Come Wednesday morning, it's pretty damn certain the sun will rise. Nearly as certain is that one side or the other of the political spectrum will be apoplectic.
Yet the sun will still rise. No apocalypse occurred overnight in the wake of the election.
Life will go on.
But if listening or reading only in the echo chambers of the (inaptly named) major political parties, left or right, liberal or conservative, roughly half of the average american citizens will hear doom and gloom. It is also reasonable to predict an onslaught of associated claims and counterclaims about this or that injustice. Just as during the lead up to the election, exaggeration, embellishment, overstatement, and hyperbole will fill the day. Self-appointed pundits will flood (mainly in the aforementioned echo chambers) broadcasts, the airwaves, and Internet with their (anything but) sage views. Absolutism will dominate. Handwringing will be elevated to an art form. Invective will be shouted. Protests may be mounted.
Sheesh!
Yet the sun will come up and life will go on.
Those most impacted by the results, the average citizenry of the nation, will go about their daily lives, in spite of the election. Some will grouse, some will smile. But they will go about their lives, regardless of their views and feelings. Because that is just the way it will be.
The winners may celebrate and the losers may complain, but neither will simply lay down and do nothing. Momentary anger or joy will by necessity yield to the demands of the new day. Breakfast will be consumed and off to work they will go, happy or not. The activities of daily life will continue pretty much unabated.
Perhaps only in the woefully unrealistic and insular bubbles called college/university campuses will activity momentarily cease. Classes may be cancelled. Marches may be organized. Even as parents pay the bills, academia may raise its strident voice.
Everywhere else, life will go on.
That is an absolute certainty for Wednesday morning.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Postmortem
As the election postmortem continues ad nauseam, two points are irrefutable.
HRC deliberately chose to exclusively employ an unauthorized, unsecured email server for official government business, contrary to policy and regulations.
The hacked and released DNC and HRC campaign staff emails were not altered in any way. Thus, the contents must be taken as factual.
HRC deliberately chose to exclusively employ an unauthorized, unsecured email server for official government business, contrary to policy and regulations.
The hacked and released DNC and HRC campaign staff emails were not altered in any way. Thus, the contents must be taken as factual.
Monday, November 28, 2016
Let loose the dogs of therapy
Let loose the dogs of therapy
Reading and listening to the reactions across the country since the election is, if nothing else, an interesting and somewhat entertaining exercise. There is certainly rich fodder for articles and posts in the overreactions in some quarters, most notably the left. Strident calls for this and that permeate the reactions, like demands for electors to change their votes to Clinton. Perhaps nowhere else is reaction more absurd and downright silly than on college and university campuses. Let loose the dogs of therapy I say. Fill the crying rooms to the maximum. Provide huggers at every building entrance and exit. Open the gates for protests. Cancel classes and exams. Build entire safe space buildings instead of football stadiums.
For the most part, conservatives tolerantly stand aside and watch, stifling the urge to rant and rail at the ridiculous. Why? Because conservatives are, by nature, tolerant.
Central to the conservative approach to life is tolerance. As long as others obey the laws, all laws, and respect others, conservatives are tolerant of their personal decisions, actions, and views. Conservatives may not agree with those decisions, actions, and views, but normally remain tolerant of them. It is when others demand conservatives accept, agree with, and even actively support decisions, actions, and views with which they disagree that the fat is in the fire, as the saying goes.
Ironically, in the aftermath of the election liberals and progressives continue demonstrating their lack of tolerance, a hallmark to their approach to life. Dogmatic statements abound, underscoring the liberal/progressive stance. Intolerance abounds, as they make claim after claim, demand change after change, and attempt to repudiate the election results. So be it.
But there are times when conservatives must react as liberals cross a bright and shining line. One such crossing occurred at Amherst College when first the American flag was lowered inappropriately by the campus administration to half-staff after the election. Then a student took down the flag and burned it. Then the administration put a flag up, again at half-staff. Then, in a final insult, decided not to fly the American flag at all. Such action requires a reaction.
The reaction occurred over the weekend when hundreds of veterans and others protested at the college by bringing and waving hundreds of American flags.
Amherst College President Lash should be ashamed of the message he sends. He should be fired for insinuating all forms of hate to the American flag, under which millions of men and women have served. The federal government should immediately place a hold on all federal funding awarded the school (except individual student federal financial aid) until the flag is once again flown at full staff.
If he wants to provide therapy dogs, hugs, crying rooms, safe spaces, and the like, so be it. I disagree, but will tolerate his actions.
But do not expect me to tolerate the disrespect he shows our American flag.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Giving to their community
As the nation digests the election results, life goes on. The sun came up on the morning of 9 November and each day since.
One of those days was Saturday 12 November, characteristically sunny and warm in San Diego. A large group of bikers, many of them veterans, didn't take advantage of the day to go to the beach, play golf, watch college football on TV, or simply laze around the house. They set out to give back to their community and more.
After breakfast at the El Cajon Harley Davidson dealership, they rode in four groups to the Miramar National Cemetery, where they stopped to honor those laid to rest there.
Their next stop was the Marine Corps Reserve Center & Headquarters of the 4th Tank Battalion, where the bikers dropped off the hundreds of toys they had collected for the Marine Corps Reserves Toys for Tots Program. A small dent in the overall goal of 58,000 toys for children in the San Diego region, but a dent nonetheless.
Before returning to the Harley dealership for lunch, at the request of Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant Castillo, the bikers did a surprise slow ride by the home of the father of a fallen Marine. By their action, the bikers were saying to this Gold Star family that the loss of their son and their sacrifice are not forgotten.
Unlike some who were protesting the election results in parts of the country, these bikers, veterans, and patriots came together for a purpose bigger than themselves, giving back to the community and a Gold Star parent.
One of those days was Saturday 12 November, characteristically sunny and warm in San Diego. A large group of bikers, many of them veterans, didn't take advantage of the day to go to the beach, play golf, watch college football on TV, or simply laze around the house. They set out to give back to their community and more.
After breakfast at the El Cajon Harley Davidson dealership, they rode in four groups to the Miramar National Cemetery, where they stopped to honor those laid to rest there.
Their next stop was the Marine Corps Reserve Center & Headquarters of the 4th Tank Battalion, where the bikers dropped off the hundreds of toys they had collected for the Marine Corps Reserves Toys for Tots Program. A small dent in the overall goal of 58,000 toys for children in the San Diego region, but a dent nonetheless.
Before returning to the Harley dealership for lunch, at the request of Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant Castillo, the bikers did a surprise slow ride by the home of the father of a fallen Marine. By their action, the bikers were saying to this Gold Star family that the loss of their son and their sacrifice are not forgotten.
Unlike some who were protesting the election results in parts of the country, these bikers, veterans, and patriots came together for a purpose bigger than themselves, giving back to the community and a Gold Star parent.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Come Wednesday morning, one thing is certain
Come Wednesday morning, one thing is certain.
Half the country will be angry, disappointed, and genuinely concerned.
And what will that anger, disappointment, and genuine concern portend?
The divisiveness building over the past two presidential administrations will rise to extraordinary levels. Arguably much, much worse than those fed by the machinations over the past nearly eight years.
To study an ineffective Congress, one merely needs to look at how Senate Majority Leader Reid and Speaker of the House Pelosi colluded to deliberately withheld votes and changed long, honored procedures to ram through some bills, while intentionally letting contentious, though important bills lay dormant. At a time the Democrats held both chambers, major problems (national debt, immigration, and tax reform to name a few) requiring Congressional action remained unaddressed. Likewise, when Republicans held majorities in both chambers, Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speakers of the House Boehner and Ryan did not force matters with the President by crafting and sending legislation to floors votes and eventually the President. The floor votes and potential presidential vetoes would have irrefutably demonstrated to the electorate which party really supported the interests of the nation and which was obstructionist. As a result, the Republican majorities in both chambers failed to take up the fight to rein in a lawless president and the nation suffered.
And what will the post election anger, disappointment, and genuine concern portend?
Regardless of which candidate claims victory, it is unlikely there will a mandate voted into either or both chambers of Congress. Majorities (if any) will remain relatively slim, with the Senate majority currently up for grabs. So the ineffectiveness defining recent Congresses will continue. If anything, due to the unprecedented nature of the 2016 election, even further retrenchment is highly likely. Ideologues from both parties will fire off combative and conflicting statements of blame. Unsubstantiated assertions and allegations will flood the media. All the while, important matters (national debt, immigration, tax reform, national security, education) will get no better and may even become worse.
And half of the nation will continue to be angry, disappointed, and genuinely concerned.
Once in office, the newly elected president may continue to unlawfully expand employment of executive orders as a form of governance. Whether Congress or the courts will rein in such lawlessness is doubtful based on recent history. And with an eight member Supreme Court, contentious judicial nominations will become major illustrations of government dysfunction.
Legal challenges of all sorts will be levied, again, regardless of who claims victory. Hearings, lawsuits, FOIA requests, etc. will proliferate.
All the while, half of the electorate will be angry, disappointed, and genuinely concerned.
Perhaps, just perhaps, a shift will occur because of this anger, disappointment, and concern. Maybe some elected officials will look to the 2016 election and see that it as a wake up signal, regardless of political leanings. It is possible the enough elected officials may wake up and recognize that they must tackle, by some form of of compromise, the serious matters facing our country. One good start: instead of omnibus appropriation and spending bills, separate bills (as intended) will be legislated and sent to the president for signature. Maybe enough elected officials will see the need to remove riders and amendments, so that basic matters can be addressed. Maybe enough elected officials will recognize the time is right to once and for all tackle wasteful pork in the national budget. Maybe, just maybe, the word compromise will enter the daily vocabulary.
If not, by then the entire electorate will be justifiably angry, disappointed, and genuinely concerned. And that would portend a legitimate national crisis.
Half the country will be angry, disappointed, and genuinely concerned.
And what will that anger, disappointment, and genuine concern portend?
The divisiveness building over the past two presidential administrations will rise to extraordinary levels. Arguably much, much worse than those fed by the machinations over the past nearly eight years.
To study an ineffective Congress, one merely needs to look at how Senate Majority Leader Reid and Speaker of the House Pelosi colluded to deliberately withheld votes and changed long, honored procedures to ram through some bills, while intentionally letting contentious, though important bills lay dormant. At a time the Democrats held both chambers, major problems (national debt, immigration, and tax reform to name a few) requiring Congressional action remained unaddressed. Likewise, when Republicans held majorities in both chambers, Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speakers of the House Boehner and Ryan did not force matters with the President by crafting and sending legislation to floors votes and eventually the President. The floor votes and potential presidential vetoes would have irrefutably demonstrated to the electorate which party really supported the interests of the nation and which was obstructionist. As a result, the Republican majorities in both chambers failed to take up the fight to rein in a lawless president and the nation suffered.
And what will the post election anger, disappointment, and genuine concern portend?
Regardless of which candidate claims victory, it is unlikely there will a mandate voted into either or both chambers of Congress. Majorities (if any) will remain relatively slim, with the Senate majority currently up for grabs. So the ineffectiveness defining recent Congresses will continue. If anything, due to the unprecedented nature of the 2016 election, even further retrenchment is highly likely. Ideologues from both parties will fire off combative and conflicting statements of blame. Unsubstantiated assertions and allegations will flood the media. All the while, important matters (national debt, immigration, tax reform, national security, education) will get no better and may even become worse.
And half of the nation will continue to be angry, disappointed, and genuinely concerned.
Once in office, the newly elected president may continue to unlawfully expand employment of executive orders as a form of governance. Whether Congress or the courts will rein in such lawlessness is doubtful based on recent history. And with an eight member Supreme Court, contentious judicial nominations will become major illustrations of government dysfunction.
Legal challenges of all sorts will be levied, again, regardless of who claims victory. Hearings, lawsuits, FOIA requests, etc. will proliferate.
All the while, half of the electorate will be angry, disappointed, and genuinely concerned.
Perhaps, just perhaps, a shift will occur because of this anger, disappointment, and concern. Maybe some elected officials will look to the 2016 election and see that it as a wake up signal, regardless of political leanings. It is possible the enough elected officials may wake up and recognize that they must tackle, by some form of of compromise, the serious matters facing our country. One good start: instead of omnibus appropriation and spending bills, separate bills (as intended) will be legislated and sent to the president for signature. Maybe enough elected officials will see the need to remove riders and amendments, so that basic matters can be addressed. Maybe enough elected officials will recognize the time is right to once and for all tackle wasteful pork in the national budget. Maybe, just maybe, the word compromise will enter the daily vocabulary.
If not, by then the entire electorate will be justifiably angry, disappointed, and genuinely concerned. And that would portend a legitimate national crisis.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Military tradition
Around this time of year, several military related events (US Navy birthday, US Marine Corps birthday, Veterans Day) evoke traditional actions and ceremonies.
Tradition is something
civilians, in general, do not understand. And the current group of progressives,
in particular, can not comprehend the importance of tradition.
For members of the military and veterans, our institutional beliefs make us great, as they set the
tone for all who serve. We were trained in the histories and traditions of our services,
not to indoctrinate, but to ensure we understood the responsibility we
undertook to safeguard the valor, memories, victories, and sacrifices of those who went before us.
Our traditions help reinforce the belief and imperative of sacrifice, of putting the welfare of our nation, service, unit, mission, and comrades above self. Never let a fellow Marine down!
The current crop of progressives routinely attack the military and its traditions; like the absolute importance of the American Flag. Where they can, they seek to force change in our traditions. For example, doing away with Navy enlisted ratings.
It is another all too sad reminder of Obama's, Clinton's, and their crowd's disdain for our military . Tragically, it also provides insight into the world that would follow a Clinton election. Infamous for her demands that military uniforms be kept out of sight when she was FLOTUS, one can only speculate what steps she might undertake as POTUS.
It is another all too sad reminder of Obama's, Clinton's, and their crowd's disdain for our military . Tragically, it also provides insight into the world that would follow a Clinton election. Infamous for her demands that military uniforms be kept out of sight when she was FLOTUS, one can only speculate what steps she might undertake as POTUS.
As we celebrate, remember, and mourn, our traditions stand strong. No politician without military experience will ever be able to understand this.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Judge them by the same standards
As news cycles ebb and flow, pieces judging candidates seem to dominate. Apart from deliberately stilted coverage, this is the way it should be. Though the fine art of principled journalism has yielded to expressing individual views disguised as "news," the valued role of the media is to inform. Just the facts, nothing but the facts.
Perhaps no where is this more important than when judging elected officials and those seeking elected office. All that can be asked is that elected officials and those seeking elected office be judged by the same standards.
Determining the standards by which they are judged is fairly easy. For example, truthfulness, honesty, obeying the law, integrity, performance, ethics, consistency, knowledge, fidelity, accomplishment, respect, veracity, humility, decency, patriotism, honor, judgment, principle, and embodying American values.
Applying the standards is also fairly easy. Review the records of accomplishment or lack thereof. Review what has been said, publicly and privately. Look at the family life. Compare and contrast stated objectives with accomplishments. Evaluate friendships and associations (birds of a feather flock together). Critically review political speeches for the truth. And many more.
And judge each by these same standards. Do not hold one candidate or elected official to one set of standards and the opponents to another.
Perhaps no where is this more important than when judging elected officials and those seeking elected office. All that can be asked is that elected officials and those seeking elected office be judged by the same standards.
Determining the standards by which they are judged is fairly easy. For example, truthfulness, honesty, obeying the law, integrity, performance, ethics, consistency, knowledge, fidelity, accomplishment, respect, veracity, humility, decency, patriotism, honor, judgment, principle, and embodying American values.
Applying the standards is also fairly easy. Review the records of accomplishment or lack thereof. Review what has been said, publicly and privately. Look at the family life. Compare and contrast stated objectives with accomplishments. Evaluate friendships and associations (birds of a feather flock together). Critically review political speeches for the truth. And many more.
And judge each by these same standards. Do not hold one candidate or elected official to one set of standards and the opponents to another.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Clinton Insults Voters
A candidate for president has insulted voters. Here is how one news outlet reported it.
“Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,” Clinton said. “There are people like that and he has lifted them up.”
Though she attempted to soften the remarks, her comments displayed unmitigated gall and expansive narcissism. Perhaps a bit of desperation in view of recent polling.
She can not bring herself to accept that voters just do not find her qualified to serve as president. Poll after poll clearly show the overwhelming number of Americans find her to be untrustworthy and dishonest.
So, in typical Clintonian style, she attacks them. Attacks voters through the use of vile and inflammatory language. Attacks voters in a manner intent on fomenting racial, ethic, and social discord.
Ms. Clinton, a newsflash. Opposing your candidacy does not make one deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamophobic. Opposing your candidacy is because of your corruption, perpetual lying, lack of integrity, "exceptionally careless" mishandling of classified information, greed, malfeasance in office, flip flopping on TPP, abysmal judgment, attacking women accusing your husband of sexual assault and harassment, and all sorts of other disqualifying actions over the years. Such as thoroughly debunked claim that you landed in Bosnia under sniper fire.
People just do not want you to be president. They are not deplorable. They are exercising their right to choose for whom to vote.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
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.
Friday, August 12, 2016
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.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
What's the nation to think?
What is the nation to think?
Shortly, it will be official that Clinton vs Trump, or Trump vs Clinton if you prefer, will be the primary contestants for the office of President of the United States.
Many have written and spoken of this year's election in terms of wonderment. "How" has probably been the most often used word written and spoken about these candidates.
How can a serial liar embroiled in multiple controversies over decades be the nominee of her party? How was she NOT indicted as a result of her personal email scandal?
How can one who speaks so disparagingly of others be the nominee of his party? How can one who speaks so vapidly and imprecisely carry the banner?
What is the nation to think?
How can these be the two best qualified individuals?
How can the nation think seriously of the election when both conventions have been farces? One of the only near sensible interpretations has been the disgust with which the "rank and file" hold the process. In this regard, Trump and Sanders are perfectly correct when stating the system is rigged.
Can't help but think that were a different conservative at the top of the GOP ballot, Clinton would never stand a chance.
Also can't help but think that if the DNC had managed a level playing field, Sanders would be the candidate.
What is the nation to think?
Most disturbingly, the polls are consistent in one crucial area. The electorate is profoundly upset with what is happening in our government. Perhaps for different reasons, depending on which side of the aisle they support, but enormously distraught nonetheless.
Looking forward in trying to answer the question, the nation should think that things will not get better in the next administration, regardless of who claims victory.
And that is terribly, terribly sad.
Shortly, it will be official that Clinton vs Trump, or Trump vs Clinton if you prefer, will be the primary contestants for the office of President of the United States.
Many have written and spoken of this year's election in terms of wonderment. "How" has probably been the most often used word written and spoken about these candidates.
How can a serial liar embroiled in multiple controversies over decades be the nominee of her party? How was she NOT indicted as a result of her personal email scandal?
How can one who speaks so disparagingly of others be the nominee of his party? How can one who speaks so vapidly and imprecisely carry the banner?
What is the nation to think?
How can these be the two best qualified individuals?
How can the nation think seriously of the election when both conventions have been farces? One of the only near sensible interpretations has been the disgust with which the "rank and file" hold the process. In this regard, Trump and Sanders are perfectly correct when stating the system is rigged.
Can't help but think that were a different conservative at the top of the GOP ballot, Clinton would never stand a chance.
Also can't help but think that if the DNC had managed a level playing field, Sanders would be the candidate.
What is the nation to think?
Most disturbingly, the polls are consistent in one crucial area. The electorate is profoundly upset with what is happening in our government. Perhaps for different reasons, depending on which side of the aisle they support, but enormously distraught nonetheless.
Looking forward in trying to answer the question, the nation should think that things will not get better in the next administration, regardless of who claims victory.
And that is terribly, terribly sad.
Friday, June 24, 2016
Dismal and challenging times (that we will survive)
Dang, it is hard to keep smiling these days. If the stock market reaction to the Brexit vote isn't enough to get the stomach acids churning at full force, then the continual, nay perpetual, bad news about the two presumptive presidential candidates should.
Ridiculous statements from each, unsupported by facts. Inflammatory as well.
A previously undisclosed State Department email reveals once again Clinton's arrogant, if not manic pursuit of personal secrecy. The email was most definitely official state department business, but did not make it into the 55,000 pages of printed emails Clinton ultimately provided (only after information about her personal server came to light).
Trump's outlandish comments from Scotland reveal once again an inability to take matters seriously or understand the impact of his statements. Can't the man think before he speaks?
Egad!
From where I sit, a cold beer and relaxing with my bride are in order this evening.
The stock market will rebound.
The country will survive whoever is elected president. (It's not absolutely certain either Clinton or Trump will be the one.)
Ridiculous statements from each, unsupported by facts. Inflammatory as well.
A previously undisclosed State Department email reveals once again Clinton's arrogant, if not manic pursuit of personal secrecy. The email was most definitely official state department business, but did not make it into the 55,000 pages of printed emails Clinton ultimately provided (only after information about her personal server came to light).
Trump's outlandish comments from Scotland reveal once again an inability to take matters seriously or understand the impact of his statements. Can't the man think before he speaks?
Egad!
From where I sit, a cold beer and relaxing with my bride are in order this evening.
The stock market will rebound.
The country will survive whoever is elected president. (It's not absolutely certain either Clinton or Trump will be the one.)
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Our country will survive
Five months to go until the 2016 elections. It hardly seems possible the political choices could be any more dismal.
For differing and similar reasons, the presumptive major party candidates for the office of the presidency are simply unworthy of the position they seek.
This leaves our nation facing a quandary for which no clear palatable, reasonable, or (dare it be said) sane alternative presents itself.
Legions of woefully uninformed, ignorant, greedy, and/or inept voters will certainly cast their ballots for one of these two. Unless some cataclysmic event arises, one of them will be elected to serve as the next President of the United States of America.
At this point, one could start forecasting all the doom and gloom that will befall our nation. It matters not which individual is elected, because the strident supporters from the other side can provide long lists of reasonable and unreasonable predictions. Perhaps some of the gloom and doom, regardless of who is elected, will come to pass. But it isn't reason to flee the country.
A singular strength of our nation is its ability to survive. It has survived the Civil War, multiple world wars, political scandals, slavery, economic recessions, the Great Depression, housing booms and busts, civil unrest, riots, 9/11, reconstruction, impeachments, Vietnam, high unemployment, the Dust Bowl, assassinations, Watergate, and countless other challenges. It has survived its previous exceptionally poor choices for president.
It has survived.
We cannot accurately predict what form survival will take in response to this new challenge, but survive the country will.
There may be pain involved, but at the other end, our country will be better for its survival.
We will endure the next months of hyperbole, insults, shrill voices, unfounded claims, stilted polls, expenditure of outrageous sums of money, ridiculous pronouncements, outright lies, clever misrepresentations, and perhaps even legal upheaval. Then the election will be done.
Take a deep breath, exhale slowly, and remember that our country has survived worse and will survive this.
For differing and similar reasons, the presumptive major party candidates for the office of the presidency are simply unworthy of the position they seek.
This leaves our nation facing a quandary for which no clear palatable, reasonable, or (dare it be said) sane alternative presents itself.
Legions of woefully uninformed, ignorant, greedy, and/or inept voters will certainly cast their ballots for one of these two. Unless some cataclysmic event arises, one of them will be elected to serve as the next President of the United States of America.
At this point, one could start forecasting all the doom and gloom that will befall our nation. It matters not which individual is elected, because the strident supporters from the other side can provide long lists of reasonable and unreasonable predictions. Perhaps some of the gloom and doom, regardless of who is elected, will come to pass. But it isn't reason to flee the country.
A singular strength of our nation is its ability to survive. It has survived the Civil War, multiple world wars, political scandals, slavery, economic recessions, the Great Depression, housing booms and busts, civil unrest, riots, 9/11, reconstruction, impeachments, Vietnam, high unemployment, the Dust Bowl, assassinations, Watergate, and countless other challenges. It has survived its previous exceptionally poor choices for president.
It has survived.
We cannot accurately predict what form survival will take in response to this new challenge, but survive the country will.
There may be pain involved, but at the other end, our country will be better for its survival.
We will endure the next months of hyperbole, insults, shrill voices, unfounded claims, stilted polls, expenditure of outrageous sums of money, ridiculous pronouncements, outright lies, clever misrepresentations, and perhaps even legal upheaval. Then the election will be done.
Take a deep breath, exhale slowly, and remember that our country has survived worse and will survive this.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Why should she be believed?
Why should Ms. Clinton's claims about the emails processed through the now infamous insecure personal server be believed? She has said the following.
Regarding providing emails to the Department of State, she said, "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related." However, it was years after leaving office and happened only after the personal email server became public knowledge.
Regarding her supposed and self-defined personal emails, she said, "I chose not to keep my private personal emails." A strange statement, since they were retained for years after leaving the Department of State and were supposedly deleted only after the whole email issue came to the surface.
Regarding categorizing the emails as work related or personal, she said, "For any government employee, it is that government employee's
responsibility to determine what's personal and what's work-related. I
am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that
were produced." Why should the people accept her assurances, after it took years for any emails to be provided?
Regarding the security of the personal server, she said, "And there were no security breaches." This seems questionable at best, as she also claimed the sever was physically protected by the Secret Service, which is accepted as fact. However, physical contact is not required to "hack" a server. The claim is further called into question by the recent revelation that an international hacker was extradited to the U.S. by the FBI team investigating this matter.
After the above, there is a major matter not receiving the public attention it warrants. The contents of the so-called personal emails. Granting that some of the more than 30,000 emails were likely mundane and truly personal does not mean that all were. Follow the logic: if the emails were so carefully scrutinized, as Clinton has asserted, prior to release to the Department of State (and then only after the issue became public and only in printed hard copy form), how did more than 2,000 containing classified information get released? Why would Clinton knowingly release emails containing classified information?
Is her claim that she is "well-aware of the classification requirements" to be believed? With all the thus far released emails containing massive amounts of classified information, the answer must be NO. Based on this glaring inaccuracy, if not outright falsehood, can the American people and the courts believe her statement that, "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related?" No.
The matter not receiving adequate attention centers around the contents of the so-called personal emails. If the review of work related email did not eliminate thousands of classified emails, we can not expect the review of personal emails was any more thorough or accurate. Thus we can not believe that the deleted "personal" emails contained solely personal matters. In party, because we can not believe how Clinton or her people would define personal. For example, would communications on Clinton Foundation matters with business and government leaders in countries with whom the United States government was negotiating be defined as personal?
It is simple, we can not believe Ms. Clinton.
Let us hope the FBI is able to recover and review the so-called personal emails. It is highly likely some of them contain potentially explosive insights into Clinton's behavior, judgment, and decisions while secretary of state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)