Auchtoon!

Abortion is, of course, a sensitive issue. And even though I may at times relish provoking thoughts and (let’s be honest) pushing buttons, I decidedly do not when it comes to this topic. People have developed deeply held views that are very personal.

But just because something is sensitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed. As always, you readers can decide for yourselves, but this is my take: Opponents of Proposal 3 have labeled it as radical and extreme. That’s subjective (and somewhat disingenuous when significant elements of the pro-life movement have used those very words as rallying cries).

What I will say is that deciding the legal status of abortion in Michigan via ballot proposal is not great. In a similar way in which Roe v. Wade was not great, we should be deciding these things through the legislative process. But the reality is, we haven’t done that. And the chances of us ever doing that are slim to none.

I mean, if we as a country couldn’t get the Equal Rights Amendment passed into law, what are the chances that any legislature (state or federal) is going to be able to handle the abortion issue?

So wherever you stand on Proposal 3, don’t be surprised if the “other side” doesn’t seem to understand you. They probably don’t.

It’s only a few weeks till election day, and voters who pledge allegiance to a political party are now well fortified in their trenches. No amount of TV ads, emails, or mailers are liable to move those folks out of their positions. So at this point, it’s all about winning over the fabled independent voter.

Winning independent votes with positive messaging is, of course, one possible strategy. But as campaigns hit the homestretch, we are more likely to experience the absurdity of how objectively bad news is enthusiastically celebrated as good news. Because it makes one party look worse than the other.

Okay, fine. But I do have a simple request to the candidates and strategists: If you feel that issues like cratered reproductive rights or galloping inflation will rally voters to your cause, go ahead and use them — but could you maybe not be so happy about it?

Please don’t think that I am in any way condoning those who embrace conspiracy theories in order to explain to themselves how the world works. Especially in the past decade, this has become a chronic problem with increasingly dangerous results: human rights abuses, denied elections, insurrections. Enough said.

However, in certain instances, I can understand the impulse. For any Michigander of a certain age, a recent story in The Detroit Free Press must have been really tough to reconcile. An excerpt:

GM and the Environmental Defense Fund issued a joint statement Tuesday pushing for an accelerated timetable from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. GM and the nonprofit environmental advocacy group say they want the EPA to set standards requiring at least half of new vehicle sales to involve those without tailpipe emissions by 2030 and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60% for the 2030 model year compared with model year 2021 for light-duty vehicles.

What? GM working together with an environmental group to encourage tougher, more aggressive regulation of their industry? This is definitely not the GM I knew growing up in Flint! Quite the opposite. But then how do you explain it? Well, of course, conspiracy theories are an option. Perhaps a radical cabal of socialist industrialists plotting with deep state environmentalist wind farm unions in cahoots with immigrant drug and pizza cartels that … well, you get the idea.

Upon closer inspection, however, the likely reason aligns perfectly with good ol’ corporate profit goals and returns on investment: GM (like other carmakers) is hoping to ensure there will be a market for all the electric vehicles it is committing itself to build. Not as fun as the conspiracy theories, but much more plausible.

In a tweet last Sunday, Meshawn Maddock, the co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party, labeled Pete Buttigieg, the U.S. transportation secretary, former officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, and a gay man, a “weak little girl.” Some people were offended. Some even called for her immediate removal. All that is understandable but not likely productive. It certainly was not outside the typical bounds of Maddock or the Michigan Republican Party, so it wasn’t surprising. Frankly, offending somebody is often exactly what they are aiming for.

Me? I’m not offended at all. I’m baffled. Absolutely baffled. I mean, did Meshawn “Shecky” Maddock really think that she was being clever or funny by channeling Mr. Roper from Three’s Company? Does she honestly consider promoting the adoption of electric vehicles to be “gay,” and therefore, a bad thing? Why in the world would she imagine calling anybody “a little girl” to be a zinger insult? In freakin’ 2022?

And, of course, the topper: How does any of this reconcile with being a good Christian?

Baffled.

Yes, I know. The editorial cartoon this week isn’t exactly biting commentary. What can I say? I felt the need to make a contemporary joke. And there is nothing more contemporary these days than pickleball.

Have you played yet? No? You will. It’s inevitable — that’s seemingly just how popular it is becoming. And that’s a good thing because it is a lot of fun. Ideal for the times, really. Easy to learn, low cost, very social (but with accommodating social distances), a good workout, and a nice break from streaming devices.

I would like, however, to point out that the genesis of the cartoon did come from a legitimate concern: After Labor Day, we roll in earnest into campaign season for the November election. And it looks very much like us voters will be getting mostly well-crafted talking points for making our decisions. Political message makers (whether the parties, the handlers, or the candidates themselves) are all highly trained to stay strictly to their scripts. And if not their scripts, then definitely their ideology.

This makes any sort of substantive debate or thoughtful interview very difficult. A real conversation (like one you might have after playing a few games pickleball) will be a rare treat.

The first time I ever ran a race of any distance was when I was 11-years-old. I don’t remember why exactly, but it was likely inspired by a summer Olympics. (How else would the boys in my Flint-area neighborhood become enthused about distance running?) It was decided that we would run around the “big block,” which seemed marathon-length but was probably about a half mile.

I got it in my head that I would sprint ahead of the field early in the race, thus demoralizing the competition. After which I would simply glide to victory. So that’s exactly what I did. Except some of the guys kept up with me in the sprint and, now gasping air, the others soon caught up. It was pretty brutal from that point. My legs seemed okay with propelling me onward (I weighed next to nothing), but my lungs, having never experienced such a thing, protested violently.

Out of shear force of will (stupidity?), I took the silver medal. But mostly I was thankful that I didn’t die (because I really thought I was going to). It was a really good life lesson about the importance of planning and preparing properly for a race.

Already the political operatives of the nation and state are begging us to cut our precious Michigan summer short and sprint ahead toward the fall election. Don’t listen to them. Both the summer and the election are too important for all of us to be sucking wind for the next three months. Pace yourself!

I’m not typically one for “things are worse now than they used to be” arguments. I see people as fundamentally the same over time — lots of good, lots of bad — but in general pretty consistent from one era to another. For instance, you’ll hear the posit that society today is becoming more violent. Well, I can remember some pretty nasty behavior on the school playground considered to be a rite of passage when I was growing up that would never, ever be allowed today. And we aren’t all that far removed from times when actively enslaving other human beings and displaying decapitated heads on spikes were societal standards.

But one “things have gotten worse” argument that I’m fully on board with: Voting. Specifically, how people determine their votes. Instead of simply picking the most decent, reasonably intelligent candidate who best aligns with our views, we are encouraged, nay, indoctrinated to think like political operatives: What candidate is most electable? What candidate is going excited certain key demographics? What candidate is going to deliver exclusively for our side?

I blame cable entertainment. (They call themselves cable news, but it’s really more of a sideshow than anything else.) They have to fill gobs of time and keep viewers hooked, so it’s an endless stream of nattering talking heads. Spice it up with generous portions of anger and fear, and eventually we’re all pundits. (Or at least we think we are.)

All of which leads to situations like in Michigan’s 3rd district where the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee helped a very Trumpian candidate, John Gibbs, win the Republican nomination for the US House because they hope he is more “defeatable” in the November election. It’s exactly that sort of misguided strategic thinking that helped Trump himself get elected President in 2016.

Last week Republican gubernatorial candidate, Tudor Dixon, gave an interview in which she was asked whether a hypothetical 14-year-old incest victim should be required by law to carry a baby to term. I guess you could see it as a “gotchya” question, but she has a realistic chance to be our next governor and with these sorts of situations now being thrown back for states to decide, it’s seems within the realm of reason.

Her answer was basically, “yes, absolutely.” Which checks out because it is consistent with her platform and similar positions she has established on the subject. But sensing that she had perhaps said this with a little too much enthusiasm, she tried to walk it back some with “A life is a life for me. That’s how it is … That’s my feeling.”

For an individual citizen, I think that’s fine, even laudable. But not for an elected official, especially a governor, integral to creating, approving, and prosecuting laws — actual laws that have actual consequences for actual people. I don’t want “that’s my feeling” to be an excuse for what my governor does.

As we ramp up to the August election and the one in the fall, I’m sure you all have also been inundated with ads/emails/text/mailers and so on for the candidates (and even more so with requests for money to create even more materials). One interesting nuance for me: The digital world seems convinced I’m a major donor to the Democrat Party, flooding my email inbox. The analog world seems convinced I’m a major donor to the Republican Party, flooding my mailbox. I’m neither, but it’s very difficult to change the mind of a database.

I certainly don’t read everything, but I do sample it. I’m now living in Michigan’s 3rd district, so I’ve been getting a lot of Peter Meijer material. I consider Meijer a viable candidate because he seems to be a decent human being. (That’s a baseline …and yet a frightening number of candidates don’t meet the qualification.) He also seems intelligent, which I think should be another requirement.

So I was disappointed to see the mailer include this: “Peter Meijer will continue to oppose Biden’s spending spree that’s driving inflation.” Um, yeah. He’s gotta know that’s not true. Or at the very least know that it’s highly misleading.

The reasons for sky-high inflation are considerably more complex — here’s a short video and some handy charts if you’re interested. But suffice to say, there’s a lot more to it than Joe Biden.

Now in Meijer’s defense, the mailer wasn’t actually from him or his campaign. It was paid for by the “American Patriots for Prosperity Sparkle-Sunshine Gumdrop Committee” (or some such thing) as disclosed in the fine print and was not authorized by any candidate. Which is problematic because it certainly appears to be speaking, if not as Meijer, then certainly for him.

Thus was my inspiration for a very cynical cartoon. Please don’t let it get you down — you still absolutely need to vote!

In the 1980s, the Detroit Pistons had an intense basketball rivalry with the Boston Celtics. Actually, for those of us who were caught up in it, “intense” hardly does it justice. It was more like “white-hot passionate hatred.” In the years that followed, both teams fell from championship contention and the rivalry, for the most part, cooled — rosters completely changed as players got traded or retired.

So it was sometime later in the 1990s and the Celtics were in town to play the Pistons. My wife and I were watching on TV, and at one point the camera scanned the crowd. There was a fan with a Pistons jersey holding up a sign that said, “We still hate Ainge.”

If you don’t already know, Danny Ainge was one of the most reviled Celtics of that previous era. He was a very good player, which was reason enough to despise him. But he also was a whiner and had a, well, a very punchable face. (Naturally, this is the Pistons fan in me talking, but look him up and see for yourself.)

My wife and I thought the sign was hilarious, and to this day we will randomly say to each other, “I still hate Ainge.” Which is, of course, absurd — the notion that Danny Ainge as a rival player would still be relevant in our lives.

People are funny like that. We carry around slights, real or manufactured, and refuse to let them go. And then when an event (say, an attempted coup) does need to be deconstructed, there are those who want nothing more than to get past it. “What’s done is done — we need to move on!”

Will Michiganders ever find unity? Well, the Pistons seem to be putting the pieces together for a quality team. Hopefully some day soon there will be another Celtics player for all of us to focus our anger on.