I start each day at my computer hoping for inspiration to add to this blog. This is today’s offering.

It is reported Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation today to abolish the Electoral College. This, after Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump in which Clinton won the popular vote, while Trump won the race via the Electoral College system.

I didn’t know much about the Electoral College or why it exists until recently. The popular vote is exactly as it is described, whereas the Electoral College is a geographical phenomenon. As it turns out, without the Electoral College, Middle America (particularly rural and agricultural areas), would have little voice in presidential contests. We are talking about the nation’s breadbasket. The folks who keep us fed. They have their needs and agendas and failing to address those needs and agendas could leave us a very hungry nation. There are other groups whose essential products and services derive from less populated areas, as well. Sen. Boxer fails to address this concept in her proposed legislation. More on this in a moment.

I also happened across an article on Willard Scott. Mr. Scott has had a long and distinguished public career. He has been the author of six books, co-author of two more, a radio personality, an actor, a weatherman/TV personality (well known for his stint on the “Today” show) and played clown characters on television. From 1963-1966 and occasionally up until 1971 he played “Bozo the Clown” on WRC-TV Washington, D.C. children’s shows. In his book, “The Joy of Living”, Scott recounts how McDonald’s Washington, D.C. franchise asked him to originate the character “Ronald McDonald” for their TV ads, although the original name was “Donald McDonald”.

I wonder how the recent election would have panned out if “Donald McDonald” had vied against “The Donald” on November 8th.  I shan’t go into the clown equation at this time. Oops! I guess I did. Anyway, Id be willing to bet Ms. Boxer would have no problem with the Electoral College today, had that been the case.

One problem: According to the records, Mr. Scott donated $500.00 twice to the Republican side in 2006 and $500.00 once again in 2008. So, the fault in the election, if any, lies squarely with the Republicans’ failure to nominate Willard. We still would have had two clowns in the race, but only one could claim the persona respectably on a resume’ and certainly would have won the popular vote, as well. Maybe Sen. Boxer would do well to fill out a job application at McDonald’s.

I’m not in  the habit of making predictions. If I were, I’d predict Trump will lose the  “golden” hair in favor of a more conservative and statesman-like platinum. The real question is: Will he grow palladium muttonchops; or would that be a bit too pedestrian?

Complete stupidity is relatively rare outside the beltway…and California.

If we have learned anything from this election season, it is this: A person doesn’t have to be an officially diagnosed, complete and thorough idiot to be able to do a right-jolly impression of one.

Hillary Clinton has blamed FBI director James Comey for her loss to Donald Trump according to a Reuters report. The news agency alleges she did this during a conference call with top campaign advisors on Saturday.

In July, Comey recommended no charges be filed against Clinton regarding her use of a private email server during her 2009-2012 tenure as Secretary of State. Eleven days before the election, Comey sent a letter to Congress alerting them to new information the FBI would peruse. About a week later, prior to the election,  Comey let it be known that the FBI hadn’t changed its July recommendation that no criminal charges be filed against Clinton.

Isn’t Hillary’s blaming Comey for her loss to The Donald a little like a person who carelessly sets her house ablaze, blaming the fire investigator for its collapse?

Sorry Hillary, for as adept as you’ve been at ducking behavioral consequences by pointing fingers of blame elsewhere, this time the buck finally and undeniably stops with you.

This is a message to President-elect, Donald J. Trump.

Dear The Donald,

As you probably know (at least I hope you do), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Bill Clinton and sworn into her job on 10 August, 1993, is no fan of yours. She has expressed her personal opinions of you during your presidential run against Hillary. To her, you are a “faker”. About the possibility of you winning the election, she said,” I don’t want to think about that possibility”. She mentioned that if you won the election, she would move to New Zealand (probably a joke). These were her rude words expressing her personal opinions. Rudeness is legal. She has every right to express those opinions if they are divorced from her judicial duties. Those duties being to uphold the U.S. Constitution.      You, in return, have called her, “inappropriate”, “A disgrace to the court” and claimed, “her mind is shot”. Again, personal (albeit rude) opinions.

A Supreme Court Justice is tasked with interpreting the Constitution and upholding its principles in his/her judicial opinions. The authors of the Constitution made its interpretation simple by wording it simply. They built the thing in a way that a high school diploma would not  be required to understand its wording nor its meaning. It was designed to avoid partisan politics and to protect the individual.

NBC news reported today that Ginsburg was spotted wearing a “jabot”. This is an “embellished collar ruffle meant to show disagreement and stray from the majority opinion on decisions before the high court”. Was she protesting the results of the election? I hope not. Her judicial garb is official and represents her position on the high court and not designed to express personal bias. The election was held according to the rules of the Constitution. To officially disagree with the election results is to disagree with the rules of the Constitution and thus clearly invalidates her job qualifications. Maybe New Zealand is actually an idea ole’ Ruthie should embrace?

Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, there has been an open seat on the court. President Obama appointed Merrick Garland. A Republican Congress refused to go through with hearings to confirm his appointment saying that it should be up to the new president to make that appointment, whomever the new president may be. This was clearly a hopeful, partisan move. I trust you will appoint a conservative to serve in Scalia’s place. That would be correct. But, should Ginsburg find a new home “down under”, I think it would be fair and honorable to appoint Judge Garland to fill her spot. So far, he’s the adult in the room.

Please allow me to refer to my last post entitled, “POLLSTERS VS. HUMAN NATURE”, in which I mention how some people like to protest while others prefer to get things done.

Trump’s “surprising” victory has left a fair number of people dissatisfied. The public protests have begun. My question: To what end? The election was held. The people voted. Hillary lost. This is now history. Why cry over spilt milk? There is no point in it. But actually there could be a point if the liberal progressive bitchers and whiners would only act a little like conservatives to “get things done”. I have some suggestions.

1. Simply protesting Trump’s victory isn’t going to change anything. It does, however provide an opportunity for people to get out into the fresh air and enjoy some physical exercise. There are plenty of entertainers who are disappointed with the election results. They should join in and offer their talents (gratis) to turn these protests into charitable events. Pay a couple of bucks to socialize with others of like minds and listen to some high profile singers and hob-nob with a few celebrities. Then, donate the money to St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital or some other worthy charity. That gets something done.
2. None of the dissatisfaction vortex circling Trump has anything to do with any presidential actions he has taken. There have been none…yet. The whole hullabaloo regards the fears of what he might do. Am I right? So, what can be done about these, as yet theoretical, dangers? Why not take Trump up on the offer he gave in his victory speech? He said he would be calling on those who hadn’t supported him to offer their guidance. Why not give him that guidance? Why not get organized via social media and create a grass-roots committee to provide Trump’s administration with a concise message of what the public simply won’t tolerate?  Trump said he will be a president for ALL the people.  Force him to prove it. That gets something done.

NEXT UP: RUTH BADER GINSBURG.

Liberal progressive types tend to verbalize and demonstrate more than conservatives do. Conservatives tend to be a quieter, get-things-done bunch.

The media establishment favored Clinton from the start of the campaign. They vilified Trump while simply downplaying Clinton’s scandals. Trump was very un-PC in his approach. He was anti-establishment. He brought into the public light many of the uncomfortable issues that politicians had tried to avoid (but what many citizens were concerned about). To publically align with Trump would have (and did) invite scorn.

For the last eight years the establishment has been Obama’s administration. During this time, racial angst has risen dramatically, ISIS was established and allowed to blossom in numerous countries, police have fallen out of grace. Our nation and the world are much more dangerous places than before Obama took office. Many saw the writing on the wall and found no value in arguing about it.

For the last eight years  we have seen the establishment of a failed approach to health care with Nancy Pelosi demanding that all that was needed was to pass the law and we could read what was in the law later. Obama sidestepped Congress on numerous occasions via executive order with little or no concern regarding the will of the people or the Constitution. Clinton promised to follow the same path.

Liberal progressives take a preschool/kindergarten  approach to the world. Bernie Sander’s “free college”, anti-corporation, heavily tax the wealthy ideas were simply a teacher saying, “if you are chewing gum, you better have brought enough for the whole class”. Hillary didn’t originally go that far until she was forced to in order to push Sanders aside in hopes of gaining his supporters.

The Left continues to believe, as Obama’s policies have proven, that no one or one nation can do things on their own. Decisions can only be made with the help of others, and to get that help, we must offer kindness and money. The world must evolve into one big loving community. That has never worked in the history of this planet, but it sounds nice, so “shame on you” if you disagree.

Apparently a lot of people from both sides of the aisle don’t have time for that bulls**t. They are too busy with their responsibilities to whine and bitch. They just vote.

Politicians from both major parties always claim to know what the American voters want. This time Trump was right. Clinton and her party, along with many Republicans were wrong. In her concession speech, Hillary said, ” We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought.”

Final Thought: Considering these factors, is it really a big surprise the pollsters, (most of whom are part of the same media establishment that tried to sway the election through biased reporting), got it so very wrong? Shame on them.

Hillary would have been a known quantity had she been elected. Not so with Trump. It might be wise to buckle your seatbelts, boys and girls. This is sure to be an unusual ride.

More thoughts after I get some sleep. Remind me to mention why I think the pollsters got things so very wrong.

Reality has a nasty habit of popping up out of nowhere, at the most inopportune times, and throwing truth right at your face. Some folks avoid this by never letting reality sneak out of their sight.