For the History Books

The Pandemic was already going to be in the history books, but the 2020 Presidential Election is sure to be right alongside it.

These screen captures are not in all chronological order, but it goes a little something like this...

Donald Trump has a good turnout on election day. He does far better than the vast majority of pollsters preditced.

Only the tune kept changing as time went on.

Neither side had enough electoral counts to win with several key states hanging in the balance. 

However, the more mail-in ballots that came in, the more Trump fell behind.

He called conspiracy and started legal processes that have continued for weeks after the election.

Personally, I think there are two likely explanations for the discrepancy in mail-in ballots.

1) There was cheating on both sides and the Democrats did a better job.

No, I don't think only one side did it if it was done. There are allegations going on now about PACs formed to support spoiler candidates that helped Republican candidates win office.

However, after everyone cried foul in 2016 this had to be one of the most closely watched elections. Ever. There's always a chance for incompetence, but it's less likely under intense scrutiny and oversight. There haven't been any big revelations from the courts or anywhere else so far.

2) People who did mail-in votes were more likely to vote for Biden.

Trump trash talked mail-in ballots and encouraged all his supporters to vote in person on election day. I bet they mostly did. He had a strong turnout and good numbers. Trump supporters in general tend to be less fearful of the pandemic.

On the other hand, Biden did not trash talk mail ballots. His supporters tend to be more fearful of the pandemic. I expect more of them used mail-in ballots.

So I'm pretty sure this headline is true. Trump got the vast majority of his votes cast by people who voted in person. Biden had a portion of his votes that came in over time.

If the mail-in ballots were done legally, then they should count. 

Trump's reaction was very human in it's frustration (and why many of his supporters feel he's more trustworthy than typical politicians), but unprofessional (and why many of his detractors have a problem with how he conducts himself). 

I couldn't help but feel that Facebook might be having some fun at Trump's expense with their fact checking on his posts. Trump went after them multiple times and I'm sure the company didn't appreciate it.

Trump's posts are probably the closest I or many other people will ever see a President's true feelings and reactions whether people agree with them or not.

I flipped back and forth between Fox and CNN to see the different takes and spins they put on things.

For the most part their numbers and races called were in line with each other. The headlines they delivered around those numbers? Very different.

I'm sure that many people have felt uncertain with Trump refusing to acknowledge Biden's victory and his claims of voter fraud.

My life has gone on as usual. I wake up, work, and do my best to be a blessing to everyone I talk to. 

One student said something about the election a couple of times, but the rest have all been quiet. I teach math, so it's not like current events are a frequent topic. I normally hear something, but with Zoom making every discussion a full class discussion by default students seem to be much more cautious with what they say.

I do check the news out of curiosity to see how things unfold. If Trump really tries to throw down it could be a major catastrophe for the democratic process, but personally, I don't think he will. My personal prediction is he will be upset, do everything he can to find a conspiracy or a loophole, not find anything, sulk, and make his exit. 

More interesting question: What will Trump do in his final moments and after he leaves the presidency? Who will he pardon? What can he pardon? Pre-pardons? Will he try to pardon himself? Or does that admit he did something?

The headlines of CNN and Fox continue to be very different even as the same events unfold before both of them.

Clearly, Fox is anti-Biden.

And CNN is anti-Trump.

In my opinion, less-biased news has been a casualty of the past decades.

I'm sure someone will come out with a book or story about the election that happened this year. I'm not going to read it, but I have found the extreme reactions on social media interesting. They're there, but almost never with anyone I talk to directly. 

Historic times. I prefer to leave them to the historians, but I can't ignore it all in my blog either. Shane may have to do a book report on this one day and the screenshots could be interesting.

The Dreaded Political Post

Someone more eloquent than me has probably said, "No matter who wins, at least half the country is going to be upset." 

It's certainly the way I look at this election.

I feel like every election year it's always "THE" election year. If the right person is elected, there will be sunshine and rainbows and life will go on. If the wrong person is elected....

Only there's always a problem eventually. The problem changes based on who's elected, but it's never 'all good.' 

With all the conflicting reports and polarized comments I read, I'm honestly not sure who will win. I think it will be like the recent school board votes for virtual school and for phase 3: Divided.

If you go by the signs, we live in Trump country. Our neighbors hung banners.

I see mainly Trump signs on the drive into town and in town. There's an occasional outlier, but Ellie's neighbor had someone drive into their yard to steal their Biden sign. 

Caught it on their game camera, too.

Yet, there are news reports in Orange County that someone was stealing Trump signs.

There are crazy people in both camps. There are people who bring guns to shoot peaceful protestors and there are people who try to use the protests to assault police officers and/or loot. 

I'm sure much of the news that bothers you relates directly to where you get your news.

Just look at the coronavirus. 236,997 people have died or 0.072% of the population? Is the statistic you pick more likely to indicate who you will vote for?

Or was it biased to write it that way? Should I have written 0.072% of the population or 236.997 people have died?

Both facts are certainly true (at least at the time I pulled the numbers). 

And I don't buy into this sort of talk. At all.

I could write a whole post about that quote, but I won't here. 

So where do I stand this election? 

This post has already started to grow beyond the size I originally intended. The more I write, the more I want to write, because my own feelings are complicated. I have serious qualms about both candidates. 

In the end, I decided to base my vote purely on my personal experience. I feel like Trump's presidency has had a negative effect on my life. 

My world feels more divided and I feel Trump's character, mannerisms, and strategy fuel that. There have been times he could have offered words of healing and direction (Remember the Aug 12 march?) or just admitted he made a mistake, so that the course could be corrected (The entire start of the pandemic being a flu) yet he seems incapable. He called names and 'shouts' in all caps on Twitter. He labeled COVID-19 the 'China virus' in a time when people are already being targeted for being different and, again, promoted division and strife rather than understanding and support.

So I voted for Biden.

And yet it wasn't without reservations. I disagree strongly with parts of his platform and if he does win, I don't want a sudden overreaction or course-correction with lockdowns. While I believe the initial responses to the pandemic were bungled and Trump bears much of the responsibility, I feel like a second clamping down this late in the game would be a second disaster. 

Obviously, I have no data on the future to tell if Biden would call for a second lockdown or not. It's more my perception of the trends in voters. 

The schools cautiously moved to return more students to in person school with a 4 to 3 vote. I'm willing to bet there's a strong correlation that the people who voted for moving forward tended to vote for Trump while the ones who voted against tended to vote for Biden. I wanted to move forward, albeit cautiously.

I voted in person the day of the election. It wasn't crowded.

I renewed my license from home in May and realized that while legal, the expiration number on the front had passed. I spent half the morning looking for my updated voter registration card, but didn't need it. No one wanted to touch a stranger's license amid COVID fears. The poll worker looked at the back of my license for half a second from behind a plastic shield to scan the barcode.

I was the 275th voter out of a projected 6,600 something.

I started to write this Tuesday and I'm wrapping it up Wednesday morning after editing to keep it concise.

We still don't know who won. 

And that won't stop time from moving on. I'm going to go about my day. There are chores to do, family to hug, and kids to teach. 

God is in control whoever wins. 

Leadership - What I look for

Being aware of bias in the news is something I've talked about. 

Wherever there are people, there will be different views. With enough people to pull from, news sites can inevitably find someone who says what they want said.

That's no reason to give up on being informed, though. There are often patterns that emerge. 

One patterns that has emerged is that there is a revolving door in the White House. People are appointed. There is drama. People leave. The drama continues afterward.

A recent example I've seen in the news is retired General James Mattis. CNN was happy to air his opinions on Trump's handling of the recent protests.

Fox was happy to air the rebuttal and people who disagreed.

In the beginning, there was bilateral support and praise for Mattis' appointment (even in the news media!).

Mattis' appointment required a vote and it passed in the senate with 98 approving, 1 voting against, and 1 vote not cast. I didn't bother to look up the House vote record.

Mattis had a reputation for being good at his job and for being focused on the mission rather than politics.

I remember laughing at a meme from when a man from Utah made threats against the administration.

How times have changed.

Mattis offered his letter of resignation in protest of how Trump treated US Allies. Trump replaced him quickly thereafter and insisted that he fired Mattis instead of Mattis resigning.

I think of a good leader as someone who can work with and bring out the best in the people around them to accomplish a mission. 

Personally, I want to work under a principal who knows what they're doing. I want them to build a cohesive staff through hiring and training. I want them to create a healthy, team-oriented climate in the school. I want them to celebrate successes, not be afraid to make hard decision, and to always be growing rather than stuck in their ways. I want a leader who can realize when he made a mistake, learn from it, and then fix it or at least come out wiser.

I've had multiple principals like this. 

I've also had principals who were not like this.

Turnover is a given in schools as people move, start families, try new opportunities, have life crisis, and even burn-out. But the schools I've been at where people wanted to be and the schools where people couldn't wait to get out of had very different feels to them.

A good leader can take a group of diverse people with diverse skills and meld them together to become greater than the sum of the parts.

Trump doesn't fit the bill.

Trump is not the only president to have turnover in the White House, but it feels to me like he's had a larger number of flame-outs that even I can name.

There was Tillerson at the State Department. My dad worked at Exxon and described Tillerson as intelligent and business-minded (and I take note when my dad calls someone intelligent). Rumors were that he called Trump a "moron."

Then there was Bolton the ex-National Security Advisor. His book is due to be published at the end of June with hints of subpoena threats and tell-it-all-drama proceeding. 

Trump could be terrible at picking people. Maybe Bolton would have written a dramatic book so he could get rich no matter who the president was. Maybe Tillerson would have not liked to have anyone in authority over him after being in charge of his own company.

On the other hand, Trump could be terrible at managing people. From the outside, it seems like he enjoys pitting people against each other where he stays on top and no one can ally against him.

Or perhaps it's a combination of both?

However it happened, the turnover and the wounds left in its wake is a bad sign. Picking terrible people is a weakness in a leader and the best leaders are able to bring out the best in their employees. 

No one will get it right all of the time and being in the spotlight means every mistake gets broadcast by competing news media. 

I wrote this now, because I have been disheartened with how Trump has been handling the protests. Instead of trying to listen and heal the nation, it feels like he has tried to bully his opponents into backing down and has fanned flames rather than extinguishing them. 

Trump has always been one to speak without thinking (not a good leadership trait), but talking about using the military to deal with domestic protests is something I and many others felt the need to speak out about. 

Fox posted an article mentioning some friction between Trump and the Pentagon about the potential order while CNN's headline was more flamboyant.

Different sites. Different biases....but a pattern.

This was all happening at the same time as a photo-op at a local cathedral.

The police was accused of using tear gas to clear peaceful protesters for the photo-op.

At first, Fox news had a different take.

But days later the story had changed. Fox tends to support Trump more and mentioned it was one agent who used tear gas by mistake. Other news outlets were more outraged.

By the way, the bishop of the church was not pleased.

I saw the meme and wondered if it was cherry-picked and doctored (because people do that). I watched an interview with the bishop and while I didn't hear those exact words in that exact order I did hear a very similar message.

General Milley who was present at the photo-shoot has apologized for being there. When I tried to look it up, I was treated to lots of talking heads from different media groups before I found the source material.

9:48 is where the General talks about Lafayette Square. He does speak against racism earlier on, as well.

I respect that he would publicly humble himself to say what he did.

And that's enough for now.

This whole post is basically a lament about not having what I view as a good leader in the White House. Trump seems incapable of ever admitting wrong-doing, attacks, calls names, and has further polarized an already polarized country. He's done some things I like: such as sanctioning China for walking back freedoms in Hong Kong. But Trump's solutions have come at a cost. They've usually been done in such a combative way they create more problems for further down the line.

I don't like to write political posts, and I wondered if it was a mistake to write this one. It does show some of what's been on my mind as I've been praying for the country, though. And it's already been written and I'm behind.  

Bonus observation (Humorous):

Have you ever noticed how Trump will randomly type a few words in all caps in his Twitter feed? It always give me the image of him walking out on his balcony and bellowing out into the air.

I can't help but imagine Trump's trying to sound like Kirk in Star Trek 2.

I just imagine Trump throwing his head back, arms wide, breathing deep, and then shouting for an echo.

COVID 19 - The Coronavirus: Being Aware of Bias

I don't know when my teachers first taught me about bias in the media. High school, perhaps? 

It's still very relevant.

I like to go to different news sites to see things from different angles. Different people can have different views and concerns about the exact same situation, so I find it helpful to be aware of those sort of things.

So let's talk about politics.

A quick glance at front pages can show a page's leanings. 

CNN:

And Fox.

CNN is less favorable of Trump. Fox is more favorable. 

A true story is more likely to hit their front pages if it supports their views and less likely to if it does not. 

What trumps that rule is "Will people click it?" 

If the news is explosive enough and everyone's covering it, it will hit a front page regardless.

Tara Reade accused Joe Biden of assault in 1993.

One headline (Fox):

Another headline (CNN):

I don't expect either site to lie outright, because they don't want to open themselves to lawsuits. I do skim both to see what they view as highlights to see if they have different takes on the same thing.

Personal opinion: Good reporting gives facts, talks implications, but leaves the readers to come to their own conclusion.

There were commonalities in both articles.

CNN's was an 'analysis,' so they typically come to some of their own conclusions in those (I classify them in my head as "Facts + opinion-piece").

I've been thinking about writing this article for a while, so my screenshots are all from over a period of time. This was not "Mike picked one day and decided to pick everything apart."

Here's another screenshot from a different day I took of the top headlines on both pages I looked at and put them next to each other. 

Fox was pushing that there's a controversy over the Russia probe. CNN was pushing that there's a controversy over how the US has responded to the Coronavirus threat.

The fact is: Yes, they're both right. There are lots of people concerned about both. However, if you only read one news site you will be bombarded with one slant. 

If you are bombarded with one slant for too long, it can change how you view things. Headlines are often made to make you react (and click) before you think.

That's a statement that many people will be uncomfortable with.

The Nazis believed it very strongly, though.

Or at least that feels very true.

Joseph Goebbels was a Nazi propagandist who's often attributed with this quote (see the fancy meme?), but then again I found a link saying that may not be true.

So what's to believe?

Did the quote really originate from him? Or did it just sound so right and so many people have quoted it that it gained enough steam to have a life of it's own?

It could have been he said it, but the lack of a primary source does concern me. A primary source would be someone who was there (or even Goebbels himself). A secondary source would be someone who heard it from someone who was there. A tertiary source would be three links on and so forth and anyone who's ever played "Telephone" as a kid knows that the further down the line a message is passed it changes.

Reliable primary sources are great!

For example, I have nurses in my Facebook feed. This nurse actually lived with my family for years (not that you'll recognize her in all her gear!).

I could ask her about her experience with the coronavirus, with personal protective gear, and with quarantine.

Her experience could paint a picture of the hospital she worked at, but I wouldn't want to cherry pick her experience and apply it to nation as a whole (which is something to look out for when reading!).

What's interesting with current political commentary is that anyone can go straight to Donald Trump's twitter and see exactly what he's posting. His tweets frequently make headlines and are discussed, so I naturally go to the primary source whenever I wonder, "Did he really say that?" 

And I can confirm exactly what was said or wasn't said.

NOTE: Even if it's said, there's lots of room for interpretation. That's what keeps news people talking all day and night.

Patterns do show up: Donald Trump doesn't like "Fake News."

But there's a lot of "he said" and "she said" type things that no one will really know unless they were there.

May 26th: Twitter made an interesting move the other day. They flagged something Trump said as "Potentially misleading."

Trump can say that it's his opinion. Opinions can be based off wrong information. But voter fraud is a real thing. But will it happen to that extent? Should what the president says be put to a higher level of scrutiny because of his level of authority? Or should that authority protect him from that scrutiny?

Regardless of your stance, Trump had his own opinion about his tweet being marked.

If you read this far, I'd like to point out: I have my own biases. Some I'm aware of. Some I'm honestly not. The Bible says in Matthew 7:15 to "take the plank out of your own eye" before removing a "speck" from someone else's.

I like to think I'm good at examining my own thoughts, but I'm only human. I'm not an expert by any means, so if I made you think about anything I encourage you to look into it yourself.  I'd be happy to talk in person about how I feel at a moment, but I'm hesitant to write down anything permanent when there's always new information coming out and, to quote Proverbs 18:17, "In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines."