Trump vs. Biden: Round 1

 So my thoughts on the first Trump/Biden debate are these:

I don't think either candidate did themselves any favors last night. It didn't appear either of them really had a debate strategy, but rather were content to enter the ring and slug it out come what may.

Fortunately, the election, much like the election in 2016, is less about the candidate and more about the ideology. Which, in my opinion, should be the case for most elections. Biden has been a face in the Democratic party for decades, but he really hasn't done anything meaningful that has shifted the party platform, and he wouldn't as President. He's a figurehead at best. A yes man, if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not a complete moron and sadly really losing his faculties with age.

As for Trump, he has most certainly shifted the Republican Party probably more than any President since Lincoln, but even then, still espouses mostly what the party stands for, even if he doesn't do it with much tact. The campaign promises he has kept from 2016 should make any Republican (and Christian) proud: Appoint Conservative judges to the courts -- especially the Supreme Court, which was worth his election in and of itself -- lower taxes, lower unemployment, boost the economy, defeat ISIS, defend gun rights, defend freedom of religion, and prop up Israel. Those accomplishments alone should make Republicans vote for him again, and they will.

But even a man as powerful as Donald Trump is still speaking for a greater movement at large. We're not voting for Donald Trump: We're voting for what Trump promised, and so far, he's delivered.

As such, I doubt last night's performance swayed any voters one way or the other, and I suspect the subsequent debates won't do so either. If you're a Biden fan, you probably thought he did well, and stood up well to the Trump bully. Showed a little hutzpah even, gettin' a little down and dirty. If you're a Trump fan, you probably thought he did well, which is to say, he did what he's done all along, which is be bombastic and fight. All in all, it really went about how I thought it would go.

Clearly, Biden lost his way a few times. His opening salvo on the Supreme Court issue that devolved into a relatively incoherent rambling about healthcare literally made me look at my wife and say, "Wow, that didn't take long." He's clearly a man that is too advanced in years to do the job, but otherwise he held up OK I suppose. I think anybody who watched him last night has to know he's starting to lose his capacities. To what extent at this point is hard to say, but does anybody really believe he can hold it together for four more years?

As for Trump, there's no question that the constant, daily barrage from the media and the Left has jaded him. He's fed up with it, and it shows. He should be, by the way, as he's taken a beating in the job the likes of which we've never seen in our history. His detractors might say, well, you know, it's a tough job and it comes with the territory. But not this. This is unprecedented and unfair, period, no matter how you feel about the man personally. I mean, he's been nominated for 3 Nobel Peace Prizes so far, but our American press portrays him as the Devil himself.

Which is why most of the country doesn't trust the media anymore. We see through the nonsense and the lies. And I can't blame Trump for lashing out the way he did last night. He's tired, for instance, of the media totally ignoring the absurdity of the Hunter Biden mess. There's clearly some shady stuff that went on there, with millions of dollars being passed around, and the media is literally ignoring it. They have to. Because they know if they cover any of it, even if any of it ultimately proves to be untrue, the mere mention of it will sink Biden. So Trump is tired of that kind of hypocrisy, and he should be. I know I am.

I could go on and speak on the various points, but I don't think it's necessary. Neither candidate said anything last night that was earth shattering to their base -- outside of Biden claiming he doesn't support the Green New Deal. That's going to hurt him with his base. Otherwise, we didn't learn anything last night we didn't already know.

So I'd say things remain as they were. Through everything in the past four years, the only people the Left has alarmed with their incessant attacks on Trump are their own constituents who already hate him. They haven't swayed nary an iota of Trump voters away. Mostly, they've emboldened them. And if anything, some of the nastiness has swayed away some minority voters. They're tired of being used as pawns, and are smart enough to see through the muck. Plus, Trump has done more economically and job-wise for minorities so far in his term than Dems have done in well over 50 years. If just a few percentage points of minority voters move to Trump -- and that's highly likely -- its curtains for the Democrats.

Speaking as a Trump voter, he's done, so far, exactly what I elected him to do. So I'm good, and so is the vast majority of his base.

So my prediction remains: Don't believe the polls. They're all lies, just as they were in 2016. (Remember, the polls still showed Hillary winning the day of the election.) It'll be Trump in a landslide in November.

P.S. We'll talk about the ramifications of mail-in voting and the complete chaos it's going to create in this election in another upcoming blog.

Liberalism: Stop Getting So Offended

Over the years, I have often referred to the "Left" or to "Liberals" in posts and blogs I've written. When I do, I often get messages and replies complaining about me "labeling" people in such a manner. More often than not, those replies usually fall into one of two categories:

1) Either they consider themselves a Liberal but don't like being lumped into the kind of lunacy the Left often engages in, or...

2) They pretend they AREN'T a Liberal, but still believe in most of the Liberal ideology.

In either case, they REALLY don't like being labeled. I like to joke that nobody hates being called a Liberal more than a Liberal.

That being said, I want to clarify what I mean when I mention the "Left" or "Liberals."

First of all, let me be clear about a couple things:

1) I understand that referencing a particular group, good or bad, does not encompass the thoughts of every single person in that group. While that should go without saying, it is fascinating how quickly left-leaning thinkers will message me to point out that I shouldn't lump everybody in to one big group. I completely understand that many people can lean one way or the other and not espouse to believe every single tenet of a particular ideology. But boy, the left doesn't like that mentality at all. I don't get messages from Conservatives when I say something about conservative ideals, or thoughts, or behaviors. If I say something like, "Conservatives sure did love Ronald Reagan and his economic programs," I don't get nasty messages from Conservatives, screaming, "HEY, not ALL Conservatives loved Reagan!" But if I say, "Boy, Liberals sure do love Obama and his health care program," I get messages within minutes from my Liberal friends who say, "HEY, not ALL Liberals love Obama." It's really kinda fascinating.

2) "Progressive" is a made up term to make Liberals feel better about themselves. There is nothing at all progressive about Leftist ideology, especially in today's culture. Leftist ideology is as old and outdated as covered wagons. I mean, socialism (and it's failures) has been around much longer than democracy, so pretending that trending that direction is somehow progressive is nothing more than wishful-thinking. Somehow, they've conjured the idea that "Progressive" is a good thing and "Liberal" is bad. Don't fall for it. I refuse to refer to anything as "Progressive" that isn't.

3) I have absolutely no problem whatsoever being labeled a "Conservative." Lump me into that all you want. I believe in that ideology, will promote it unapologetically, and will stand by it until I die. I'm not the least bit bothered by "labels" -- so long as they're accurate. I'm a proud Conservative.

So with that said, let me get to the heart of the matter. When I mention the "Left" or "Liberals," or when I mention the "Right" or "Conservatives," I'm not talking about a person individually. I'm talking about an "ideology."

It's an important distinction. Because the idea of political "Left" or "Right" is just that: An idea. It's an ideology. It's a way of thinking that is driven by a certain set of beliefs on how things should generally operate, and how people should generally be governed. The lines between those ideas can get blurry at times, but they're still pretty defined. And that ideology gets defined further when they get applied to a political party. Because political parties usually arise and form as a group of like-minded individuals bound together to espouse a certain set of ideals. And they want people governing them who believe in those same set of ideals. You can look up the Democrat and the Republican platform on their websites, and it will outline their ideals pretty clearly. A set of belief guidelines that outlines the overall ideology of the Party.

Some time ago, I made a post on my social media account that stated the following:

"Biden’s supporters go out and riot and loot and burn down cities. They beat up and kill innocent bystanders. They ruin people’s lives. They tear down statues, and try to change history. Trump’s supporters go boating."

Now, notwithstanding the clear tongue-in-cheek vibe of the post which I would have hoped would have been obvious, you'll notice I did not specifically label Liberals or Conservatives. However, this post highlights my point. Within a few days, I had heard from several Liberal friends claiming to be offended who essentially said to me, "I support Biden, but I didn't go out and riot and loot," or, "I'm a Biden supporter, but I don't support the violence."

OK. I get that, but that doesn't make my statement any less true. When I said Biden supporters, obviously I don't mean ALL Biden supporters, as if that even needs to be said. But it is also true that those who are out rioting and looting and causing the violence in our city streets are most likely Joe Biden -- i.e., Liberal -- supporters. And while I understand they may not ALL be Biden supporters, they clearly ain't Trump supporters.

And even THEN, I understand that Trump supporters have been increasingly making their way into the streets to oppose the violence, and do themselves sometimes ending up engaging in violent activity, albeit in opposition to those who started the whole mess in the first place.

So while I clearly am not referencing ALL Biden supporters, my statement is true nevertheless, whether that offends you or not.

And that's the point. First and foremost, people need to stop getting butt-hurt so quickly. If you don't like being labeled a Liberal, stop supporting Liberal activity, or those who support Liberal activity. If you are that put out with the criminals who are currently burning our cities down, then why not switch sides? Otherwise, we have little left to believe other than you support those who engage in such activity. If you don't outright denounce it, what do you want me to believe? Regardless, I understand that not ALL Biden supporters ascribe to the type of lunacy we're seeing on TV every night.

Understand this: I know many people, and are friends with several, who identify as either a Liberal, or a Democrat, or both, and I know for a fact they don't support many of the actions of radical leftists. And while I still question why they continue to identify with such organizations, most of them know I'm not referencing them when I make a comment about Liberals, or Democrats, or even "Biden supporters."

More often than not, I'm referencing the Democrat leaders, in Washington, but also across the country. And make no mistake: I believe many of the Democrat leaders, especially in D.C., to be absolute evil snakes who will stop at nothing to destroy America for their own personal gain. While there might be some decent Dems in office, they are the ones who put the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, etc., at the head of their table. They're the ones who refuse to denounce the violence. They're the ones who've propped up and supported the likes of the Squad and that wretched AOC. Joe Biden is worthless. Hillary was worse. And for most of those boneheads, Liberals and Democrats at large do hold a responsibility for voting them into, and keeping them in, office. But even I know it is unrealistic to believe that every voter agrees with every single tenet and principle put forth by a representative. I mean, c'mon, I've disagreed with many things Donald Trump has done.

So the moral of the story is this: Leftism is an ideology. Democrats mostly ascribe to an ideology. If you vote for a Democrat, you are essentially voting for leftist ideology. It's just that simple. But understand that when I make a reference to Liberals, or Democrats, I'm talking more about the ideology and less about the individual. If I think you're dumb, or misguided, or should be ashamed of supporting such things, I'll say so. But otherwise, you shouldn't feel as though it's some personal attack.

There are times, I think, when we should all just grow up a little bit and stop being so touchy.

I realize none of this, as an explanation, is going to appease some of those who get regularly offended by my posts. Not much I can do about that. That's their hangup, not mine. While I continue to try to be sure my message goes out in a way that is positive so it will be heard, I am not going to be silenced into speaking what I believe to be the truth just because some people can't figure out why they shouldn't be personally offended.

By the way, after the aforementioned post, I have not had one single Trump supporter message me and say, "I'm offended. I'm a Trump supporter and I don't like boating."

2020 Continued... the Supreme Court Nominee.

You know, it is irrelevant what the Senate did or didn't do in 2016, and irrelevant what they will or won't do now. Constitutionally, the President has the responsibility to put forth a nominee for the Supreme Court. If you can't get past that, you have serious problems. Obama put forth a candidate in 2016, and Trump has a responsibility to do so now. Just because it is an election year has absolutely no bearing on it whatsoever. It's just that simple.

The Senate, on the other hand, has Constitutional authority to basically do what they wish with that nominee. They can refuse to accept it and force the President to put forth another. They can hold hearings, or not, and they can vote, or not. They are not "bound" to do anything. And again, an election year has nothing to do with it.

If you -- you -- believed the Senate was wrong to refuse to accept President Obama's nominee in 2016, but believe they should now refuse Trump's nominee, then you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. If you believed they were right in 2016, but believe they should hold hearings now, then you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. You may not like what the President and the Senate does, but you cannot have it both ways, in either scenario.

If you must know, I believe the two situations are different. The Senate's "reasoning" for not holding hearings in 2016 was logical -- Obama was a lame duck President. There was going to be a new President that year no matter what. It was reasonable to allow the vote to take place so the new administration could make the nominee. This election does not involve a lame duck president. In fact, there's every likelihood Trump will be reelected. Therefore, the same "reasoning" does not necessarily exist. Trump's election WAS the people speaking. And they expect him -- and the Senate -- to do their jobs. He's not a lame duck.

While the logic was reasonable, I still believed the Senate should have held hearings on Merrick Garland in 2016, and held a vote. He was not going to be confirmed, but they should have at least done their jobs. I did NOT believe they were right in refusing to hear the nominee, even if he had no chance of being confirmed.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself commented on the situation in 2016. Of the President and the Senate, she said, "That's their job. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."

I wholeheartedly agree. President Trump and the Senate should do their jobs. If the nominee Trump puts forth doesn't pass muster and isn't confirmed, so be it. That's how the process plays out. He -- or whoever wins in November -- can then put forth another candidate. And I'll abide by the process.

If you want anything else, then you do not wish to abide by the Constitution. And that is really sad.

John Myers: Truly, A Good Man.

Over the last several years of my life, I've lost several people who were -- and still are -- very close and dear to my heart. Those losses, while tragic and deeply heartbreaking, also in many ways spurned Ginger and I on to live better lives. To enjoy every day a little more, to try to love others a little more, to not miss moments while we're in them, to not miss chances to tell others we love them, and to chase our dreams a little harder. In the end, each of those people made our lives a better while they were alive, and their passing taught us that life is precious and we should try to live every day to the fullest.

I lost another friend last week. He was not a friend I saw or spoke to with any regularity. In the last several years, hardly at all. He was a man I met many years ago, formed an incredible bond with, and then we moved on with our lives. Our paths crossed often over the years, though not often enough. But as with many great friendships, a great deal of time could pass between meetings, but the meetings themselves would feel as though no time had passed at all.

But this man had an impact on my life I can never accurately describe -- one of those life-altering impacts with lessons I carry with me to this very day. I hold a respect for him that cannot be measured. And my heart hurts deeply that he's gone.

John Myers was a hero in every sense of the word. A devoted husband, father, grandfather, and friend. And those aren't just words. In the years I knew him, our paths crossed most often at a sporting event for his kids or grandkids. Heck, he'd even show up to watch me play softball, or my own kids play ball. In fact, as I look back over the years, I can rarely recall a time we got together that DIDN'T involve some sporting event involving our kids or friends.

John Myers was a Vietnam Veteran. A war hero. A man willing to put his life on the line for others. There are thousands like him, and yet so very few among us everyday. It's not often one gets to interact with a real-life superhero. Shame on us we don't cherish it more when we do.

The truth is that in the latter years of my father's life, John was my Dad's best friend. That's how I came to know him. And subsequently, I met his wife, and his children, and I became good friends with them. His daughter, Amber, is still someone I have a severe crush on to this day (Don't worry... Ginger knows all about it!) Amber grew up to marry another great friend of mine -- a man, who at 15 years old, stood beside me as a groomsman in my wedding.

John's son, Johnny, has grown up to be a man of integrity himself, putting his life on the line everyday for the rest of us as a state policeman. Johnny is a dear friend of mine. We've shared many battles together on the softball field over the years. When he married his beautiful wife, Wendy, they honored me by asking me to serve as the DJ for their reception. That very day, I traveled five hours back to Indiana from Nashville, TN, and arrived late for the reception wearing only jean shorts and an Hawaiian shirt. But I was not going to miss that wedding. And they were not fazed by my attire at all.

Over the years, I've become friends with several of my parents' and step-parents' and in-laws' friends. I'm close with many of them.

But John Myers was different. And it all comes down to a single moment on a very stressful day.

The details of that moment belong only to me and John. The moment is for me. I've shared the details with only a select few, including my wife. But mostly, I keep it to myself. It's deeply personal. I'm sure to John, it was just another moment of John just being John. But for me, it was life-changing.

I'll just say this: In that moment, John pulled me aside and spoke healing words to me. He spoke moving words that were personal, and honest, and helpful, and impactful, at exactly the right moment, during one of the most stressful times of my life. He didn't have to. He was hurting too. It made no difference in his own life, and his own family. But he did it simply because it was the right thing to do. He saw a moment where something he could say or do could help someone else, and he did it. Just that simple.

And it changed my life. And created in me a respect for him that cannot be described. And it gave me a lesson I've tried to live by ever since. A sense of responsibility, maybe. To desperately try to do or say the right thing, at the right time, whenever the opportunity might present itself.

We all hope to be considered by others to be a "good man." Integrity and honor is something we pursue our whole lives. Whether or not we achieve any of that is up to others to decide. Sometimes, those verdicts aren't reached or even recognized until after someone passes.

But on those rare occasions, we can make that assessment about someone while they're still living amongst us. I pegged John Myers nearly 28 years ago. A good man. A man of integrity and honor. Because in a moment no one else noticed, when he had no real skin in the game, he did the right thing.

And he changed my life for the better. I will be forever grateful.

Coronavirus Part 3: Craziness Like Never Before.

I am as conflicted about how I should feel these days as perhaps I have ever been in my life. A mixture of pride, joy, a sense of goodwill, relaxation, fear, frustration, anger, disgust, amazement, and shock are all permeating through me at the same time. Not to sound boastful, but I don't get rattled too often. By that I mean, I'm usually pretty headstrong in whatever I might be feeling at any moment, with a strong sense of what I believe and the path I'm on at the time. But this whole Coronavirus thing has knocked us all for a loop. Nobody really knows how to feel. Hysteria and Panic have permeated our society in such a way as I've never seen, certainly in my lifetime. Nobody is thinking for themselves. Everyone is just sorta wondering around in a daze like sheep waiting to be told what to do next. And I've never found myself so unsure about how I'm supposed to approach each day.

Most of what we see on the news, in the media outlets, and on social media is pretty grim. It's statistic after chart after curve about how bad things are, and how bad they have yet to be, and how many people are dying every day. At the same time, one can find several examples of heroic behavior, happy moments in the simplest things, heartwarming acts of kindness and giving, the situation bringing out the best in people and the inherent goodness of humanity all over the world. But there's no pattern. The good and the bad is all mixed together on a daily basis.

Half the country believes our political leaders haven't done enough to curb this virus, and the other half thinks the government has far overreached their boundaries in prohibiting freedom and liberty of the general populace. And for every doctor who goes on TV and tells us the world is coming to an end, gazillions of people are going to die, and our entire healthcare system is going to be overrun, I can, at the same time, find an equal number of videos and stories of any number of healthcare officials who say the panic is way overblown, and that simple, basic precautions should be taken.

Personally, I've been accused of not being sensitive enough because people are dying, and also been praised for putting on my little Friday night concerts to provide a little relief from the craziness. Sometimes both by the same people!

It's madness. All of it. It really is. And I can't find any toilet paper.

Here's one thing I know: The numbers, and the data, have never been there to support the response we've put in place. Not ever. They've not come even close to matching a single projection -- both before the lockdowns, and during. The pro-quarantine crowd is going to claim victory. They're going to say it was because of the measures we put in place that kept the numbers from ballooning to such grim proportions. Some of them are going to claim the victory while at the very same time blaming our President for not doing enough -- which is, of course, absurd and downright moronic. Regardless, the data simply has never matched up. The projections have gone from mind-numbing proportions to now barely above the common flu, and the numbers have never caught up to it. The curve we were supposed to flatten never materialized. Sure, there were a couple of hotspots -- New York being the most prominent -- but otherwise, it doesn't exist, and never did. Hospitals weren't overrun. The triage field hospitals never got used and were torn down. Here in our own county, the hospitals are laying off workers as we speak because there simply is nothing for them to do. Along this whole trajectory, the numbers simply haven't reached the levels that warranted the response we gave it.

Here's something else I know: Killing off Americans and destroying lives by plunging them into financial ruin -- which is already happening -- to save others from dying from a foreign virus is not a net gain. People are dying and will continue to die on both sides of the issue. Choosing one over the other is not a win, and it's certainly not noble. Worse, taking a self-righteous position on one side or the other and condemning those on the other side for their views is not only wrong, its the worst kind of degenerate behavior. I've seen a lot of heartlessness in people's compassion the last few weeks and it's been very disconcerting.

I know people who have the virus. Some who are still really struggling with it. I also know people who are going to lose not only their jobs, but their businesses, and they may never recover from it. So whose side should I be on?

If I support those who are beginning to protest the lockdowns, then I'm an insensitive prick who doesn't care to watch people die. But I find a great deal of those who are against the protesters are people who still have to go to work every day and are still getting paid.

Let me be CLEAR: I wholly support and appreciate the first responder and healthcare workers. They are indeed true heroes. They chose this career path, to put themselves in harm's way on the front lines to help save the rest of us. They deserve every accolade they get, and they certainly deserve our deepest thanks, appreciation, and respect.

But this is where it gets dicey, and I'm sure to catch some flak: They work in the middle of this everyday. They are surrounded by sickness and death 24/7. It's all they see and experience. And being singularly focused on one particular issue can tend to blind one to what's going on in the outside world.

AND, they still get to go to their job everyday -- even if they would prefer not to -- and get a paycheck. In some instances, they're getting not only overtime, but hazardous pay as well.

So inasmuch as I cannot fathom what they must endure in their jobs on a daily basis, they cannot relate to the business owner that is watching his business go bankrupt and his life savings being flushed down the drain. They can't see the young family who are all now jobless and probably won't be able to buy groceries this week, let alone pay the rent or the mortgage. They don't know what it's like for the retiree who is watching his life savings and the only income they will have in the future being drained out of the stock market, with no hope of ever recouping those funds. They may not understand that while, yes, thousands are tragically dying from the virus, still millions more are at this very moment wondering how they're going to be able to feed their kids tomorrow.

I have dear friends who are nurses and doctors and emergency workers. If, God forbid, I should ever find myself in some form of danger, or sick with an illness, give me one them to stand by my side and take care of me. I will be forever grateful.

But I also have dear friends whose entire lives are slowing dripping away as we speak. They are at the brink of financial ruin and only God knows how they will be able to survive when we all emerge out the other side of this.

Try telling someone who has lost a loved one to this monster that they should be more concerned about the business around the corner. Then try telling that business owner who will be bankrupt by Monday and doesn't know how he's going to be able to take care of his family that he should be more sensitive to someone else who is sick.

Death by this virus is not the end-all-be-all determining factor here. I'm sorry, it's just not. Not because every single life isn't precious, but because as a society, we have never, ever, treated it as such. We still drive cars every day, even though tens of thousands die every year in car accidents. We have always packed ourselves tightly into public arenas and stadiums even though the flu contagion kills tens of thousands of people every year. We still stuff ourselves full of sugar and fat, even though hundreds of thousands die of heart disease and diabetes every year. We still allow abortion to be legal, even though it kills millions of babies every year.

And all that is just in the United States. Every year.

So it seems a bit disingenuous that so many have suddenly become the keeper of humanity now with Covid-19 when the harsh truth is, they simply never cared about their brother before all this.

But then, if we're desperately honest with ourselves, it's not our brother we're really concerned about, is it? Could it be we're only really concerned for ourselves? It makes us feel better about ourselves when we say we're protecting our elderly and the less healthy amongst us but not passing the virus along to them. But is that our real concern? Is it possible our real concern is we don't want to catch it and die ourselves? That's just human nature. But we don't like to admit such things because it makes us look and feel bad, so we have to cloak it in some sort of righteous dignity.

I believe people's general concern for others is genuine, I do. And we all want to support causes that benefit the greater good. But there is no way we would put up with allowing our government to arbitrarily strip us of our rights if we didn't think we were saving our own butts in the process.

Cynical? Perhaps. But if you're being honest -- truly honest -- I would defy you to tell me I'm wrong.

Look, I don't have all the answers. I wouldn't begin to pretend I do. Most of this is just my rant amidst all the craziness. But I do know that most of this craziness is craziness we've created ourselves. Whether you agree with the mitigation or not, what the government has done in shutting everything down is not, at it's core level, anywhere near legal. And we've allowed them to strip us of rights without so much as even questioning all the reasons. People have died as a result of our going about our everyday lives since the beginning of mankind, and that certainly isn't going to stop now even after this virus is over.

Instead of dealing with this thing the way we've dealt with virtually every other health crisis in our history, we've allowed our way of life to be taken away and it has created more fear and chaos -- and ultimately, death -- than the virus alone could ever have hoped to.

Things got back to "normal" after H1N1. Things got back to "normal" after MERS, and ZEKA, and SARS. Heck, things even got back to "normal" after the Spanish Flu 100 years ago. You can guarantee that things will never get back to "normal" after this. Because we've fundamentally "changed" what normal is now. We allowed it to be changed without any input from us. To our detriment, most likely.

But we have an election coming up in November. And we can change out our elected officials to ones who will be more attuned to what we want.

If only we have the guts to do so. After watching how people were so willingly led around like sheep during this pandemic, I question whether or not we do.

The Next Coronavirus: Part 2

So here's the question no one seems to be addressing: What are we going to do next time?

Oh yes. There will be a next time. As I stated in my previous blog, if there's one thing we're certain of, it's that we've seen a new virus or strain of the flu that freaks out the CDC every year or two at least for the past few decades.

You see, everybody is on board with the idea that this is going to pass and we'll all get back to normal at some point. "We'll survive this!" seems to be everyone's mantra. But what happens when the next virus hits?

We've set the bar awfully high now, haven't we? Can we reasonably ignore 30,000 flu deaths anymore? I mean, in the past, when he CDC issued warnings, they were bilaterally ignored. But not now.

You can bet there will be something new coming down the pike in the next year or two. What will we do then? Will we again cancel school for months, and shut down all concerts and sports games, and ban all travel every time a new strain of the flu comes out, or the "horse-virus" or "Budweiser-virus" hits?

I think it will be reasonable to ask, "Why did everyone freak out so bad over the Coronavirus, which turned out to be such a dud, and yet nobody seems to care when my best friend dies from the flu?"

We've set a dangerous precedent here I don't see anybody considering. Not only have we set the bar that we should bring all life in the United States to a screeching halt every time some dude in the back woods of China gets a cold, but we've also now placed the burden on those of us who are relatively healthy to ensure those of us who aren't don't further compromise their shaky immune systems.

In a large number of people's way of thinking, we've shifted the responsibility to keep everyone healthy away from those who are actually sick to the shoulders of those who aren't. We've said, "Yeah, you're tough enough to muscle through, but because others might not be, you should quarantine yourself as well."

For years, I've heard parents and school officials alike say, "If your kids are sick, keep them home, so they don't get other people sick." That's pretty good advice that most everyone seemed to accept.

But not now. Yes, we're placing those who get the virus in quarantine, but at the same time punishing everyone else who isn't sick because they might carry the virus to someone who isn't healthy enough to fight it off. At least that's what the shamers on social media are saying. "Stop being a tool. You might be healthy, but others aren't and that's why we have to make you stay at home."

There's nobility in that, for sure, and I'm not saying it's completely wrong. I'm saying we've set the bar to that level now. Which would be fine, but most are not willing to do that in all other aspects of their everyday lives.

The general populace isn't willing to stop driving cars, even though tens of thousands of Americans die every year in car accidents. The government doesn't say, "We must clear all roads and interstates so as to stop people from crashing into each other."

We're not going to clear the roads for drunk drivers. We're not going to say, "Well, there's likely people out there driving drunk, so let's clear all the roads so they can't hurt anybody." It's absurd.

Heart disease and cancer are the top two killers in the US each year, knocking off roughly half a million people each -- every year. But aside from saying, "Hey you need to eat a few more vegetables, knock off the sweets, and exercise more," we're not really doing anything to prevent the deaths. We've reasonable said, "Look, people have a right to live their lives the way they want. If they want to live a lifestyle that kills them, that's up to them." The government hasn't stepped in and made everybody stop eating Ding Dongs and sign up for a gym membership.

I know there's always some who will say those are bad comparisons. But the principle is legit. After every tragedy or disaster, there are laws either proposed or enacted that essentially punish law-abiding citizens far worse than those who choose to commit crimes. Now we're doing it with healthcare. We're telling perfectly healthy people it is now their responsibility to make sure others don't get more sick.

We all have a moral obligation to look after those who are less fortunate. It's Scriptural, its heart-felt, and just plain right. We should be doing that anyway. But I think it's a slippery slope to start laying out blanket guidelines enforced by the government that in the end will only be enacted and followed when it's convenient, or worse, politically prudent.

Some might say, "You dolt! The measure are in place to ensure your safety as well." OK, but to what end? I'm being forced by the government to shut down my life -- which, to some, is no kind of life at all -- just because I might get sick?

It's true what they're saying. This is dangerously close to what socialism looks like. And it happened in a matter of weeks.

In the end, you can bet that there will be far more people plunged into financial ruin by all of this than will actually die from the virus. Right now, the more self-righteous among us simply do not care. To them, having someone's life completely ruined is a better alternative.

There's been one death in South Carolina from this virus so far. One. But the measures that are being put in place to prevent even one more have the potential to ruin the lives of thousands of others. Employees, retirees, and business owners alike. Is that worth it? You tell me.

Fear. Panic. Hysteria. Mania. Financial ruin. With very little data and mostly speculation and forecasting to back it all up. All in the hopes of preventing more deaths.

So what will we do next time?

The Insanity of the Coronavirus

My best friend died from the flu a few years ago. So I'm not insensitive to the fact that people die from viral-related illnesses. When he contracted the illness, he had a myriad of other underlying health issues that rendered his body incapable of being able to fight off the virus, and he succumbed to it.

I only mention this because as I proceed, I don't want anybody to accuse me of being insensitive, callous, selfish, uncaring, unloving, or any combination thereof. Of course I want people to be safe, and I'm all for doing whatever we can to ensure that people protect themselves from unwanted illnesses.

But I have some questions. And some of those questions pose further questions I'm not sure everybody is thinking of down the road. So here we go.

Where did the sudden concern for humanity come from? By that I mean, why have we, as a society, virtually ignored every single pandemic, virus, and flu-related illness that's come down the pike in the last 100 years or so, with nary batting an eyelash, but all the sudden, at the mere mention of the word "Coronavirus," the entire country has virtually been shut down?

Somebody please explain that to me.

According the Centers for Disease Control (the CDC) the flu alone has killed well over 30,000 people, including my best friend, each year since 2010, and that's just the past 10 years.

And here's the stats I found on H1N1, the "swine flu" that was all the rage back in 2009 and 2010. Direct from the CDC website: "From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306) in the United States due to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.

Over 300,000 flu-deaths in the last 10 years, and nearly 12.5 thousand deaths from H1N1 alone in one year, and not a single shutdown. Not a single sports contest cancelled. Not a single travel ban. Not a single school closure. Not a single concern that doctors and hospitals would be overwhelmed.

None. Why now?

Please don't throw speculation at me. It's not as though there has never been global health crises before that affected other countries dramatically and yet had very little impact here in the US. It's happened plenty of times. The data so far on this one doesn't back up a single shred of the panic we've seen. China's #'s alone for the Coronavirus, (albeit, likely under-reported from their Communist regime) don't warrant the kind of panic we've seen, let alone the absolute minuscule numbers we've seen here in the US so far. I can't speak for Italy, or Iran, or South Korea. God only knows how truly prepared any other country is, or how much their governments remotely care about their people. I only know that so far, here in the US, even until we started seriously social-distancing from everyone, everything cancelled, and all overseas travel was banned, the total amount of cases in general, let alone the deaths, were barely worse than a bad weekend in Chicago. As of this writing, there are a total number of 68 deaths nation-wide, and roughly 60% of those cases are in one nursing home in Washington State. That's 20-30 deaths otherwise in the US. More people have been killed in crimes in Indianapolis so far this year.

Look, if in the past, in a response to H1N1, or SARS, or Ebola, or the ZEKA virus, or the common flu, we'd seen even a remote attempt at stopping the spread -- a mild travel ban, the cancellation of a few games, the closing of a school for a week or so -- anything at all, then one could remotely justify the panic we're seeing now.

But nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

Until now.

So why?

Look, I get it. One death is one too many. I understand that. And I'm not saying precautions shouldn't be taken. I'm not even saying I think we shouldn't be doing what we're doing or that what we're doing is wrong... well... sort.

What I AM saying is that the panicked response to this, given the data, and in the absence of literally anything for the virus-related illnesses of the last decade simply makes no rational sense.

If anyone can give a rational answer to that, I'm all ears. Otherwise, we are left to speculate.

In general, I believe in the overall good of people. I believe people don't want ill to befall other people. There's a moral vapidness that is gradually overtaking our society, but otherwise, I like to believe the general populace wishes well-being on their fellow man.

But I've seen several social media posts in the past several days that basically read like this: "Sure, you might be able to go out in public right now and survive the virus, but you might carry the virus to some other poor schlub who isn't as healthy as you, and they might not survive. And that's the problem." I've seen that post in several variations over the past few days, and they all follow that same vein.

And while that scenario might actually be true, my question is simple: Where has this concern for others been over the past decade or so? Why have we not given a lickety-spit as over 30,000 people were dying from the flu each year, and all the sudden we're shaming people for stepping outside their house?

Why? It literally makes no sense. Did everyone suddenly gain a conscious? Did everyone suddenly find some heretofore unearthed love for the fellow man they hadn't noticed before? Do the heads of state suddenly have access to health information they've never had before?

I'm sorry, but while the optimist in me wants to believe in the good of people, the skeptic in me doesn't buy it for a minute. Because a great deal of the posts I've seen like that have been posted by people who I know would dance a jig tomorrow if our President were assassinated.

We've gone from literally ignoring every virus of this kind we've ever seen in modern society to losing our collective minds and shutting down the entire country over a death count that so far is barely greater than a bad bus accident Albuquerque. (Shouldn't a taken that wrong toin!)

It. Makes. No. Sense.

Could the "conspiracy theorists" be right? Could this be a media-driven false panic? Worse, could it be yet another insane hail-mary to bring down our President? Could it be a purposeful bio-attack from China in retaliation for losing the trade war?

I have my suspicions, but I'm not gonna come right out and say it. I'll just say this: I've racked my brain and I can't come up with any rational answer. And worse, I can't get anybody else to give me one either. There is but one variable that's changed from this pandemic vs. all the others: Donald Trump wasn't President during those others.

And here's how we'll know whether my suspicions are right or not: What are we going to do next time?

(Spoiler alert: I'm saving that topic for my next blog.)

There will be a next time. That much is for sure. If we've learned anything from the past few decades, it's that every year or two there's a new virus or a new strain of the flu that's going to ruin the world. Will we flip out as we have on this one, or will we completely ignore it as we have done with every one before? There will be some very reasonable questions raised depending on our response, whatever it is. And it will be interesting to see who the President is and which side of the aisle he is from.

Fear. Panic. Hysteria. Mania. With very little data and mostly speculation and forecasting to back it up. Complete lunacy. Pure insanity.

If you've got a rational reason for all this, please, by all means....