Monday, July 25, 2016

What should be the criteria for being "President of the United States?"

It is the election season.  Actually, it feels as if it has been the elections season forever already!  But we still have over 3 months during which we will be bombarded with reasons to favor one candidate over another and why one of the candidates is just the worst example of humanity ever.

Already we hear and read arguments that center on race, gender and ideology...and, strangely enough, honesty.  That last one often confuses me because I have always expected that those elected to high office would be, for the most part, honest and truthful.  But the other day I watched in amazement as an interviewer asked our current President of the United States if "honesty was overrated!"

Can you believe that such a question would even be asked?  I was astounded.  Has our country, that once presumed honesty on the part of each of us and, when it was found wanting would exile the liar from any contact with our children or ourselves, sunk so low that we now accept dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness and truthfulness in our politicians and elect them knowing that they possess those traits?

As to the other elements being raised, I find them superfluous.  Competence should always be the criteria for holding the office of the Presidency: competence and trustworthiness also.  In the upcoming election, my examination of the performance record of Ms. Clinton in public office reveals a lack of both.  She has lied.  She has failed to protect her people from danger as Sec./State.  She has failed to protect secret information properly, knowing that she was putting information at risk.

The performance record of Ms. Clinton disqualifies her as a trustworthy, competent candidate for the office of the Presidency for anyone who examines her record with an objective mind.

Her gender and race are immaterial.  Currently there are 106 women holding elective office with a record that invites consideration for holding the office of the President of the United States (6 Governors, 20 Senators, and 81 members of the U.S. House of Representatives), plus others holding positions as CEOs in private industry.  While it is foolish to place gender as the top tier requisite for holding any office, elected or not, no one can convince me that one or more of these women would not be the equal of any man currently showing interest in holding office of President.

I have worked for women who were not only the equal of, but superior to, most of the men for whom I have I know there are qualified women who should be considered and ultimately elected.  But not one the basis that "I have waited and now its my turn," but rather, "I have a proven track record that reveals the competency, the honesty and the trustworthiness needed to perform the duties of President of the United States, and I invite an examination of my record.

It is competence, honesty and trustworthiness that should be foremost.  Placing any other criteria above these simply invites the presumption of corruption of purpose.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Blame the "Protectors" but not the "Doers?"

It often appears as if the so-called civilized world has lost its mind.  One of the recent news articles said that those who erroneously allowed the truck driver in Nice onto the road where he killed so many people were being least in part...for the deaths.  The anger in France...or in any country where terrorists act out...should be focused on the terrorist(s), not those who do their level best to protect others.  The French are not alone in their apparent desire to ignore the actual "doer" of the atrocity in favor of attacking those who were trying to prevent such occurrences.

In America, I have seen minorities "cop and attitude" with police when approached for almost anything.  In an era where minorities have ambushed and assassinated police, those who serve as police are logically on alert.  When they approach someone and issue an order (such as "don't move your hands" or "keep you hands where I can see them") and that order is not obeyed, I know of no logical person who wouldn't react as if there were a developing threat and react accordingly.  But in the aftermath of these events, even our President accuses police of "overreacting" ...or even of discrimination.

Today, in America it is not hard to get a cop fired.  This administration will virtually require local police departments to punish and/or fire any officer who is complained of by any minority.  The logical action, then, would be to behave very quietly when approached by any member of the law enforcement community and then bring it to the attention of the police department and the Justice Department.  Instead, some just insist on not obeying commands and/or mouthing off as they move their hands in ways that could constitute a threat.

Who is blamed?  Why, the law enforcement officer(s) of course.

Over the years, I have been approached by police nine or ten times.  Each time, I responded as I would have to any person with authority: directly and politely.  Was I uneasy? some cases I wasn't sure what I had done wrong, in others I had been speeding and was chagrined that I had been "caught."  Another time there had been a "hit and run" and I was questioned if I had seen a particular color and make vehicle.  And one time, coming home from school, I had a brake light that wasn't working.  Big Deal?  Not really.  Life goes on around us and sometimes we're the hammer and other times we are the nail.

What I don't understand is why the human race seems bent on allowing those who initiate behavior that results in consequences feel that it is appropriate to deflect consequences on the responder instead of the "doer" who's actions began the whole thing.  I can understand how the people involved would like to accomplish that...but not society as a whole, each member of which should know better.

Monday, July 4, 2016

Why the protest against Patriotism?

Our schools and many of our politicians today want to do away with patriotism.  Even the courts seem to agree.  Schools no longer start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the National Anthom, something that use to be the norm.  Why?

I know of no other country on earth that provides the combination of opportunity and the lack of a "class" attitude that prevents individuals from working to accomplish great things.  Many of our largest, most profitable, most generous, and most innovative companies were started by people who came from low or middle class backgrounds and who accomplished much without even completing a college degree.  It was their effort and accomplishment that was rewarded.

And it was rewarded by the United States of America and its economy.  No other nation state provides the opportunities for individual success that does America.

Yet there are apparently a sizable, if not a majority, of those who control education in America that deem America a "bad" entity; who take every opportunity to focus on her faults and ignore her strengths.  Not satisfied with that, they work to cease teaching our children to value the good that exists in America; they often extol the belief and economic systems in other countries, arguing that America is bad because it doesn't proved equality of accomplishment and pay to every person who resides (note that citizenship is not a factor) in the country...or even visits.

These individuals and groups ignore that no other country provides the opportunities that are available to every citizen of America.

More important, they ignore that many countries and ideologies in the world seek to destroy the entity that we know as America.


If they know of another governing entity that is better, why not extol it factually, providing the basis for all citizens to evaluate their point of view.  Why do they use subterfuge and flawed emotional arguments to eliminate competition in schools, rewards for excellence and diminution of accomplishment as a basis for grades...and even arguing that grades or performance is "hurtful."

These people seek only to destroy the United States as a shining example of individual achievement when given individual freedom.

Why do we allow them to hold office, positions of power, and honor them with acceptance?