Thank you

This blog has previously cited the basic positive qualities in the vast majority of our fellow citizens.  The average guy and gal, going about their daily lives, seeking the most enjoyment possible from life.  Hard working, respectful of others, and law abiding citizens.

They are the real essence of our nation.

Today I extend my genuine appreciation and sincere Thank You to those travelling in my neighborhood each morning, as I pedal along on my bicycle for the morning workout.  Mindful of the presence of cars and trucks being driven by my fellow citizens, I realize I am at their mercy, in so many words.  Without their willing participation and obeying the myriad traffic laws, it would be an even more hazardous outing.   

Every single day, I gladly experience patience and courtesy from by fellow citizens.  Only once in the last year have I been threatened by a motor vehicle during my morning outings.  And that was, sad to say, an elderly lady who abruptly cut in front of me (and other travelers).  Otherwise, I have benefitted greatly from the actions of others.

To all of you who make it safer for us cyclists, Thank You.

Advocacy or propaganda?

Is it advocacy or propaganda when a key advisor to the President of the United States goes to the entertainment industry and "requests" specific insertions into scripts?  Vallerie Jarrentt reportedly said, "That's part of why I am in L.A.  I'm meeting with writers of various TV shows and movies to try to get it into the scripts."

It's reported the "it" to which she refers is favorable commentary on Obamacare.

Wanted: leadership

Leadership, particularly strong leadership is desperately missing. 

We can't turn a page in the local newspaper (the few that remain), turn on a radio or television, or open a website without confronting commentary and opinions about a myriad issues.  Of course, in the information age, the sources for the issues are virtually limitless.  But one source is especially troublesome: malfeasance by government officials, both elected members and non-elected staff, and other public officials.  (Other public officials include individuals in public education and government agencies at any level.)  

For the purpose of this blog, I expand the Dictionary.com definition of malfeasance, “the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust)," to include “actions or behavior by elected and other public officials that demeans individuals or groups; attempt to limit the freedoms, enumerated in the Constitution, of individuals or groups; and/or serve a personal interest of or seek to enhance or otherwise enrich, the elected or other public officials.”   

With this working definition in mind, the electorate and public have a right to expect strong, unwavering leadership from government officials, both elected members and non-elected staff, and other public officials.  I contend that strong leadership in support of public service for the good of the public is missing.  Otherwise, it is unlikely either the rash of examples of malfeasance or inexcusable reactions when caught out would occur.

Strong leadership would stress, teach, model, and require subordination of personal avarice to what is best for the public.  Strong leadership would stress, teach, model, and require the preservation of our Constitutional freedoms.  Strong leadership would stress, teach, model, and require adherence the highest of ethical standards and unmatched integrity.  Strong leadership would also quickly and swiftly hold accountable in no uncertain terms those government officials, both elected members and non-elected staff, and other public officials who violate law, ethics, integrity, or expectations.  

Strong leadership would ensure government officials, both elected members and non-elected staff, and other public officials do not unduly enrich themselves by virtue of public service.

Strong leadership would ensure the actions of government are transparent, with due respect provided all points of view.

Strong, effective leadership, unlike what is experienced today in far too many elements of the growing government bureaucracies and public sector organizations, will demand much of itself and those with whom they serve.

Sadly, disappointedly, what some refer to as leadership by government officials, both elected members and non-elected staff, and other public officials is nothing more than self promotion and enrichment, with little to no care for the public they ostensibly serve.    

For crying out loud, relax!

Reading, watching, and listening to politicians, pundits, activists, academics, and the like, one would think there is a perpetual state of anger in the citizenry of our nation.  Anger resulting from real or perceived or falsely created hostility, insults, and "threats" based on any number of factors and issues.

For crying out loud people, relax!

In a nation of some 300 million, not everyone will agree with everyone else.  This IS NOT a bad thing.  Take music for example, some like opera, some like country western, some like hip hop, some like classical, some like jazz.  We have the freedom to choose and pursue that which gives us enjoyment.  The freedoms we enjoy enable the differences between us to be equally pursued. 

And a true, defining element of our freedoms is that we are free NOT to like any specific style of music, if we so choose.  The same applies to speech, in that while we are free to express our views, even if others disagree with them, we are equally free to remain silent.

But there seem to be those intent on severely limiting our freedoms, by declaring they have been insulted, threatened, or subjected to hostility by the mere expression, by any means, of views with which they don't agree.  Those so inclined to castigate others are determined to champion their freedom and views, but simultaneously seek to limit the same for those holding views with which they disagree.

For crying out loud people, relax!

Just because someone makes a statement with which I disagree, it isn't rational to rant and rave, threaten/take legal action, explode into histrionics, or demand the other individual immediately repudiate their views or beliefs.  There is plenty of room for an enormously wide selection of views, just as there is for wide selection of music tastes.

A major area in which all Americans should be concerned is when government bureaucrats and legislators, as well as activists judges and those in public education, seek to restrict our freedoms or demand that we accept and embrace their views.  This is simply wrong.  They should relax and embrace our freedoms for all.

Relaxing does not mean I need to agree with someone holding views contrary to my own, just as they are not compelled to accept my stance.  Relaxing means I am, as a citizen, willing to accept that others will hold views different from mine.  So be it.  My fellow citizens need to also relax and recognize my freedom to hold views in opposition to theirs.  So be it.

Just don't try to force me into accepting your views and don't result to insults, false charges of threats, or the creation of hostility simply because someone disagrees with you.

Just relax.

Questions for Mrs. Clinton

On Saturday, at the Clinton Global Initiative University Conference, headlined by comedian Jimmy Kimmel before 1,200 (undoubtedly hand selected) college students, Hillary Clinton stated she is considering running for President.  As testament to her concerns, she specifically cited climate change as a crucial issue facing the nation.

Putting aside for the moment the venue (Arizona State University), format (self promotion headlined by a comedian), and audience (college students), this mention of a possible campaign should have responsible journalists and others sharpening their pencils to scribe questions to be put to her publicly.  My sharpened pencil is ready and should she formally announce her candidacy to seek the nomination of the Democrat Party for the office of the President of the United States, I would like to put the following questions to her:

• Mrs. Clinton, what were your specific accomplishments, listed in order of major to minor importance, while Secretary of State?
• Mrs. Clinton, what were the specific pieces of legislation you crafted, sponsored, or co-sponsored, listed in order of major to minor importance, while a member of the Senate?
• Mrs. Clinton, this is a multiple part question related to your voting record in the Senate:  How many votes were called during your time in the Senate?  Of the called votes, how many times did you vote YEA?  Of the called votes, how many times did you vote NAY?  Of the called votes, how many times did you vote PRESENT?  Of the called votes, how many times were you absent?
• Mrs. Clinton, what was the singularly most important vote you cast while a member of the Senate?
• Mrs. Clinton, what was the singularly least important vote you cast while a member of the Senate?
• Mrs. Clinton, while a member of the Senate, of the days the Senate was in session, how many of the days were you present and absent?
• Mrs. Clinton, how can you desire to be viewed as an advocate for women's rights and equality, when you remain in the marriage to a serial philanderer and adulterer?
• Mrs. Clinton, how can you expect the electorate to accept that you are truthful, when you falsely claimed during your 2008 campaign to have landed "under fire" during a visit to Bosnia?  (Being "under fire" is not a matter of opinion nor something to be taken lightly, it is an incontrovertible fact, as can be attested to by our men and women who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and you dishonored by your frivolously false claim.)
• Mrs. Clinton, how can you stand for the importance of an individual's character, when you supported Anthony Weiner?
• Mrs. Clinton, regarding the loss of American life in Benghazi in 2012, which of your direct actions before, during, and shortly after the tragedy did make a difference?
• Mrs. Clinton, why did you refuse to appear on the Sunday news programs in the aftermath of the loss of American life in Benghazi in 2012?
• Mrs. Clinton, what is your specific view on the sanctity of marriage vows?
• Mrs. Clinton, what specific organizations and businesses were you directly responsible for and did your personally lead?
• Mrs. Clinton, what was the largest number of individuals you have personally directed and supervised at any one time?
• Mrs. Clinton, what was the largest budget you personally prepared and supervised?
• Mrs. Clinton, what were the greatest examples of bipartisan consensus for which you are directly and personally responsible?
• Mrs.Clinton, what are the meaning and requirements of the oath of office?
• Mrs. Clinton, what are meaningful and meaningless sexual relations? 
• Mrs. Clinton, for what action or actions should a member of the White House staff be fired?
• Mrs. Clinton, for what action or actions should a member of Congress be involuntarily removed?
• Mrs. Clinton, since there is a two term limit for the office of President, why shouldn't there be a two term limit for the members of Congress? 
• Mrs. Clinton, what are the five main tenants of your national security policy?
• Mrs. Clinton, what is the most important responsibility of the President of the United States?

I'll keep my pencil sharp, though seriously doubt hard questions would ever be put to Mrs. Clinton or any other liberal candidate.

Spring break

The conversation at the family dinner table.

Mom: "Hey, kids, spring break is coming up.  Where do you want to go this year?"

Kids:  "What about China?  Hawaii, Africa, Europe, Key Largo...been there, done that."

Mom:  "I don't know, that's pretty far."

Kids:  "Gee whiz Mom, it's not like you have to pay for it or anything."

Mom:  "Why don't we just go to Hawaii?  I like it there."

Kids (whining):  "We always have to go to Hawaii.  All the other kids go to Hawaii.  Why can't we ever go somewhere fun?  Someplace no one else gets to go?"

Mom:  "I'm still not sure.  What about the Virgin Islands?  Uncle Joe just went there and said it was a lot of fun."

Kids (continued whining):  "Waaaaa!  We never get to do anything we want to do."

Mom:  "OK.  OK.  I'll talk to Dad and we'll borrow the plane and go to China.  Who knows, it might be cool!  Can't wait to text Ellen and Oprah and tell them the news.  In fact, let's invite grandma to go with us."

Kids:  "What if Dad says no?"

Mom:  "Don't worry.  Everyone knows your father is weak and will back down.  Start packing!"

Of course, there's no evidence such a conversation took place.  But somewhere, a mom and grandma are taking the kids to China.

Full-time or not: UPDATED

It is both interesting and frustrating that the federal government can't settle on one definition of full-time employment.  On one hand, POTUS recently reinforced the 40 hour work week definition of full-time employment.  On the other hand, the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) employs a 30 hour work week as the definition of full-time employment.  (From it's own website, the BLS describes itself as "the principal Federal agency responsible for measuring labor market activity, working conditions, and price changes in the economy.")  Similarly, the Affordable Care Act uses the 30 hour threshold.

If there isn't a common definition within the Federal government, how can cogent policy be drafted, let alone implemented?  How can changes in matters such as minimum wage and overtime be seriously entertained?

===========================================================================

Recently read that Congress is looking at redefining full-time to the 40 hour work week.  Regardless of political leaning, it is important that a consistent definition be used throughout the government.  

Not so higher education

In many institutions of higher education (community colleges, colleges, universities, private and public), deliberate separatism (read segregation) of the races is actively and aggressively pursued.  Under the cloak of a specialized lexicon, deliberate separation of the races is sought and permitted.  "Diversity," "social justice," and "equity" are simply code words for this new and intentional form of segregation.  Actions that should be condemned are actually being instigated by those supposedly in positions to know better.  A particularly startling example recently occurred in the Pacific Northwest.

According to Seattle's King 5 Television, "A group of employees at South Puget Sound Community College sent out an invitation to all 300 staffers.  The "Staff, Faculty and Administrators of Color" encouraged employees to reply to the invitation to find out the confidential date and time of what was being called a "happy hour" to "build support and community" for people of color.  The invite made it clear white people were not invited.  The email read: "If you want to create space for white folks to meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege to better our campus community and yourselves, please feel free to do just that.""

Apart from the obvious hypocrisy, the damning aspect of this and other examples is the pursuit of the exact opposite of a goal of the civil rights movement: integration.  Through integration, we were to move forward as a nation and a people by recognizing one another for individual achievement and character, rather than color.  This self-apparent truth became the foundation upon which change was built.

As this foundation was built, exclusionary practices were rightfully attacked.  All white private clubs, whites only neighborhoods, whites only hiring practices, and other manifestations of segregation were dismantled, one-by-one.  In education, the movement began in earnest after the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that "separate but equal" public schooling violated the Constitution.  This history is why action of the type attributed to "Staff, Faculty and Administrators of Color" at South Puget Sound Community College is so galling.

On our campuses of so-called higher education, it appears some want, maybe demand to return to days of segregation.  Segregation that is beneficial, as they choose to define it.  Student organizations that specifically exclude people by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and political leanings are far, far too common on today's campuses.  Similarly, campus housing exclusionary practices are also permitted, if not enthusiastically embraced.

Where not actively pursuing segregation, other initiatives seek to provide race-based preferences, which are also contrary to the intent of integration.  For example, anonymous Dartmouth students threatened physical action if their 100 demands providing, among other requirements, racial and ethnic quotas.  In another example, the Sacramento Bee reported, "Democrats in the California Senate used their two-thirds supermajority Thursday to pass a measure that would ask voters if they want to repeal the state's ban [Proposition 209] on race- and gender-based preferences in government hiring and contracting and university admissions."  In other words, what was seen as vile and illegal in the past, reason to march in the streets, is now being actively advocated.  The only difference is which groups are being permitted to exclude others and to be given preference.

The actions of new found segregation and racial/ethnic quotas on our campuses are as repugnant today as they were 50 years ago.

This is not higher education by any measure.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/01/senate-passes-measure-asking-voters-to-repeal-prop-209.html#storylink=cpy

Hostile environment?

Ran across this report today, concerning a bible passage being placed on a personal white board by a cadet at the US Air Force Academy: "Mikey Weinstein, director of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, told me [US Air Force Academy] 29 cadets and four faculty and staff members contacted his organization to complain about the Christian passage. ... He said the Bible verse on the cadet's personal whiteboard created a hostile environment at the academy."  [Highlighting is mine.]

I stared incredulously at the report.  How can a verse from the Bible, on someone's personal white board create a hostile environment?

Something is very, very wrong when this is alleged.

It is also damning that officials actually take the drivel of Mr. Weinstein seriously.

Stepping up

Our fellow citizens step up.

It is all too easy to focus on the raft of negativity that surrounds us.  Certainly there are sufficient causes, regardless of one's views, with which we can take exception.  Many of the backstories for these causes are, truth be told, relative immaterial in comparison to those matters of highest importance.  Against this backdrop, however, when a truly critical incident presents itself, it is very heartening to see how average citizens, strangers to one another, step up.

While returning from running errands this morning, I stopped at a traffic light in our neighborhood.  As the oncoming traffic began moving through the intersection on the green light, a lady in a large SUV ran the opposing red light and violently smashed into a small hybrid car.  In a flash, the hybrid cars spun in circles and the SUV began sliding sideways, tilting and almost turning over (only hitting the curb stopped the rollover).

In a flash, several of us bailed out of our cars and ran to assist the two drivers.  As I helped the female driver of the hybrid, first checking to see if she was injured, another gent ran over to do likewise with the female drive of the SUV.  Another stranger was calling 9-1-1, while three or four others began directing traffic around the smashed vehicles.

Unknown to one another or the drivers, this group of average folks jumped in to help, stepping up when the need arose.  I saw no one simply glance at the accident and turn away.

This willingness to help others in time of crisis is a wonderful trait and may it never leave us.  I only wish it existed in all facets of life.

At least I rest comfortably with the belief that should I experience an emergency, others will come to my aid.  

This story has a relatively good ending.  The accident occurred blocks from the police department and fire station, so first responders were there in moments.  Neither of the drivers required medical attention.  I stayed with the lady who had been driving the hybrid, called her husband, and stayed with her until he arrived.  (In the small world department, her husband and I had actually passed each other earlier in the morning, as I was on a cycling training ride and he was riding his bicycle to work.  We'd even exchanged greetings, as cyclists do.)

The trouble with polls

This morning, while perusing on-line news sites over my first cup of coffee, I was struck by one report on the Washington Post site that declared, "A CNN/Opinion Research poll shows 48 percent approve of Obama when it comes to Ukraine, while 43 percent disapprove."  Gee, that makes it sound like informed Americans, with international diplomacy, government, and security credentials/experience, have thoughtfully and carefully analyzed the the manner in which POTUS is addressing the situation in Ukraine.  However, that is far from the case and illustrates the trouble with polls.

(Disclaimer: the above is just one poll example and is not meant to focus attention on POTUS and the current situation.  Aside from this point, I don't think all of what POTUS is or isn't doing are know to the public.)


The trouble with polls of this nature, wherein a "representative sampling" of folks are asked what is in essence a technical question, is that the vast/overwhelming majority of respondents are unqualified to provide an informed, let alone expert opinion.  Further, as readers of the poll results,we have no idea who was polled and why.  In the above, were those polled from retirement homes in Florida, suburban residents from California, farmers from Iowa, or only those who answered those annoying telephone calls made during the dinner hour?  What makes these Americans, our fellow citizens (assuming the respondants were indeed citizens) qualified to offer expert opinions? 

Nothing.

All that are offered are the option to select from certain responses to precrafted questions meant to elicit certain replies.  And there are no variations in replies allowed.  It's a play on the old trick question, in which you are asked, "You can only answer the following question Yes or No.  Have you stopped beating small puppies?"  Remember, the way the "poll" was asked, you can answer only YES (you have stopped beating small puppies) or NO (you haven't stopped beating small puppies).

So, depending on the way the "poll" questions and available responses are crafted, the results are predestined.  Second, we have no way of knowing the expertise of the respondents.  Third, we have no way of knowing who were polled.

Thus, the process is flawed, particularly when seeking to inform the public about rather important topics.  The above example wasn't like polling to ascertain the favorite flavor of ice cream (chocolate, by the way).  It addressed a rather serious matter.

The trouble with polls of this nature is they don't produce anything of value.

Isn't this like what life in our great country should be?

I was struck that my daily cycling outings in our community are metaphors for what should comprise our lives in America. 

• I display the discipline and determination to head out every day, even when slightly tired or not particularly motivated.
• I obey the laws, while expecting my fellow citizens do the same.
• All achievements are due to my abilities and the effort I expend using them.
• I ride a mixture of hills (up and down) and flats, some requiring more effort than others.  It's impossible to head out and back and go down hill all the way.
• I'm left to pursue my goals, without interference from others.
• No one demands that I give up cycling as a form of exercise and take up jumping rope.
• On those last minutes riding up hill (steep hills, by the way), I don't look to grab onto someone's passing car for a free ride.  Nor do I wait at the bottom of the hill demanding that someone tow me to the top.
• When passing another cyclist laboring up a hill, I offer words of encouragement, not derision.
• When passed by another cyclist doing better than I am, I'm motivated to improve, not give up.
• I worked for the funds used to purchase the bicycle.  I didn't expect or demand a local, state, or federal government office provide it to me for free.  
• I take responsibility for the condition of my bicycle and don't expect someone else to maintain or repair it.
• If seeing a fellow cyclist experiencing difficulty along side the road, I offer assistance. 
• I choose my route and destination freely, without some government bureaucrat directing/demanding I go a particular route to a specified destination.
• If one of my tires goes flat, I stop by the side of the road and make the necessary repairs to get back on the ride.  I don't demand others stop to assist.  I don't call a local, state, or federal government office and demand that they come out to fix the flat.
• The satisfaction of a new personal record for a ride segment belongs to me and me alone.  No local, state, or federal government bureaucrat shares in achieving the new personal record.
• If coming on an impediment in the bike path, I go around it, rather than complaining incessantly about it. 
• My ride today, like every day's ride, didn't take anything from anyone else.    

As I finish the last steep uphill climb to the house and pull into the driveway, the accomplishment and accompanying sense of achievement are mine and mine alone.  I'm proud of them, even if it wasn't the fastest time or the longest distance covered.  I don't expect a brass band to be playing or a television reporter waiting to interview me.  Self satisfaction on something individually well done is its own reward. 

Isn't this like what life in our great country should be?

Are we doing enough?

Yesterday I joined fellow Patriot Guard Riders, folks from the Marine Corps League, and families and friends in welcoming home Marines who had been deployed to Afghanistan.  Our flags waved in the breeze, the Marine Corps band played, and shouts of joy accompanied the hugs and kisses.

While walking through the parking lot to my bike, I took the following picture.

It may be hard to read, but in the lower right hand corner of the window is written, "Deployment #10."

Ten combat deployments.

Let that sink in for a while.

Try to imagine what it is like for the Marine and his family left behind.

Then ask yourself if our nation is doing all it can for our warriors, our veterans?  Unemployment much higher than the national average.  Reducing pay and benefits for those on active duty.  Reducing COLA rates for military retirees.  Likely closing military commissaries, when many young enlisted families are on food stamps.

Are we really doing all we can and should for the Marine who just returned from his tenth combat deployment and his family?

It continues

The White House announced the 37th unilateral modification to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

Such action is rank hypocrisy from the President who on October 13, 2013 said of the Act, “It Passed The House Of Representatives.  It Passed The Senate.  The Supreme Court Ruled It Constitutional … It’s The Law of the Land.  It’s Here To Stay.”

The statement, even if not intended to do so, correctly describes that laws are legislated by Congress, both the Senate and the House.  (Of course, the country should expect accuracy from a former professor of Constitutional law on how our legislative process works.)  So much for the "law of the land," enacted into law by Congress, when the one individual specifically required to enforce it believes he can unilaterally modify it.

It is not a matter of which law.  Nor does is it matter of from which political party the individual arose.  It is a matter of duty.

It is a matter of Presidential duty to enforce the "law of the land."  Per Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America on the duty of the President, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  This duty is captured in the oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When the President of the United States of America violates his oath of office by summarily and unilaterally modifying "the law of the land," it tears at the essence of our constitutional government.

As I have written previously, "It can be rightfully argued that the foundation for our successful constitutional government is based upon the separation and balance of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.  This foundation is currently under attack, leaving me to ask, "When will it end?""

Sadly, it continues.