Not all (fill in the blank) believe (fill in the blank), are (fill in the blank), and behave by (fill in the blank)

Not all (fill in the blank) believe (fill in the blank), are (fill in the blank), and behave by (fill in the blank).

Maybe 2016 will be a better year.  Sadly, we are at a point in our nation where people ascribe all sorts of beliefs and behaviors to all members of various groups.  Whether the grouping be ethnicity, race, religious, gender, economic, political, age, employment,   locality, or some other in the nearly endless list of possibilities, folks rush to (usually) directly associate all members of a group with the characteristics, beliefs, and actions evidenced by one (or an incredibly small proportion) of that group.

Saying all white males are racist because some white males belonged/belong to the KKK is pure nonsense. It is no less offensive than saying all black youths are thugs and murderers because some black youths have rioted, looted, and killed each other.  

The intensity of the language and attacks are growing.  Perhaps folks are being incited by those with personal agendas or others with deep rooted and unreasonable prejudices.  But whatever the cause, the evil language and attacks are escalating, leading to increasing tensions in nearly every segment of society.  The media, conservative and liberal, relish in beating their drums to stoke the intensity.  

Absolutely, there are disreputable, villainous, and even evil people.  But they are not so because of some identifying characteristic or grouping.  They are simply disreputable, villainous, or evil individuals.  Period.  They are not disreputable, villainous, or evil because they are white, black, brown, Jewish, Muslim, male, female, straight, gay, tall, short, democrat, republican, old, young, poor, middle-class, wealthy, educated, employed, unemployed, or any other group.  The inability to separate and recognize people as individuals is very troubling.  One example is blaming the actions of a group from decades or centuries ago and then demanding recompense today for those actions of yesteryear.

Stated differently, people in contemporary America demand action not for injuries they have individually and personally suffered, but for injuries suffered by others decades or centuries ago.  This is similar to the ethnic hatred dominating many parts of Europe and the Middle East.  Centuries old hatred that impedes progress towards peace.  Centuries old dogma unbent by today's reality.

Maybe in 2016 our nation can stem, then reverse this trend.  While possible, I sense it will not occur, in large part because of the national political machinations.  Both major political parties demonize their opponents.  Candidates likewise, uttering outlandish comment after outlandish comment.  Thus feeding into divisive identity generalities that have no basis in fact.  The politicians seek to garner support from the unsettled and dissatisfied electorate by ascribing beliefs and behaviors to everyone in an identifiable group based on the actions of a few from within that group.  Shameful political grandstanding!

The only reason this is happening is because the people are unhappy with the course of current events.  They are unhappy with their current situation.  And too many people are telling them other group(s) is/are the reason(s) for their unhappiness.  If the majority of the nation was happy, the purveyors of the divisive rhetoric would not find a fertile environment into which to plant these seeds of discontent.  The talk show hosts, political pundits, and social commentators would have no audiences.  The opinion writers would gain no traction with outlandish assertions.  Elected officials and aspirants could not mount election campaigns based on negativity and demagoguery.  

Perhaps then there would be no protests in our streets and on our campuses.  Perhaps the labor force participation rate would be more than 62.5%.  Perhaps more than 57.5% of eligible voters would exercise their franchise.  Perhaps there wouldn't be more than 400 murders per year in Chicago.  Maybe the middle class would be expanding, rather than declining.  Perhaps wages would rise.

Perhaps, but not likely, because too many influential people are counting on you to feel like a victim and blame identifiable groups.  

But we can hope, because not all (fill in the blank) believe (fill in the blank), are (fill in the blank), and behave by (fill in the blank).

Before deciding to use military force UPDATED: 12-31-15

The incessant presidential campaigning and terrorist attacks across the world and at home prompt all matter of candidates and talking heads to advocate employing some variation of military force. Setting aside, for the moment, that some candidates ignorantly and narrowly define war and combat solely as large numbers of infantry "boots on the ground" in some foreign country, employing military force to attack and kill others is war. It is war, whether the weapons originate from ground, naval, or air forces in numbers large or small. It is war, no matter how candidates and posers may want to state or nuance otherwise. And going to war is an action so serious that the Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to declare war. Sending our armed forces into harm’s way in the absence of a declaration of war, as done over the past several decades under multiple congresses and presidents, has proven to be folly time and time again. Three actions are required by our country to correct the all too frequent contemplation of and ultimate use of military force.

If a matter of national security warrants use military force, Congress must be involved and pass a declaration of war. Absent the commander-in-chief authorizing repulsing an immediate threat or attack on our nation, the nation must join in the decision to use military force through Congress. The unsatisfactory trend of resolutions or authorizations for the use of military force short of declarations of war must end.

Men and women have been sent to fight and die, during times the electorate was deeply divided as to the justification. In my lifetime, whether it was Vietnam or Iraq, the nation was not certain the decision was the right one. And since Congress was not asked to declare war, the use of authorizations short of a formal declaration of war diminished what authority was provided the presidents, who essentially exercised unilateral decisions regarding employment of military force.

Declaring war, by its very nature, is accorded the pinnacle of seriousness it warrants. To expend blood and treasure in defending the nation, including meeting approved treaty obligations, is the most important action undertaken by the president and Congress. Sadly, it has become banal and trivial in the political spectrum, due to the lack of congressional accountability. Declaring war means the nation is willing to do whatever is required to win, as the nation willingly undertakes the sacrifices necessary for achieving unconditional victory. All elements of national power are brought to bear. Every family contributes, some more than others. But for far too many decades, only some families contributed, as currently seen by one-half of one percent of the nation serving in the armed forces.

So, update, reinstate, and activate the military draft. Members of Congress and the presidents do not have "skin the game," as the saying goes. Except for the occasional, rare volunteer, the sons and daughters of members of Congress are not likely to go in harm's way as a result of the so-called authorizations for use of military force. It is so easy for politicians to send your son or daughter to war, when not sending their own. To correct this, revise and activate the military draft to (1) include females as well males, (2) eliminate loopholes used by the sons and daughters of the privileged and wealthy to avoid military service, and (3) select a true cross section of American citizens for mandatory military service of a minimum of three consecutive years of active duty. It is also a matter of national equality.

Equally important in ensuring congressional and presidential understanding and appreciation of what it means to declare war, amend the Constitution to require all members of congress, the president and vice president to have served at least three consecutive years of honorable active duty in the armed forces to be eligible for election or appointment. If the civilian leadership is empowered with the power and authority to declare war, then it must have a working knowledge of the armed forces based on personal experience. Simply put, if a citizen wants to serve our nation as president, vice president, or member of congress, then he/she must first serve the nation as a member of its armed forces. This is also a matter of equality.

In sum, if circumstances warrant deciding to use military force, Congress must debate and vote to declare war. In order to ensure equal representation of the people in this most serious of actions, revise and activate the military draft. And amend the constitution to mandate a minimum of three consecutive years of honorable military active duty as an eligibility requirement for the offices of president, vice president, or member of congress.

UPDATE: 12-31-15

This New York Times offers the same opinion as expressed above: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/opinion/sunday/a-fearful-congress-sits-out-the-war-against-isis.html?hpw&rref=sunday-review&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Where best American leadership?

On 12 December, President Obama stated, "“In the past seven years, we’ve transformed the United States into the global leader in fighting climate change." Regardless of one's opinion about climate change, the larger issue is one of American leadership, particularly as viewed by our country's chief executive. Of where best to invest in and wield that leadership. The president's statement speaks volumes to this critical matter.

Saying "we've transformed" states rather emphatically his position. Specifically, that he did not and does not see the role of America to lead in international security matters, a plank in both of his campaigns. He set about to reduce (transform if you will) American leadership in this area, as seen in his decision to lead from behind in his failed approach to Libya. Thus, his views require transformation away from being a nation that leads the world in international security matters, yielding to others who might seek this role. A dangerous abdication of the historic international role America has played, most notably in WWI and WWII, as well as during the post WWII era of the Soviet Union's expansionist aspirations. Certainly, this role was poorly played when the nation reached too far by seeking to nation build, leading to negative results in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller proxy wars. But American international security leadership has been more positive than negative. However, Obama sought the presidency determined to transform the country and its place amongst the nations of the world.

Stating "fighting climate change" is also an emphatic declaration of his position. Since words matter, "fighting" is very telling. He could have said "counter," "correct," "resolve," or even simply "fix." He sees climate change as an adversary worthy of engaging to defeat. Whether or not you accept his position, or whether or not you believe the agreement will change our climate, or whether or not you believe the other nations will actually abide by the agreement is immaterial to understanding Obama's views on American leadership.

By his words and actions, it is clear he does not see America as the world's leader in matters regarding international security. So it follows that he does not see international security as a threat worthy of his concern. His responses to questions from the media in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks were exceptionally telling. Media from around the world were looking to the American president to take the lead in this international matter. But he did not. And taking a look at his action of the past seven years provides clear and convincing examples of his views in this arena, with the Iranian nuclear agreement being the most startling example.

So here we are, with a president proud of transforming American leadership from international security to one climate change. At a time multiple threats are visiting death and carnage across the world. At a time the threat to the American homeland is rising. At a time American influence is waining across the globe. At a time of immense excessive federal government spending driving up extraordinary debt, threatening the entire national economy.

The unasked question is why not do both, lead in climate change and international security? It was not a zero sum endeavor. Why not add climate change leadership to the mantle of responsibility for international security?

If a nuclear weapon is employed by North Korea or Iran or some non-state actor, what does Obama think will happen? What reactions would he forecast? And what of the influence on the climate of these action? What of the impact on the American economy? What happens when another 9/11 level attack occurs in the homeland? What of the growing influence and, dare it be said, leadership of a resurgent Russia in the middle east? What if the Islamist threat takes control of the petroleum assets in the middle east? What about the aggressive posture of China in the western Pacific region?

How does Obama's transformed United States leadership prepare us in the face of threats to international security? If something tragic occurs, will it be said he made wise decisions on where to invest in and wield American leadership?
     

Ultimate conspiracy theory

Not one for accepting or espousing conspiracy theories, I nevertheless remember the old saying, "even paranoids have enemies."  So in a rare moment of fantasy (or oxygen deprivation), the ultimate conspiracy theory came to mine relative to this election cycle.

The media are colluding with Clinton and Trump to assure her election as President.

Think about it for a moment.  The coverage of Trump is astronomical compared to stories about other candidates.

Trump offers one more idiotic, horrendous, banal, inflammatory, sexist, racist, etc., etc., etc. comment every day, which the media then exploits by exceptional amount of coverage.  The more incendiary his rhetoric, the more coverage he gets.  On issues of the day, he mouths comments sure to offend.  And the comments play right into Clinton's plan.  It could be argued that in cold, clear analysis his commentary reads like and sounds like something Clinton would specifically want him to say, so that she can come out with her counter Trump commentary.

All along, media covers Trump's outlandish commentary, fanning the flames of disgust.  This disgust, engineered by the Clinton campaign, will manifest itself in the general election to hand the presidency to Clinton.  Of course, before the general election, Trump must first get the GOP nomination.  Once more, in this conspiracy theory, the three conspiracists (media, Trump, and Clinton) work to "excite" the fringes of the GOP in order to drown out the superior messaging of other candidates, thereby pressing for Trump to get the party's nomination.  Trump's disgusting, inflammatory rhetoric grows day-by-day and so does coverage by the media.

The rhetoric provides softballs for Clinton to effortlessly hit over the fence, all the while expending not very much energy (of any kind) as she coasts to the Dem nomination (or is that coronation).

If this wild idea has foundation, then Trump and Clinton work on the messaging he will provide that benefits her, with the media agreeing to provide extraordinary levels of coverage for the unbelievable words coming out of Trump's mouth.  Other candidate messages are obscured.  Fringe elements of the GOP get whipped into a lather.  And a path to the GOP nomination is paved.

Once it gets to the general election, Clinton vs Trump, it does not take a genius to see how the results will play out.

Thank goodness I don't buy into conspiracy theories.

   

The first shoe dropped (Updated 12-7-15)

On the 74th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, this blog has been updated.

The first shoe dropped, as the Secretary of Defense announced that all military occupational specialities (MOS) will be open to women. This decision runs contrary to the Marine Corps recommendation that "front line," most notably MarSoc, infantry and artillery, positions be restricted to qualified males (note: not all males qualify for these assignments).  This recommendation came after an exhaustive, comprehensive, and realistic combat skills evaluation the Corps completed, which unequivocally demonstrated that gender integrated units performed worse on combat mission essential skills and tasks than did male only units. It must be highlighted that the evaluation was planned and conducted based upon significant combat lessons learned from our recent wars and therefore is not to be taken lightly.  Another telling indicator of the seriousness was the absence of Marine Corps General Dunford, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and immediate past Commandant of the Marine Corps.

We can easily predict what will accompany the inevitability of the second shoe dropping: lowering of standards.  Specifically, progressive activists and others who have never served in the military will demand, and likely get, something along the line of "gender adapted" or "gender neutral" standards. This will be done to further their progressive "social justice" objectives by mandating assignment of women to heretofore closed specialities and units, not in order to meet any compelling military or combat necessity.  The issue at hand is not arcane or academic.  It is one of life and death and combat survival, which demand high standards.

And high standards have already come under attack, such as the arguments about the "equity" of the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course Combat Endurance Test, which males and females have failed, though the female failure rate is almost total.  And the failures were not because of a lack of desire.  (By the way, when I attended The Basic School, there was neither an IOC nor a Combat Endurance Test, indicating hard fought combat lessons learned have been used by the Marine Corps to improve and make training and qualification even more rigorous.)  Failure came from inability to meet demanding combat proven standards.  As the Military Times reported, "By July 2014, only 20 female officers had attempted the course.  Only one made it through the Combat Endurance Test, and none made it to the end." The failure rate for males, at about 10% in recent reports, indicates that not all males can meet the standards.  Just as does the reported 75% failure rate at BUDS/UDT.  But high standards and combat effectiveness do not concern progressive activists, as they press for their vision of the U.S. military.

Once more the liberals are using the military as their social science laboratory, in order to advance their progressive views.  With SecDef's decision, they will now undoubtedly declare that since a MOS is open to women, it would be unfair to exclude women based on existing "male based" standards.  In the ultimate irony and hypocrisy, these folks will clamor for gender based standards designed for women, just after clamoring that it was sexist to exclude females.  So it can be predicted the standards will be reduced for females, which will then lead to some males declaring that the male standards are too high and they should be allowed to be evaluated against the new female standards.  Otherwise they will have standing to claim sex discrimination.  (Of course, the transgender Marine can choose whichever standards he/she decides are easiest.)  Thus, the requisite high standards will be lowered across the board, endangering those allowed into specialities and units that once required demanding standards be met and maintained.

What all the progressive activists miss is that combat, particularly ground combat of the grueling sort experienced for weeks on end during previous wars, is not the place to pursue their agenda.

Certainly, some women in our recent wars performed extraordinarily, admirably, and heroically on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, with many wounded and killed.  The Lioness and Female Engagement Teams are excellent examples.  However, these few examples were not born from fully gender integrated units from the four man Fire Team up to the Infantry Regiment. Let alone special operations forces such as SEALs, Rangers, Combat Controllers, etc.  The best example of the impact of gender integration was the aforementioned Marine Corps evaluation.  The Marines took the right approach, by examining the issue based on combat unit mission performance.  This is how we organize and fight.  It is the ultimate team effort.  And the results were clear, male only units performed the combat mission more effectively and efficiently than gender integrated units.

In spite of the results, it is inevitable that second shoe must drop for the progressive activists to achieve their ultimate goal.

But the price for the failure of their agenda will be needless loss of life and combat mission failure.  But the progressive activists will not be around to take any responsibility for their part in this abysmal decision.  They will not stand next me and fellow Patriot Guard Riders at the foreseeable military funerals.  The progressive activists will not be publicly condemned.  They will not be sent to jail.  And they certainly will not be on the front lines, carrying a rifle, ill suited and ill prepared to take the fight to the enemy.