thirty or so years ago, a fella Cranky knows, name of Frip Chissom, came in a distant third in a Congressional Democratic primary in Northern Virginia. Frip never conceded, and indeed he never accepted the results of the outcome. But guess what? Nobody cared. The world did not stop. The Supreme Court did not get involved. And to Frip's delight, his opponent went on to defeat in November's general election.

So Cranky, and his friend Frip, are a little perplexed by concerns about whether or not The Donald, and his supporters (who are those people, anyway?), will accept the results of a defeat on November 8. Commentators make the claim that all Presidential losers in the nation's history have accepted the election results. Maybe, but there certainly have been some very begrudging acceptances.

And fears that many of The Donald's supporters will not accept an unfavorable outcome might be overblown. So what if they don't? After all, a large proportion of the Republican Party never accepted Barack Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012. The result was divided, ineffective government, but it was still government.

The bottom line is that the legal result of an election is not dependent on happiness with or acceptance of that result by the losing side. Now if the losing side decides to take up arms about the result, as once occurred in the nation's history, the situation enters a different dimension. But until The Donald starts talking armed insurrection, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and consider his threat of not accepting the results as just another Trumpian bombastic pronouncement. 

STRONG LEADERS FOR THE DONALD

The Donald, his apologist Mr. Pence, and some of their supporters have expressed a bit of admiration for Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein regarding those two fellas' leadership abilities. Mr. Putin in particular has been characterized as a strong leader.

Well, if a portion of the Republican Party is going the strong leader route, here's a few other historical examples for them to praise:

) Hitler

) Stalin

) Mussolini

) Attila the Hun

Yeah, those boys were some sure 'nough strong leaders.

HE'S GOT REGRETS!!

Stop the Presses! The Donald's got regrets! After more than a year of no regrets, no apologizing, The Donald admitted in a speech on Thursday, August 18, in the year of Our Lord 2016, that he has regrets!

The pundits, commentators, and bovinators have gone nuts. Everything is changed. The race is competitive again. Hillary's in trouble.

Analyzing what The Donald meant, what the ultimate reaction will be, will go on for days. Lucky us.

One issue already surfacing is that The Donald didn't actually apologize to anyone or for any particular incident. He only expressed general regret. Is this enough? Will the polls suddenly start going The Donald's way?

Stay tuned, Folks. This election ain't over yet! Let's say it one more time, slowly:

The...Donald...has...expressed...regrets. Hallelujah!

SACRIFICES

The Donald has taken umbrage at criticism from a mother and father whose son, a Captain in the United States Army, was killed while serving in Iraq. The Donald said he too has made sacrifices for his country, specifically that he has worked hard and provided employment for tens of thousands of people. Some might question whether The Donald's response actually describes sacrifices. But not to worry. The Donald has made many bona fide sacrifices during his life. Here are a few.

1) Wife Number 1 Ivana was sacrificed, being replaced by Wife Number 2 Marla.

2) Wife Number 2 Marla was sacrificed, being replaced by Wife Number 3 Melania.

3) The opportunity to serve in the U.S. military was sacrificed on account of bone spurs.

4) Facts have been sacrificed, being replaced by embellishments, exaggerations, distortions, and outright prevarications.

5) Payments to contractors and suppliers have been sacrificed to the needs of the moment.

6) Humility has been sacrificed to bombast, braggadocio, and buffoonery.

7) Good taste has been sacrificed to showmanship, extravagance, and boorishness.

8) Charitable giving has been sacrificed to unproven claims of charitable giving.

9) Acknowledging error has been sacrificed to, "Me make an error? Never, ever, couldn't happen."

10) Reality has been sacrificed to delusional meanderings.

11) Release of tax returns has been sacrificed to. . . a dearth of charitable giving? questionable business and accounting practices? financial dealings with Russian oligarchs?

NAME CALLING IN POLITICS

A few days ago, Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Mike Pence stated, "I don’t think name-calling has any place in public life." In a perfect world, Mike is certainly correct. But if Mike were to check with his running mate, he would discover that this is not a perfect world.

So what is the role of name-calling in an imperfect political system, particularly when the name-calling practitioner is quite adept at it, indeed when it is one of the practitioner's foremost weapons?

Completely ignoring the name-calling is a dangerous option for the name-caller's opponent, particularly if the opponent has some likability problems of her or his own; and if a goodly proportion of the electorate seems intellectually comfortable with name-calling as an element of political discourse.

So name-calling is ignored at the target candidate's peril. Perhaps the best response is a two-pronged one. Have the target candidate stick mostly to the high road. But let loose a name-calling swat team that can match insult with greater insult, derogatory jab with really derogatory jab, nastiness with "so's your motha."

With that in mind, Mike Pence, would you please inform your running mate that he is, among other things, a world class loon, a prevaricator of the first order, and a pudgy boy tough guy? And oh yes, that he has tiny hands. 

  

FOUR YEARS OF THIS?

Yes, many of you goobers out there support The Donald because you want to stick it to the establishment. And no matter where you are on the political spectrum, dislike of the establishment is understandable, even if you're part of it.

But before you mark your ballot in November for one of the most obnoxious buffoons to ever come down the pike, ask yourself this question: Can I put up with this clownish conduct for the next four years?

Forget the lack of policy knowledge, the business career based on deceit, untruths, and bankruptcy, the barely-concealed appeals to bigotry. Just focus on having to listen for four years to the incessant bragging, the name calling, the absurd statements, and on having to watch those weird gestures with those tiny hands when he speaks.

What's with that little circle with the under-size thumb and index finger anyway? Yes, other people use that same gesture. But few are as wedded to it as The Donald is. How many times will you be able to endure the spectacle of those wild gyrations before becoming obsessed and then stark raving mad?

So, yeah, your desire to stick it to the establishment is understandable. But is it worth the risk of becoming a blithering idiot from having The Donald in your face for four long years?    

AT LAST, A CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT MAKES SENSE

Conspiracy theories have been part of the political landscape since, well, there's been a political landscape. Most conspiracy theories are given little credence by sane individuals. Adherents of your run-of-the mill conspiracy theory are generally of the wild-eyed fanatic persuasion, grasping at the extremely unlikely as a substitute for rational thought.

Notable conspiracy theories in recent history include the alleged second shooter on the grassy knoll in the JFK assassination, Barack Obama's forged Hawaiian birth certificate, and the Clinton's "removal" of Vince Foster. Recently, Cranky even came across an elderly and quite loony lady who believed the Watergate break-in never occurred, the reason being that no self-respecting break-in professional would tape a door open by applying the tape horizontally. "Everyone" knows that break-in tape is applied vertically.

But at last we have a believable conspiracy theory. The hacking of Democratic party emails was done on Vladimir Putin's orders, and the emails publicly released on the eve of the Democratic convention to support his friend and preferred candidate for President of the United States, one Donald J. Trump.

Now that's a believable conspiracy theory.
    

POKEMON-GO, THE DONALD, & NEGATIVE INTEREST RATES

WHAT ARE POKEMON-GO, THE DONALD, AND NEGATIVE INTEREST RATES?

1. THINGS ONLY GLASSY-EYED FANATICS UNDERSTAND.

2. PROOF THAT HUMANS HAVE STOPPED EVOLVING ARE IN FACT REGRESSING.

3. EVIDENCE THAT THE MACHINES ARE ALMOST IN CHARGE.

4. EVIDENCE THAT THE FREE MARKET IS NOT INFALLIBLE. 

4. VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTH AMENDMENTS, AND LIKELY A FEW OTHERS.

5. REASONS FOR OLDSTERS TO WELCOME THEIR APPROACHING EXPIRATION DATES.

6 JUNE 1944

A handwritten note on a copy of the message from General Dwight D. Eisenhower to the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on the eve of D-Day, 6 June 1944:

"To my wife, with all my love, Elton. 5th June 44."

THE DONALD AND JFK

JFK (1961):

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

THE DONALD (Paraphrased):

Not only ask what your country can do for you, but more importantly, ask what you can do for The Donald.

THE DONALD'S SINGLE VIRTUE

The Donald should not be President of these United States. He is too much the bully, too enamored of himself, too offensive in his speech, too simplistic in his solutions. His assertion in Thursday's debate that the military will do what he tells them to do--torture, kill families, violate the laws of war--is extremely offensive to this retired military guy. There's things called unlawful orders, Donald. U.S. soldiers ain't gonna be violating the Code of Conduct and International Law on the unlawful orders of a flawed President.


But The Donald is onto something. The fundamental problem with the U.S. political system over the last 30 or so years has been its rigidity. The Founding Fathers provided us with a system requiring compromise and flexibility. Oftentimes over the two and a half centuries of its existence, the nation has slipped from these principles into exhausting thickets of orthodoxy. Sign this pledge. Swear allegiance to this position. No compromise. My way or the highway. The result is that during these periods of myopia, few problems get addressed, few actions for the public good are undertaken.


Although no political parties have been without guilt over the decades, the most recent period of stagnation has been due mainly to the right side of the political spectrum: conservatives and the Republican Party. The Donald is challenging this mindset. The Donald is espousing negotiation, flexibility, getting things done. If The Donald's quest for further fame results in the revival of these principles, the nation will have benefited. If the Donald's quest for further fame results in The Donald, we're in trouble.

NAMES FOR THE DONALD

One of the charming innovations that The Donald has brought to the Presidential election process is drop-of-the hat name calling. Jeb is an "embarrassment." Ted is a "loser." Marco is a "choke artist." Hillary is a "marsh mallow." Mr. Mitt of 2012 fame is a "choker."

His targets have responded a little, but there is much room for improvement. If the schoolyard is the new model for electioneering, then let's get serious. Here are a few possibilities that his opponents might consider.

) Jersey Shore Reject

) Chowder Head

) Chins

) Pudgy Boy Fat Guy

) Mr. Big Talk No Substance

) The Void

) Daddy's Million Dollar Write-Off

) Tax Cheat

) Bankruptcy Aficionado

) Yuuuge Bust

) Trophy Wife Collector

Any more suggests?

TRUMP'S LEGACY

If a third of Republican participants in the nomination process have their way, Donald Trump will be the party’s candidate for President of these United States (or maybe more accurately, semi-united United States). And given the winner-take-all ingredient of much of the nomination process, a third of Republicans might be all he needs. 

How about the election itself? Well, The Donald has tapped into a disgust with politicians and the political process that stretches over the electorate in general, both Republicans and Democrats. This disgust is due in large measure to the extreme political polarization that has arisen over the last several decades and that has resulted in at least the appearance of incompetent and ineffective government. The extreme polarization in turn has a number of sources, but certainly one is the twenty-five or so years of right-wing media and right-wing politicians telling the nation how awful things are. Democrats and the left-wing are not without blame, but the voices of doom have been predominantly from the right. 

Might this disgust with the status quo be pervasive enough to put The Donald in the White House? Increasing his odds is that his opponent will likely be either Bernie the Socialist or Hillary the Nonchalant Emailer. 

But whether The Donald goes all the way or not, maybe his legacy will include some beneficial impacts upon politics and the political system. Maybe, just maybe, the rigid, uncompromising orthodoxy that has come to characterize political policies, procedures, practices, and pronouncements, particularly on the Republican side, will be loosened. Maybe, just maybe, future Republican office-seekers will not have to kowtow to the likes of Grover Norquist, Wayne LaPierre, the Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation, and similar myopic individuals and institutions.

STUFF DONALD TRUMP WANTS STOPPED

Stuff Donald Trump wants stopped until he "figures" them out:

) Entry of Muslims into the United States.

) Negative commentary on himself.

) Rational discourse.

) His receding hairline.

) His growing impotence.

) His declining numbers in Iowa.

) Death.

) The wind.

) The rotation of the earth.

) The U.S. political system.

) The U.S. Constitution.

Who'd You Vote For, Er. . . Against?

Cranky's latest book:

Link: http://www.amazon.com/Whod-You-Vote-Er-Against/dp/1516918258

A TALE OF THREE TROIKAS

America’s major wars of the last half century—Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the Iraq-Afghanistan conflicts—had a common element: the nation’s war leadership in each, at least for a time, appeared principally to be in the hands of three individuals, or to borrow a term of Russian origin, a troika. For Vietnam, the troika was President Lyndon Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and General William Westmoreland. For the Gulf War, the troika was President George H.W. Bush, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell, and Central Command Commander-in-Chief General Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf. For the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, the troika was President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

To summarize: Troika One—Johnson, McNamara, Westmoreland; Troika Two—Bush1, Powell, Schwarzkopf; Troika Three—Bush2, Cheney, Rumsfeld.

The identification of the Troikas is not to say that all decision-making was in the hands of just the three members of each Troika. Many others in the bureaucracies had roles of importance. But the big three in each instance became the collective face of the endeavor. For Troika One, the Vietnam War had a “light at the end of the tunnel.” For Troika Two, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait would “not stand.” For Troika Three, Americans would be “greeted as liberators” in Iraq.  

So how did the three Troikas do? Well, One and Three did not fare well. The light at the end of the Vietnam tunnel turned out to be no light at all. The tunnel just ended in murkiness. Greeted as liberators in Iraq? Maybe by some residents for a few months, but then the locals returned to their millennia-old disputes and grievances, with the added fun of turning on the latest group of outsiders who dared to intrude on their paradise.

And Troika Two? Wonder of wonders, it got the job done. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait did not stand. Period.

The quality of the Troikas’ memberships might explain much of the uneven results. Troika One had a superior politician, a tactically adequate but strategically challenged soldier, and a brilliant but tragically flawed manager. Troika Three had an average, at best, politician, an ideologue with significant comprehension limitations, and a brilliant but tragically flawed manager. And Troika Two? Simply, it had three individuals who understood the relationship between objectives and resources.

Perhaps the most interesting components of Troikas One and Three were the brilliant but tragically flawed managers. McNamara and, to a lesser extent, Rumsfeld were certainly brilliant. All one had to do was ask them. But the brilliance was part of the flaws. They appeared too sure of themselves. Staff dissent appears to have been discouraged. This is not to say that there was much in the way of staff dissent. Maybe group think in the Pentagons of the 1960s and the 2000s was a contributor to the situation. The SecDefs had no reason to question their own brilliance because no one seriously disagreed with their pronouncements.

In any case, as smart as they were, neither McNamara nor Rumsfeld understood, at the level of international affairs and in the field of military operations, the relationship between objectives and resources. Each pursued the objective of winning a war with, one, inadequate resources, and two, little understanding of the nature and strength of the enemy. Each was given extraordinary leeway by a President who was beyond his natural element, which was domestic politics.

            
On one occasion, Donald Rumsfeld famously said, in response to a critical question from a low-ranking soldier, “you go to war with the Army you have.” The same can be said about a nation’s leaders: “you go to war with the leaders you have.” In Troika Two, the leaders were up to the challenge. In Troikas One and Three, not so much.

REPUBLICAN ROCK BOTTOM

You know your party has hit rock bottom when:

)  Forty-seven of your Senators sign a high-schoolish statement on foreign policy authored by a first-term goober Senator from Arkansas.

)  Your Speaker of the House of Representatives somehow equates himself with a Prime Minister by initiating relations with a foreign head-of-state.

)  In a spate with the President over the nation’s borders, your Congressional representatives threatened to shut down the agency that protects the nation’s borders.

)  Fox News praises your every move.

)  You have become the party of elderly Caucasians.

)  The Wall Street Journal has begun, mildly and with obvious reluctance, to criticize you.

)  Even the Great Ronnie would have wondered what the hell you're doing.

YOU DON'T LOVE AMERICA

Rudy Giuliani's admirable effort to identify who does and who does not love America needs some fleshing out, some specific criteria. So here goes:

)  Unless you believe that Bill O'Reilly saw combat in the Falklands War, you don't love America.

)  Unless you view slavery as no more than a minor blemish on the nation's otherwise impeccable history, you don't love America.

)  Unless you think that driving Native Americans from their lands and herding them onto reservations was no big deal, you don't love America.

)  Unless you believe that "enhanced interrogation" was a necessary response to 9/11 and was in no way incompatible with American principles of justice and morality, you don't love America.

)  Unless you consider Fox News to be the preeminent voice of fairness, objectivity, and rationality in the American media, you don't love America.

)  Unless you think that the top one percent deserve everything they have acquired by fair means or foul, you don't love America.

)  Unless you think that poor people have no one to blame but themselves, you don't love America.

)  Unless you think that only Christians can be full-fledged Americans, you don't love America.

)  Unless you think that climate change is the figment of some effete liberal's imagination, you don't love America.

)  Unless you think that an appropriate response to policy disputes is to shut down the government, you don't love America.

THE LITTLE WOMAN TAKES A TUMBLE

So Cranky is on the porcelain throne for his morning constitutional. Things are going smoothly, no backups, no traffic jams, no erratic vehicles. The throne room is on the second floor of Cranky’s dwelling, just off the top of the stairs from the first floor.

Suddenly there’s a tremendous crash followed by considerable thumbing and bumping as some sort of disaster descends the stairway. Cranky instantly knows what has occurred: the little woman, who has a bad knee, has taken a tumble. And Cranky knows what he must do: go to her aid.

But there’s the problem of his not-yet-completed effort on the porcelain throne. A vehicle is even then coming around the final curve. Should Cranky leap up immediately and go to provide aid? Should he wait on the descending vehicle? And what about cleaning the highway? Should the effort be limited to a cursory swipe? Should a full clean-up be performed?

Cranky mulls over the alternatives for some moments. Perhaps in his younger days he could have made a quicker decision. But aging affects one’s decision-making ability. Indeed, after a bit and no further noise from the stairs, Cranky begins to lose his grasp on what the issue is. He recovers, however, and settles upon the cursory swipe. Then he is up, out the door, and to the top of the stairs.

The little woman is lying on some soft luggage that had been at the bottom of the stairs. Cranky yells down, "You OK?"

"Ugh," she replies.

 

"OK, let me finish up and I'll be right down," says Cranky, returning to the throne room. He is aware that the highway could use more than a cursory swipe.

 

 

ULTIMATE SELFIE

On  September 23, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Patent No. 8,843,400. The patent assignee was Procter & Gamble. The patent was entitled “Method of collecting information regarding absorbent articles.” In Cranky's opinion, a patent should not have been granted for what is merely a method of conducting consumer tests of a product. Consumer testing is not new. The concept has been around for quite some time. The claimed invention seems like nothing more than applying the concept with the latest technology, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a series of recent cases does not ordinarily create a patentable result. See Alice Corporation Pty. LTD. v. CLS Bank International et al, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (June 2014). Here follows selected passages from the public patent document for Patent 8,843,400. 

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

(First paragraph only) 

“The present invention is directed to methods of collecting information from individuals using computing devices and mobile computing devices. As mobile devices become more powerful and common, the opportunity for the collection of data has expanded. Traditional consumer studies require the collection of used absorbent articles so that the absorbent article may be evaluated and observed. This means that both the consumer and the test placer must handle the absorbent article. Further, it represents that a lag exists between when the absorbent article is used and when the used absorbent article can be examined. The claimed invention solves the problems and is directed to a method for collecting information from a consumer in real time. The information can include certain characteristics of the consumer's menstrual cycle and/or the absorbent articles, both before and after use. The information collected can be used to make correlations between the data and the information to develop future absorbent articles and/or to provide product selection recommendations.” 

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

“Consumer goods companies may use consumer studies to learn how the absorbent articles may be improved. This is because women all have different levels of overall menstrual flow throughout their cycle and have different absorbent article needs. Often, a woman's menstrual cycle is typically characterized by initial light flow which subsequently increases and finally tapers off to the end of the period. When placing an absorbent article test, absorbent articles are used throughout a cycle leading to the opportunity for learning how different absorbent articles handle different flow properties. However, there is no way to determine if an absorbent article is used appropriately in the privacy of the user's home. In addition, the study may require the collection of data during and after a test, including for example, consumer perceptions and the used test absorbent articles. This can lead to various complications since the absorbent articles must be properly handled both by the user and by the consumer goods company that is placing the study. Further, handling during the collection of the used test absorbent article represents additional stresses on the test absorbent article that may further impact the results.

Consequently, the need remains for a method that allows the consumer to provide the information without requiring return of the used absorbent article. In addition, the need remains for a method that allows for the collection of data in real time. Furthermore, there remains a need for a method that allows for increased accuracy in the collection of data regarding the used test absorbent article.” 

FIRST CLAIM

(Claims are the formal, legal description of the invention; each claim can be only one sentence, a requirement that can result in some very long sentences) 

“1. A method of collecting information from an individual regarding absorbent articles, the method comprising: (a) collecting input information from an individual regarding absorbent article use wherein at least some of the information collected includes data generally known by most consumers; (b) collecting still or video image data from an individual consumer using a computing device; (c) uploading input information and still or video image data to a server; (d) using the input information and still or video image data collected to output data regarding the absorbent articles; (e) using the input information and still or video image data collected to output a set of correlations between the visual data and the input information; and wherein the set of correlations are utilized to determine the appropriate placement of the absorbent article on the undergarment or to track a stain on the absorbent article.” 

TWO DEFINITIONS FROM THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION SECTION

 

“Herein, the term ‘feminine hygiene absorbent article’ is used in a broad sense including any article able to receive and/or absorb and/or contain and/or retain body fluids/bodily exudates such as menses, vaginal secretions, and urine. Exemplary feminine hygiene absorbent articles include disposable feminine hygiene absorbent articles. Such articles include tampons, sanitary napkins, interlabial products, incontinence devices, and pantiliners.”

“As used herein, the term ‘image capturing device’ refers to a device capable of capturing a still or video image. Such image capturing devices include digital cameras, webcams, mobile phones, and tablets with image capturing software. The image capturing device may be physically and/or communicatively coupled to a mobile computing device and a display device.”