The mail-in ballot – The first presidential debate – Reactions from abroad – Evening statistics
The mail-in ballot for the upcoming election arrived during my absence in Maine. When I visited my mother today I asked her caregiver to witness my opening of the envelope and then I obtained her signature on the envelope containing sealed ballot after I filled it out. Afterwards I took it to the City Hall, which is only a few minutes’ walk from my house. I could have just as easily dropped it in the mail as well, but I thought it just as well to expedite the process.
I was quite prepared, if for some reason the decision to use mail-in ballots were reversed, to go directly to the polls in November, despite the risk of infection. Voting has never been as important as it is now. I have provided a ballot filled out as meticulously as I am capable of doing; if only I could be assured that it will be duly tabulated. Who can tell whether or not our current administration may toss it aside along with thousands and millions of others?
This conviction was reinforced by the first presidential debate last night. Onlookers were swift to declare it the worst presidential debate in the history of American politics. Chris Wallace, the unfortunate moderator, must assuredly be at loggerheads with his colleagues; after attempting repeatedly, and in vain, to exercise some sort of restraint upon the President, to prevent him from speaking out of turn, and to obtain direct answers to his questions, I’m sure he has no desire to listen to the paeans of praise that the other members of Fox News shower upon Trump as a matter of course. He lost control of the debate within the first five minutes, never to regain it.
It may come as a surprise to anyone who watched the debate, but it actually had a set of rules. The moderator was to introduce a topic and ask a question. Each candidate would have two uninterrupted minutes to answer. Then the other candidate would have his two minutes. Then a general conversation, guided by Wallace, would ensue.
From the onset it was obvious that Trump was not going to abide by these rules. He interrupted at every opportunity and worked steadfastly at transforming the debate into a shouting match. Watching the debate was like watching a game of hockey in which one of the players takes up his stick and bashes his opponents and the umpire on the head whenever he happens to send the puck out of play.
How was Wallace, or any moderator for that matter, to cope with such a situation? He couldn’t very well put Trump into the penalty box. Nor was it feasible to use physical force to restrain him, although no doubt Wallace was sorely tempted to do so. Personally, I would have no scruple in administering a sound spanking to that spoiled brat in a seventy-year-old body.
By the end of the grueling experience that the debate became, Wallace’s state of mind must have been approaching that of Job’s wife after the disasters that overtook her household, ready to curse God and die. The President in short behaved during this event more or less as expected, always on the defensive, always ready to sling insults at his opponent, always ready with hyperbolic assertions, always unable to reinforce his assertions with any firm statistics, and always displaying the whining petulance of an over-indulged child of ten. Biden, by way of contrast, managed to convey an impression of maturity and self-possession during the onslaught he endured. Sometimes, to be sure, he was taunted into some mudslinging of his own. But as more than one commentator remarked, it’s difficult to behave otherwise when one is flung into a pigsty.
Several have advised Biden not to undergo two more such embarrassing displays, but I see nothing wrong with presenting the voting public with graphic reminders that the upcoming election offers a choice between a man who can exercise some control over his emotions, with a standard of civility, and a man who is destitute of either of those qualities. I hasten to say that this is not my own personal assessment. The Oddschecker website claims that the debate has led to the “biggest swing in the market in six months,” with a shift of 5.63 percent in Biden’s favor. Two more such encounters can only bolster his position even more. To be sure, Trump’s diehard supporters will not change their opinions no matter what sort of exhibition their icon might display, but at least a portion of the more intelligent of those inclined to vote for Trump – and there are some of these – must be feeling embarrassed by the antics of last night. It is even possible that a few of them as a result will decide to stay at home and refrain from voting for him, either in person or by mail, after what they have seen.
When I was out today I overheard some of my neighbors chatting about the debate. “I just had to turn the TV off after a while,” one of them said. “I simply couldn’t stand it any longer,” – and the others allowed that she had given a very rational account of the matter.
Then, of course, there are observers further afield who are equally dismayed by what they have been seeing.
“I feel sorry for Americans. But we can’t help the U.S. because we are a very small country.”
The speaker is U Myint Oo, a member of parliament in Myanmar. Myanmar not only has been greatly overburdened by the coronavirus, driving its hospital system to the brink of complete paralysis, but is also contending with incessant ethnic warfare, with fighting breaking out periodically among Bamars (the majority group, accounting for about two-thirds of the country’s population) and various minorities such as Kachins, Karennis, Karens, Rakhines, Chins, Shans, and Rohingyas, among others. The depth of the animosity subsisting between these may be gathered from a conversation that George Orwell once had with a member of the Karens when Myanmar (or Burma, as it was called then) was a colony of the British Empire. He was a young man serving in the British civil service at the time, and during this disillusioning experience he was becoming increasingly hostile towards the Empire as an institution, regarding it as a swindle and a systematic exploitation of every ethnic group weaker than the British themselves. So he was flabbergasted to hear his acquaintance remark, “I hope the British stay here two hundred years.” “Why on earth do you want that?” Orwell asked. “Because we don’t want to be ruled by Burmese.” Not much has changed since this conversation was held nearly a century ago. Civil wars have plagued the country ever since it obtained independence in 1948. In addition, more than a quarter of the population is living below the poverty level. And it is a representative of this country who is now professing pity for the United States.
Other foreign observers are displaying similar reactions.
From Eduardo Bohórquez, the director of Transparency International Mexico: “We used to look to the U.S. for democratic governance inspiration. Sadly, this is not the case anymore.”
From Yenny Wahid, an Indonesian politician and activist: “Trump inspired many dictators, many leaders who are interested in dictatorship, to copy his style, and he emboldened them,”
From Mike Bradley, mayor of Sarnia, a city on the Canadian border of Michigan: “Personally, it’s like watching the decline of the Roman Empire.”
I have had a tendency when I am on travel, as for instance during my recent trip to Maine, of not following the news headlines as closely as I might have done, and so far that has always paid off. Today’s statistics as of 8:00 PM – # of cases worldwide: 34,141,741; # of deaths worldwide: 1,018,076; # of cases U.S.: 7,445,658; # of deaths U.S.: 211,688.
The mail-in ballot – The first presidential debate – Reactions from abroad – Evening statistics
The mail-in ballot for the upcoming election arrived during my absence in Maine. When I visited my mother today I asked her caregiver to witness my opening of the envelope and then I obtained her signature on the envelope containing sealed ballot after I filled it out. Afterwards I took it to the City Hall, which is only a few minutes’ walk from my house. I could have just as easily dropped it in the mail as well, but I thought it just as well to expedite the process.
I was quite prepared, if for some reason the decision to use mail-in ballots were reversed, to go directly to the polls in November, despite the risk of infection. Voting has never been as important as it is now. I have provided a ballot filled out as meticulously as I am capable of doing; if only I could be assured that it will be duly tabulated. Who can tell whether or not our current administration may toss it aside along with thousands and millions of others?
This conviction was reinforced by the first presidential debate last night. Onlookers were swift to declare it the worst presidential debate in the history of American politics. Chris Wallace, the unfortunate moderator, must assuredly be at loggerheads with his colleagues; after attempting repeatedly, and in vain, to exercise some sort of restraint upon the President, to prevent him from speaking out of turn, and to obtain direct answers to his questions, I’m sure he has no desire to listen to the paeans of praise that the other members of Fox News shower upon Trump as a matter of course. He lost control of the debate within the first five minutes, never to regain it.
It may come as a surprise to anyone who watched the debate, but it actually had a set of rules. The moderator was to introduce a topic and ask a question. Each candidate would have two uninterrupted minutes to answer. Then the other candidate would have his two minutes. Then a general conversation, guided by Wallace, would ensue.
From the onset it was obvious that Trump was not going to abide by these rules. He interrupted at every opportunity and worked steadfastly at transforming the debate into a shouting match. Watching the debate was like watching a game of hockey in which one of the players takes up his stick and bashes his opponents and the umpire on the head whenever he happens to send the puck out of play.
How was Wallace, or any moderator for that matter, to cope with such a situation? He couldn’t very well put Trump into the penalty box. Nor was it feasible to use physical force to restrain him, although no doubt Wallace was sorely tempted to do so. Personally, I would have no scruple in administering a sound spanking to that spoiled brat in a seventy-year-old body.
By the end of the grueling experience that the debate became, Wallace’s state of mind must have been approaching that of Job’s wife after the disasters that overtook her household, ready to curse God and die. The President in short behaved during this event more or less as expected, always on the defensive, always ready to sling insults at his opponent, always ready with hyperbolic assertions, always unable to reinforce his assertions with any firm statistics, and always displaying the whining petulance of an over-indulged child of ten. Biden, by way of contrast, managed to convey an impression of maturity and self-possession during the onslaught he endured. Sometimes, to be sure, he was taunted into some mudslinging of his own. But as more than one commentator remarked, it’s difficult to behave otherwise when one is flung into a pigsty.
Several have advised Biden not to undergo two more such embarrassing displays, but I see nothing wrong with presenting the voting public with graphic reminders that the upcoming election offers a choice between a man who can exercise some control over his emotions, with a standard of civility, and a man who is destitute of either of those qualities. I hasten to say that this is not my own personal assessment. The Oddschecker website claims that the debate has led to the “biggest swing in the market in six months,” with a shift of 5.63 percent in Biden’s favor. Two more such encounters can only bolster his position even more. To be sure, Trump’s diehard supporters will not change their opinions no matter what sort of exhibition their icon might display, but at least a portion of the more intelligent of those inclined to vote for Trump – and there are some of these – must be feeling embarrassed by the antics of last night. It is even possible that a few of them as a result will decide to stay at home and refrain from voting for him, either in person or by mail, after what they have seen.
When I was out today I overheard some of my neighbors chatting about the debate. “I just had to turn the TV off after a while,” one of them said. “I simply couldn’t stand it any longer,” – and the others allowed that she had given a very rational account of the matter.
Then, of course, there are observers further afield who are equally dismayed by what they have been seeing.
“I feel sorry for Americans. But we can’t help the U.S. because we are a very small country.”
The speaker is U Myint Oo, a member of parliament in Myanmar. Myanmar not only has been greatly overburdened by the coronavirus, driving its hospital system to the brink of complete paralysis, but is also contending with incessant ethnic warfare, with fighting breaking out periodically among Bamars (the majority group, accounting for about two-thirds of the country’s population) and various minorities such as Kachins, Karennis, Karens, Rakhines, Chins, Shans, and Rohingyas, among others. The depth of the animosity subsisting between these may be gathered from a conversation that George Orwell once had with a member of the Karens when Myanmar (or Burma, as it was called then) was a colony of the British Empire. He was a young man serving in the British civil service at the time, and during this disillusioning experience he was becoming increasingly hostile towards the Empire as an institution, regarding it as a swindle and a systematic exploitation of every ethnic group weaker than the British themselves. So he was flabbergasted to hear his acquaintance remark, “I hope the British stay here two hundred years.” “Why on earth do you want that?” Orwell asked. “Because we don’t want to be ruled by Burmese.” Not much has changed since this conversation was held nearly a century ago. Civil wars have plagued the country ever since it obtained independence in 1948. In addition, more than a quarter of the population is living below the poverty level. And it is a representative of this country who is now professing pity for the United States.
Other foreign observers are displaying similar reactions.
From Eduardo Bohórquez, the director of Transparency International Mexico: “We used to look to the U.S. for democratic governance inspiration. Sadly, this is not the case anymore.”
From Yenny Wahid, an Indonesian politician and activist: “Trump inspired many dictators, many leaders who are interested in dictatorship, to copy his style, and he emboldened them,”
From Mike Bradley, mayor of Sarnia, a city on the Canadian border of Michigan: “Personally, it’s like watching the decline of the Roman Empire.”
I have had a tendency when I am on travel, as for instance during my recent trip to Maine, of not following the news headlines as closely as I might have done, and so far that has always paid off. Today’s statistics as of 8:00 PM – # of cases worldwide: 34,141,741; # of deaths worldwide: 1,018,076; # of cases U.S.: 7,445,658; # of deaths U.S.: 211,688.