Learn to write and spell or you're saying nothing, says judge

"Having tremendous success is literally the opposite of sacrifice." ~ Seth Myers commenting on Donald Trump's inability to answer George Stephanopoulos' question, "What have you sacrificed for this country," in an ABC This Week interview in which Trump responded with a string of boasts about his successes and whatnot, decidedly unable or unwilling to share with the world what is either, A. his complete lack of sacrifices for this country, or B. his complete lack of understanding of the question posed to him. I mean, it's obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that no one who talks rhetorical nonsense as well as Trump has ever sacrificed anything at all for his country, but I am still going with B. because it was just as obvious that he did not understand what he was being asked.

"You'll be writing books about my campaign . . . Don't believe me? Just look at my hair. You're stupid, George, really. Look at it. It's real. It's awesome. That means I'm real! I'm awesome. Come on, George, don't you watch FoxNews?"

If that fool weren't running for the highest political office in the world, I would have been doubled over in hysterical laughter. As it is, I am hysterically bashing my head against the desk in fear that this megalomaniacal, egocentric, egotistical, profoundly stupid, aphasic, bombastic, dishonest, bigoted, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, spoiled, infantile, ignorant, ignorant, ignorant madman could actually win the presidency. It is truly terrifying. He is the embodiment of regression and egomania. He sups on fear and breaks his fast on manipulation. Perhaps more terrifying is that so many are drinking his Koolaid. I wasn't aware, until his momentum grew so rapidly, that anyone at all took him seriously, or that those same people felt the same way as he claimed to feel.
And that's exactly what this is - it's all about the feels, man. Even in his ignorant stupidity there is a canny carnality to him. He is very good at playing on people's fears, and as little as he discusses any specific policy-making plans (because he is so nightmarishly inexperienced he has not a clue what to say), all he has to do is say "illegal immigrants," "ISIS," etc., and the sheeple are flocking to his call. On an intellectual level, it's really fascinating - and immensely hilarious - because conservative pundits created Trump and his grand plan. Nothing he has said is new. If you listen to talk radio or watch FoxNews, he is just rehashing the same things his intellectual betters have been saying for years. Strawhead just amped it up.

See, the pundits have been convincing people for years that Mexicans are stealing their jobs, that Big Business is sacred. They provide jobs and so hey, they should be left alone entirely. Regulations are for pussies, man! Raise the minimum wage? That would send those big corporations overseas though! (It wouldn't of course. Americans are the biggest-spending consumers in the world. Without our contributions, there would be no corporations. There are quite a few other reasons corporations would never leave the U.S. entirely, nor make their goods too expensive to purchase, but that's for another blog, which I promise to deliver at a later date.) Point being, right wing pundits created the monster that is Trump, and now they are "apopleptic," haha. Trump won't even endorse Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House, and the Republicans literally begged Ryan to take the seat. I love it.

But people relate to Trump; they think he's 'one of the guys, an average Joe, just like them. But why? He was born rich, he has never had to go without . . . anything . . . in his entire life, he has married some of the most beautiful women in the world, he's powerful, famous, and he has fantastic hair!

So why do so many people think he is one of them, just an average Joe like them? Because he is average. Woefully average, especially on the intellectual front, and so they can relate to him because he don't talk so good, and he don't always have all the right answers, but hey, we want someone who gets us in that Oval Office, right?

WRONG!

I don't know about you, but I want a goddamn genius in the White House. I want the president of fucking MENSA. I want someone who considers Immanuel Kant "casual reading," someone who does complicated physics equations (is that a thing?) in his head each night to help him get to sleep. I want a problem solver as the free leader of the world, and I'm sorry, but average people aren't typically in the business of solving complicated socio-political, socio-economic, and foreign policy-related problems. Average people aren't in the business of deciding whether or not bombing the shit out of Iraq is the best course of action. It wasn't, of course. And look who initiated that little 8-13 year (depending on your perspective of what, exactly, war is) debacle. Ole Dubya, well, let's just say he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Not even the prettiest. Not even the most useful. Hell, you couldn't even stack other tools on top of him. Simply put, Smart = Problem Solver. And Trump ain't it.

I'm fairly certain that I am smarter than Trump, and I know damn well I'm not fit to lead a nation, any nation. Not that I would mind - it'd probably be a real kick - but I doubt seriously that I would be remembered as a great leader. Dubya certainly won't be, and pray to God, Shiva, Allah, Vishnu, Jesus, the Goddess, the Universe, your dog or whatever entity you believe can help in these things that we never have to regret putting Trump into office and finding out. I'm not a religious man, but a quote from the book, All Quiet on the Western Front (I believe it was from that book, but please correct me if I am wrong) sums it up perfectly, "There are no atheists in the trenches."

We are today, as a nation, now more than ever, most assuredly huddling in the foxholes. Hillary isn't ideal - hell, I don't think we've had an ideal candidate in decades, if ever - but at least she's experienced, at least she understands foreign policy and policy-making, at least she's intelligent. And at least she's read and even studied our Constitution. You sorta kinda have to do that to become an attorney, I'll wager. I'm not an attorney, but I had to study First Amendment Law in order to graduate from Tulane with a degree in Media. So I'm guessing Yale takes the learning of the Constitution by its law degree-seeking students quite seriously. Just a hunch.

And as Bernie Sanders put it so eloquently, "Enough about the damn emails already!"

But how satisfying it was when Mr. Khizr Khan pulled out his - plainly worn and often-read - Constitution and told Trump he would happily lend it to him. I would bet a lifetime's earnings that before that moment, old Strawhead himself had never once looked at the U.S. Constitution unless he was made to do so for school. 

Recently, Strawhead was heard asking, repeatedly, in a staff briefing why he couldn't use nuclear (no, it isn't nuke-YOU-ler) weapons, and said on national television that he would not "take any cards off the table" when asked if he would use nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Tsk, tsk, that silly Donald, always with the nukes . . .

And I am realizing rapidly that we, the U.S.A., must be the stupidest bunch of spoiled, lazy children the world has ever seen to even consider a man such as him for president.

For example, we have access to literally all of the gathered knowledge in the known world. If we forget a word, its spelling or its definition, it takes only seconds to look it up . . . yet we are producing the most illiterate and poorest spellers in generations. What's worse is that this lack of attention and concern for the properly written word is becoming accepted as normal. The idea seems to be that as long as one can glean the intended meaning, then spelling the words properly is unnecessary.

WRONG!

Words are spelled specific ways for a reason. As my English Composition professor used to say often, "Words mean things." Because they do. "Understand" and "comprehend" are synonyms, yes, but they do not share an exact meaning. Few, if any, synonyms mean precisely the same thing. The difference may be subtle, but it is there, and the distinction is important. And I personally don't fathom why learning the difference between there, their, and they're or to, two, and too is so difficult to grasp, nor do I understand the lack of concern our educational system evokes by not ensuring that our children actually care about how they speak and write. If I cannot comprehend what a person is writing due to lack of punctuation, diction, poor spelling, etc., then why bother reading it?

The truth is, someone who has never bothered to learn how to read, write and spell properly very likely has little of importance to say anyway. Harsh? Oh yes. True? I believe it probably is.

I will end this overly long diatribe with one of my favorite riddles: What is more powerful than God, more evil than the Devil; the poor have it, the rich want it, and if you eat it you will die?

Entiendo? Comprende?

Boo!