No, The Presidential Election Process Does Not Have a Legitimacy Crisis

Ms. Katy Collin in an article in the Washington Post goes on to state how the electoral college is not fair and disenfranchises millions because it gives certain voters a disproportionate amount of say in the process of choosing a president while the voice of other voters are given much less weight.

One of the most poignant examples she cites (correctly, might I add) is Wyoming, which has less than 600,000 people but has three electoral votes as laid out in the constitution. She states that a vote cast in Wyoming is actually weighted 3.6 times heavier in the election than a voter in California because of the huge population discrepancy. A state cannot have less than three electoral votes, regardless of the size of the population.

She also goes on to state that other overseas territories of the U.S. (Puerto Rico, Guam – for example) have no say in choosing the presidency. So because of these reasons, according to Ms. Collin, the electoral college should be scraped or revamped to better represent an urbanized, modern society.

Her arguments are fine and her conclusion is solid except that the system she is describing does not describe the federal system enshrined in the constitution. She starts her argument from the standpoint that we are one nation, so therefore every vote should count the same. But we are not a nation of provinces under a unitary system. We are a federal system. We are a nation of states. These states have reserved powers granted to them in the 10th amendment to the constitution. This is the way the founding fathers wanted it. The electoral college system, while not flawless, gives a strong voice to the 50 different constituencies in the United States –  those of each state. You think the people of LA are the same as the people of Wyoming? Of course not. California still has an overwhelming say in the running of the country due to the fact of its economic power and population. But Wyoming is also a state. It has two senators. It has 1 representative. It has its own constituency, and it deserves its voice in Congress and in the presidential election.

Each vote in California counts in choosing who California wants to be the president. In that way, each vote is fair and each vote in California is the same. If a Californian wants to see that their vote has “more impact” in the election, there is an easy way for them to achieve that: move to Wyoming. And if the population of Wyoming ever gets too big, the census bureau will re-apportion those votes more evenly.

In regards to the overseas territories. Puerto Rico certainly has an opportunity to have a say in the presidential election. They could have become a state and thus qualified for being part of the electoral college, but they have chosen not to do so. Is it fair? Maybe not. Perhaps these territories could also be granted some say in the electoral college like DC was back in the 1960s.

This is the system we have. For the most part it works.  It only seems to not work when we start with the fallacy that every vote across the nation should count the same. It should count the same but only within the state.  Every vote in California should count the same as every other vote in California. Likewise in Wyoming and everywhere else.

Remember, it’s not a popularity contest. It never has been. And that’s the way the founders wanted it. Power is supposed to be distributed on a geographical basis. We should be happy that it is.

A Boy from Pennsylvania Weighs In

Pennsylvania did it. It ruthlessly defied the odds and pushed Donald Trump into the White House. Everyone is still in shock. Both Republicans and Democrats. Something was afoot, and everyone (or nearly everyone) missed it.

I grew up in Butler County, western Pennsylvania, just north of Pittsburgh. It has a series of small towns, rolling lush countryside and a lot of good people. Friendly, helpful, giving. They sit on front porches in the summer. They talk to their neighbors. They invite people in for dinner. They keep their lawns cut beautifully, drive an assortment of pick-up trucks, and have impeccable vegetable gardens out back. They go to church on Sunday, and tend, in many ways, to actually heed the precepts they hear. They are good people. I know. I grew up with them.

These are the people, hard-working folks from Butler County to central Ohio to western Wisconsin who won this election for Trump. The elite media may want to call them backward, uneducated, and dare I say it, slightly bigoted? But they are none of those.  And that’s what the media and Belt-Way pundits don’t get. These are not deplorables. They are hard-working, honest people.

And they have a voice. And they have spoken.

In a dramatic, historic way.

I hate to say it, but Obama was not the president of these people. They have felt marginalized by a series of decisions which eschewed their traditional ways, had eaten away at their way of living, and have watched their voices being drowned out by glib Hollywood actors and stuffy corporate Wall Streeters who have lobbied Washington for all kinds of perks and desires. Using Obama’s  own words, he wanted to “fundamentally change America” but he did so in a way that cast aside a large swath of voters.

But no more. We have an election for the record books, for the history books. We’ll be studying about this election for the next one hundred years and beyond.

What we learn from it remains unclear. But my hope is that President Trump (that still sounds strange saying that) will not cast aside a whole segment of the population as he begins to govern.





Happy Election Day!

New Hampshire’s Dixville Notch kicked off the 2016 US Presidential Election by casting their tiny vote for Clinton. Other small precincts in New Hampshire cast their votes for Trump as America settles in for what will likely be a long and interesting day and evening at the polls.

Here in Malaysia, our small school held its own mock election with the popular vote being distributed this way: Trump 43%, Johnson 32%, Clinton 23%

Johnson had a great showing here because the Johnson debate team did such a great job last week at our mock presidential debate.

In about 12 hours, I’ll be settling into a “field trip” with my class, as we will hunker down in front of a TV and watch the returns roll in. Lots of food being made. I whipped up some chili cheese dip. I told everyone we might want to be a in a sugar coma no matter who wins.

What a year it has been, and it’s finally coming to a close.

It looks like Clinton has an edge in the electoral college on the morning of the election, but it’s close. The latest Real Clear Politics averages has Clinton barely winning enough electoral votes with the ultimate swing state being New Hampshire.

What to look for? Of these 5 states, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, if Clinton wins any two of these states, she will most likely win the presidency. If Trump wins all but PA, he will be in a good position for a win. If he also wins Pennsylvania, he will have a big night and a major upset.

No matter who wins, I hope there will be no ridicule for those who voted one way or another. We are a pluralistic society. Different points of view are encouraged, and even required for our democracy to thrive. We all have our reasons for doing what we do. Let’s respect them, let’s honor the winner no matter what, and let’s move on. It doesn’t mean the rigorous debate about the make-up of society should end. Of course, it won’t. Nor should it. But let’s hope the discourse turns more towards a respect for all types of diverse points of view.

Settle in and enjoy the day!

This Election Cycle: A Gift from the Political gods to the Political Junkie

I mean, like, really? Oh, my. 2016.

“You mean I can’t directly quote the candidate?”

This was a question asked to me by my student who will be participating in our school-wide presidential debate. He asked me this question because I asked him to refrain on using certain anatomical references in the debate, even when quoting.

This is the first year I had to ask my students to self-censor. Trump happens.

And now, the return of Anthony Wiener?

And the October surprise that never actually happens but did this year?

Where to begin?

Let’s start with the October Surprise, which is the mythical event which shakes up the election mere weeks before the voting. It’s the unseen political jack-in-the-box of death which stabs a campaign with a nearly mortal wound. People talk about it ad nauseam every four years, and each campaign (especially the one who is trailing) is hoping that some skeleton in the closet will produce itself. It never happens.

Until this year. Everyone thought the off-camera remarks in 2005 about groping women would end up being the first October surprise that anyone can remember for a long time. This, assumed all, would put an end to Trump’s campaign, and indeed the poll numbers shifted sharply in Clinton’s favor as the Trump camp scrambled to minimize the damage.

But what happened last Friday, when FBI director Comey announced that the FBI had re-opened its investigation into Clinton’s emails after it discovered possibly relevant emails on a laptop used by infamous Anthony Wiener, who also shared the laptop with his wife, Huma Abedin–Clinton’s longtime personal assistant. What’s in the emails? Who knows? But the announcement sent shock-waves through the presidential campaign–Clinton claiming there’s nothing there and demanding Comey release the emails–Trump praising the FBI for backtracking and doing what he thought they should have done in the first place.

Trump’s poll numbers were already rebounding from the tape fiasco before the explosive October Surprise, but the early numbers indicate possible significant movement in Trump’s direction. The LA Times/USC tracking poll has Trump up by 7 points in a head-to-head match-up with Clinton for the time frame 10/26-11/1. Half of this poll was taken after the FBI’s news. The Real Clear Politics average for the 4-way race currently stands at 2.2 points in Clinton’s favor. On October 17, Clinton’s lead stood at 7.1 points. Her lead has evaporated. Further proof is if you look at the three RCP polls where half of the polling days have been on 10/29 or after. Those three tracking polls (Rasmussen, IBD, ABC/Washington Post) are all TIED. Dead heat. A draw. Clinton’s lead has disappeared.

Now, of course, how this plays out in the electoral college is a different matter. Clinton still has a substantial advantage and more paths to victory, but this October surprise has given the Trump team lift at a time when their numbers were already improving, likely due to continued attacks on Clinton from Wikileaks and other sources.

How this all plays out is a complete mystery. No one has ever seen anything like this campaign season, and I’m sure everyone just wants it to END, one way or the other.

But for the political junkie, this has been a dream come true. A Washington outsider prone to gaffes. A Washington insider tainted with scandals. An out of control media. An FBI investigation. An underage sex investigation (thanks to A. Wiener). A scandalous tape and a juvenile Twitter fiend. A network who has spoon fed a debate question to team Clinton. The release of emails from Wikileaks. Other emails which have gone missing. And now some that are found.

Catch your breath, America. It’s almost over.

This political junkie just might be a little sad about it.


Everyone is as Smart as the Polls. And That’s Pretty Dumb.

I get a kick out of so-called experts calling the U.S. presidential election while we are still in August, nearly a month away from the first debate, with an already unprecedented, topsy-turvy primary season behind us.

I heard someone say basically this yesterday: “Oh, look at the polls! Clinton is going to win. It’s over.”

I suppose that same person would also predict a Cubs World Series victory if they looked at the current MLB standings. But people who understand that nothing is taken for granted when talking about the Cubs will also understand that we have no idea who will win the presidential election. At least not yet.

It was just a month ago that Trump’s campaign was riding high in the polls with a post-convention bounce which vaulted him ahead of the Democratic challenger. Clinton got her bounce, then Trump’s mouth seemed to self-implode again, causing leaks in his shoddy-planned campaign wall.

But does anyone really think they know what’s going to happen next? Really, in this year? You can’t predict this stuff. Not any year, and especially not this year. The odds-makers still have to settle on a number, and they currently give Clinton nearly a 4-1 chance to be president, but my goodness, let’s wait and see. Here’s a few things which need to be settled first.

  1. In my mind, the debates will be begin to tell the tale and start to settle the field a little. It’s one thing hearing daily sound bites from the campaign trail, but it’s a completely different beast when you see the candidates stand next to each other, go at each other, and see who can punch out a little momentum. I’ll start checking the polls after this. I think it will mean much more.
  2. Will Trump’s “softer” approach make a difference to voters? He’s been consciously reaching out to black voters. I read an interesting article yesterday written by a Latino as to why Latinos should vote for Trump. This might all be too little too late to overcome the bombastic mistakes he’s made because of his inability to censor himself. But we shall see.
  3. Clinton is not having an easy go of it. She is continually dogged with questions about her past, most recently about the Clinton foundation and whether influence was being peddled.  The Republicans really must be kicking themselves because Clinton feels like the most inept Democratic presidential candidate in decades. She seems very beatable if there wasn’t a Republican challenger beating himself.
  4. Wikileaks. More threats from Jullian Assange regarding Clinton-related documents to be released before the election. Who knows what’s in the documents and if he will actually do what he says. But he no doubt is causing a lot of consternation inside the Democratic campaign machine.
  5. The economy. It continues to struggle – the most recent quarter at an anemic 1% GDP growth.
  6. People are not happy. I can’t think of anyone on either side of the political spectrum who is happy right now. And there may be a ground-swell of “sweep out the existing regime” which might yet catch Clinton in its crossfire.
  7. A major event. I certainly hope this one doesn’t happen, but a major terrorist attack, whether in the US or one of the US allies, could affect perceptions of voters before the election.
  8. Trump himself. He remains predictably unpredictable. He was a clear underdog in the Republican primary and it still remains unclear how he will finish this thing out. He’s proved before that he shouldn’t be underestimated.

There are 8 reasons why I think it’s much too early to be calling the election for Clinton. There is so much time which remains and way to many things can happen. It will be, I believe, one of the most entertaining and gripping presidential campaigns in history. So sit back and enjoy the ride.

Yale Misses the Boat

I was reading an article about an African-American dish washer at Yale who smashed a stain-glass window depicting John C. Calhoun and an image of slaves harvesting in a field. The custodian was arrested and charged with destroying private property. He was offended by the racist depiction of America’s past decided to do something about it since Yale wouldn’t.

My beef is not with the dish washer. He did what he wanted to do and he’ll have to deal with the consequences of breaking the law. (I’ve since read that Yale will not pursue charges against him. That’s their choice, and I don’t care about that either.) The problem I had was Yale’s response to the broken window. They said the broken glass was a danger to others around, so the man shouldn’t have broken the window because he endangered others.


That’s the reason they’re upset? Broken glass on the floor?

When will we start using history to teach, rather than ignore it or turn aside its significance?

For those unaware of John C. Calhoun, he was a southern senator, a secessionist, and a proud and strong voice for the preservation of the southern way of life, yes, including slavery. He was one of the most well-known graduates from Yale,  eventually using his namesake at the founding of Calhoun College in 1933, a residential college of Yale.

Was Calhoun a racist? Absolutely. He was a slave-loving racist, and his influence during the mid-19th century caused horrendous grief and pain on many African-Americans caught in the horrible bonds of slavery.

Was it appropriate for Yale to have a stained-glass window and a depiction of southern slavery as part of their 21st century campus?

Well, to me, that question is irrelevant, and here’s why. I feel strongly about understanding history, not white-washing it and hiding everything that might be distasteful in our modern world. I don’t believe a historical symbol or depiction is an endorsement of past racist practices. I believe they are teachable moments, and should be used as such. I wish Yale’s response to the breaking of the stained-glass window would have been something like this:

“We regret that the stained glass window, depicting John C. Calhoun, was intentionally broken, because it provided a glimpse of the country we once were. The pictures embossed on those stained glass windows were full of lessons for us today, especially in our current divisive environment. We used those pictures of slavery to teach us all of where we have come from, to help us remember the sins of the past, to remember the progress we have made, and to encourage us all to engage in the founding premise of this country that all men (and women) are created equal. We must strive to remember this above all else, so that everyone of us Americans can continue in our pursuit of happiness under the pretense of freedom.”

Instead, they said: “Broken glass is a danger to others.”

What is wrong with our institutions of higher learning?


Let’s Hope 2016 Does Not Become the New 1968

Martin Luther King Jr. said the following at the Washington National Cathedral in March of 1968:

“I don’t like to predict violence, but if nothing is done between now and June to raise ghetto hope, I feel this summer will not only be as bad but worse than last year.”

Unfortunately, he was right. The year 1968 turned out to be one of the years of greatest turmoil in modern US history. The assassination of King – the assassination of Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy – the stifling heat of the inner-city ghettos, raising tension and diminishing hope on the many minorities who had seen the progress of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but had yet to experience their promise. The country boiled to a breaking point as riots, protests, and violence dominated the summer.

In light of recent history (Ferguson, Baltimore) and the events of this past week (police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota and the murder of five policemen in Dallas), the summer of 2016 does not look promising. Further putting tension on alert is the contentious 2016 US presidential election cycle between Donald Trump (R) and Hillary Clinton (D).

People are angry. On both sides of the congressional aisle. People are angry. On both sides of the political spectrum.

With the Republican Convention right around the corner, one can only imagine the protests and confrontations which await Cleveland. Trump is certainly a polarizing figure, but that never justifies violence and law breaking.

Police departments around the country are on edge, and rightly so. It is difficult enough to be a policeman in this country, but the toxic environment in which we now live makes confrontation and misery to be the new norm. I’m sad to say, we probably haven’t seen the last loss of life this summer.

But in my estimation, what is ultimately more important for our democracy, is that we must not shrink away from robust political debate simply because someone might be offended and it might lead to violence. No. We need political debate more than ever in this country. We must stand absolutely against violence, intimidation, and the inflaming of the electorate. But we must also stand absolutely for our rights of freedom of speech, petition to address grievances, and the right to peacefully demonstrate.

We cannot allow the haters and inflamers – from both sides of the political spectrum – to hijack this election. We need calming, cooling heads of reason to win the day and push back against the violence. The calming voices are there, again on both sides.

I firmly believe that both political sides have more in common than everyone thinks. We all want an open society where we, all of us from every background, can live out our days in the pursuit of happiness. We all want police departments which function to protect all in society. We all want peace. We all want equality and a color-blind justice system. We all want the ability to rejoice in victory and mourn in defeat without having to worry about a violent push-back.

Let’s pray that in spite of the great many difficulties facing America this summer, that calmer heads and reasonable minds will emerge victorious, and the best of America will emerge out of the chaos.

aPOPcalypse Upon Us: The Country’s First Soda-Pop Tax

According to various new reports, Philadelphia passed the country’s first soda-pop tax – 1.5 cents per ounce, which will be used to fund educational and other projects.

It wouldn’t have been hard to predict that this was coming. The amount of food-related bans and taxes have long foreshadowed the coming APOPcalypse. We’ve seen things like:

  • New York City banning trans-fat.
  • San Francisco banning toys in happy meals.
  • Schools banning vending machines and cupcakes.

The lawmaker pushing the Philadelphia pop tax says that it’s not about health, but about prioritizing community, or something nefarious like that.

But let’s be honest. It isn’t about health. It’s about being in control of health (all the while flexing those big government muscles that politicians love to exercise.) It’s another demonization of corporate culture, this one the massive soda drink industry. It’s almost like when an industry becomes too successful, government must do something to punish them even though they haven’t broken any laws. This tax is only being put on sugary drinks because sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, and aspartame — yes, it also covers diet drinks — are the new evils in town, and since people have no self control, governments are then allowed to create measures to either make people behave a certain way or be punished for the personal choices they make — choices which do not affect others. It’s a good thing we have such wise leaders who can tell us when we aren’t being responsible.

Let’s face it. Sugary drinks cause obesity. It has nothing to do with the person who willingly buys a super-gigantic 64oz Big Gulp and drinks it in one sitting. Poor Joe-video-gamer will now have to pay 96 cents more for a gut full of sugar. Pop, and its high-fructose corn syrup, might as well be classified as poison and if you put it close enough to your body, it may cause swelling around your mid-section. Whether ingested or not.

Or wait, does human action actually matter? Are we responsible for our own fate? Do we affect our own health by what we choose to put in our bodies?

Of course, we do, but government wants to regulate it, and trust me, it won’t stop at soda-pop.

I like politicians who, like they did a while back in Pennsylvania, got rid of the mandatory helmet law for experienced motorcycle drivers. It’s not that I have a financial stake in an anti-helmet lobbying firm, it’s just that I believe people should be allowed to make their own choices, as long as it doesn’t affect the immediate health or well-being of another. Even stupid choices. Even idiotic choices. Heck, politicians do it all the time. Why can’t we?

Smoking bans in restaurants. Brilliant!

Banning cupcakes at a school party. Stupid.

Requiring kids to wear seat belts. Right on!

Banning large size drinks. Stupid.

Taxing soda. Stupid and unfair.

If it is truly a tax to help the community, then share it equally across the spectrum. Spinach and bean sprouts want a part of the action.

If not, just call it for what it is: a tax on a person’s choice of what they want to eat or drink if it deviates from the “prescribed way.”

And this is only the beginning. Look out.

A Father’s Day Lament: Don’t Mislabel People.

As Father’s Day was approaching, I got to thinking about a post I published about my father about a year and half ago. It was a meaningful post to me for a couple reasons. One, it honors my father and how he lived his life. Two, it dispels (at least in my view) much of the left-wing narrative about how right-wingers don’t care about the environment. And this politically charged environment which is constantly being primed by the non-stop, agenda-driven media (on all sides!), I thought it was appropriate to post again. Labeling people one way or another is not only unfair, it will (most likely) end up being extremely inaccurate. Our society likes to think in black and white terms. In left and right terms. But people and life and reality are really not that way. So anything I can do to dispel such silly notions, I will certainly try to do.

So for Father’s Day, my wish is that we stop putting people in boxes. But for some reason, I get the feeling a Clinton-Trump election will not stop doing that. Oh well. Here’s my part.

Happy Father’s Day!


“The Problem with Politically-Charged Labels. An Example from my Father.”

This is not a post about either side of the Global Warming mud-throwing match which goes on in politics and academia.

This is a simple post to dispel a certain narrative that exists about “right-wing, conservative, Christian fundamentalists” who dismiss global warming and who don’t care about the environment.

I’ve seen plenty of these kinds of talking points in my day. I contend that such a narrative is misguided. My father is the proof.

Upon first glance, he would seem to fit the mold of a person that certain left-wing environmentalists would heap scorn upon. They would certainly be wrong to do so.

Not because of ideology or politics. Not at all. They would have plenty to disagree with my father concerning politics and religion. My father has always been a Republican. He is certainly conservative, and he is a Bible-believing Christian.

Has he already been pigeon-holed? Would left-wingers quickly cast him aside into a certain box? Regardless of how some people might label him, he is the most environmentally conscious person I know. Consider this:

  • He gardens. He’s one of the best gardeners I’ve ever seen. Mulch and compost. The whole works.
  • All that gardening is used for canning. Lots of canning, especially when all the kids were still at home. Re-usable Mason jars. I wonder how many decades they have been used.
  • He’s the most diligent recycler I’ve ever seen. Obsessive in sorting out the containers, throwing organic matter on his compost pile, of course.
  • He is obsessive about keeping unnecessary lights off. When I was putting in a router for the house’s computer, he was quite concerned when I told him that it had to be kept on at all times. It seemed to him like such a waste of electricity. And when I was growing up, how many lectures did I have about turning off the lights when I left a room?
  • His car tires are always pumped to optimum level. (unlike me. oops!)
  • In the winter, the furnace (an extremely efficient one) is kept at about 68 degrees. We freeze when we visit, but the savings is tangible. He has a wood-burning stove in the basement that further helps to keep the electricity usage down. The trees are from his own property.
  • He has been upset and complaining for years about the corrupt oil companies who have been gorging the pockets of American citizens while rolling in record profits. He tells me how all those oil companies are in cahoots with the government, which has done nothing to curtail their power.
  • He has been tracking his gas mileage for years, trying to figure out ways to increase it. He is always eager to investigate new devices which claim to raise mileage significantly. He has said time and again that the big three auto makers have purposely put  many innovations out of business by buying them out just so they can hold onto to their monopoly. And so they can continue their cozy relationship with big oil.
  • He collects rain water off the roof in order to water the garden when the weather is dry. Or he uses it to flush the toilets in times when rain has been few and far between.
  • In the summer months, especially, their water usage from their well is very strict. It is never wasted.
  • When at all possible, laundry is dried outside in the sunshine.
  • He is keenly interested in wind and solar power.
  • He never buys anything he doesn’t need. He always uses everything he already has.

I know I’m missing some stuff here, but perhaps this gives you the proper picture of what I’m talking about.

Don’t actions speak much louder than words? Isn’t my father the perfect example of someone who cares deeply about our environment and lives it out in his everyday life?

Isn’t this exactly the behavior that the so-called left-wing environmentalists are trying to encourage? If people act like this, who cares what they think about global warming because they are doing more than their share to take care of the environment.

This shows me just how silly labels really are, and I’m sure there’s another example out there which could be written coming from the opposite ideology and perspective.

I’m thankful for my dad and the great example he gave me about taking care of the earth. I hope I can do the same with one caveat. The next time I live in North America, I’m not sure that a 68-degree thermostat in the winter is going to work for me. Just saying.

The Most Loathsome Column of the Day

An editor at the Washingtonian stated that the phrase “start a family” was “the most loathsome phrase of the day” because it degrades those couples who many not be able to have children.

So I’ve nominated that fine piece of journalism as the most loathsome column of the day.

But in keeping with the spirit of Washingtonian Wisdom, I tried to come up with my own list of loathsome phrases which we should also purge from our vocabulary. Here they are:

Start a rally. A baseball phrase meaning trying to score runs and come back from a deficit. I think we should strike this phrase from our vocabulary since it degenerates those baseball teams who never have rallies and are perennial losers.

Start me up. The Rolling Stones phrase might offend people who can’t be started. Or don’t want to start.

Start a revolution. Could make fun of those living under authoritarian regimes who don’t know how to start their own revolution.

Start your engines. This could hurt both those who have faulty engines or the poor who can’t even afford any engine.

Start with me. A peculiar Christian phrase which tells God to make changes in the world by first making changes with me. This might offend those who have no me-ness. Or who are dead.

Start fresh. This might offend those who appreciate stale living. It also ignores past mistakes, so that’s not good.

Start in safe mode. This would be an affront to techies who want to by-pass safe mode and just let their computer crash. It’s their right, after all.

Start high school. This would be particularly offensive to those who fail 8th grade.

Start recording. Please, what about those who don’t want a record of a particular event. Or those who have no recording devices?

Start of something new. This is simply a way to discriminate against those who love the old. Stop pushing, people!

Start to finish. From start to finish, this was a waste of time. Thanks, Washingtonian. Here’s the original loathsome column if you dare to read.

Loathsome Phrase of the Day: “Start a Family”