Friendship

I was reminded last week of just how very fortunate I am.  In addition to a loving wife, wonderful kids, and rambunctious and smiling grand kids, I have the very great fortune of a friend for life.  Not the BFF of insincere texting hyperbole, but a real friend -- the friend -- of more than 50 years.

The friend who has put himself out there for me, assisting in odd ways, such as driving one of our vehicles across the country from Virginia to California on what was definitely not a pleasurable journey.  Three and one-half days on the road, food poisoning, crappy motels, even crappier food were endured.

The friend who provided a shoulder on which I could lean after the passing of my father.

The friend showed up unexpectedly to help celebrate my retirement, only to be treated with disrespect by the Major General who officiated at the ceremony.     

The friend who always opened his home and heart every time we passed through our home town during the 30 years I spent in uniform as a Marine.

The friend who shared laughter in that unique way available only to the closest possible friend.

The friend who knows all the failures and successes in my life and judges me not.

The friend who introduced me to the gal who is now my wife.

The friend who is an extension of my family, like a brother.

The friend who shares my passions for family and motorcycles.

The friend with whom I've shared many adventures, including those with our motorcycles.

The friend who was there, even when I wasn't, during extended absences around the world.

The friend who welcomes my mother into his home.

The friend with a work ethic uncommon in today's world.

The friend with a sense of humor that can always get me laughing.

We encounter countless folks as we travel through life, calling some friends, though the relationships last a few years.  I am so very, very lucky to have a best friend who I have known since the 1950s.  Grade school.  High school.  College.  We shared the phases of our lives in a closeness that is truly exceptional.

Whatever else may have been accomplished in life, this friendship is a jewel.

Really?

Really?

Our Team USA uniforms for the 2014 Winter Olympics have a commercial name -- Polo -- on them.  Is this really necessary?

And this comes after the debacle from the 2012 Summer Olympics, where the US uniforms had the commercial logo prominently displayed.

For crying out loud, must our athletes walk around as mobile billboards for Ralph Lauren?

Shameful

Short and to the point.

It is absolutely shameful to watch NFL players and coaches during the singing of the National Anthem at their games.

While some stand, hands over their hearts, far too many wear skull caps and other headwear, scratch various parts of their bodies, jump up and down, and otherwise fail miserably to honor our National Anthem.  I am particularly outraged that unsatisfactory conduct occurs in view of the military Honor Guards presenting the National colors.

Absolutely shameful and the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the coaches. The Commissioner of the NFL should fine each head coach $100,000 for each game at which his players do not conduct themselves properly during the playing of the National Anthem.

Validation

The progressives have validated that public education is failing.

By proclaiming the intent to relax immigration regulations to actively encourage, promote, and facilitate the immigration of highly educated and proficient scientists from other countries, the progressives are telling us that our country's public education system is incapable, at present and for the foreseeable future, of producing such individuals.

For this we can point to many folks, starting with teacher unions and including university/college administrators.

Our public education system(s) provide(s) for transgender access to sports teams of the individual's choice; diversity training; worthless college majors; protecting teachers who are sexual predators; job protection by tenure over job performance; the common core; failure for the African American youth; grade inflation; huge student loan debt; abysmal language arts and math proficiency; silence of free speech on university/college campuses; social promotion; advocacy for social issues rejected by the majority of citizens; elimination of awards for superior performance; and reduced standards.

But what our public education system(s) does/do not provide are the educated scientists needed for today and tomorrow.

It is a small but positive step that progressives are finally acknowledging it.  

Best and brightest?

Come on.  Really?  Are Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie really the best and brightest?

While vehemently disagreeing with political commentators and pundits discussing the next presidential election as if it were imminent, it is even more infuriating to hear of "polls" that conclude Clinton and Christie are the "presumptive" candidates.  (We know polls can be constructed to provide predictable outcomes, so the purported results are not surprising.)

But I digress.

The question before us, are these actually the two best and brightest individuals who should compete for the office of president?  I think not.  The public record for Clinton speaks volumes: compulsive liar; not one achievement of note in the senate; not one achievement of note as Secretary of State; opportunist; supporting a lying adulterer; manipulative; egotistical; vindictive; amoral; and disdainful of the US Armed Forces.  Similarly, the public record for Christie paints a picture of a political bully.  (Clinton's public record is far broader, because she chooses to deliberately be in the public eye.)  But to listen to the commentators and pundits, these two folks will be the major party candidates for the 2016 election.

Why is it that our choices as voters should be limited to such individuals?  Where are the best and brightest?  Why don't they enter politics?  There are countless answers, not the least of which being the obvious insanity for what passes as political journalism.  When there exists Maddow on one extreme and Limbaugh on the other; when the so-called mainstream media is decidedly liberal; and when media attacks of the most vile kind (Bashir and Harris-Perry come to mind) are far too common, it is no wonder the actual best and brightest choose not to enter politics.  Continuing, when the likes of Weiner can receive financial and political backing, why should a man or woman of principle want to enter the arena?  When the likes of Cunningham abuse their elected office, why would a man or woman of ethics and integrity want to be viewed as a peer or colleague in Congress?  When members of Congress are arrested for buying illegal drugs, why would upstanding citizens seek public office.  When unions and their lackey elected officials ruin the finances of cities and states, why would experienced leaders want to join in those cesspools of financial irresponsibility and mismanagement?  With the abysmal approval ratings for members of Congress, why would an ethical man or woman of integrity and honesty want to join such a body?  When elected idiots proclaim that laws must be passed so they can be read; when aspirants for the presidency proclaim they voted for something before they voted against it; and when members of an organization have used their office for financial gain, why would anyone want to be part of such an organization?  And, saints preserve, when reviewing the work schedules and voting records of the members of Congress, why would those who believe in working hard for what they earn choose to seek a position in the company of such ne'er do wells?

So with whom are we, the people, left?

Sadly, maddeningly, disturbingly we are left with the population's dredges from which the political machinery, corrupt unions, and wealthy financiers choose pliant individuals to become candidates.  Principle, ethics, integrity, honesty, actual experience, and other rightfully qualifying characteristics are forsaken for political fealty.  Once anointed as the candidate of choice, communications, public relations minions, and surrogates go to work, selling their candidate and dishing out (often dubious) dirt on the other.  Along the way, realistic answers to substantive issues are obscured by artfully delivered rhetoric, in some cases by charismatic -- yet morally hollow -- individuals.  Political commentators and pundits shift into high gear.  Grand, undeliverable promises are made and the all too gullible electorate buy in.  Critical voices are shouted down as intolerant, biased, and/or ignorant.

The election results come in and even before the victor is sworn into office, the political commentators and pundits begin the process all over again.

Throughout, the truly best and brightest of our nation stand aside.  More is the shame, because we really need their help.

Tail wagging the dog

Is it just me or is the tail wagging the dog?

There are far too many examples, particularly in purported social issues, of minority segments of the population seeking (and far too often succeeding) to dictate to the majority.  For example, according to the Williams Institute, 3.8% of adult Americans identify as LGBT.  Yet, their demands for civil rights have drowned out the votes of the electorate in every state that has held a referendum on same sex marriage.  This headlong yielding to minority demands has also reared its head in court decisions dictating that private businesses, in a couple of cases bakeries, MUST recognize same sex marriage, even when against their religious beliefs.  Taking the moral high ground by being generous in stating let others live by their own values shouldn't be mutated into governments demanding that I accept those minority values.  I don't.  As a citizen, the government can't tell me what moral values I should (or shouldn't) embrace. 

In another example, most estimates indicate there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, yet the progressive's demands for "social justice" have resulted in illegals being approved for driver licenses (what about auto insurance?), to practice law, and work in polling places in California, against the will of the people.  These same progressives shout loudly that requiring a government issued photo identification in order to vote is oppressive.  They also permit in-state fees and tuition at public universities in California, as well as access to free public education (grades K-12).  (By the way, at so-called pro-immigration rallies here in California, the protestors routinely waive the Mexican flag as their symbol of unity.)

When did it become a requirement, a government mandate for me to accept the demands of minority segments of the population, let alone those here illegally?  As an aside, according to the Pew Research Center review of Census Bureau data, "In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics."  Is it a coincidence that various parties estimate there are 11 million (half the cited 22 million person increase in official poverty)  illegal immigrants in the nation?

Again, if one generously observes that he/she would let others live by their on values, it should not come at the cost of those minority demands infringing on my lifestyle or well being, let alone my strongly held beliefs.  More directly stated, it shouldn't cost me anything (in California it has been recently estimated the provision of driver licenses to illegals will cost $65M).  Nor should it result in my beliefs in marriage and morality being forsaken due to political expediency.

Damn it, the tail is wagging the dog!     

The disappearing American nuclear family - updated 1-13-14

The nuclear family (father, mother, children) is disappearing, as indicated by more and more children being born into situations outside of marriage.

"Unfortunately family instability remains on the rise, and not just among the poor. Among the nearly 60% of Americans who have completed high school, but do not have a four-year degree, a stunning 44% of children are now born outside of marriage versus 13% in the late 1980s. Among women under 30, 53% of births now occur outside of marriage." (Why intact families are key to shared American prosperity, James Pethokoukis, 2 Jan 2014, American Enterprise Institute, aei-ideas.org)

The ramifications are telling and plentiful. Perhaps no where else is this seen so tragically as in the high school drop out rates.  "71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average." (National Principals Association Report)

That dropping out from high school is a top predictor of unemployment and poverty is indisputable.
So how do single parent families fare in employment and poverty studies?  "However, only two fifths of single mothers are employed full-time the entire year, and a quarter are jobless the entire year." (http://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/)

"According to a 2010 study by the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of married couple families living in poverty was 6.2%. For single-parent households in that same year, the poverty rate was 27.3%; for single mother households, the poverty rate was 29.9%." (http://www.policymic.com/articles/11316/27-3-of-single-parent-households-live-in-poverty)

"Poverty rates are much higher for single mother families than for other households. The 42.2%poverty rate for people in single mother families was almost three times the 15.1% rate for the population as a whole, and was more than four times the 10.1% rate for people in married couple families. The 42.2% single mother rate was also much higher than the 25.6% poverty rate for people in single father families." (http://www.ncdsv.org/images/LM_SingleMotherPovertyInTheUS-2010_9-15-2011.pdf)

Thus, poverty rates are shown to be higher in single parent homes. Consequently, it is logical to opine that more single parent families apply for welfare. And, as the following depicts, welfare isn't what it may be thought to be.

"In fact, in 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states, including California, as well as the District of Columbia, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, D.C., welfare pays more than a $20-an-hour job, or more than 2.75 times the minimum wage." "Poor people aren't stupid. If they can get more from the government than they can from a job, they aren't going to work." "And yet we know that over the long term, a job is better than welfare. Census figures show that only 2.6% of full-time workers are poor, compared with 23.9% of adults who do not work. And, while many anti-poverty activists decry low-wage jobs, even starting at a minimum-wage job can be a springboard out of poverty." (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare?gclid=CK2Ggdqw57sCFcKDQgodlxwAMA)

So a vicious circle has been created and directly endorsed by this progressive society. No longer is marriage and the nuclear family viewed as a societal norm, leading to an explosion in single parent (most commonly single mother) households. With the vast majority of high school drop outs originating from single parent homes, it is then logical to see the future poverty population coming from these single parent homes. Yet, in its rush to address what it views as social injustice, the progressives have created a welfare system that actually discourages working. This, in turn, perpetuates the cycle of poverty, as the children raised in such homes most often follow in the same pattern (dropping out of high school, incurring low employment/wage-salaries, entering poverty, going on welfare).

Yet, the same numbers illustrating the adverse impact of single parent families can be used to argue for the value and positive influence of the nuclear family. Were the progressive to herald and champion the traditional nuclear family and modify the cycle they created by celebrating the single mother, perhaps in a generation or two we can change societal views and expectations so the nuclear family returns. More children will complete high school and go on to higher education, which we know provides for increased employment, high standards of living, and more stable families. Above most actions, this shift in mindset can arguably lead to improved living standards, higher wages, and lower welfare roles. All of which will address the progressives' concern about "income inequality."

UPDATE 1-13-14

The following supports views regarding the importance of the nuclear family.

"If President Obama wants to reduce income inequality, he should focus less on redistributing income and more on fighting a major cause of modern poverty: the breakdown of the family. A man mostly raised by a single mother and his grandparents who defied the odds to become president of the United States is just the person to take up the cause.

"Marriage inequality" should be at the center of any discussion of why some Americans prosper and others don't. According to Census Bureau information analyzed by the Beverly LaHaye Institute, among families headed by two married parents in 2012, just 7.5% lived in poverty. By contrast, when families are headed by a single mother the poverty level jumps to 33.9%."

As the Heritage study states: "The U.S. is steadily separating into a two-caste system with marriage and education as the dividing line. In the high-income third of the population, children are raised by married parents with a college education; in the bottom-income third, children are raised by single parents with a high-school diploma or less."
 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579296752404877612?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304325004579296752404877612.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)

Sending our armed forces into harm's way

For more than fifty years, our great nation has debated the rightful role(s) for the armed forces, including when and where they are to be ordered into combat.  Most famously, opposition to the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have fueled the ongoing debates.  Certainly, there is consensus to responding to a direct physical attack upon our country by a nation state, such as what occurred at Pearl Harbor in 1941.  Otherwise, the debates rage on.

The purpose of this piece is not to enter that particular debate, but rather to offer two proposals pertaining to when the nation goes about committing of our armed forces to combat.

By law, the National Command Authority and Congress must work in concert to approve the employment of military force.  (As an aside, it is absurd for some to insist on UN approval, as it cedes our sovereign rights.)  Much rancor, most of it political, has been observed in the process of Congress approving the use of military force.  Voting for, then voting against various authorizations for the use of military force.

What I find particularly galling is that the vast majority of our elected federal officials have absolutely no military experience.  Consequently, their votes on authorization for the use of military force are an exercise in the abstract.  With no direct experience, they lack any true understanding of the military and its employment.  This inexperience extends to the impact of combat deployments on military families.  Further, they willingly send the sons and daughters of others into harm's way, without the least understanding of what it means to do so.  Platitudes, bromides, and "visits" to combat zones notwithstanding, the absence of direct experience as a member of the armed forces disqualifies, in my mind, these individuals from proposing, let alone approving employment of military force.

There is no more singularly important decision made by elected officials than to send our sons and daughters into harm's way, so the bar must be set at the highest level possible for those we place in such positions.  In setting this bar, I offer two specific proposals.

First, enacting a Constitutional Amendment requiring all candidates for and holders of elected federal office, with specific requirement for the President, Vice President, and all members of Congress, to have served a minimum of three years of active duty in the armed forces of the United States of America.  (Note: I exclude the National Guard, which is essentially a state force, although very much overused by the federal government over the past 12 years.)  This minimal experience as members of our armed forces, while by no means perfect, will at the least provide a basis for informed decision making by these elected officials.  For example, being a Marine infantryman, even in peacetime, is by no means an easy job.  Living for days, even weeks, without basic comforts; serving at sea for extended periods; rigorous physical training; menial tasks assigned and completed; carrying heavy loads on one's back; learning combat first aid; learning to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.  Further, numerous benefits attendant to military life, such as teamwork, resource management, taking care of one's subordinates, living and working closely with fellow citizens from across the nation, unit over self, and overcoming challenges would contribute to making the future elected official a better citizen.  And for the purposes of this proposal, three years of active duty in the armed forces will provide at least an appreciation of what it meant by sending our men and women into combat.  Should the three years of experience include actual combat, that appreciation becomes direct knowledge.

Second, reinstate the draft for all able bodied men and women at age 18.  The all volunteer force sounds all too catchy as a progressive theme.  In practice, however, it displays the increasing separation between the growing political class and the segments of the population that do the heavy lifting for the nation.  Reinstating and applying the draft uniformly across all social, racial, ethnic, and economic classes is a great leveler.  Living in an open squad bay with fifty or so of your new friends from across the nation will pursue the vaunted diversity so sought after by the progressives.  Exposing the youth from inner city Detroit, Iowa farm country, Bel Air, Oregon lumber country, Texas, North Dakota, Alabama, Louisiana, etc. to one another is a terrific way to begin to breakdown the stereotypes both major political parties countlessly hype.  For the primary purpose of reinstating the draft, I contend that if elected officials would be sending their children into combat, more careful and deliberate consideration would be given the votes and ensuing decisions.

These two relatively small, but important fixes do not combine to provide a magic elixir that will solve the debate regrading the employment of our military.  They will, however, be a damned good beginning to recognizing the seriousness of approving and ordering the deployment of our armed forces into harm's way.    

California continues to mystify

The state of California continues to mystify.  As friends call it, the left state is certainly out of the mainstream, as illustrated by laws that go into effect in 2014:

• illegal immigrants will be issued drivers licenses
• children can have more than two parents
• self proclaimed transgender public school students can choose which restrooms to use and on which sports teams (boys/girls) they desire to participate
• illegal immigrants can work at polling places
• those without proof of legal status may practice law,,, leading to arguing cases in front of juries on which they are (currently) barred from serving

Absolutely mystifying.