Before the election lots of people where saying it was a choice between two bad candidates. The problem is that now, after having made their choice, people do not want to accept the consequences of that choice. You cannot say you just voted for the "change" part of what Trump offers without accepting that you also did not vote against all of the other parts of what Trump offers. 

There is no line item veto in Presidential elections. A vote for Trump was a vote for all of Trump, particularly when you take in to consideration that also means an entire Congress and half of the Supreme Court with party affiliation with Trump. 

People who voted for Trump, AND voted for third party candidates that had the same affect as voting in Trump, have to own the consequences of their decision.  

I think there are a lot of good points made by Dave Pell in this article: What the Hell Just Happened. 

During lunch I was listening to This Week in Tech, which debates whether Facebook influenced the election and/or what is Facebook's responsibilities. The issues are two fold, one is how citizens use information to make decisions and the other is how media companies use information to make money. Fundamental economic issues of scarcity and motivation are very much at play. 

I think there is a more fundamental question of economics as it applies to the press and its obligations under the first amendment, and Facebook and all other information services are involved to the extent that citizens use them to gain information.

The economic perspective is one of motivation, Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times, and the Washington Post are all corporations that exist to make profits. 

In my opinion in terms of the Trump use of media, he is very smart in exploiting the motivations of media corporations. Media companies make money from attention to advertising. Trump's outrageous comments draw attention, and therefore media is motivated to cover as much Trump as possible. 

You are probably familiar with the phrase, "the end justifies the means." Some, particularly Christians, will argue that is the choice they made during this past election. They don't agree with all the things Trump has said or claims he will do, but the end, of making "America Great Again," justifies overlooking the means. 

The problem is that the above assumes a common definition for what makes America Great, and I think that is problematic because I expect each of Trump's constituencies has a different definition for a Great America based on their world view. 

For many Christians, the end they desire is the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, which they hope at a minimum decreases abortions if not completely eliminating it. In other words a Great America is a country in which there are no abortions, and that end justifies tolerating all of the issues they may otherwise have with Trump. Note this doesn't mean they agree with everything that Trump does, it means for the sake of the possibility that Trump will end abortions, they will tolerate everything else he does. 

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." 

I listened to the MSNBC Morning Joe podcast this morning in which Joe Scarborough says (paraphrasing): "Don't worry, it isn't as bad as you are fearing, our constitutional republic will survive." 

First, I don't think we should take anything for granted. There are things our constitutional republic cannot overcome, there is nothing written in stone that guarantees the republic will stand. 

For example, if the people in our government chose to not live to the spirit of their oath to uphold and defend the constitution, I  believe the republic can fall.

And here in lies my problem. Scarborough is asking me to trust Congress and trust the Supreme Court to fulfill their obligations as the checks and balances against the Executive Branch. 

The key word here is trust. Trust is something earned, and frankly nothing that Congress and the Supreme Court has done in the last four years has earned my trust. 

In my eyes, time and again over the last four years the Republican-led Congress has put party over country. They refused to govern, passed hardly any legislation, and would not compromise on anything. From being willing to default on our loans to refusing to even have hearings on the next Supreme Court justice. 

Time and again during Trump's campaign, Ryan and McConnell have had opportunities to stand up to their party's nominee and put country before party, and time and again they refused. Are we to believe now, with a Republican in the White House, they are suddenly going to stand up to him when he proposes something unconstitutional or not consistent with our values? 

Frankly, my worry is less with Trump and more with Congress. I want to believe that the checks and balances instituted by the Constitution will in fact protect us, but I am honestly afraid they will not. 

And here in lies the threat to the republic. When citizens lose faith in the very fundamentals of our government they begin to think it might as well be replaced, it simply represents business as usual that is causing them pain. 

It is not enough to simply tell people to not worry. It's not enough to tell people you will be faithful to your oath. You must walk the talk. You must demonstrate that there is in fact a line no one, no matter which party, can cross. 

I don't know Congress' line. I don't know the Supreme Court's line, I thought it was non-partisan but that is demonstrably false. My hope is that I know the military's line. 

For compromise to occur, all parties must be invested in finding common ground upon which all can agree. You cannot have compromise if you go in to a situation convinced that everyone else is entirely wrong, and therefore it isn't worth even considering whether they have common ground with you. 

I think there is a big story relating to this election, on the scale of the run up to the Iraq War, that I fear the press will again miss. Three questions:

1. What the heck is going in the FBI? Depending on whether you are Republican or Democrat you probably think either the FBI is not doing their job in pursuing an obviously guilty person (Hillary), OR you think the FBI attempted, and perhaps succeeded, in influencing the election. Either way, the integrity of the FBI is now in doubt.

2. The facts are someone or some entity hacked into the DNC and the GOP and the DNC emails were published on the Internet. Why? If Russia is hacking in to the political parties I doubt it is just for the LOLs. If Russia favored Trump, why? Who stands to gain?  And why does it seem as though Trump won't even consider Russia is behind the hacking? If you truly are concerned about corruption in government, you want to know the answer, which brings me to...

3. Why should we trust the FBI, which is the only investigative arm of the federal government, to actually get to  and expose the truth? Who is going to investigate the investigators? 

A functioning press, fulfilling its role in our government would provide part of the answer. Unfortunately, the press has too often demonstrated, such as during the run up to the Iraq War, the ability to be distracted by the sensational that increases profits rather in truth telling. Oh, and keep in mind how the government actively pursues whistleblowers, no doubt to protect against the likes of Deep Throat.

The story here could be on the scale of Watergate. Heck, it is a repeat of Watergate in that back then DNC offices were broken in to and the Nixon administration attempted to cover up their role in the break in. Hacking is the modern day form of breaking and entering. Back then the press exposed corruption in government, could today's press even notice such a thing were happening? 

New York Times: "Mr. Trump ostensibly ran as a Republican, but he was effectively a third-party candidate who happened to campaign under the banner of one of the two major parties. Casting himself as an outsider, he not only savaged leaders in both parties but he made a mockery of nearly all the pieties of the American political system."

As disturbing as Trump's behavior has been, it did clearly show that he was very different than the "normal" politicians. The question remains to be seen whether those who say we should not have taken him so literally are correct. I hope they are. 

I think it should be obvious that Hillary lost because people who voted for Obama did not vote for her, whether they did not vote, voted for a third party candidate, or voted for Trump. She needed to win the votes of people who voted for a democrat the last two presidential election cycles and she was not successful. You cannot blame Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. At the end of the day Hillary lost on the merits of her candidacy in contrast to her opponents. Too much baggage.

As disappointed as Hillary Clinton is, Trump's Republican primary opponents might be even more disappointed. A case can be made that it did not matter who wore the Democrat or Republican jersey, many Americans believed after eight years it was time to put on red.

New York Times: "The fact that religious conservatives backed Mr. Trump in such large numbers shows how desperate they are."

TheSlot: "Institutionally-educated and middle class white people voted to retain their power." 

Of all the demographics who voted for Trump the most perplexing to me are women. Most were willing to tolerate Trump's misogyny because they hated Hillary. My guess is that Hillary did not win a lot of the women who voted for Obama, and that cost her the election.

TheSlot: "This is not about how much America hates women or how sexist America is, because it’s clear that white women helped facilitate Trump’s win."

It is going to take many days for the reality that Donald Trump will be front and center in our lives for four years to sink in. The immediate aftermath will be the punditry on why Trump has been elected. 

I hoped this wouldn't happen, but deep down in the pit of my stomach I knew it would happen. One place to look to why this happened are the favorability ratings of Congress. 

The ratings show that many people think our representatives do a bad job. When they looked at Trump, they probably think, he can't be any worse than what we already have, so why not try something different?

Obviously, this same analysis took place in comparing Clinton and Trump. Many people feel they are equally bad. When selecting between two bad options, they chose the different option, or the devil you don't know versus the devil you do know.

In the advertising I saw here in Michigan, the ads from Trump and Clinton made these options very clear. Trump's ads positioned him as the outsider and a vote for him is a vote for change, Clinton's ads positioned her as the safe, known, reliable, and translated by many as non-change, option.

So, to me, the main message of Trump's election is that nearly half country wants change, no matter what. I am pretty sure not everyone agrees with all the changes Trump proposed during his campaign, and I bet many people hope many were empty promises, but they don't care! 

No one can dispute that Trump is very different from any person we elected President. What I will dispute, and which I fear not enough people have fully considered, is that the consequences of that difference could really be worse than what is already in place. 

But hey, today a lot of people are satisfied in the fact that they "stuck it to" whoever and whatever they have a problem with. 

Just watched the condensed version of the Cub's world series win, which is much easier to watch when you know the outcome.  

Three things jump out. First is that Schwarber hit 3 for 5, had a stolen base, and got the big first hit at the top of the tenth. He had a huge role in this series coming back from injury, despite only playing in Cleveland.

Second is that the Cubs got three runs simply with good base running. It's the little things done well that often distinguish great teams. 

Finally, Chapman's performance at the bottom of the 9th after giving up the tying runs in the 8th inning was clutch. He clearly did not have his best stuff, and after blowing the lead it would be so easy to give in emotionally, but he gutted it out, kept the Indians scoreless, and gave his team the chance to win. The script was ready for the Indians and Chapman shut the door.

Chapman factored big in each one of the Cub's victories, and I really don't think they win it without him. If it were up to me, I would have given the MVP to Chapman. 

I am in a bit of a fog due to a combination of lack of sleep and disbelief. The Cubs have won the World Series! It really happened. Finally, after year after year after year of "wait until next year," this was the year.

Nearly everyone now knows "Go Cubs Go," which is played at Wrigley Field after a victory and the "W" flag is raised on the scoreboard flag pole. The song was written by Steve Goodman under commission from WGN radio to be their opening music for Cubs telecasts in the '80s. The song is cheerful and easy to sing along, but while it captures the fun of Wrigley after a victory, it doesn't truly capture the essence of being a Cubs fan.

Goodman also penned "A Dying Cubs Fan's Last Request" that to me more accurately captures what it means to be a Cubs fan. Goodman died of cancer at the much too young age of 36, so he did not get to see this moment. I can't help but wish that Steve, and Harry, and Ron, and Jack, who for me were the voices of the Cubs during my life, had the chance to participate in the joy of moment and the entire season of fun.

(Interesting side note, the Cubs have a policy against scattering of remains at Wrigley Field, but apparently it happens.) 

I am sad to read further evidence that Microsoft will no longer provide a reasonably priced Surface tablet. As I have written before, I use the Surface 3 every day as my work notebook. The pairing of the tablet, pen, and OneNote works perfectly for me, and I have not had the storage performance issues that Thurrott keeps harping on. 

Current viable alternatives are: HP Elite X2, Lenovo Miix 700, and Huawei MateBook, all that have 12-inch screens, which I consider a tad too large. An entry level Surface 4 Pro is currently available for $740 with a pen, but unlike the HP and Lenovo products the keyboard costs extra, as is the case with the Dell Latitude 11 5000 that starts at $749.