Opinions and debates

In the seemingly perpetual campaigning across the country, serious damage is being done to essential aspects of our uniquely American freedoms.  Political campaigns, aided and abetted by the media, are leading the way in causing the damage.  Damage that is magnified by the quasi-to-actual anonymity of social media.

Freedom of expression is a pillar of freedom upon which our nation stands.  This freedom extends to the ability to express opinion and then debate the merits of said views.  In establishing this freedom, wisely neither the Constitution nor the Amendments require that the opinions be based on fact or even logical conclusion.  It is debate about the opinion that will or will not convince others of its merit.  Those opinions with value will earn support and those without will be disregarded.

Or at least that is the way things should work.  But it is certainly not the way it happens today.

Starting at the very top, pursuing votes as a candidate for president has devolved into anything but informed opinions being debated, so that the electorate may determine which have merit.  Rather than mature iterations of opinion and debate, candidates sling about outlandish insults at one another.  Hyperbole replaces reason.  All sorts of intent and behaviors are ascribed to opponents.  And this goes on unchecked.

The behavior is left unchecked by the media, who actually serve to inflame the situation.  Talking heads no longer merely report, they filter, edit, and opine to meet their personal objectives.  The damaging behavior, left unchecked, aided and abetted by the media, is subsequently proliferated by rampant social media.  And social media is notoriously unreliable, but certainly full of scathing, often anonymous screed.  But hey, if a candidate for the presidency and the media can behave in such a repugnant manner, should not voters able to follow suit.

Imagine primary and general campaigns in which the candidates refrained from the hyper-toxic accusations and personal attacks.  What if the campaigns strictly put forth their opinions on important matters, then debated their opponents on the merits pro and con?  What if the media simply reported the stated opinions and accurately reported the ensuing debates, without attempting to tilt the information one direction or another?

Yes, under our system of free speech an individual can utter falsehoods with legal immunity.  Individuals can take to social media and communicate inflammatory and wholly false rhetoric with legal immunity.  And individuals on social media can transmit all sorts of vile, reprehensible, and troubling comments without being held legally responsible.

Imagine candidates not declaring as fact matters that are subsequently proven to be false.  Imagine candidates not employing social media to communicate inflammatory comments.  Imagine candidates communicating civilly.  Imagine candidates presenting opinions and seriously debating their merits. 

That would exhibit the manner in which our freedom of expression of opinions and debates is meant to be. 

If candidates, starting with those seeking the presidency, set the tone and example by taking this approach, the damage would be slowed.  If followed by the media seriously and judiciously reporting the opinions and debates, without leaning one way or the other, the damage would be further slowed.  And maybe, just maybe, such examples set by candidates and the media would bleed over into the realm of social media.          

 

  

If utterly confused, you are not alone.

If utterly confused, you are not alone.

As what passes for the media, both left leaning and right leaning, pumps out opinions and purposefully slanted stories thinly disguised as "news" to suit their personal objectives, what are citizens to think?

Story after story and article after article seem more designed to inflame that to inform.  In pursuit of the aforementioned personal objectives, common decency has been shed in favor of sensationalism by unfounded accusation.  Honesty in reporting gone by the wayside, joining judgment, ethics, and integrity as traits no longer attributable to the press.

In our nation where the press once served an invaluable and honorable role, we citizens are now subjected to pummeling by social media driven drivel.  What once would have never risen to the level of publication now is given false credence by an over anxious group of individuals more intent on self promotion than truth, justice, and the American way.

Reiterating an earlier point, this sad state exists in both left leaning and right leaning media.

Where no offense exists, they seek to create it.  Where no law has been broken, they define actions as criminal.  Instead of reporting facts so the populace can exercise its considerable judgment, they spoon feed carefully and deliberately edited story lines.  Utterly disgusting.

Beyond the disgust, however, is the disservice done to the nation.  The battling personalities create and sew confusion and discontent, normally with an indignant sense of superiority.

Capitalizing upon this abhorrent phenomena, political entities of all types cite the tons of drivel as facts in their pursuit of power.

Some use the power of the media's considerable megaphone to declare objectivity is no longer required.  Others use the power to deliberately inflame and incite.  And some others are clearly crude, base, uncouth, shameless, vile, and despicable.

No wonder citizens are confused regarding what the media portrays as newsworthy.             

Mandatory National Service

Published views advocating national service of various types have surfaced, including from General McChrystal, Eric Navarro, and Karen Whitney.  They are on the right path, but don't take the concept far enough.  

The nation needs to implement mandatory national service for all able bodied citizens.  Underscoring the last word, mandatory national service and its ensuing benefits must be available only to citizens of the United States of America.

At age 18 or 60 days subsequent to graduation from high school, whichever occurs last, all able bodied citizens will be required to serve a period of three consecutive years of mandatory national service.  All forms of national service will include introductory in residence training, aka "boot camp."  This introductory training is described later. 

National service will include serving in one of the existing programs, some of which will be converted from volunteer status, for example:

• Armed Forces
• Peace Corps
• Greatly expanded Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• National Park Service
• Fish and Wildlife Service
• Bureau of Land Management
• US Forest Service
• US Geological Survey
• National Resource Conservation
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
• US Bureau of Reclamation
• Americorps
• Volunteer Generation Fund per Serve America Act
• Americorps National Civilian Community Corps
• Volunteers in Service to America
• Federal Emergency Management Agency Corps
• Note: State and local governments may choose to opt in, by providing state and locally funded positions ccomparable to those listed above.

Every component of the national service will include the following ancillary elements during introductory training, which will be conducted at residential sites (as done by the military during basic training):

• Personal financial management training.
• Consumer skills training, such as house buying, car buying, comparison shopping, credit card management, Internet security, etc.
• Citizenship skills training, such as applying for employment, resume construction, job interview skills, filing tax returns, voting, etc.
• Remedial English language arts, math, and writing for those identified by entry level evaluation during introductory training.
• Administration of interest inventories to help our citizens identify for which fields of employment they are best suited. 
• Applying for college or trade schools.
• GED certificates for those who have not graduated from high school.
• Internships with applicable businesses.  

Only upon successful completion of a three consecutive year stint in national service will citizens be eligible for:

• Federal student financial aid,  
• Federal grants of any kind,
• Federal unemployment insurance,
• Federal health care subsidies,
• Federal employment,
• Federal home loans, 
• Election/appointment to federal office, or
• Any of the 2,302 forms of assistance listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.   

In addition to the above direct benefits, other indirect benefits of mandatory national service include:

• Identifying as American citizens.
• Earning federal benefits.
• Earning employment experience.
• Learning workplace teamwork.
• Leadership.
• Exposure to individuals from outside of ones immediate environment.
• Contributing to the nation, leading to developing citizenship. 
• Gaining three years of crucial maturity before entering higher education, trade schools, or the employment market.
• Exposure to different parts of the country.
• Exposure to various fields of employment.
• Development and enhancement of adult social skills.
• Learning which fields of employment may suit the citizens best.
• Learning to manage personal finances.
• Reduction of student debt.
• Preparation for higher education or trade school.

This program employs our youth as soon as they have completed or departed high school, provides skills often noted as missing in the entry level workforce, enhances academic skills where needed, directly contributes to the welfare of the nation, builds effective citizenship, and breaks from the current approach.  Federal benefits will be earned, rather than simply provided, and citizens will identify as Americans.  

Trump insults our nation

Egad!  

Trump insults our nation.  Almost every time he tweets or opens his mouth.

A list of the insults, aimed at individuals and groups, would be far to long to repeat here.  But the accumulated impact is a massive insult to the nation.

One seeking the presidency of the United States should, above all else, be serious.  By words and actions, the candidate must demonstrate he/she understands the enormity of the position they seek.

Clearly, Trump does not.

With the verbal eloquence of a recalcitrant child, demeanor of either a bully or horrible Las Vegas lounge comic, and social media persona of an immature teenager, he has most assuredly made a mockery of the office.

Histrionic to the extreme, his utterances, tweets, and boasts demonstrate absolute unsuitability for the presidency.  One example makes the point.

Stipulating that the DNC unquestionably chose to have Mr. Khan speak as a provocateur, Trump's scurrilous response was unacceptable.

A response was not in fact required.  

If compelled to respond, Trump could have simply said, "Like all Americans, I honor all Gold Star families."   But he did not.  He chose to insult the Khans multiple times.

Again, a extremely long list of other examples could fill volumes.

Bottom line: Mr. Trump insults the nation and its people and is unworthy of their votes.

Footnote:  To be completely clear on the matter, Ms. Clinton is equally unworthy of our votes.    
 

Clinton can't have it both ways

Of recent, Ms. Clinton attempts to deflect justifiable criticism and concern of her by blaming subordinates, including her members of her innermost circle.  

As one working to persuade the American electorate that she is the leader for the future, she can not have it both ways.

Basic, elementary leadership means willingly accepting responsibility for everything your organization does or fails to do.  Good leaders know and practice this.  For example, in the military it is not uncommon for the commanding officer to held absolutely responsible for the actions of his/her subordinates.  This includes being relieved for cause, as the military saying goes.  Such as the commanding officer of a navy ship being relieved after it runs aground, even if he/she were asleep in his/her stateroom at the time of the grounding.

But Clinton, who demands that her adversaries be held to this very high standard of responsibility for the actions and words of their subordinates, wants to be a leader in name only.  

She seeks all the authority, without any of the responsibility.

In a recent situation, her advocates seek to deflect criticism of possible pay-to-play actions in the state department during her tenure, arising from emails revealing direct contact between her aides and those of former President Clinton, by saying she did not personally communicate with the external parties by email.  

Sure, two of her most trusted and closest aides did so, but according to her and others, she is not to be held responsible.

Simple answer...wrong!

The real leader creates a climate in which his/her subordinates, including the inner, personal staff, operate and for which he/she is responsible.  This climate sets the tone for the organization.  And it establishes that responsibility goes right to the top.  Responsibility for anything that is done or failed to be done. 

A leader can delegate authority to act in their name, but not the responsibility for the outcome of those actions.

The leader holds subordinates accountable for their actions in pursuit of the objectives the leader sets, and taken within the climate he/she establishes.  It is inconceivable that Clinton's closest and most trusted innermost staff would act on such high matters (described in one revealed email as on behalf of a "very imortant" person) without either her explicit approval (which did not need to be recorded in an email) or within their understanding of the objectives and climate she expressly set.  

Since no one was fired, the public can rightfully conclude the actions of Mills and Abedin (and others) have been and continue to be exactly what Clinton directs and desires.

Thus, in this latest of many, many questionable (if not criminal at worst or unethical at best) actions, Clinton can not have it both ways.  She can not stand for the most important leadership position within the country, seeking all the authority that comes with the office, and simultaneously seek to avoid the basic tenet of leadership: responsibility.         

Valor

Recent reports that Irene Martin of the Department of Homeland Security is to receive an award for valor is an affront to our men and women in law enforcement, fire fighting, and the military.

From other reports, it is learned she actually blocked law enforcement officers performing their duties in the aftermath of the San Bernardino attack.

To see real heroes, here are photos of those who displayed actual valor in the performance of their duties.

Law enforcement

Fire fighters

Military

The actions of the Department of Homeland Security in this case are shameful.

Veterans from different eras

Military veterans from different eras have and are pursuing a virtually identical past time - motorcycling.

The warriors who came home from World War II, purchased bikes, and grouped together are not a lot different from those from the nation's recent wars who have followed suit.

They prefer to associate with those who share similar experiences, as well as unbounded patriotism.

The wording on t-shirt worn by one young vet captures it well.  "If my patriotism offends you, your lack of a spine offends me." 

The camaraderie they learned and depended upon while in uniform is found in their biker clubs of today.  

Along with the aforementioned camaraderie and patriotism, like their forefathers they believe in integrity, honesty, hard work, earning your way through life, straight talk, the Second Amendment, brotherhood, directness, freedom, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, standing for the National Anthem, saluting the American flag, honoring the fallen, and having a good time together.

Even though from different generations decades apart, the two groups of veterans are amazingly alike.  And we certainly need more of them. 

Common politeness and decency

A favorite neighbor and I were chatting this morning, as friends and neighbors do.  He and his wife embody America, as they and one of their sons work at a company founded by her grandfather.  Hardworking, family oriented, lovers of our great nation.

After talking baseball (we'd been to a game together on Sunday, in which our local team lost) and the inevitable politics, our discussion switched to events in our neighborhood, small town, and nation.  Specifically, people seeming to "go off" on one another for even the slightest of reasons.  

Why, we wondered aloud, is this happening more and more?

Recently another neighbor yelled and created a scene about something that could have been dealt with quietly and politely.  Sure, the underlying matter was an aggravation, as workmen were spewing concrete dust into the air, rather than using the right systems and procedures to control the contaminants.  Instead of calmly informing the workers, our neighbor just "went off," as the saying goes.

We then recounted other similar examples, including some that have made headlines.  People condemning and demanding of others, for a full spectrum of perceived slights.  Politeness and decency are becoming lost in this age of social media insults hurled without thought.  No longer are reason and courtesy the best approaches.

The ability of people to either grin and bear it or politely state their positions appear absent in our current divisive, hyper-charged environment fueled by inflammatory rhetoric from political candidates, activists, university professors, talk show hosts, and other cretins who are provided the proverbial electronic microphone by a compliant and biased media.

We are inundated by hate filled messaging.  And if hate isn't present, there are those intent on fomenting it.  Of course, the media is right there to fan the flames in order to sell more and get better ratings.  So it is no surprise, really, when example after example of folks losing it come to the surface.

From the road rage incident in which a woman runs over and kills a motorcyclist, to an argument at a ballgame that leads to a fight leaving a man permanently disabled, to the school child who attacks the teacher, our nation seems to be woefully off track.

Common politeness and decency are now the exceptions, rather than the (expected) norms.  Can it be traced to the proliferation of near perpetual election campaigning based upon the division born of identity politics?  Can it be traced to talk shows, radio, television, and social media stirring up problems in the name of pseudo-journalism?

I don't have any answers, but these two questions may point in the right direction.      

Predictably

At a recent gathering, the older veterans' comments were predictably negative about the state of affairs in our country.  Equally predictable were words -- harsh, angry, condemning, frustrated, emotional -- about the choices in this presidential election.  "What fools!" from a retired Navy Captain captured it best.

It was a decidedly an anti-Clinton group, to no one's surprise I am sure.  As a retired Marine Colonel observed, when she falsely claimed to have landed under sniper fire in Bosnia, she insulted all those who have and do wear the uniforms of our nation's military.  This alone, in his mind, disqualifies her.

But make no mistake, Trump faired no better.  His scurrilous and despicable comments to and about a Gold Star Family enraged these veterans.  They were livid!  

The outrage across the nation at Trump was most eloquently captured in an op-ed written by the retired soldier who was Captain Khan's commanding officer at the time of his death.  As only a commanding officer can do, he put the entire matter in proper perspective.

But whether it is Clinton's hubris or Trump's maniacal attacks, their comments expose their unfitness for the office they seek. 

Predictably, it will likely occur that these episodes will be just others in the litany of episodes to come this election season.  One candidate continues to lie, obfuscate, and misrepresent, displaying a total absence of character.  The other candidate continues to insult, belittle, and attack just about every element of our great nation, displaying a total absence of judgment.

Predictably, however, one of these two fools, borrowing the retired Navy Captain's apt description, will be elected.

Predictably, the nation will bemoan that day.