Aftermath 2016: Everything You Know Is Wrong.

     Hell really has frozen over.

     In a year that has already proven that impossible doesn't mean a thing, the American people took that to another extreme last night, voting Donald Trump to be our next president. And as I try to make sense of it all, a few bullet points:

• And that is why you don't call the election weeks out from the actual election. (Associated Press, take note.) I'm amazed at how so many otherwise reputable pollsters and news organizations got this so very wrong; somebody at the Freep has gotta be out of a job after calling Michigan for Hillary maybe 30 minutes after the polls closed. 

• On "political correctness" and the last shreds of decorum in politics: Y'know, I'm about as much of a defender of the First Amendment as anybody you'll find. I mean, I work in talk radio; how could I not be? And the second unpopular speech becomes criminalized, it's a step towards an authoritarian government that runs contrary to everything this country stands for. That very principle is a big part of why I could never support Trump's candidacy. But if there's one thing I'm most disappointed about in this election process other than the result, it's the fact that a decent number of his supporters have taken their leader's "war on political correctness" to mean that they should be allowed to be a dick without repercussions. Worse yet is the fact that Trump's election appears to have emboldened morons like these to go out and terrorize people.
  
  That said, it should go without saying that not all Trump supporters are racist, sexist, or homophobic; hell, the majority of them aren't. But there is clearly a loud, vocal subset of his supporters that would have every Muslim in this country shipped out or in an internment camp, that really are scared of the idea of white people no longer being the majority and see other races as inferior, or that believe the LGBT community isn't entitled to the same rights straight folk are. Thankfully, that's not the case among my friends, online or elsewhere, though if I'm wrong and you are one of these, kindly show yourself the door. Because if you think this is acceptable behavior in a civilized nation, you're clearly no friend of mine.
  
  But as it turns out, throwing every nasty name in the book at Trump supporters didn't convince them not to vote for the guy. Keep in mind: the people you're hurling such invective at are still, in fact, people, and you still have to coexist with them for the next four years. Furthermore, you're going to have to win some of them over to have a chance to effect the change you want to see in this country. It's not just die-hard conservatives that voted for this guy, after all; I know at least a few independents and Bernie supporters that voted Trump in the general. While I don't agree with the decision, can you really blame them for not wanting to support a candidate and party that had the fix in for their guy from the start? And adding to the discord and division in this country isn't going to accomplish that, even if your cause is righteous.

• I am, however, skeptical of this narrative that "the people stood up against corruption": only one Senate seat and 6 House seats changed hands. How does this make any sense? The American people supposedly wanted change, and yet they voted to retain 98.5% of the Congress with some of the lowest approval ratings in history. Ya really do get the government you deserve, I suppose. And of course, there's still a vacancy in the Supreme Court to fill, and that will give the GOP control of every branch of the federal government for at least the next two years. I'm just hoping like hell Ginsburg hangs on til 2020.

• Does this mean we're finally done with Hillary Clinton running for President? I mean, by all logical rights, this shouldn't have been this close of a race. It's hard to imagine that any other potential Democratic candidate could have fared worse here. But the Democrats had to go and pick the person with the most possible baggage to run for the office because it was "her turn." And I don't wanna hear about how "third parties" did this to you; you knew how flawed your candidate was, and you didn't make a better choice in the primary. And yet, the people who pointed this out at the time were either ignored or even labeled sexist for not going all-in on Hillary, a rather odd turn considering that many of those cast protest votes for Jill Stein.
  
  You can argue all you want about whether a Sanders candidacy would have gotten it done against Trump, but would he really have done worse? It's hard to see the "socialism" card being played as effectively against him as the "corruption" card was against Hillary, who had the misfortune of representing the status quo in a year where the people wanted change, while also having a fair share of scandal following her around, some of which had more substance than her backers would ever admit. Don't get your hopes up about another Sanders run, either; he'd be 79 on Inauguration Day 2020, making him by far the oldest man to ever take the office. Hopefully Liz Warren takes a run at it in the next cycle.

• I find it amusing that so many of the same people who have spent the last eight years telling anyone who will listen that Obama was "not my president," the people that were threatening to move to Texas and secede from the union if Hillary got elected, the people who yelled to anyone who would listen that the election would be "rigged" if Hillary won it, the people who have insisted that Obama isn't even a legitimate citizen, much less a legitimate president, are now telling everybody else to suck it up and get behind their guy. After, of course, the requisite gloating, which won't be forgotten come 2020. Somehow, the party that has thrown fits every step of the way since 2008 expects the other half of the country to get over it and fall in line behind their guy from day one. And as such, I'm inclined to cut President Trump as much slack as Obama has been given by the other side for the last eight years. Which is to say, none.
  
  I'll say this much: if he does manage to make favorable trade deals, if his childcare proposals come to pass, if he addresses the rising cost of student loans, if he actually takes meaningful steps towards campaign finance reform, I'll be more than happy to give credit where due. At the same time, I will absolutely criticize and call him out when his policies hurt the American people. I worry for the friends of mine that finally got access to health care under the ACA, flawed program though it may be, and will most likely lose it under the new administration. I worry for the gay, lesbian, and transgender friends of mine who potentially stand to face legalized discrimination for being who they are. I worry that the environment is pretty much screwed unless Trump can be convinced that the prospect of climate change would be bad for his own business interests.

• But for all the talk during the campaign, I doubt that Trump will get most of the things he wants. Personally, I just want to be in the room when Trump tries to sell Congress on the idea of term limits and bans on lobbying and gets laughed out of the Capitol building. Of course, this also assumes he doesn't leave that idea by the wayside when he takes office. Do I hate the idea of him nominating at least one Supreme Court justice, if not more? Absolutely. Do I think conservatives are going to get their wish of having Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges overturned? Honestly (and thankfully), I don't. Do I think Trump himself even wants those things? It's hard to say. He did come out and criticize North Carolina's HB 2 at times this year, though he has also somewhat defended it, and has stated in the past he would like to make sexual orientation a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (As for Mike Pence, supporter of gay conversion therapy and some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, that's another story.) Do I think "the wall" will get built? Absolutely not. Do I think the promised mass deportations will happen? Doubtful. Are those manufacturing jobs coming back? Not likely. Hell, even the most loathsome of his proposed assaults on the First Amendment won't happen; Congress wouldn't stand for it, and even the most conservative judges he could appoint would never uphold it. Of course, it's hard to know what he truly wants anyway, as his positions have shifted continuously over the years, and even quite a bit during this campaign.
  
  Ultimately, as much as I'd like to jump on the doomsday bandwagon like some of my liberal friends, and as much as I find many of Trump's policy proposals to be positively reprehensible, this isn't going to be the last presidency in U.S. history. This country has survived a civil war, two World Wars, countless other military conflicts, stock market crashes, terrorist attacks, and some truly awful presidencies. (The 43rd comes to mind.) And yet, we're still here.
  
  And if there's one other thing that gives me some semblance of comfort, it's this: there's still half of the country that feels the way I do, they're not going anywhere either, and their fight doesn't end because of one loss at the ballot box. Look, people, you're not moving to Canada, and rioting in the streets over the results of a fair election won't change the outcome. So take that energy and put it towards something productive, because there's a lot of work to be done to make sure the progress made in this country doesn't take a step backward. Get involved. Get informed. Make your voice heard. Hell, run for office. And, y'know, maybe put aside the "you're all a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes" rhetoric away for a while; if we're going to win hearts and minds, maybe blatantly insulting people isn't the best way to accomplish that.

• One final thought in all of this... In the span of a week, the Chicago Cubs won a World Series and Donald Trump got elected president. I'm almost forced to ask:
  
  Might this be the Lions' year?

Election 2016: Who Cares We're Screwed Anyway.

     At least it's almost over... right?          

     This has been, quite possibly, the most contentious election season in recent memory. Few candidates have been quite as reviled as the two major-party choices staring down voters in this presidential race, and no doubt that's contributed to the discord and political fatigue quite a bit. (And believe me, not many things will cause you as much political fatigue as working in talk radio.)

     But beyond even that, I can't recall a presidential race that has engendered this level of venom in so many people, nor one that has torn as many friendships apart as this. Which is a concept I just cannot wrap my head around, as I've never been one to consider that an option. One of my best friends in this world is about as Republican as they come. Another, a straight-up libertarian. And we argue and debate about everything politically, and disagree on a good portion of it. Usually at the bar, usually over a beer or two. And yet, we're able to leave it at that and still have fun hanging out. It doesn't carry on past that conversation, it doesn't leave anybody with anger, resentment, animosity, whatever. (It also doesn't leave anybody's mind changed either, usually, but that's not the point.) Because contrary to what you read on Facebook, it is still possible to be friends with people with whom you disagree on things.

     But that doesn't seem to be the case for many folks anymore. Between the Trump crowd arguing that anyone that doesn't wanna see real-life Biff Tannen as leader of the free world supports corruption, and the HuffPost thinkpieces about how it's totally okay to end friendships over politics because you're a better person than they are, it's all getting a bit ridiculous. Maybe it's the fact that in the past, these conversations didn't happen because it wasn't considered particularly polite to discuss politics and religion with everybody you met. Or maybe it's that there wasn't a Facebook, or any social media, with which to shout all your political affiliations and beliefs to the world with a single click.

     Or maybe it's something to do with the choice faced this year between the two most polarizing presidential candidates in modern political history.

     The seemingly obvious place to start is with Republican nominee Donald Trump, a man who prides himself on saying the worst possible thing at pretty much any time. But beyond the ridiculously offensive, insulting, and factually inaccurate statements he makes on a minute-by-minute basis, there's his charitable foundations's illegalities, housing discrimination, his fraudulent university, his bankruptcies, getting bailed out of his casino's debt through illegal means, his employing of undocumented immigrants while blaming them for everything that's wrong with this country, his money made off the backs of unpaid contractors, his illegal use of his charitable funds to pay his own legal bills, and oh, that time when he bribed a sitting attorney general not to prosecute his fraud university. And that's all before you get to his actual policy positions, whatever they happen to be that day. This week, they appear to be privatizing roads and the idea that climate change is BS... unless it threatens one of his business interests. Lest you think he's finally committing to staying on point, though, he did still find time in his most coherent major policy speech to date to threaten to sue the women that have accused him of sexual harassment and the media that report on the things he does.

     In any other year, it would be hard to see Trump even having a chance at the presidency. Unfortunately, the Democrats found the one politician as hated by the right as Trump is by the left: Hillary Clinton, who's been the subject of a cottage industry since the 90's devoted to exposing every impropriety, real or imagined, that she's had even a tangential connection to. The number of scandals to her credit is staggering, but how many of them have any substance? Not as many as her opponents might think, but more than her supporters would like to admit. The fact that she made it out of the primary is truly a testament to her campaign team, or as you might know them, the DNC. There's the Clinton Foundation and it's seeming pay-for-play arrangements and other improprieties, which we can't prove with absolute certainty any "play" was involved, though there was certainly plenty of "pay" in a couple ways. There's the emails, the only thing of substance to come from four years of Benghazi hearings and the most damning of accusations against her. Though it looks as if the FBI has ended its investigation into this for good, there's still the fact that information that was classified on some level was found on this server, and that's still kind of a problem. And while her social and economic views are more agreeable to mine, the fact that several neoconservatives involved with the Bush administration have endorsed her is cause for some concern as far as foreign policy goes.

     With candidates like these, it's not hard to see why voters are looking to other options. The problem is, those options aren't a whole lot better. In the early stages of the general election, when iit first appeared a Trump-Clinton matchup was inevitable, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson enjoyed something of a surge in popularity, portraying himself as the only reasonable guy running. Then, his "Aleppo moment" happened. Then a couple more. And since then, many of his public appearances have bordered on bizarre, to the point where his own vice president has all but endorsed Clinton. But if you put all that aside and look at his policies... those, like their proponent, are kind of a mixed bag. He's for all the civil liberties one could possibly have, but economically he's in favor of replacing the IRS with a national sales tax, which would be felt more by the lower and middle class. And he's a man of many contradictions: he wants to eliminate a number of federal agencies, but would have others pick up many of the same duties. He wants more transparency in government, yet supports the Citizens United ruling. He's a non-interventionalist that opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he would not commit to opposing drone attacks in the Middle East. He believes human carbon emissions do have an effect on the climate, but not enough to do anything about it... but who cares, because eventually the sun is going to expand and engulf the Earth anyway.

     Then there's Jill Stein, who has somehow been arrested more during her campaigns for office than either of the two major candidates, which is disappointing in a few different ways. True to her party, the environment is definitely a top priority; she's called climate change "a greater threat than World War II." And she's put her freedom where her mouth is there; the arrest I mentioned earlier came as she was protesting at the planned site of the Dakota Access Pipeline. She's also been the only candidate to support the implementation of instant-runoff voting, which in itself makes me want to vote for her out of principle. And as you'd expect, she's rather socially liberal as well. But, her economic policy isn't exactly lighting the world on fire. She's proposed forgiving all student loan debt through quantitative easing, which she says is a "magic trick that basically people don't need to understand any more about than that it is a magic trick." You can't make this stuff up. Needless to say, it's a bit more complicated than that. Between the magic tricks, the borderline 9/11 trutherism, the borderline anti-vaxxer stance, the belief that WiFi causes health issues and a stance on GMO's that certainly seems to run contrary to the opinions of much of the scientific community, you almost have to ask: "Are we sure she seriously has a medical degree from Harvard?"

     Then there's the even more fringe candidates, from Evan McMullen, the independent Republican candidate whose sole purpose seems to be to win Utah; Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party, the party that wonders what would happen if we got rid of that whole "separation-of-church-and-state" thing; Tom Hoefling of America's Party, which is even further to the right; about 20 different socialist candidates, and dozens of write-ins. If you're considering a write-in, take note that these are the only candidates that will be counted, so even if you're feeling the Bern or considering a protest vote for Cruz or Carson, just know that your vote literally will not count.

     As if having to pick the lesser of two four six way too many lessers wasn't bad enough, the other unfortunate side effect of this election has been the apparent dismissal of facts as being meaningful in any way. There was a time in which the credibility of a page like Snopes (or Politifact, or FactCheck) was unassailable, and that once debunked urban legends could be put to rest outside of the most conspiracy-minded folk. But something has changed with this election cycle: facts don't matter anymore, and if you believe something hard enough, then eventually it becomes accepted as truth. And when you have presidential candidates openly courting the fringes and empowering blindly partisan ideologues that demand that their opinions count as much as everybody else's facts, you get what has happened over the last 16 months.

     For one example, look no further than the case of Bill Clinton's supposed illegitimate child. A paternity test was done in 1999, and Clinton wasn't found to be the father, a fact that was even run by right-wing blogger and 30's film noir detective Matt Drudge. But now that story has resurfaced, and when one tries to remind those spreading that story that it was already disproven, the response is either to ignore the proof, or claim that the source of the debunking is biased against them, which creates an odd moment of irony when the Drudge Report is being accused of liberal bias. Then of course, there are the "body counts," which have been disproven a few times over. Of course, you also have the occasional stories about Trump's Russian ties which thus far have been more smoke than fire. But this has got to be the first election in modern U.S. history in which this many people believe a major presidential candidate is literally murdering political enemies, without a shred of evidence to support it.

     And rehashing the conspiracy theories of the 90's is one thing, Inventing new ones is another altogether. Take this story, from a website calling itself "The Denver Guardian," claiming that an FBI agent in Walkerville, Maryland suspected of leaking Clinton emails had his home burned to the ground with he and his wife inside it. Sure, they say it was a murder-suicide, but Hillary is clearly behind this! Problem is, everything about this story starts to unravel when you look into it even a slight bit. For example, any record anywhere of any of these events happening. The link to local TV outlet WHAG linked in the story defaults to the front page of the station's website, which shows absolutely nothing about the story in question. A cursory glance of major news sources turns up nothing. The people in the story don't exist, and Walkerville isn't even a real city. Even the claim of the paper's very existence crumbles under the slightest bit of scrutiny: "Denver Guardian is Denver's oldest news source and one of the longest running daily newspapers published in the United States." Except that no, that would be the Denver Post, which is at least a real thing that exists. Its social media links go nowhere, and its address is a tree in a parking lot next to a vacant building in Denver. Man, the Keebler elves must really be hurting for work these days. And most of the site is a placeholder with no content, the standard hallmark of the fake news site.

     Now I clearly should not have to devote this much space to proving one of these absurd pieces false. But people who should know better are still falling for them on a daily basis. I never cease to be amazed by how people can question the objectivity of any and every major news organization, yet fake websites like these pass the snuff test, And I'm not about to argue against checking your sources and doing research; Jayson Blair-type incidents do happen (or Mitch Albom, if you prefer), and it's not hard to find examples where the press aren't doing their job thoroughly enough, or are running with outright falsehoods (the Slate article about Trump's server and the Russian bank; the Fox News claim that Clinton was about to be indicted before the investigation was ultimately closed again). But we're now more than ever in a place where you can show up with documented evidence of a claim, and be dismissed because your facts don't line up with the preconceived narrative the other person has already formulated in their head.

     This is where this election cycle has left us.

     And it forces one to ask: Can we get a do-over on this whole thing?

The Authoritative Guide To Doomsday.... er, Election Day 2016

     It's that time again, for the third and thankfully final time this year.

     In a year that has seen more political drama than any in recent memory, we're finally closing in on the home stretch, and within a week, we'll have a new president, congressman, prosecutor, and (hopefully) some peace and quiet. And as is customary around these parts, I run down the ballot and look at all the important races facing you tomorrow.

• As far as presidential choices, you're already screwed before you cast a vote. As far as options that have enough ballot access to theoretically win, you have Donald Trump, a narcissist pandering to the most xenophobic wing of his party while offering little in terms of tangible policy; Hillary Clinton, whom you've no doubt been flooded with so many substance free "scandals" that it's almost too easy to overlook some of her actual concerning lapses in judgement; Gary Johnson, whose economic policy consists of "let's just get rid of all the rules and hope for the best," because as we all know, corporations never act in an unethical manner; and finally Jill Stein, who, when she's not busy speaking about economic policy as "magic tricks," spends her time giving vague credence to the tinfoil-hat wing of her party that believes vaccines cause autism and that 9/11 was an inside job. Endorsement? Hardly; they're all freakin' nuts!

• U.S. House- First off, if you're looking for anybody actually local, forget about it. Only one candidate claims a Lapeer County residence, and I use that term loosely. If you're looking for somebody to keep Lapeer County's best interest at heart... well, three of the four candidates showed up to the one general election forum held in Lapeer, and the front-runner wasn't one of 'em, so take that as you will. The candidates:
  
       Paul Mitchell (R)- For starters, not the hair-care guy, but rather the proprietor of one of those for-profit colleges (Ross) who currently claims Dryden as home, but ran in Midland last election, and is also the money behind the campaign to take down the road debacle otherwise known as Proposal 1, which is about where his positive attributes end. Needless to say, my experiences with him on the campaign trail don't leave me sold on the idea that he'll take the concerns of his constituents into consideration. (This would be the candidate that did not attend the forum.)
  
       Frank Accavitti (D)- A former mayor of Eastpointe and state rep in Macomb County. He has made a point of talking about bringing broadband to the Thumb, and that his jobs plan calls for incentivizing companies to run broadband across state right-of-ways. Opposes single-payer healthcare because "what about employees in the insurance industry/stockholders of insurance companies?"
  
       Lisa Lane Gioia (L)- As one would expect from a Libertarian, sticks to the company line of nonintervention, ending the IRS and the Department of Education, and in general getting the federal government out of... well, everything.
  
       Ben Nofs (G)- A Berniecrat disillusioned by the Democratic Party, with everything that implies, including support for single-payer healthcare and renewable energy. As the lone veteran running, he's made improving veterans' affairs a priority, and he's firmly against arms sales to foreign nations and propping up regimes that violate the basic human rights of their people.

• Prosecutor- One of those races that nobody typically notices until the incumbent really screws up, and in this case, the incumbent really screwed up. The current holder of the office, Tim Turkelson, will be out of a job no matter the outcome of this election, having made a few enemies too many in his time in office. Running to replace him:
  
       Mike Sharkey (R)- Byron Konschuh's defense attorney, so it's pretty clear why he ran to unseat Turkelson. Certainly seems a conflict of interest that the county prosecutor could potentially try cases before a guy he defended at trial, though I'm sure certain corruption-based pages will ignore that.
  
       Phillip Fulks (D)- The only candidate running for this office to not have had any ties to any of the myriad scandals involving Konschuh or Turkelson, and as such, the only one that won't be coming in with any baggage or conflicts of interest. If we're really all about a fresh start in the courthouse, this seems like a good place to start.

• Circuit Court Judge- Of course, my usual policy is to vote against whoever the Corruption Page endorses, but beyond that, the reasons to vote for Dave Richardson haven't been all that compelling. Not to say that he'd be a bad judge; I've not really heard anything bad about the man, other than that he was a Todd Courser supporter, which is admittedly about the worst thing you can say of somebody in Lapeer County. But when you're running as a write-in against an incumbent, the burden is on you to prove that your opponent is unfit to stay in office, and I can't honestly say that Richardson has done that. Honestly? I don't care where Nick Holowka throws his trash. Is he doing his job properly? That's definitely up for debate. Certainly, the lack of technological advancement and specialized courts, particularly the oft-mentioned drug court, which Lapeer has had in the past but has gone away in recent years amid cutbacks from the state. But it's also hard to determine how much of this Richardson would be able to implement. Seems rather interesting, though, that the same people who decry a "good ol' boys" network at the courthouse have no issue with it as long as they're in charge of it; note which sitting judge has thrown his endorsement behind Richardson, and note who's throwing their money behind him.

• State Representative- It's Gary Howell and Margaret Guererro DeLuca again, in a repeat of... this year's matchup. I like them both, though I've admittedly been a Deluca supporter since her first run for the office. But no matter who wins here, we'll have good representation in Lansing. Gary Howell may not have been my first, second, or third choice, but credit where credit is due: he has made good on several campaign promises since being elected, and has been light years ahead of his predecessor in regards to maintaining communication with his constituents. Truthfully, anybody willing to subject themselves to my line of questioning gets a point or two in my book! No shock here: the County Press endorses Howell; not at all a surprise, as its owner has been a major donor. As you might expect though, my support is still ultimately behind DeLuca.

• Lapeer Board of Education-  There's two spots to fill, and one incumbent, a political newcomer, and two hyper-partisan candidates running to fill them.
  
       Brad Haggadone- The lone incumbent running, despite being all of two years removed from high school. Seems to have the support of the rest of the current board, though he's also hitched his wagon to Jan Peabody's candidacy, as the other Republican running.
  
       Lisa Novak- Serves as Associate Professor of Accounting at Mott Community College, and worked for years in accounting for K-12 public education, so there's no doubt she has a background that would make her an excellent fit for the job.
  
       Jan Peabody- Lapeer County GOP chair, whose last few runs at public office were largely bought and paid for by the DeVos family and the Great Lakes Education Project, which support union busting and privatization of schools. Hardly supporters of public education. Is amazingly still Facebook friends with me despite that I haven't supported a single attempt she has ever made to run for office.
  
       Dave Campbell- The husband of a Lapeer schoolteacher, and a staunch pro-union Democrat currently employed in the prosecutor's office. Refused to attend the recent Tea Party-sponsored school board forum for predictable reasons: early tea party groups were supported by the Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity, whose Michigan director now chairs Donald Trump's campaign in this state, and both are inextricably tied to the Tea Party even now.
  
  I'll address this at length here. When running for public office, it seems a bit counterproductive to refuse to address the public in any forum, even one as partisan as the Tea Party. Even more so when no other organization is willing or able to put together similar events. And to be clear, the Lapeer County Tea Party's political views are about the polar opposite of my own, as are those of the candidates they have endorsed. And yet I make it a point, when my schedule permits, to venture into the lion's den and attend the forums, despite the occasional blatant editorializing from the moderators. And you may recall that during the last state representative race, all three candidates in the general election showed up to face questioning, and boy, did Democrat Margaret DeLuca hear it from a couple of Tea Party diehards in attendance. But the point is, she still went, and you've got to respect anybody that's going into a room knowing the hosts are not particularly receptive to their cause, and making their case anyway. Despite completely sympathizing with his position, I really wish Campbell would have done the same.
  
  Also worth noting: The Lapeer Education Association, which is currently embroiled in a contract dispute with Lapeer Schools over teachers taking pay cuts so their superintendent can get his 8% raise, endorses Campbell and Novak, so do with that as you will.

• Road Commissioner- Honestly? I don't know a thing about either one.

• College Boards of Regents- Don't know, don't particularly care, as I didn't go to U-M, MSU, or Wayne State.

• State Supreme Court- David Viviano and Joan Larsen are the incumbents, and if there's a compelling reason to vote against either, I'm not aware of it.

• Millages- The Lapeer County Veterans Affairs Office is up for a renewal of its current .10 mills, which should be a no-brainer, and the Lapeer County EMS seeks a 1-mill increase in taxes, with which it would expand its service and open additional bases in Metamora and Goodland Township. LCEMS' primary competition is Medstar, which just happens to be co-owned by a McLaren hospital in Macomb County and holds the lucrative contract with McLaren in Lapeer for medical transfer services. That cuts into the money that funds LCEMS, which has made it clear that a 'no' vote means a potential shutdown. Really it boils down to this: If you're not comfortable with having Lapeer County in the hands of a for-profit ambulance service that can't get to patients in outlying parts of the county in a timely manner because it's not worth it to them financially to staff those areas at the level LCEMS currently does, then vote yes.
  
  Unfortunately, the County Press opposed the LCEMS millage in an editorial Sunday, though with Rick Burroughs' ties to McLaren and the fact that McLaren is a major advertiser in the Press and sister publication the LA View, it's not hard to see why. Now, I've got something of a tortured relationship with the local paper: I defend their reporters against anonymous slander and unmask the people doing the slandering, I get my name butchered in a picture taken at a gig. (Not the same reporter, by the way.) I call their editorial out for things like a bizarre double-endorsement that reads like it was mandated from on high, they write a spread about my radio gig. But things like this that read as obvious conflicts of interest are rather disappointing, and even more so considering that one man owns both countywide news publications and essentially controls what news is published in the county. (Yeah, I know, Tri-City Times, but try finding one of those west of Van Dyke and north of 21.)

• Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, do your research, people. Last Sunday's County Press had a pretty solid voters guide (if not some questionable endorsements), the county Tea Party hosted a forum or two; hell, I went so far as to stage a congressional debate in Lapeer. As is our usual custom, links to campaign pages are linked in this post so you can ask questions of these people yourself, and if you really wanna kill some time and stumble into the rabbit hole, look up who's funding them.
  
  Even if you vote for Pedro in the presidential race, at least get out there and vote on the races and millages down the ballot. There's a lot more at stake than which mistake is going to hold the highest office in the land; if anything, several of these other races are likely to have far more effect on your daily life than the one up top.
  
  And the same thing I asked of you in the last state rep race in March holds true for the next presidential race.
  
  Whatever you do, for the love of all that is holy, don't let this happen again next time.