Perhaps due to decades as a Marine on active duty or to personal proclivity, I routinely arise early and head out for a morning run. This part of my fitness regime averages an hour of pounding the payment, as some call it. These early morning runs have begun as early as 0400 (4 AM in civilian time), though usually I am out the door between 0500-0530 daily. There is something special about the early morning, whether it is here in the town in which I live or somewhere when we are on the road for vacations. Getting up and out at what my motorcycling buddy and lifelong friend calls the butt-crack of dawn is invigorating. The invigoration comes from more than the physical exercise, which grows in importance as we age. The invigoration comes from experiencing the beginning of a new day. Thus, the early morning is very special.
Whether it is a brisk morning worthy of a watch cap and gloves or simply a cool morning in which a long sleeve t-shirt is adequate, there is something so very special about starting the day just before the sun comes up. As I continue along the regular route, there are familiar aspects. The
one area where sprinklers are soaking the area, so I shift from the
sidewalk to the street. The homeless gent, who takes refuge in the bus
stop each night. The same cars going down the street heading to work.
The occasional wave from a neighbor as he heads out to work. The one
hard hill I have to run, getting the heart rate up. The greenery of the
gardens. Being outside, pounding the pavement as it were, as the first rays of sun light pop up in the east, listening the birds beginning to call, hearing the occasional lawn sprinkler in the distance, watching my neighborhood come to life, and the smell of cooking bacon, all of these combine to provide an offer and expectation of good things to come.
With expectation hanging in the air, there seems to be an anticipatory silence. The noise hasn't risen to the mid-day level. It is as if the world is waiting to begin. We are in the starting blocks for today's race of the day. Just prior to the starter's gun going off to start the race, there is that moment of peaceful silence, all all await the beginning. And from these beginnings, great endings occur. The promise held by the day, even when most days are simply repeats of previous days. Whether employed, retired, unemployed, on vacation, in school, on a day off, or another status, each day holds forth opportunities. Some new, some residual.
It is the anticipation of these opportunities that make the early morning special. Who knows what may come our way? I eagerly look forward to the dawn of the new day, as it brings forth the possibility of new opportunities. Being out there on a early morning run enables me to physically partake of the dawn. By the time I have run the last hill, I'm ready for the day and whatever it may throw my way.
Dang, the early mornings are so very special.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Media hypocrisy
I find it disturbing that the White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD) garners seemingly unlimited media attention. A glitzy gathering for those on the "A" list, with jokes from POTUS and the designated host, the event is a staple for those working within the Beltway. Days of build up, with numerous stories meant to whet the appetite of the reader for more of the drivel most media pass on as information. Pre-parties, the red carpet arrivals, who brings whom to the event, the dress worn by the First Lady, and on and on.
Enough already.
The self-serving over reporting of an unimportant social event illustrates what media critics deplore: hypocrisy. (To the voices raised in objection, I'll stipulate the event does raise money for charity. However, this fundraising can easily be done without the cost and spectacle of the event itself.) The media is, sadly, hypocritical. Not long ago the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) bemoaned the lack of access to the President, stating they are "shut out." But at the WHCD, everyone is all chummy. Obviously the WHCA wasn't shut out of the event. So it leaves me wondering at the spectacle and lack of principle by the WHCA. If, as a group, the WHCA truly believed they are being shut out by POTUS, then what better way to make a statement than not holding the annual event? Why give the electeds and their hangers on a glitzy affair at which they can rub elbows with entertainers? The hypocritical media simply can't see past itself to understand the contradiction between their words and actions.
Beyond that contradiction, another aspect of the excessively fawning coverage of the WHCD is troublesome. The self-same media isn't covering the trial of the abortionist Gosnell. (Reports describing the manner of his killing of children are gruesome and won't be repeated here.) Abortion remains an issue that sharply divides the country. As such, this trial then deserves complete coverage, because it is news. Those who "report" about the color of the dress the First Lady wore to the WHCD consider it to be news. Why not the Gosnell trial. There is a one word answer: hypocrisy.
So,when seeing the amount of (supposed) news converge of the WHCD, I'm saddened and angry. Saddened at the spectacle and angry at the hypocrisy.
Enough already.
The self-serving over reporting of an unimportant social event illustrates what media critics deplore: hypocrisy. (To the voices raised in objection, I'll stipulate the event does raise money for charity. However, this fundraising can easily be done without the cost and spectacle of the event itself.) The media is, sadly, hypocritical. Not long ago the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) bemoaned the lack of access to the President, stating they are "shut out." But at the WHCD, everyone is all chummy. Obviously the WHCA wasn't shut out of the event. So it leaves me wondering at the spectacle and lack of principle by the WHCA. If, as a group, the WHCA truly believed they are being shut out by POTUS, then what better way to make a statement than not holding the annual event? Why give the electeds and their hangers on a glitzy affair at which they can rub elbows with entertainers? The hypocritical media simply can't see past itself to understand the contradiction between their words and actions.
Beyond that contradiction, another aspect of the excessively fawning coverage of the WHCD is troublesome. The self-same media isn't covering the trial of the abortionist Gosnell. (Reports describing the manner of his killing of children are gruesome and won't be repeated here.) Abortion remains an issue that sharply divides the country. As such, this trial then deserves complete coverage, because it is news. Those who "report" about the color of the dress the First Lady wore to the WHCD consider it to be news. Why not the Gosnell trial. There is a one word answer: hypocrisy.
So,when seeing the amount of (supposed) news converge of the WHCD, I'm saddened and angry. Saddened at the spectacle and angry at the hypocrisy.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Creating leaders
In what some may argue is an unfair comparison, since retiring from the military most individuals I've encountered in positions of leadership in the civilian sector are ill equipped (or ill suited) to the responsibilities inherent to such positions. Far too often I've seen someone who displayed technical/professional competence or having specific personal connections unwisely advanced to leadership positions, without benefit of training, education, or experience in the principles, responsibilities, traits, or requirements of leadership. Consequently, many, if not most, of these individuals are woefully deficient as leaders. Exacerbating the problem is that often these individuals first fill leadership positions at relatively high levels, at which their inevitable errors are dramatic and broad in impact.
At this point it is worth mentioning that individuals who fail as leaders, after being placed in these positions without the aforementioned training, education, or experience are not necessarily bad people. They happen to make horrible decisions, adversely impacting those they supposedly lead. I'd argue many of these mistakes are the result of the lack training, education,and experience. I'll provide a couple of examples to illustrate the observation.
Example #1. A nationwide non-profit hired on a relatively young individual, with no-to-minimal leadership experience to serve as the top officer. Over time, it became crystal clear he wasn't aware of basic tenants of leadership, particularly the value of human capital. Known for ranting and raving, he publicly belittled subordinates; castigated managers in email broadcast to the entire organization; refused suggestions for improvement; and sought to marginalize those who dared disagree with his views. The revolving door of the headquarters staff and perpetual reorganizations illustrate the impact of his leadership failure. Further, his communication skills were abysmal, as he rarely if ever communicated in substantive ways with the all-too-critical leaders at the chapters. (Note: communication is defined as meaningful exchanges between two or more individuals.) Instead, he isolated himself in an aloof and insular manner. Over time, he lost the trust and confidence of the organization. For one, I judge the fault for the circumstances to be equally divided between the individual and the board of directors that hired him. Leadership education, training, and experience matter. The absence of leadership skills manifested itself time and time again, demoralizing the organization. This young man was insufficiently prepared to assume the position and responsibility of a national organization.
Example #2. At a major public university, the director of one of the most important offices on campus was put into place by a senior administrator, who had previously served as the office's director. The new director was a technical whizz and could make systems that supported the office sing. However, she'd never been trained in leadership or held any position in which she'd learn it. Over time, this adversely impacted the office. However, though apparent to all, nothing was done because she had top cover from the individual who had elevated her to the office directorship. Over time, the university and others knew she was an failed leader, but could do nothing. Failing to lead by example from the front, she'd call meetings and then fail to attend. She failed to respond to calls and email from across the campus. She'd fail to recognize superlative efforts of her staff, yet was manic in pursuing a dress code. Once more, the absence of leadership training, education, and experience displayed itself in a woefully deficient leader. As an aside, after years without one, the university initiated a leadership training program. It was something, though lacking a core, central leadership ethos upon which a leadership philosophy could be built. In fact, the "key" speakers could actually be viewed as teaching the wrong lessons. One famously told a class that they shouldn't be concerned with regulations and policies.
These are just two examples of many I've noticed in the civilian sector.
Where some may not like the comparison, I'll nevertheless offer that the Marine Corps ethos includes the education and development of leaders. From day one, Marines are taught leadership and are expected to develop as leaders. The same leadership traits and principles apply for Privates as they do for Generals. In addition to the intense training, Marines are placed in positions of increasing responsibility, to take the leadership lessons and put them into practice. There is a good reason Second Lieutenants don't lead Marine Expeditionary Forces. Simply put, they haven't the experience. The young officers start with platoons and work their way up the rank structure, leading units of increasing size and complexity. Those who excel move up to command battalions, regiments, and divisions. They learn a comprehensive leadership ethos, complete with traits and principles. And they garner experience along the way. When an officer is selected to command a Marine Expeditionary Force, he has decades of training, education, and experience as a leader, unlike the man in example #1 and the lady in example #2,
Alluded to is another critical failing in the civilian sector: the absence of institutional leadership philosophy, traits, principles, expectations, etc. An organization must establish them and everyone in the organization must know these and be required to adhere to them. With such as approach, the institution/organization can develop leaders from within, allow them to grow and mature, thereby providing a pool of internal candidates for advancement. One obvious advantage of internal candidates is that it is positive for morale when employees know they can work hard to move up in the organization. Furthermore, ti provides for stability, rather than the constant state of flux experienced in many organizations, like the two sited in the examples.
So, when it comes down to it, leadership really isn't that challenging. The organization must establish, promulgate, and adhere to a leadership philosophy, then train and educate leaders, and finally provide them the experience to grow and become the higher level, senior leaders of tomorrow.
At this point it is worth mentioning that individuals who fail as leaders, after being placed in these positions without the aforementioned training, education, or experience are not necessarily bad people. They happen to make horrible decisions, adversely impacting those they supposedly lead. I'd argue many of these mistakes are the result of the lack training, education,and experience. I'll provide a couple of examples to illustrate the observation.
Example #1. A nationwide non-profit hired on a relatively young individual, with no-to-minimal leadership experience to serve as the top officer. Over time, it became crystal clear he wasn't aware of basic tenants of leadership, particularly the value of human capital. Known for ranting and raving, he publicly belittled subordinates; castigated managers in email broadcast to the entire organization; refused suggestions for improvement; and sought to marginalize those who dared disagree with his views. The revolving door of the headquarters staff and perpetual reorganizations illustrate the impact of his leadership failure. Further, his communication skills were abysmal, as he rarely if ever communicated in substantive ways with the all-too-critical leaders at the chapters. (Note: communication is defined as meaningful exchanges between two or more individuals.) Instead, he isolated himself in an aloof and insular manner. Over time, he lost the trust and confidence of the organization. For one, I judge the fault for the circumstances to be equally divided between the individual and the board of directors that hired him. Leadership education, training, and experience matter. The absence of leadership skills manifested itself time and time again, demoralizing the organization. This young man was insufficiently prepared to assume the position and responsibility of a national organization.
Example #2. At a major public university, the director of one of the most important offices on campus was put into place by a senior administrator, who had previously served as the office's director. The new director was a technical whizz and could make systems that supported the office sing. However, she'd never been trained in leadership or held any position in which she'd learn it. Over time, this adversely impacted the office. However, though apparent to all, nothing was done because she had top cover from the individual who had elevated her to the office directorship. Over time, the university and others knew she was an failed leader, but could do nothing. Failing to lead by example from the front, she'd call meetings and then fail to attend. She failed to respond to calls and email from across the campus. She'd fail to recognize superlative efforts of her staff, yet was manic in pursuing a dress code. Once more, the absence of leadership training, education, and experience displayed itself in a woefully deficient leader. As an aside, after years without one, the university initiated a leadership training program. It was something, though lacking a core, central leadership ethos upon which a leadership philosophy could be built. In fact, the "key" speakers could actually be viewed as teaching the wrong lessons. One famously told a class that they shouldn't be concerned with regulations and policies.
These are just two examples of many I've noticed in the civilian sector.
Where some may not like the comparison, I'll nevertheless offer that the Marine Corps ethos includes the education and development of leaders. From day one, Marines are taught leadership and are expected to develop as leaders. The same leadership traits and principles apply for Privates as they do for Generals. In addition to the intense training, Marines are placed in positions of increasing responsibility, to take the leadership lessons and put them into practice. There is a good reason Second Lieutenants don't lead Marine Expeditionary Forces. Simply put, they haven't the experience. The young officers start with platoons and work their way up the rank structure, leading units of increasing size and complexity. Those who excel move up to command battalions, regiments, and divisions. They learn a comprehensive leadership ethos, complete with traits and principles. And they garner experience along the way. When an officer is selected to command a Marine Expeditionary Force, he has decades of training, education, and experience as a leader, unlike the man in example #1 and the lady in example #2,
Alluded to is another critical failing in the civilian sector: the absence of institutional leadership philosophy, traits, principles, expectations, etc. An organization must establish them and everyone in the organization must know these and be required to adhere to them. With such as approach, the institution/organization can develop leaders from within, allow them to grow and mature, thereby providing a pool of internal candidates for advancement. One obvious advantage of internal candidates is that it is positive for morale when employees know they can work hard to move up in the organization. Furthermore, ti provides for stability, rather than the constant state of flux experienced in many organizations, like the two sited in the examples.
So, when it comes down to it, leadership really isn't that challenging. The organization must establish, promulgate, and adhere to a leadership philosophy, then train and educate leaders, and finally provide them the experience to grow and become the higher level, senior leaders of tomorrow.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
People - the best in our lives
What is best in our lives?
It certainly are not the things we accumulate, use, and dispose of with amazing regularity. (Thank you to the consumer driven advertising prevalent across the nation.) Can it be the accomplishments of a career? Hard to say, because the definition of career has changed so dramatically over the past few decades, with it now being rare for one to remain with one company or even in one occupation for a lifetime. Education? Hardly, because if we are to believe the numbers put forth by some, the high school drop out rate is astoundingly high. Is it where we reside? Possibly, because there is so much beauty in so many regions of the country, though I find it hard to declare beauty in the noise and congestion of the urban valleys of New York City. Music? Can't dispute that music is singularly evocative, with such a rich variety that appeals to folks world wide. Sports? Here we must delineate between participant and spectator. Still, there are countless sports in which interest is held.
After serious reflection over the morning's first cup of coffee, what is best in our lives aren't material possessions; aren't the accomplishments of a career; isn't education; isn't where we live; and even isn't music or sports.
What is best in our lives are the people with whom we share it.
Beginning with family, extending to friends, expanding to co-workers, and rounding out with those with whom we come into contact, once or occasionally, people are what make our lives and give them meaning. People provide the exceptionally positive, generate the smiles, create the cause for laughter, and provide the context within which these emotions exist. People also provide the basis for the emotional pain that is also part of life. The first broken heart. The social overture rejected. Assumed friendship betrayed. Jilted lovers. Divorce. Horrible boss. Annoying neighbor. Rude individuals. Death of a spouse. As with the positive, people are the sources of the most emotional negatives in our loves as well.
Thankfully, for the majority of us, people provide for far more happiness than pain and aggravation.
So, as we maneuver our way through life, whatever the path we choose, whatever turn we take (expectedly or unintentionally), relish the human part of the experience. Find the opening for the positive, even if it is only to express thank-you or to share a smile. Whether naturally extroverted or introverted, redneck or urban dweller, young or old, athletic participant or spectator, manager or employee, I urge that you value the human interaction, seek the good in it, accept that pain may come, but always look for the positive.
It is in that positive that you will find the best in your life.
It certainly are not the things we accumulate, use, and dispose of with amazing regularity. (Thank you to the consumer driven advertising prevalent across the nation.) Can it be the accomplishments of a career? Hard to say, because the definition of career has changed so dramatically over the past few decades, with it now being rare for one to remain with one company or even in one occupation for a lifetime. Education? Hardly, because if we are to believe the numbers put forth by some, the high school drop out rate is astoundingly high. Is it where we reside? Possibly, because there is so much beauty in so many regions of the country, though I find it hard to declare beauty in the noise and congestion of the urban valleys of New York City. Music? Can't dispute that music is singularly evocative, with such a rich variety that appeals to folks world wide. Sports? Here we must delineate between participant and spectator. Still, there are countless sports in which interest is held.
After serious reflection over the morning's first cup of coffee, what is best in our lives aren't material possessions; aren't the accomplishments of a career; isn't education; isn't where we live; and even isn't music or sports.
What is best in our lives are the people with whom we share it.
Beginning with family, extending to friends, expanding to co-workers, and rounding out with those with whom we come into contact, once or occasionally, people are what make our lives and give them meaning. People provide the exceptionally positive, generate the smiles, create the cause for laughter, and provide the context within which these emotions exist. People also provide the basis for the emotional pain that is also part of life. The first broken heart. The social overture rejected. Assumed friendship betrayed. Jilted lovers. Divorce. Horrible boss. Annoying neighbor. Rude individuals. Death of a spouse. As with the positive, people are the sources of the most emotional negatives in our loves as well.
Thankfully, for the majority of us, people provide for far more happiness than pain and aggravation.
So, as we maneuver our way through life, whatever the path we choose, whatever turn we take (expectedly or unintentionally), relish the human part of the experience. Find the opening for the positive, even if it is only to express thank-you or to share a smile. Whether naturally extroverted or introverted, redneck or urban dweller, young or old, athletic participant or spectator, manager or employee, I urge that you value the human interaction, seek the good in it, accept that pain may come, but always look for the positive.
It is in that positive that you will find the best in your life.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Saying "thanks"
When is the last time you made the effort to recognize the good work of someone else? If you haven't, you should.
We are having some work done at the house, by a family owned contracting business. Yesterday, as I have done every day, I stepped out to ask them how everything was going. Steve, the owner's son who is leading the crew, said all was on track. I took a moment to thank him for the good work he and the crew were doing. In making the comment, it wan't simply gratuitous. It was sincere. It wasn't simply "keep up the good work," it was a personalized statement, citing a specific example of their good work. He stopped, turned, smiled, and thanked me. The whole exchange didn't take but a minute or so.
I hear all too often stories from folks who report having "fired someone up," because they had made a mistake or not delivered good service, the right product, or whatever. But I seldom hear examples about having told someone they did a good job, let alone went above and beyond. By the way, most often I hear about or see folks publicly berating someone, but rarely offering praise. Early in my training as a Marine, I learned "praise in public, criticize in private."
Certainly, as some might respond, there is a valid expectation of good service. Isn't that what is being paid for, after all? Can't really argue with the premise, but if it is offered as justification for not recognizing someone's good work, then the reader is missing the point. The point is to acknowledge when someone has done a good job.
It doesn't take a lot of time. It shouldn't be insincere. It can make both you and the person you recognize feel good. I like bringing a smile to someone's face.
As we rush through our worlds, the tendency is to become insular, interacting as little as possible with others. The advent of email, cell-phones, texting, Tweeting, and the like feeds this tendency. Our cars have also become havens, into which we retreat at the end of the work day, to drive home as quickly as traffic enables, then pull into our garages, only to close the door behind us. It reminds me of one neighborhood in which we lived in southern California, in which exactly that scenario was repeated week end, week out. There were neighbors on the street I'd literally never seen. I knew which cars went into which garages, but had no idea about the people driving them. Where we currently live, I know and speak with the neighbors. Many a Saturday morning has been spent shooting the bull with the guy across the street, standing in his drive way or ours.
What does this have to do with saying "thanks?" I see it as another example of the lessening of human interaction that our society actually pursues. rather than one-on-one, meaningful conversations, we're expected to pump out 140 character long Tweets or plop down words for all to read via Facebook. It's no wonder people do not take the time to say "thanks." Meaningful communication is rapidly disappearing. It is going the way of cursive handwriting, eloquent speech, articulate expression, and language skills.
I, for one, will continue to say "thanks" when the situation warrants it.
We are having some work done at the house, by a family owned contracting business. Yesterday, as I have done every day, I stepped out to ask them how everything was going. Steve, the owner's son who is leading the crew, said all was on track. I took a moment to thank him for the good work he and the crew were doing. In making the comment, it wan't simply gratuitous. It was sincere. It wasn't simply "keep up the good work," it was a personalized statement, citing a specific example of their good work. He stopped, turned, smiled, and thanked me. The whole exchange didn't take but a minute or so.
I hear all too often stories from folks who report having "fired someone up," because they had made a mistake or not delivered good service, the right product, or whatever. But I seldom hear examples about having told someone they did a good job, let alone went above and beyond. By the way, most often I hear about or see folks publicly berating someone, but rarely offering praise. Early in my training as a Marine, I learned "praise in public, criticize in private."
Certainly, as some might respond, there is a valid expectation of good service. Isn't that what is being paid for, after all? Can't really argue with the premise, but if it is offered as justification for not recognizing someone's good work, then the reader is missing the point. The point is to acknowledge when someone has done a good job.
It doesn't take a lot of time. It shouldn't be insincere. It can make both you and the person you recognize feel good. I like bringing a smile to someone's face.
As we rush through our worlds, the tendency is to become insular, interacting as little as possible with others. The advent of email, cell-phones, texting, Tweeting, and the like feeds this tendency. Our cars have also become havens, into which we retreat at the end of the work day, to drive home as quickly as traffic enables, then pull into our garages, only to close the door behind us. It reminds me of one neighborhood in which we lived in southern California, in which exactly that scenario was repeated week end, week out. There were neighbors on the street I'd literally never seen. I knew which cars went into which garages, but had no idea about the people driving them. Where we currently live, I know and speak with the neighbors. Many a Saturday morning has been spent shooting the bull with the guy across the street, standing in his drive way or ours.
What does this have to do with saying "thanks?" I see it as another example of the lessening of human interaction that our society actually pursues. rather than one-on-one, meaningful conversations, we're expected to pump out 140 character long Tweets or plop down words for all to read via Facebook. It's no wonder people do not take the time to say "thanks." Meaningful communication is rapidly disappearing. It is going the way of cursive handwriting, eloquent speech, articulate expression, and language skills.
I, for one, will continue to say "thanks" when the situation warrants it.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Again, violence grabs the nation's attention
The bombings during he Boston Marathon, plus the hunt for the perpetrators, grabs the nation's headlines and attention. Again, violence our attention.
Sitting safely, it is easy to throw out comments. So I will.
Too many of the progressive liberals forget, or do not want to acknowledge, that there is evil in the world. That evil all too often manifests itself in violent, horrible ways. Whether the shooter at Virgina Tech, the mentally deranged kill in Newtown, the jihadists at World Trade Center, or the local killer, rapist, or child abuser. There is evil in the world and all the platitudes by POTUS and the progressive liberals will not change that fact.
Legislators and pundits cannot stop evil, only determined men and women, willing to lay down their lives, are able to combat evil. The police in Boston, the Marines in Fallujah, the soldiers in Bagdag, the SEALS in Afghanistan, or the police across the nation. These are the men and women who tackle evil. All the politicians and pundits, stacked together, can't compare to a single iota of the men and women of law enforcement and the the Armed Forces, who stand ready, every single day, to lay in on the line.
AS the nation comes to grips with this latest assault, I hope and encourage fellow citizens to remember that evil doesn't play by the rules. Evil doesn't care about the progressive liberals whining views of the world. Evil is willing to take your life, the life of your wife, the lives of your children, the lives of your neighbors. The lives of people you've never met.
All the feel good rhetoric means nothing to those who are evil. Only force and the willingness to use it can counter it.
Thank God for our police and Armed Forces.
As violence again grabs the nation's attention, we have protectors willing to stand between us and those who would do evil.
Sitting safely, it is easy to throw out comments. So I will.
Too many of the progressive liberals forget, or do not want to acknowledge, that there is evil in the world. That evil all too often manifests itself in violent, horrible ways. Whether the shooter at Virgina Tech, the mentally deranged kill in Newtown, the jihadists at World Trade Center, or the local killer, rapist, or child abuser. There is evil in the world and all the platitudes by POTUS and the progressive liberals will not change that fact.
Legislators and pundits cannot stop evil, only determined men and women, willing to lay down their lives, are able to combat evil. The police in Boston, the Marines in Fallujah, the soldiers in Bagdag, the SEALS in Afghanistan, or the police across the nation. These are the men and women who tackle evil. All the politicians and pundits, stacked together, can't compare to a single iota of the men and women of law enforcement and the the Armed Forces, who stand ready, every single day, to lay in on the line.
AS the nation comes to grips with this latest assault, I hope and encourage fellow citizens to remember that evil doesn't play by the rules. Evil doesn't care about the progressive liberals whining views of the world. Evil is willing to take your life, the life of your wife, the lives of your children, the lives of your neighbors. The lives of people you've never met.
All the feel good rhetoric means nothing to those who are evil. Only force and the willingness to use it can counter it.
Thank God for our police and Armed Forces.
As violence again grabs the nation's attention, we have protectors willing to stand between us and those who would do evil.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
More on education
A while back I wrote about the so-called educator who cancelled celebrating high academic achievement at his middle school, because the students who tried for good grades and did not get them would be "devastated." As reported, "A Massachusetts principal has been criticized for canceling his school's Honors Night, saying it could be 'devastating' to the students who worked hard, but fell short of the grades."
Now we learn about rampant grade inflation in universities. https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/344660/higher-education-revalued
In the article, the author writes, "A half-century of grade inflation has been demonstrated repeatedly by national studies. Today, an A is the most common grade given in college — 43 percent of all grades, as opposed to 15 percent in the 1960s, according to Stuart Rojstaczer, formerly of Duke, and Christopher Healy, of Furman, who conducted a 50-year survey of grading. Arthur Levine, president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, has also studied the trajectory of college grades. He finds that in 1969, 7 percent of two- and four-year college students said their GPA was an A-minus or higher; by 2009, 41 percent of students did."
Adding the two reports together provides for an alarming sum. Recognizing achievement is yielding to rewarding attempts. Wanting is replacing attaining.
If these two stories characterize the state of education in our country, we are in very serious straits indeed. Our children spend more waking hours being influenced by teachers than they do by their parents. At the most formative times in their lives, they are exposed to subtle but dramatic influences. If education wants to make everyone feel good by lowering the standards, the natural, instinctive competitiveness we are born with is dampened. Through the years of exposure to this approach, in school and on the sports fields and courts around the country, our children and grand children are being taught the wrong lessons for life.
I fear that recent college graduate, who is one of the 43% to receive grades of A, departs schooling believing he/she is exceptional, as the grades received should convey. However, it is possible he/she is merely average. When the average individual faces the real world, competing with those who have proven themselves to actually be exceptional by their work, it won't be a pretty picture. Self-esteem crumbles. Work productivity, assuming they can secure a employment, suffers and they risk lost of the job. So begins a downwards spiral. They have been rewarded for merely wanting to achieve, not attaining. Attempts have been recognized, rather than achievement. Hell, I WANT to play professional baseball, but at 62 years of age, that isn't going to happen. Shouldn't a major league team give me a lucrative contract, simply because I want it? When failing to hit a 98 MPH fastball, shouldn't I be rewarded with a "he tried his best" bonus? Of course not. In the real world, achievement counts. Certainly we look for effort on behalf of our employees, but ultimately established goals must be attained. More over, some in the work force are average, some below average, some superior, some above average. But no way are 43% superior.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with being average. At the ceremony marking my retirement from the Marine Corps, I stated I made only one claim, that I was an average Marine. I met all the standards and requirements placed before me, excelling in a few. Average men and women built this country and made it great. Average men won the wars in which we fought. Average men and women share common values of hard work and ethics. The "average Joe (or Jane)," as the saying goes, is the most important individual in the country.
So, as I sit, sipping a morning cup of coffee, I'm angry at the progressive liberals in education. They are, from the cited stories, teaching the wrong lessons and encouraging the wrong behavior. It is time to shake up public education and inject some conservative values. Over a couple of generations, the hippies of the 60s have become the college presidents, senior teachers, professors, and those who control the teaching and training of the future generations of teachers. Like many, I believe public education is severely flawed and requires the average Joe and Jane to demand it be fixed.
Now we learn about rampant grade inflation in universities. https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/344660/higher-education-revalued
In the article, the author writes, "A half-century of grade inflation has been demonstrated repeatedly by national studies. Today, an A is the most common grade given in college — 43 percent of all grades, as opposed to 15 percent in the 1960s, according to Stuart Rojstaczer, formerly of Duke, and Christopher Healy, of Furman, who conducted a 50-year survey of grading. Arthur Levine, president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, has also studied the trajectory of college grades. He finds that in 1969, 7 percent of two- and four-year college students said their GPA was an A-minus or higher; by 2009, 41 percent of students did."
Adding the two reports together provides for an alarming sum. Recognizing achievement is yielding to rewarding attempts. Wanting is replacing attaining.
If these two stories characterize the state of education in our country, we are in very serious straits indeed. Our children spend more waking hours being influenced by teachers than they do by their parents. At the most formative times in their lives, they are exposed to subtle but dramatic influences. If education wants to make everyone feel good by lowering the standards, the natural, instinctive competitiveness we are born with is dampened. Through the years of exposure to this approach, in school and on the sports fields and courts around the country, our children and grand children are being taught the wrong lessons for life.
I fear that recent college graduate, who is one of the 43% to receive grades of A, departs schooling believing he/she is exceptional, as the grades received should convey. However, it is possible he/she is merely average. When the average individual faces the real world, competing with those who have proven themselves to actually be exceptional by their work, it won't be a pretty picture. Self-esteem crumbles. Work productivity, assuming they can secure a employment, suffers and they risk lost of the job. So begins a downwards spiral. They have been rewarded for merely wanting to achieve, not attaining. Attempts have been recognized, rather than achievement. Hell, I WANT to play professional baseball, but at 62 years of age, that isn't going to happen. Shouldn't a major league team give me a lucrative contract, simply because I want it? When failing to hit a 98 MPH fastball, shouldn't I be rewarded with a "he tried his best" bonus? Of course not. In the real world, achievement counts. Certainly we look for effort on behalf of our employees, but ultimately established goals must be attained. More over, some in the work force are average, some below average, some superior, some above average. But no way are 43% superior.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with being average. At the ceremony marking my retirement from the Marine Corps, I stated I made only one claim, that I was an average Marine. I met all the standards and requirements placed before me, excelling in a few. Average men and women built this country and made it great. Average men won the wars in which we fought. Average men and women share common values of hard work and ethics. The "average Joe (or Jane)," as the saying goes, is the most important individual in the country.
So, as I sit, sipping a morning cup of coffee, I'm angry at the progressive liberals in education. They are, from the cited stories, teaching the wrong lessons and encouraging the wrong behavior. It is time to shake up public education and inject some conservative values. Over a couple of generations, the hippies of the 60s have become the college presidents, senior teachers, professors, and those who control the teaching and training of the future generations of teachers. Like many, I believe public education is severely flawed and requires the average Joe and Jane to demand it be fixed.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Nothing like a truck
There is really nothing like a pick up truck. A new pick up truck brought out the guys in the neighborhood.
You might have guessed it, but we got a new pick-up truck yesterday. This morning, as I was trying to get my cell phone to synch with the truck's system, neighbors (all male) walked up and we started talking. "Great looking truck." "Can it tow?" "What's the mileage?" "Did you get a good deal?" Spring boarding from these questions, we talked about all manner of things male.
There's nothing like a truck.
The testosterone was flowing in earnest.
Sports, off-roading, politics, fishing, sports (again), etc. Guy talk. It was like a magnet had drawn us together to bond in the quintessentially male way. If a cave had been nearby, we surely would have started a fire, squatted down, cooked something over an open spit, and broke out a beer or two. Well, maybe not the beer at 0730. Perhaps a tall mug of coffee. But you get the idea.
There's nothing like a truck.
I can't think of any other American symbol so iconic to the male sector of society and history. A truck brings to mind images of cowboys, farmers, and ranchers. Male characters all. When on active duty in the Marine Corps, more of my young Marines owned pick-up trucks than any other type of vehicle. Even in this semi-suburban area in which we live, in southern California no less, the image the pick-up creates is overwhelmingly male. Dang. I even remarked that I feel far more manly after selling my sports car and getting the truck. Riding along, listening to country music, my red neck roots showing. Hard working. Levi blue jeans and a ball cap. Dedicated to family, faith, and country. The American flag. A Marine Corps decal in the back window.
There's nothing like a truck.
A lot of country music songs are either about or include reference to the pick-up truck. Even many of those written and sung by female artists.
There's nothing like a truck.
So, as I wash and wax the truck, I'll revel in it's unique place in American history and society. It's place is iconic, representing values and beliefs I hold as crucial. In a way, having a truck makes a statement I enjoy communicating to those around me.
(Foot note: I got a Ford truck, in large part because Ford Motor Company didn't take money from the Federal government, as did Chevrolet and Chrysler (maker of Dode Ram pick-up). GM stock went down and Chrysler didn't pay back all of the "loan." Ford business is booming, their products are more than competitive, and its decisions are supportable.)
You might have guessed it, but we got a new pick-up truck yesterday. This morning, as I was trying to get my cell phone to synch with the truck's system, neighbors (all male) walked up and we started talking. "Great looking truck." "Can it tow?" "What's the mileage?" "Did you get a good deal?" Spring boarding from these questions, we talked about all manner of things male.
There's nothing like a truck.
The testosterone was flowing in earnest.
Sports, off-roading, politics, fishing, sports (again), etc. Guy talk. It was like a magnet had drawn us together to bond in the quintessentially male way. If a cave had been nearby, we surely would have started a fire, squatted down, cooked something over an open spit, and broke out a beer or two. Well, maybe not the beer at 0730. Perhaps a tall mug of coffee. But you get the idea.
There's nothing like a truck.
I can't think of any other American symbol so iconic to the male sector of society and history. A truck brings to mind images of cowboys, farmers, and ranchers. Male characters all. When on active duty in the Marine Corps, more of my young Marines owned pick-up trucks than any other type of vehicle. Even in this semi-suburban area in which we live, in southern California no less, the image the pick-up creates is overwhelmingly male. Dang. I even remarked that I feel far more manly after selling my sports car and getting the truck. Riding along, listening to country music, my red neck roots showing. Hard working. Levi blue jeans and a ball cap. Dedicated to family, faith, and country. The American flag. A Marine Corps decal in the back window.
There's nothing like a truck.
A lot of country music songs are either about or include reference to the pick-up truck. Even many of those written and sung by female artists.
There's nothing like a truck.
So, as I wash and wax the truck, I'll revel in it's unique place in American history and society. It's place is iconic, representing values and beliefs I hold as crucial. In a way, having a truck makes a statement I enjoy communicating to those around me.
(Foot note: I got a Ford truck, in large part because Ford Motor Company didn't take money from the Federal government, as did Chevrolet and Chrysler (maker of Dode Ram pick-up). GM stock went down and Chrysler didn't pay back all of the "loan." Ford business is booming, their products are more than competitive, and its decisions are supportable.)
What's truly important
Were we to believe those who have the loudest and most comprehensive (at least as measured by the numbers of people they can reach) public megaphones, all sorts of things are terribly important. From the left and right sides of the political spectrum, the fringe groups aligned with either or neither, the honest and dishonest, the analytical and asinine, the believers and non-believers, the young and the old, the wealthy and the poor, the elected officials and unelectable, the whites and the blacks, the politically astute and politically corrupt, male and female, and all other manner of groupings, we are bombarded with innumerable, impassioned declarations about what is absolutely critical and important. That which we must, we are told and urged to hold above all else, accept as critically important as they would have us believe.
Why? Can't we, as free thinking individuals, agree on what is truly important? Do we really need someone to tell us what is important? Some don't actually tell, which conveys informing, but rather demand that we accept their definitions.
I offer that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a darn good place to start. Life: a healthy body free of injury and illness is important. By extension, the importance it extends to our loved ones. Liberty: the freedom to do as we choose, without intrusive government or other limitations. The ability to chart the paths our lives will take, according to our beliefs, values, abilities, and desires. As long as we don't infringe on others. Liberty within a nation and society that celebrate the individual, while providing reasonable support for the common good. Pursuit of happiness: seek out that which make us happy. Not happy as someone else would dictate, but happy as we define it. For example, I like to be with my family and friends, hold my wife, run, play tennis, ride a Harley, read, play with my grandchildren, reap the benefits of my own hard work, write, listen to country music, and wear Levi jeans and a ball cap. I also respect the rights of others to pursue what makes them happy.
My pursuit of happiness doesn't infringe on those who don't care for any of the activities listed above. Similarly, their pursuit of happiness shouldn't infringe upon me. I don't want to hear their hip hop/rap music booming from their cars in my neighborhood, just as I'm sure they don't want to hear the Zac Brown Band playing in theirs. I don't want or need a government to dictate a definition of happiness, anymore than it should allow others to reap the benefits of my hard work.
I don't need someone trying to dictate personal values and beliefs. Having stated this, I do, however, believe there are shared societal values and beliefs in the American culture. Some are readily apparent to the overwhelming majority of us. For example, raising, protecting, and nurturing our children. (In spite of MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry's bizzare statement that "part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.") It is true that many of the societal values and beliefs are under an all out assault by the liberal progressives. That assault, however, doesn't mean the values and beliefs are any less real today than they were years ago. The only real phenomenon is that the communications media has changed dramatically over the years, allowing those with the most comprehensive public megaphones to spread, broadcast, and insert their messages over wide sections of the populace.
For example, though the people of California overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage (Proposition 8), the progressive liberals have the use of comprehensive public megaphones to intone that it is a civil right. They seek to force values and beliefs on the majority of the remainder of the nation. All the loud noise they create doesn't change the fact that overwhelming majority of voters reject it.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All within the bounds of societal values and beliefs, most of which are codified in our Constitutional rights and other laws. (By the way, I'm compelled to cite that no where in the Constitution does it state separation of church and state. No where in the Constitution does it say I can't worship as a Christian. No where in the Constitution does it state homosexuals can marry.)
Regardless, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not the expense of or infringing upon others) are what is truly important.
Why? Can't we, as free thinking individuals, agree on what is truly important? Do we really need someone to tell us what is important? Some don't actually tell, which conveys informing, but rather demand that we accept their definitions.
I offer that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a darn good place to start. Life: a healthy body free of injury and illness is important. By extension, the importance it extends to our loved ones. Liberty: the freedom to do as we choose, without intrusive government or other limitations. The ability to chart the paths our lives will take, according to our beliefs, values, abilities, and desires. As long as we don't infringe on others. Liberty within a nation and society that celebrate the individual, while providing reasonable support for the common good. Pursuit of happiness: seek out that which make us happy. Not happy as someone else would dictate, but happy as we define it. For example, I like to be with my family and friends, hold my wife, run, play tennis, ride a Harley, read, play with my grandchildren, reap the benefits of my own hard work, write, listen to country music, and wear Levi jeans and a ball cap. I also respect the rights of others to pursue what makes them happy.
My pursuit of happiness doesn't infringe on those who don't care for any of the activities listed above. Similarly, their pursuit of happiness shouldn't infringe upon me. I don't want to hear their hip hop/rap music booming from their cars in my neighborhood, just as I'm sure they don't want to hear the Zac Brown Band playing in theirs. I don't want or need a government to dictate a definition of happiness, anymore than it should allow others to reap the benefits of my hard work.
I don't need someone trying to dictate personal values and beliefs. Having stated this, I do, however, believe there are shared societal values and beliefs in the American culture. Some are readily apparent to the overwhelming majority of us. For example, raising, protecting, and nurturing our children. (In spite of MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry's bizzare statement that "part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.") It is true that many of the societal values and beliefs are under an all out assault by the liberal progressives. That assault, however, doesn't mean the values and beliefs are any less real today than they were years ago. The only real phenomenon is that the communications media has changed dramatically over the years, allowing those with the most comprehensive public megaphones to spread, broadcast, and insert their messages over wide sections of the populace.
For example, though the people of California overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage (Proposition 8), the progressive liberals have the use of comprehensive public megaphones to intone that it is a civil right. They seek to force values and beliefs on the majority of the remainder of the nation. All the loud noise they create doesn't change the fact that overwhelming majority of voters reject it.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All within the bounds of societal values and beliefs, most of which are codified in our Constitutional rights and other laws. (By the way, I'm compelled to cite that no where in the Constitution does it state separation of church and state. No where in the Constitution does it say I can't worship as a Christian. No where in the Constitution does it state homosexuals can marry.)
Regardless, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not the expense of or infringing upon others) are what is truly important.
Monday, April 8, 2013
America needs a Margaret Thatcher
The world is a better place for having experienced England's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
We in America desperately need a Margaret Thatcher. We need a strong leader like her, because our problems require a person of character to resolve them.
When she was elected Prime Minister, we'd been living in England for two years. The grip "labour" (organized labor AKA unions) had on the country was horrible, as illustrated by the mass transit and other strikes. Socialist policies did not encourage young men and women to seek either education or employment. In fact, it actually encouraged them to go on the dole. The giveaways were astounding. Government funded housing, called council housing, proliferated and were the petri dishes in which violence, sloth, and football (soccer) hooliganism bred. It was not a pleasant time to be in England. Then she was elected Prime Minister.
As George Will notes, "When she left office in 1990, the trade unions had been tamed by democratizing them, the political argument was about how to achieve economic growth rather than redistribute wealth, and individualism and nationalism were revitalized."
Does his description of Thatcher's achievements sound appealing? Certainly does to me. Most likely because the same type of issues are upon us.
Somewhere in our great nation, there must be a Margaret Thatcher who can rise to lead the nation back to its greatness and away from the socialist agenda of the current progressive liberals.
We in America desperately need a Margaret Thatcher. We need a strong leader like her, because our problems require a person of character to resolve them.
When she was elected Prime Minister, we'd been living in England for two years. The grip "labour" (organized labor AKA unions) had on the country was horrible, as illustrated by the mass transit and other strikes. Socialist policies did not encourage young men and women to seek either education or employment. In fact, it actually encouraged them to go on the dole. The giveaways were astounding. Government funded housing, called council housing, proliferated and were the petri dishes in which violence, sloth, and football (soccer) hooliganism bred. It was not a pleasant time to be in England. Then she was elected Prime Minister.
As George Will notes, "When she left office in 1990, the trade unions had been tamed by democratizing them, the political argument was about how to achieve economic growth rather than redistribute wealth, and individualism and nationalism were revitalized."
Does his description of Thatcher's achievements sound appealing? Certainly does to me. Most likely because the same type of issues are upon us.
Somewhere in our great nation, there must be a Margaret Thatcher who can rise to lead the nation back to its greatness and away from the socialist agenda of the current progressive liberals.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Look for the humor in life and be the better for it
Look for the humor in life and be the better for it.
As stated in earlier posts, it san certainly be challenging to find the positive in today's world. We are constantly targeted by the negative. The liberal progressives condemn the expression Christian beliefs, while holding said condemnation as sacrosanct under our uniquely American free speech doctrine. University campuses extol "diversity," though of a non-inclusionary form excluding conservative or Christian views. Gay marriage is touted as a civil liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Federal spending is out of control. The liar-in-chief is viewed as the presumptive lock for the 2016 Presidential election just over three months from the swearing in ceremony from the last Presidential election. Soon after the new Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State (both of very questionable capabilities) are sworn in, the DPRK (also known as North Korea) begins its most aggressive campaign in decades. And POTUS, FLOTUS, and VPOTUS rack up millions in taxpayer funded costs for vacation and other travel.
Egad, it is hard to find the positive in today's world.
But the humor is there, if only we look for it, create it, and revel in it.
For example. The other day I walked up to the counter to pay for something at my local Harley Davidson dealership. The two young ladies working the counter were talking and one said, "He's such a cute guy." I loudly stated, "Thank you." All three of us then shared a laugh. It wasn't hard. In fact, it was made all the funnier by the spontaneity. Another example. While on the tennis court today, my Marine buddy called across, "Do you have two ball?" Though he was referring to tennis balls, I did yank his chain a bit. (OK, some may not think that is appropriate humor. But for two old Marines, it certainly was.)
Opportunities for humor exist all around us. Some will merely bring a smile to our face. Others will result in a guffaw. And some will make us laugh out loud.
How sad when our fellow Americans don't take the time to seek out the humor, or create it, or merely enjoy it when encountered.
I fear folks listen way too much to the politicians, self appointed newscasters, and others who deliberately seek out to tell us everything that is wrong with the world, including what is wrong with us. This negativity dampens the human spirit. It runs counter to the pursuit of happiness. In most cases, it just isn't necessary.
Sure, there are serious issues in front of all of us. But why let concern for them fester and prevent laughter?
Look for the humor in life and be the better for it.
As stated in earlier posts, it san certainly be challenging to find the positive in today's world. We are constantly targeted by the negative. The liberal progressives condemn the expression Christian beliefs, while holding said condemnation as sacrosanct under our uniquely American free speech doctrine. University campuses extol "diversity," though of a non-inclusionary form excluding conservative or Christian views. Gay marriage is touted as a civil liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Federal spending is out of control. The liar-in-chief is viewed as the presumptive lock for the 2016 Presidential election just over three months from the swearing in ceremony from the last Presidential election. Soon after the new Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State (both of very questionable capabilities) are sworn in, the DPRK (also known as North Korea) begins its most aggressive campaign in decades. And POTUS, FLOTUS, and VPOTUS rack up millions in taxpayer funded costs for vacation and other travel.
Egad, it is hard to find the positive in today's world.
But the humor is there, if only we look for it, create it, and revel in it.
For example. The other day I walked up to the counter to pay for something at my local Harley Davidson dealership. The two young ladies working the counter were talking and one said, "He's such a cute guy." I loudly stated, "Thank you." All three of us then shared a laugh. It wasn't hard. In fact, it was made all the funnier by the spontaneity. Another example. While on the tennis court today, my Marine buddy called across, "Do you have two ball?" Though he was referring to tennis balls, I did yank his chain a bit. (OK, some may not think that is appropriate humor. But for two old Marines, it certainly was.)
Opportunities for humor exist all around us. Some will merely bring a smile to our face. Others will result in a guffaw. And some will make us laugh out loud.
How sad when our fellow Americans don't take the time to seek out the humor, or create it, or merely enjoy it when encountered.
I fear folks listen way too much to the politicians, self appointed newscasters, and others who deliberately seek out to tell us everything that is wrong with the world, including what is wrong with us. This negativity dampens the human spirit. It runs counter to the pursuit of happiness. In most cases, it just isn't necessary.
Sure, there are serious issues in front of all of us. But why let concern for them fester and prevent laughter?
Look for the humor in life and be the better for it.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Patriotism is timeless
Professional baseball, referred to as America's pastime, has started a new season. For me, one of the best parts of attending a game is the playing of the National Anthem. Thanks to a change in federal law, as a veteran and retired Marine, I can now stand, assume the position of ATTENTION, and salute, just as I did while in uniform. Even as a gray beard in his 60s, it is a source of pride and cause for goose pimples, because patriotism is timeless.
And one of Major League Baseball's Top 100 Plays illustrates it perfectly. Watch what ball player Rick Monday does as two miscreants attempt to burn an American flag. http://agencypages.net/AgencyPages/11-52/
Rick Monday's actions on that beautiful afternoon at the ball park sum it up quite clearly. His comments in the film clip vocalize it quite clearly. "It was wrong then. It is wrong now."
If memory serves, between then and now some court somewhere declared burning the American flag is permissible. Something about free speech. Well, it's not permissible in the eyes of this gray beard, this retired Marine. And it never will be. Patriotism is timeless.
I took my oath of office, facing the flag and ending with, "So help me God." I marched behind the flag in parades. In the offices I held as Commanding Officer, I was entrusted with the care of the command's battle colors and the American flag. At funerals for my fellow Marines, such as Doc (see earlier blog), and my father (a World War II Army grunt) the caskets were covered with the flag and the widow or parents were presented an American flag as a symbolic statement of honor for the deceased. As an American flag was raised above Mount Surabachi on Iwo Jima, Joe Rosenthal took what is the most famous combat photograph in the world. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines wear the American flag on their combat uniforms. I wear an American flag patch on my motorcycle vest/jacket, as do the vast majority of bikers I know.
The flag is the symbol of our nation. Hell, even our enemies recognize this, as their burn the flags or replicas of them when protesting our nation.
But some court and many liberals see nothing wrong with desecrating the flag, burning it, flying the Mexican flag above it, and otherwise acting as though it is meaningless. The liberals celebrate some court's decision that students in public schools don't have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They complained mightily when some of our troops inappropriately, mistakenly, and wrongly burned copies of the Koran. But the hypocritical liberals don't complain when someone burns, defaces, or desecrates our flag.
I have a suggestion for them. View the above video. Watch one man's action. Listen to the story of those in attendance spontaneously singing "God Bless America." If that doesn't stir your patriotism, I have a simple solution.
Leave.
If you don't love our country, you are free to depart. If you aren't willing to stand up against those who would defile, burn, or desecrate the flag, then leave. No one is holding you here against your will. Act as a responsible citizen or depart. You can't have it both ways. You can't demand to enjoy the privileges of citizenship without assuming its associated responsibilities.
Patriotism is timeless. If you aren't a patriot, then you need to leave.
And one of Major League Baseball's Top 100 Plays illustrates it perfectly. Watch what ball player Rick Monday does as two miscreants attempt to burn an American flag. http://agencypages.net/AgencyPages/11-52/
Rick Monday's actions on that beautiful afternoon at the ball park sum it up quite clearly. His comments in the film clip vocalize it quite clearly. "It was wrong then. It is wrong now."
If memory serves, between then and now some court somewhere declared burning the American flag is permissible. Something about free speech. Well, it's not permissible in the eyes of this gray beard, this retired Marine. And it never will be. Patriotism is timeless.
I took my oath of office, facing the flag and ending with, "So help me God." I marched behind the flag in parades. In the offices I held as Commanding Officer, I was entrusted with the care of the command's battle colors and the American flag. At funerals for my fellow Marines, such as Doc (see earlier blog), and my father (a World War II Army grunt) the caskets were covered with the flag and the widow or parents were presented an American flag as a symbolic statement of honor for the deceased. As an American flag was raised above Mount Surabachi on Iwo Jima, Joe Rosenthal took what is the most famous combat photograph in the world. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines wear the American flag on their combat uniforms. I wear an American flag patch on my motorcycle vest/jacket, as do the vast majority of bikers I know.
The flag is the symbol of our nation. Hell, even our enemies recognize this, as their burn the flags or replicas of them when protesting our nation.
But some court and many liberals see nothing wrong with desecrating the flag, burning it, flying the Mexican flag above it, and otherwise acting as though it is meaningless. The liberals celebrate some court's decision that students in public schools don't have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They complained mightily when some of our troops inappropriately, mistakenly, and wrongly burned copies of the Koran. But the hypocritical liberals don't complain when someone burns, defaces, or desecrates our flag.
I have a suggestion for them. View the above video. Watch one man's action. Listen to the story of those in attendance spontaneously singing "God Bless America." If that doesn't stir your patriotism, I have a simple solution.
Leave.
If you don't love our country, you are free to depart. If you aren't willing to stand up against those who would defile, burn, or desecrate the flag, then leave. No one is holding you here against your will. Act as a responsible citizen or depart. You can't have it both ways. You can't demand to enjoy the privileges of citizenship without assuming its associated responsibilities.
Patriotism is timeless. If you aren't a patriot, then you need to leave.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
"Members of the military must learn to connect with American civilians"
Members of the military must learn to connect with American civilians
"We need to better understand the American people and the leaders they elect, to build relationships with those outside our Spartan lives." Rear Admiral John F. Kirby (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/veterans-must-learn-to-connect-with-american-civilians/2013/03/27/d328430e-84f4-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html)
The subject line comes from a Washington Post piece attributed to a speech Rear Admiral Kirby recently gave. Certainly a central theme, as he articulates below, has value:
"We haven’t been neglected or forgotten. American civilians are simply confronted by problems other than war, problems we might have difficulty understanding from the relative permanence of our profession. They are not losing life and limb on the battlefield, but they are losing their jobs, their homes, their livelihoods. They can be forgiven for being distracted and even a little tired of war."
Our society has learned a lesson from the Viet Nam era, during which the public disillusion with the decisions leading to engagement in war was inappropriately focused on the individual soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine. Our servicemen and -women had no say as they performed their duty, yet were vilified and subjected to grossly repugnant treatment. During the war on terror, society has learned that it's disagreement with national policy should be focused on the senior decision makers and elected officials, not those in uniform. So, in this context, Rear Admiral Kirby makes a valid point. I've seen first hand the support provided by the public, particularly to those wounded in combat and the families "back here" when their serviceman or -woman was deployed, often multiple times, to one of the combat zones. We've all seen community and individuals expressions of pride and support, whether it be in an airport, at the ballpark, or elsewhere across our nation. Simply put, we did a better job of recognizing and honoring the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families.
But, with all due respect to Rear Admiral Kirby, some of his comments in the above article are misguided.
"We hold ourselves to higher standards of conduct. We tell ourselves that not everyone is good enough to join us. All this is true. But it’s foolish to believe we are better than the society we protect."
The military, by its nature, must be dedicated to, believe in, and behave at levels above that of our general society. We can not lower ourselves to the prevailing levels of loose morals, ethical relativism, lacking integrity, dishonesty, absence of responsibility, or self-centered pursuit. When dealing literally with life and death matters in defending our nation, only the highest of values can be accepted from those who wear the cloth of our nation's uniforms.
The author suggests reaching out to and entering into discussion with elected officials, as part of thanking and educating them. True. But in doing so, keep in mind the disdain in which all too many hold the military. For example, Senator Boxer publicly chastising a general officer during testimony for responding, "Yes, Ma'am," a measure of respect schooled in the military. We respond to our seniors by "Yes, Sir" and Yes, Ma'am," recognizing and respecting their seniority. Also keep in mind how some have tremendous trouble with the truth. For example, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton falsely claiming to have landed under fire while visiting the Balkans while First Lady. ("I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.) And all too many have trouble with responsibility and accountability. For example, former Congressman Anthony Weiner.
As I see it, the best of the military operates at levels well above the general population and considerably above that of Congress. So, in this context, I respectfully disagree with Rear Admiral Kirby. As the protectors of America and our way of life, it is incumbent upon us to do so. We can not afford to do otherwise. Despite what some may believe, that is why a lot of young men and women are drawn into the military. They want to be part of something bigger and better than the general population. Once in uniform, they find the ethos of unit before self, sacrifice in the name of the greater good, ethics, recognition for accomplishment, and integrity that which they have been seeking, but not finding, in the civilian world.
To those detractors who who cite failings by members of the military (USAF drill sergeant rapes of recruits; general officer extramarital affairs; removal from command of US Navy ship commanding officers; etc.), I would offer that the military takes seriously these actions and reacts with certainly, in ways not found in general society. And certainly not by elected officials. It is all too sad that politicians say and do things for which they are not held accountable by either their peers or constituents. Falsehood after falsehood is uttered without the individual being called out or held accountable by his/her peers. (For example, Representative Maxine Waters declared the sequester would cost "170,000,000 jobs," when there are not that many people employed in the entire country.) Members of Congress fail to follow the law and are not held accountable. (For example, Senator Reid and the Senate did not table a budget for more than four years, violating federal law.) Scofflaws are nominated for and confirmed to Cabinet positions. Rest assured, failing to obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice brings about punishment for those in uniform, because we hold each other accountable and expect to be held accountable for our actions. Elected officials, on the other hand, have risen to a form of art the dodging of responsibility and accountability.
So while agreeing that our society correctly supports and recognizes our men and women in uniform, we are better than that general society. I believe this is appropriate and necessary. The military must be above that which prevails in today's society. Doing so is imperative in performing our mission of defending the nation, placing the lives of men and women on the line while doing so. The nation expects and and we can do no less.
"We need to better understand the American people and the leaders they elect, to build relationships with those outside our Spartan lives." Rear Admiral John F. Kirby (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/veterans-must-learn-to-connect-with-american-civilians/2013/03/27/d328430e-84f4-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html)
The subject line comes from a Washington Post piece attributed to a speech Rear Admiral Kirby recently gave. Certainly a central theme, as he articulates below, has value:
"We haven’t been neglected or forgotten. American civilians are simply confronted by problems other than war, problems we might have difficulty understanding from the relative permanence of our profession. They are not losing life and limb on the battlefield, but they are losing their jobs, their homes, their livelihoods. They can be forgiven for being distracted and even a little tired of war."
Our society has learned a lesson from the Viet Nam era, during which the public disillusion with the decisions leading to engagement in war was inappropriately focused on the individual soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine. Our servicemen and -women had no say as they performed their duty, yet were vilified and subjected to grossly repugnant treatment. During the war on terror, society has learned that it's disagreement with national policy should be focused on the senior decision makers and elected officials, not those in uniform. So, in this context, Rear Admiral Kirby makes a valid point. I've seen first hand the support provided by the public, particularly to those wounded in combat and the families "back here" when their serviceman or -woman was deployed, often multiple times, to one of the combat zones. We've all seen community and individuals expressions of pride and support, whether it be in an airport, at the ballpark, or elsewhere across our nation. Simply put, we did a better job of recognizing and honoring the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families.
But, with all due respect to Rear Admiral Kirby, some of his comments in the above article are misguided.
"We hold ourselves to higher standards of conduct. We tell ourselves that not everyone is good enough to join us. All this is true. But it’s foolish to believe we are better than the society we protect."
The military, by its nature, must be dedicated to, believe in, and behave at levels above that of our general society. We can not lower ourselves to the prevailing levels of loose morals, ethical relativism, lacking integrity, dishonesty, absence of responsibility, or self-centered pursuit. When dealing literally with life and death matters in defending our nation, only the highest of values can be accepted from those who wear the cloth of our nation's uniforms.
The author suggests reaching out to and entering into discussion with elected officials, as part of thanking and educating them. True. But in doing so, keep in mind the disdain in which all too many hold the military. For example, Senator Boxer publicly chastising a general officer during testimony for responding, "Yes, Ma'am," a measure of respect schooled in the military. We respond to our seniors by "Yes, Sir" and Yes, Ma'am," recognizing and respecting their seniority. Also keep in mind how some have tremendous trouble with the truth. For example, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton falsely claiming to have landed under fire while visiting the Balkans while First Lady. ("I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.) And all too many have trouble with responsibility and accountability. For example, former Congressman Anthony Weiner.
As I see it, the best of the military operates at levels well above the general population and considerably above that of Congress. So, in this context, I respectfully disagree with Rear Admiral Kirby. As the protectors of America and our way of life, it is incumbent upon us to do so. We can not afford to do otherwise. Despite what some may believe, that is why a lot of young men and women are drawn into the military. They want to be part of something bigger and better than the general population. Once in uniform, they find the ethos of unit before self, sacrifice in the name of the greater good, ethics, recognition for accomplishment, and integrity that which they have been seeking, but not finding, in the civilian world.
To those detractors who who cite failings by members of the military (USAF drill sergeant rapes of recruits; general officer extramarital affairs; removal from command of US Navy ship commanding officers; etc.), I would offer that the military takes seriously these actions and reacts with certainly, in ways not found in general society. And certainly not by elected officials. It is all too sad that politicians say and do things for which they are not held accountable by either their peers or constituents. Falsehood after falsehood is uttered without the individual being called out or held accountable by his/her peers. (For example, Representative Maxine Waters declared the sequester would cost "170,000,000 jobs," when there are not that many people employed in the entire country.) Members of Congress fail to follow the law and are not held accountable. (For example, Senator Reid and the Senate did not table a budget for more than four years, violating federal law.) Scofflaws are nominated for and confirmed to Cabinet positions. Rest assured, failing to obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice brings about punishment for those in uniform, because we hold each other accountable and expect to be held accountable for our actions. Elected officials, on the other hand, have risen to a form of art the dodging of responsibility and accountability.
So while agreeing that our society correctly supports and recognizes our men and women in uniform, we are better than that general society. I believe this is appropriate and necessary. The military must be above that which prevails in today's society. Doing so is imperative in performing our mission of defending the nation, placing the lives of men and women on the line while doing so. The nation expects and and we can do no less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)