The Trump-Biden Debate: Yikes! What next?

Is this Ali-Frazier? The End of the World? Some were saying the the future is at stake like never before.

Yes, some were saying it would be the biggest prize fight ever, something akin to the Thrilla from Manila, or Ali-Frazier. Some wondered whether the president could survive 15 rounds going toe-to-toe with his arch enemy.

Once the pre-game show was over we were live in Georgia. Moderators Dana Bash and Jake Tapper looked ready to go.

The President walks to the podium looking lost.

The former president is introduced and walks out looking testy.

The opening. The heavyweights have entered the ring.

President Biden sounds hoarse. Trump, the former president, appears restrained, makes an effort to appear friendly while wearing his traditional scowl. I turn to the peanut gallery (X, formerly known as Twitter) and listen to the comments.

* * *

--This has to be a set up to get rid of Biden! DEMs want him gone and have allowed this humiliating debate! Mission accomplished!

--One has to think they allowed this to happen so they could have reason to replace him at the convention. Seriously that was painful to watch.

--Really America? 
Are those your only options?

--What a terrible time to stop drinking. #debatenight

--https://x.com/rustyrockets/status/1806527566490067351

* * * *

Analysis
Many in the media were ready for this, but some Americans were not. Had they be reading and listening to media from a wide spectrum of viewpoints, they would have known how much the President's mental acuity has deteriorated. The majority of mainstream media seemed determined to conceal Biden's public rambles and muddled moments while conservative commentators, podcasters and radio hosts collected these clumsy stumbles for highlight reels. 

When articles commenting on President Biden's declining mental faculties would appear in the Wall Street Journal or elsewhere, you could count on immediate denials from a Liberal source saying, "It ain't so." (I think here of how the media avoided showing FDR in a wheelchair lest he appear weak.)

Now the question is why Dem insiders aware of his decline allowed this debate to happen at this time. Can it be that the first debate took place so early in this year's election cycle in order to set up a maneuver at the Dem's National Convention in Chicago this year?

Conservatives have been making hay with the polls showing Trump ahead in swing states. The fact that his lead is only marginal should be a signal that all is not well in the "Grand Old Party" either. Will Trump as candidate make it easier or harder for Republicans further down the food chain? 

* * * *

The response to Biden's performance was swift. "Joe, maybe it's time to hang up your cleats." Four of the five stories in today Atlantic enews skewered the President. The influential New York Times editorial board made an appeal for Biden to step out of the way.

Trump, who is accustomed to making news simply by being outrageous, was overshadowed by the swirl surrounding the President's embarrassingly poor showing. This was to be Joe Biden's moment. Unfortunately, with the bases loaded he struck out.

Harnessing the Wind Can Be Harrowing for Birds

Last night's presidential debate included a brief exchange regarding wind power and energy issues. President Trump, overstating with his usual hyperbole as he often seems to do, said, "Wind energy will kill all the birds." 

Joe Biden made fun of this, as if it were ludicrous. (OK, yes, the statement as it stands is ludicrous.)

Having read quite a bit about wind energy, and having worked at a company that served that industry, I was well aware of the issue the president was referring to. Wind turbines not only kill birds, the companies that run these wind turbines get fined big bucks when they're equipment kills endangered species.

I remember a number of years back when a North Dakota company was fined a million dollars because its turbine (or turbine blades) killed some species of golden eagle or falcon. The following headlines appeared when I did a Google search. 

Wind Power Co. to Pay $2.5 Million for Killing Golden Eagles, Other Protected Birds

The Endangered Species Act And Wind Power: A Rule, Or More Of A Guideline?

Wind Turbine Company Heavily Fined for Killing Birds at Wind Farm in Wyoming

To put things in perspective, all kinds of human activity endangers birds. According to the Clean Grid Alliance, cats kill more than 10% of the birds. (This is why we do not have a bird feeder. Our barn cat Chirps is a very effective hunter, ever on the prowl for the unwary chickadee. (His eye is on the sparrow as well.) 

More than half of all birds killed by humans die by flying into windows and buildings. 14% die by power lines, 7% by pesticide and 9% by cars. I remember how my dad would occasionally have to remove a bird from the grill of our car after that one hour drive to my grandparents house. (I also remember the Burma Shave signs on that route.)

The Audubon Society counters with this article: Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe for Birds?

It may be Green Energy, but currently the turbines kill between 140,000 and 328,000 birds each year in North America alone. 

Actually, though, when I look at those numbers, it seems quite low. If there are 50,000 wind turbines in the U.S., that means (according to the above numbers) that each turbine kills between 3 and 8 birds a year. If it were three, then this would be one every four month. I think the windows on my house--and a small house at that--kill about three birds a year.

It's the bald eagles and golden eagles that Audubon Society cares about most, though. 

For more on this topic check out:

Ten Myths About Wind Energy and Birds

Wind Energy and Birds

(Above link goes to documents from the Clean Grid Alliance)

Top of page: "For the Birds"--painting by the author, 24"x 24" 

What are the Pros and Cons of Today's Most Controversial Issues? Here's a Place to Start

Have you ever held a position on an issue and wondered why or how anyone could hold the contrary position? Or, have you ever held a position on an issue in which everyone seemed in opposition to your personal convictions?

Well, here's a great resource that might help you gain insights on how the other side thinks. Or, if seeking rhetorical firepower it could give you ammunition for what your gut has been telling you all along. (Read on.)

When not listening to audio books I occasionally would have National Public Radio (NPR) on during my lunch hour as I drove to and from wherever I was eating that day. For a period of time (and maybe still, I don't know) they would have a Friday debate on various issues with two people for and two people against a proposition on this or that contemporary issue. If I remember correctly, they would poll the audience before the debate and then again afterwards. The team that influenced the most audience members to the cross the divide would be declared winner.

What I liked about it was how it showed the listening audience that even the most controversial issues can have two sides. Whether capital punishment, concealed handguns, banning books or the relevance of the electoral college, all kinds of issues have smart people on opposite sides of the coin.

In their book The Coddling of the American Mind, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff note the polarization that has been occurring in our contemporary culture, and how unhealthy it is on several levels. On many college campuses it seems that kids want to only hear one point of view on things, concluding that any view beyond my own is illegitimate, nonconstructive, invalid, not worth consideration and harmful. 

This last point is a major point of the book. In our efforts to raise the current generation in a "safe" way we have made them so fragile that they may have a hard time when they get into the real world of hard knocks.

This singleminded group-think is not just college kids. It has become pervasive in all age groups and demographics. As I have noted elsewhere, citing Eric Hoffer and Orwell, it makes the masses easier to manipulate when they can be induced to clump together in fear in an Us vs. Them stance. 

What the writers of Coddling note is that college used to be a place where students were taught How to think, not What to think. Today this fundamental idea is being challenged on many campuses. Hence the student riots and protests designed to keep certain speakers out these past few years.

I remember sitting in an adult Sunday school class in the 60s in which guests representing various alternative beliefs were invited so they could present their views and be questioned. I can't recall most other than the one from SDS, Students for a Democratic Society, an antiwar group which eventually spawned the Weathermen, a radical branch that used terrorist tactics including bombings. (In one 18 month period from 1971-72 there were five bombings a day around the country!)

The point here is that giving voice to other perspectives was all part of what students fought for in the Sixties Free Speech Movement. How strange it is to find students fighting for just the opposite, shutting down speakers whom they disagree with.

ALL THIS TO SAY that for open-minded people seeking to examine both sides of various issues, the pro and con of Health & Medicine, Education, Political Issues, Science & Technology and more, this is a site worth bookmarking: PROCON.ORG

I've not gone through every category here but the topics I reviewed seem to represent, in a fair and intelligent manner, both sides on many of our most controversial issues. 

It's an approach that I like because few of us, if any, can be experts in every category of every issue. Yet somehow we're continually prodded to "take a stand" on all these issues based on whatever media feed we pay attention to. Sometimes people will even pressure you. "How can can you not know what you think on this?" But the truth is, unless you have researched things a bit, how can you not remain on the sidelines? Issues are complex and multi-faceted.

I believe it is useful to listen to the other side. How can we practice discernment if we always wear earplugs? The ability to discern, to weigh things in the balance, to give them their proper weight, is all part of growing up.

Related Links
The Coddling of the American Mind and its associated website.
Bubble-Wrapped Americans: How the U.S. Became Obsessed with Physical and Emotional Safety