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.        

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.      

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.)

An unwarranted victory lap

Following is a news report about comments POTUS made in Elkhart, Indiana, during his so-called victory lap, as he tells America how much better our nation, our citizens, and the world are since he took office.  In this case, he was discussing the economy.

Obama, speaking in Elkhart, Ind., had lamented the “primary story” he claimed Republicans are telling about the economy – one that focuses on how “moochers at the bottom of the income ladder” are squeezing middle-class families.

“We have been hearing this story for decades,” Obama said. “Tales about welfare queens, talking about takers, talking about the ‘47percent.’ It's the story that is broadcast every day on some cable news stations, on right-wing radio, it's pumped into cars, and bars, and VFW halls all across America, and right here in Elkhart.”

Obama continued: “And if you're hearing that story all the time, you start believing it. It's no wonder people think big government is the problem.”

His rhetoric is wholly unconvincing, in addition to taking an insulting and uncalled-for-shot at veterans.

If the nation is indeed so much better because of his time in office, then why are vastly more people out of the workforce than in it?  Why was the jobs report for May 2016 so dismal?  Why is the economy cited by voters as their number one concern?  Why is the national debt approaching 20 trillion dollars?  Why is the stock market performing tepidly and is currently below its high mark?  Why aren't savings accounts paying reasonable interest?  Why are health care insurance carriers departing Obamacare?  Why are health care premiums and co-pays dramatically increasing?  And the list goes on and on.

The most telling indicator though, is that voters from both the left and right are damned angry at his big government and its overreach, as indicated by the backlash prevalent in this year's election cycle.

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. 

And, finally, regarding the processing of classified information on the personal server, she said, "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.  So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."  This has been proven to be absolutely false, with two dozen of the more than 2,000 deemed to contain classified information are so highly classified that they could not be released in any form.

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.  

Clinton's unsatisfactory judgement

Without a doubt, Ms. Clinton's judgment can only be viewed as unsatisfactory.  Many examples exist, but two recent events highlight again her serious character failing. 

One recent example involved a racially offensive "joke" she shared with Mayor De Blasio of New York. 

Note that the African American actor on stage made comment that the term "CP time" is offensive, but Clinton attempted to make it a play on words, rather than condemning the language.

Elsewhere, POTUS stated Clinton was careless with her email.  Another example, from a supposed supporter, referring to her judgement.  In this case, her carelessness put the nation's secrets at risk.  (One can effectively argue that her unsatisfactory judgement directly contributed to the carelessness.)

With all the problems facing our nation, we can ill afford an individual whose demonstrated judgement is so very, very flawed that she publicly participates in a racially offensive joke.  Nor can the nation afford an individual who demonstrates the carelessness described by POTUS.

And the nation can not afford to elect an individual who dismisses valid criticisms of the above, attempts to blame others, and displays contempt for the American voter and the laws of our nation.

Unsatisfactory judgement is not what the nation needs.