Life in America today suddenly seems like a combination of a seriously illogical dream and being on the trip that Alice took to "Wonderland." It appears as if someone set off a device that has deprived almost everyone of any common sense or logic.
Dealing with the relatively new phenomenon of "Terrorism" is bad enough; the senseless killing of innocent individuals by Muslim Extremists, Mentally Ill individuals and a couple of Far-Right Fanatics is an unfortunate fact of life today. All violence or any sort, whether against persons or property, is to be condemned and punished no matter who the perpetrator.
But by what logic does this sudden desire to sanitize and/or revise History become a populist movement, seemingly endorsed by the Media, the Democrat Party (and its members) and the Republican Party (and its members)? Has the entire country become so narcissistically enthralled by a desire to "attack" something that such action a denial of historical truth will erase anything or improve life in America in 2017 for anyone? If this was the 1850's in our West, tomorrow the mob would wake up feeling guilty and avoiding looking each other in the eye out of embarrassment and guilt.
Our President condemns the violence in Virginia by all who took part in that violence, and goes on to condemn the attitudes of Racism as being "wrong" and "unacceptable" but the Media, the Democrat and Republican elected officials and anyone on the ideological Left insists on misinterpreting his comments as equating the beliefs of the Racists with the beliefs of those who declare that Racism is wrong. Instead of seeing the statement(s) as the plea and demand for non-violence by both sides, promising punishment for those who act violently, as the call for sanity that it clearly is, they incorrectly label his comments in an attempt to profit politically.
Seems as if there is a strong logical basis for suggesting that all of America...or, at least the media and the political establishment (all sides)...should properly be undergoing treatment in a mental hospital.
The only speech allowed these days seems to be Leftist, Socialist, Progressive, Marxist, Liberal and Fascist. All others are shouted down or prevented from speaking without being denigrated and insulted with the aid of the media. What is going on today is the over-turning of the Constitutional guarantee of "Free Speech."
For those who respond that the "speech" being quashed is "bad" speech, they might consider that if a group that disagrees with that definition gains power, the reversal will make it impossible for them to speak at all. The court held that the church that demonstrated at military funerals with a message that clearly was hurtful to the families involved had a Constitutional right to so demonstrate. There was emotional hurt but no violence.
How much more effective would it have been if the legal march in Virginia (they had a permit, after all) had simply been allowed to take place...BUT NO ONE ATTENDED OR REPORTED ON IT? After all, they were after publicity. Any intelligent person or group would have won the day by simply ignoring the matter...it is a fringe group with no significant support and that would have been clear is all had simply stayed away. But unfortunately today's attitude is that anyone with whom you disagree must be shouted down and "prevented" from saying anything. Why?
Politicians say a lot of things that I don't like. But they get to say them anyway. News reports are very often wrong on facts or incomplete and slanted...but I don't get to shut them down. But I don't want to shut them down. If I feel strongly enough about a matter, I can write letters, make calls, ask questions and made suggestions. But the actions of the last week suggest that my right to do so will not exist for long, because this feels like an attack on our very rights under the Constitution.
When History is being sanitized revised, and re-written...and mob rule replaces our Constitutional guarantees, we are in very big trouble.
Showing posts with label President. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President. Show all posts
Friday, August 18, 2017
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Trump is the Republican's Obama
For the third Presidential election cycle we are experiencing an abandonment of reason by American citizenry. That this can happen in a world where data is virtually unlimited and effective research no further than your laptop is astounding and does not speak well for homo sapiens.
Mr. Obama was elected twice on emotion, with virtually no vetting or inquiry as to his experience or training to handle the rigors of the job. "Hope and Change" was the motto. Never did Mr. Obama define those terms, so quite naturally every voter inclined to wish him well interpreted those terms to mean what the voter expected it to mean. Salesmen for years have used that tack and one expects some success with it...but not total success. The old adage was that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time. So...how did Mr. Obama not only win, but be re-elected four years later when it had become clear that he had his own definitions that were not influenced by the electorate and further that he was disposed to dis-ingenuousness (that means, lying),
The press almost universally failed to inquire of Mr. Obama specifics, nor did they suggest to readers, listeners or viewers that they might want to make such inquiries. Whether this was failure on their part, or conspiracy with Mr. Obama's supporters I will leave for others to consider.
But one thing is crystal clear: Mr. Obama's election and re-election was based on emotion, not logic or knowledge.
One might be excused for believing that, having seen the result of emotional indulgence, the public might be a bit more oriented toward logic, inquiry and thorough vetting the third time around.
Apparently, not so much!
There was once a time in America when the voting public acted much as a jury; they listened to the promises, they looked at the past record of behavior, they evaluated whether the promises were ones that could be kept, they even evaluated the moral behavior and reputation of the candidate for public office. One candidate withdrew when it was discovered that he had a girlfriend in addition to his wife...and without any proof of physical infidelity. Such a person was not fit for public office...then!
Since then we've had a President who seduced and intern, another who has been proven to have lied to the American people multiple times, and failed to even try to keep promises made multiple times. And in this third election cycle we have the leading candidate on the ideological right (well, he says that he is on the right!), who until less than a year ago was demonstrably a political liberal and until days ago denied that he was involved in any bankruptcies, only to know admit that companies that he controlled did, on four occasions, declare Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and...seriously...now claims that having done so will help him solve the country's challenge of reducing and eliminating a National Debt that exceeds Nineteen Trillion Dollars. No joke!
And on the other side of the ideological aisle, we have two candidates: one has a track record of enabling a womanizer while claiming to be the perfect person to defend women against a claimed "war on women" by her opponents, has a proven record of lying about events in which she was involved while holding high appointed office, and is under investigation for potential violation of the United States Espionage act by failing to keep Top Secret documents and information safe. And her opponent on the same side is earnestly is promising to redistribute income, taking from those who have earned it legally to redistribute it to those who have not, on the basis of claiming that such earnings were and are immoral; who is promising that college education for all should be "free"...to those receiving it, but with no realistic suggestion of who or how the cost will be paid; and who is an avowed Socialist.
What provides the most consternation is that these three people are serious candidates for President of the United States of America!
We are about to see the third Presidential election in a row determined, not by the American Voting Public sitting as a Jury but by an emotional mob.
Mr. Obama's first election was by a Happy, Enthusiastic, Optimistic mob, looking for high standards and statesmanship on the part of a supremely educated member of a minority race.
His second was less Happy and Optimistic, but was still a Mob that had "Faith."
Now the Mob (on both sides of the political aisle) is angry and turning on the "usual suspects" to a remarkable degree. They are identifying on an emotional level with those who are confirming their own unhappiness with the government. That unhappiness has nothing to do with Truth, or Logic, or a thorough vetting to statements and promises being made. No, it is still emotional and reason has been thrown away.
Mr. Trump is the Republican's Obama, and he is being seen and treated with the same emotional mind-set with which the Left treated Mr. Obama; merging of their anger with his statements of anger, independent of and absent any evaluation of his past positions. Ms. Clinton is a continuation of the policies of Mr. Obama, but without the "blackness" which benefited him. Sen. Sanders is all emotional promises of "free stuff" to young voters who already are emotional by the dearth of opportunity in a stagnant economy and are prime for any promises of a better life, regardless of whether those promises are practically possible.
The Mob Rules...still.
We have nine months to see if any logic or sense will return to the political arena. There is no apparent reason to be optimistic. And if all continues, there will be an emotional hangover and we all will suffer the longest headache of our lives.
Mr. Obama was elected twice on emotion, with virtually no vetting or inquiry as to his experience or training to handle the rigors of the job. "Hope and Change" was the motto. Never did Mr. Obama define those terms, so quite naturally every voter inclined to wish him well interpreted those terms to mean what the voter expected it to mean. Salesmen for years have used that tack and one expects some success with it...but not total success. The old adage was that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time. So...how did Mr. Obama not only win, but be re-elected four years later when it had become clear that he had his own definitions that were not influenced by the electorate and further that he was disposed to dis-ingenuousness (that means, lying),
The press almost universally failed to inquire of Mr. Obama specifics, nor did they suggest to readers, listeners or viewers that they might want to make such inquiries. Whether this was failure on their part, or conspiracy with Mr. Obama's supporters I will leave for others to consider.
But one thing is crystal clear: Mr. Obama's election and re-election was based on emotion, not logic or knowledge.
One might be excused for believing that, having seen the result of emotional indulgence, the public might be a bit more oriented toward logic, inquiry and thorough vetting the third time around.
Apparently, not so much!
There was once a time in America when the voting public acted much as a jury; they listened to the promises, they looked at the past record of behavior, they evaluated whether the promises were ones that could be kept, they even evaluated the moral behavior and reputation of the candidate for public office. One candidate withdrew when it was discovered that he had a girlfriend in addition to his wife...and without any proof of physical infidelity. Such a person was not fit for public office...then!
Since then we've had a President who seduced and intern, another who has been proven to have lied to the American people multiple times, and failed to even try to keep promises made multiple times. And in this third election cycle we have the leading candidate on the ideological right (well, he says that he is on the right!), who until less than a year ago was demonstrably a political liberal and until days ago denied that he was involved in any bankruptcies, only to know admit that companies that he controlled did, on four occasions, declare Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and...seriously...now claims that having done so will help him solve the country's challenge of reducing and eliminating a National Debt that exceeds Nineteen Trillion Dollars. No joke!
And on the other side of the ideological aisle, we have two candidates: one has a track record of enabling a womanizer while claiming to be the perfect person to defend women against a claimed "war on women" by her opponents, has a proven record of lying about events in which she was involved while holding high appointed office, and is under investigation for potential violation of the United States Espionage act by failing to keep Top Secret documents and information safe. And her opponent on the same side is earnestly is promising to redistribute income, taking from those who have earned it legally to redistribute it to those who have not, on the basis of claiming that such earnings were and are immoral; who is promising that college education for all should be "free"...to those receiving it, but with no realistic suggestion of who or how the cost will be paid; and who is an avowed Socialist.
What provides the most consternation is that these three people are serious candidates for President of the United States of America!
We are about to see the third Presidential election in a row determined, not by the American Voting Public sitting as a Jury but by an emotional mob.
Mr. Obama's first election was by a Happy, Enthusiastic, Optimistic mob, looking for high standards and statesmanship on the part of a supremely educated member of a minority race.
His second was less Happy and Optimistic, but was still a Mob that had "Faith."
Now the Mob (on both sides of the political aisle) is angry and turning on the "usual suspects" to a remarkable degree. They are identifying on an emotional level with those who are confirming their own unhappiness with the government. That unhappiness has nothing to do with Truth, or Logic, or a thorough vetting to statements and promises being made. No, it is still emotional and reason has been thrown away.
Mr. Trump is the Republican's Obama, and he is being seen and treated with the same emotional mind-set with which the Left treated Mr. Obama; merging of their anger with his statements of anger, independent of and absent any evaluation of his past positions. Ms. Clinton is a continuation of the policies of Mr. Obama, but without the "blackness" which benefited him. Sen. Sanders is all emotional promises of "free stuff" to young voters who already are emotional by the dearth of opportunity in a stagnant economy and are prime for any promises of a better life, regardless of whether those promises are practically possible.
The Mob Rules...still.
We have nine months to see if any logic or sense will return to the political arena. There is no apparent reason to be optimistic. And if all continues, there will be an emotional hangover and we all will suffer the longest headache of our lives.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Madoff for President!
Bernard Madoff is in jail. He is in jail for running a Ponzi scheme that resulted in taking money from investors to pay off earlier investors to satisfy their expectations of his achieving tremendous benefits for those investors. That is illegal in America...in the private sector. Those investors who had received the returns that had been promised by implication were very, very satisfied...lauding Mr. Madoff's abilities and worthiness to others and recommending him to their friends...until the law came after them and making them return the money because it had been originally obtained fraudulently and therefore could not be passed on to them or anyone else. Oh, the anguish and gnashing of teeth...they had believed that, even with the discovery of the con, they had been "lucky" and won the equivalent of a financial game of musical chairs.
So, you ask, what is this nonsense of Bernie Madoff being President?
Both History and current events hold the answer!
For over 3 Presidential terms, the individual in the Oval Office in the White House has "bought" things for the American people. Benefits of money, influence, real and imagined power, and insulation from the rule that regular people thought needed to be followed. All to provide the profit to the person in the Oval Office of election, re-election, power and status. Those, it can be argued, are the equivalent and even superior in the minds of some, of ill-gotten money. Our leaders have lied to us...and that is a moral lack. But...we have received benefits that we have not invested it, that cost money that we will never pay. As with Bernie Madoff, that money is expected to be paid for future investors in...the future taxpayers of...the United States of America: the children and grandchildren of the current citizens.
We have people running for election to the American Presidency who are promising "free" stuff to many, vowing to take the money from current citizens who have legally acquired their riches. But those riches, even if taken completely away by the government and applied to the cost of the promises, both past and future, would not even make a small impact on reducing the debt. Consider that the National Debt at present exceeds Nineteen TRILLION Dollars; There are about 400 Billionairs in the United States at present...if you took all of their wealth you would not net more than just over ONE Trillion Dollars. Where is the rest of the money coming from? FUTURE taxpaying INVESTORS.
Bernie Sanders is making these promises. Hillary Clinton is promising to continue the benefits that President Obama has granted over more than seven years in office that added more than Fifteen Trillion Dollars a sum that current citizens expect will be paid by LATER taxpaying INVESTORS.
And yet...like the earliest Madoff investors...today's citizens accept the "investment returns" promised by Mr. Obama, and currently promised to be continued and extended by Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton. And no one seems to even consider that our national financial game of musical chairs is subject to the stopping of the music at any time...or even that we imagine and talk ourselves into even believing that there is any music at all, much akin to the Emperor's New Suit of Clothes.
When Congress passed the RICO statutes that made it possible to really attack and more successfully prosecute those involved in "Organized" crime, they exempted themselves from its application. Why?
President Bush waged a war that wasn't paid for...its cost was just added to the national debt. The amount was huge...Trillions of Dollars. But the actions of our Presidents and of Congress since then make that amount look like chump change.
Honest and well-meaning people can discuss and argue over governmental policy and ideology endlessly. That is valid, and experimentation with different approaches based on the will of the people is to be expected...even encouraged.
But to steal from innocent taxpayers not yet born to fund benefits wanted as a "right" and not earned, is the very essence of corruption, crime and immorality at any level, sectarian or religious.
IF THE ACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, PRESIDENT AND THE PROMISED ACTIONS OF SEN. SANDERS AND SEC. CLINTON OCCURRED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BE RESIDING IN CELLS ADJACENT TO BERNARD MADOFF. AND CURRENT CITIZENS ARE COMPLICIT, AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE "INVESTING TAXPAYERS" THE VALUE EQUIVALENT TO THEIR UNEARNED "PROFITS!"
But I fear that our citizenry has become so narcissistically oriented that they knowingly refuse to acknowledge the truth, their greed, and their disregard for their children and grandchildren. so....
MADOFF for PRESIDENT.
Might as well go all the way and acknowledge our corruption and greed as a nation!
So, you ask, what is this nonsense of Bernie Madoff being President?
Both History and current events hold the answer!
For over 3 Presidential terms, the individual in the Oval Office in the White House has "bought" things for the American people. Benefits of money, influence, real and imagined power, and insulation from the rule that regular people thought needed to be followed. All to provide the profit to the person in the Oval Office of election, re-election, power and status. Those, it can be argued, are the equivalent and even superior in the minds of some, of ill-gotten money. Our leaders have lied to us...and that is a moral lack. But...we have received benefits that we have not invested it, that cost money that we will never pay. As with Bernie Madoff, that money is expected to be paid for future investors in...the future taxpayers of...the United States of America: the children and grandchildren of the current citizens.
We have people running for election to the American Presidency who are promising "free" stuff to many, vowing to take the money from current citizens who have legally acquired their riches. But those riches, even if taken completely away by the government and applied to the cost of the promises, both past and future, would not even make a small impact on reducing the debt. Consider that the National Debt at present exceeds Nineteen TRILLION Dollars; There are about 400 Billionairs in the United States at present...if you took all of their wealth you would not net more than just over ONE Trillion Dollars. Where is the rest of the money coming from? FUTURE taxpaying INVESTORS.
Bernie Sanders is making these promises. Hillary Clinton is promising to continue the benefits that President Obama has granted over more than seven years in office that added more than Fifteen Trillion Dollars a sum that current citizens expect will be paid by LATER taxpaying INVESTORS.
And yet...like the earliest Madoff investors...today's citizens accept the "investment returns" promised by Mr. Obama, and currently promised to be continued and extended by Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton. And no one seems to even consider that our national financial game of musical chairs is subject to the stopping of the music at any time...or even that we imagine and talk ourselves into even believing that there is any music at all, much akin to the Emperor's New Suit of Clothes.
When Congress passed the RICO statutes that made it possible to really attack and more successfully prosecute those involved in "Organized" crime, they exempted themselves from its application. Why?
President Bush waged a war that wasn't paid for...its cost was just added to the national debt. The amount was huge...Trillions of Dollars. But the actions of our Presidents and of Congress since then make that amount look like chump change.
Honest and well-meaning people can discuss and argue over governmental policy and ideology endlessly. That is valid, and experimentation with different approaches based on the will of the people is to be expected...even encouraged.
But to steal from innocent taxpayers not yet born to fund benefits wanted as a "right" and not earned, is the very essence of corruption, crime and immorality at any level, sectarian or religious.
IF THE ACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, PRESIDENT AND THE PROMISED ACTIONS OF SEN. SANDERS AND SEC. CLINTON OCCURRED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BE RESIDING IN CELLS ADJACENT TO BERNARD MADOFF. AND CURRENT CITIZENS ARE COMPLICIT, AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE "INVESTING TAXPAYERS" THE VALUE EQUIVALENT TO THEIR UNEARNED "PROFITS!"
But I fear that our citizenry has become so narcissistically oriented that they knowingly refuse to acknowledge the truth, their greed, and their disregard for their children and grandchildren. so....
MADOFF for PRESIDENT.
Might as well go all the way and acknowledge our corruption and greed as a nation!
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Why a "President" Trump may be best for America
Until this morning I had favored the election of Mr. Trump as President as a means of punishing professional politicians for their narcissistic, inbred consistent ignoring of their constituents wishes, requests and needs, choosing instead to form their badly disguised cross-aisle cooperation to protect each other at the taxpayers' expense. They all needed to rediscover and suffer consequences. I reasoned that an outsider would accomplish that, and although Mr. Trump seems likely to be far more liberal than I would like, it was paramount to punish all those with such a longer track record of not listening that I ignored his liberal potential.
But this morning my thoughts suddenly turned in a much more positive direction.
One of the constant complaints heard is that our government is not only responsive, but that it just can't get things done. We hear that our President had no interest in creating any working relationship with Congress in general, with the "other" side, and even is aloof from those office holders from his own party. We note that even wanted actions by the executive branch don't help because upon an election of a President who thinks otherwise, those decrees can be reversed...so no business or individual can invest in any business because of that inherent risk.
Others point to the Congressional impasses that result in lots of words and votes, but either stall or end up being vetoed by the Chief Executive.
May I suggest that electing Donald Trump is extremely likely to solve all of these complaints, relegating them to the scrap heap.
Why?
What is Mr. Trump's broadest impact on the world? No, not his Real Estate empire or accomplishments. It is the book, "Art of the Deal." It clearly demonstrates Mr. Trump's desire to "get things done"...preferably at a profit, but always as economically as possible.
To accomplish something that he deems essential, is he likely to walk away from anything because of ideology? I don't think so. He will want to have proof of what it will cost, where the money will come from (if from borrowing, he'll want to know how it will be paid back), and who and how will the costs be controlled and the results be guaranteed. No verbal assurances are likely to be acceptable to him...put it in the "voted for" document for everyone to see.
How or why is this good?
Because now...finally...there is supreme motivation for getting good people to run, and for getting people out to vote for Congressional and Senate elections!
It is very likely that a President Trump will work with whatever Congress the people elect...Republican, Conservative, Democrat or Liberal. And those elections will determine who will be "dealing" with President Trump. It is entirely likely that the more conservative the Congress, the more conservative the deals that will be made. But, conversely, if the "people" chose to elect those of the Liberal or Democratic viewpoints, Mr. Trump will work deals that would be more liberal. None of us would be completely happy, but I strongly suggest that government would, again, work! Remember that President Reagan worked with a Democratic Congress to get things done. So did President Clinton. Good administrators will find a way to accomplish more things in ways that make the most people more content.
So...if more and more people come to the same conclusion, I think that a lot of Democrats will cross over to vote for Mr. Trump...if he is nominated...knowing that if they also achieve numerical superiority in Congress, their views and wants will be heard and respected. And those of a more conservative bent will feel the same. Everyone will then focus on those Senate and Congressional races, realizing that the President will honor those elections in the manner in which he negotiates government action with the Legislative branch.
And THAT would be a good thing for the entire country.
But this morning my thoughts suddenly turned in a much more positive direction.
One of the constant complaints heard is that our government is not only responsive, but that it just can't get things done. We hear that our President had no interest in creating any working relationship with Congress in general, with the "other" side, and even is aloof from those office holders from his own party. We note that even wanted actions by the executive branch don't help because upon an election of a President who thinks otherwise, those decrees can be reversed...so no business or individual can invest in any business because of that inherent risk.
Others point to the Congressional impasses that result in lots of words and votes, but either stall or end up being vetoed by the Chief Executive.
May I suggest that electing Donald Trump is extremely likely to solve all of these complaints, relegating them to the scrap heap.
Why?
What is Mr. Trump's broadest impact on the world? No, not his Real Estate empire or accomplishments. It is the book, "Art of the Deal." It clearly demonstrates Mr. Trump's desire to "get things done"...preferably at a profit, but always as economically as possible.
To accomplish something that he deems essential, is he likely to walk away from anything because of ideology? I don't think so. He will want to have proof of what it will cost, where the money will come from (if from borrowing, he'll want to know how it will be paid back), and who and how will the costs be controlled and the results be guaranteed. No verbal assurances are likely to be acceptable to him...put it in the "voted for" document for everyone to see.
How or why is this good?
Because now...finally...there is supreme motivation for getting good people to run, and for getting people out to vote for Congressional and Senate elections!
It is very likely that a President Trump will work with whatever Congress the people elect...Republican, Conservative, Democrat or Liberal. And those elections will determine who will be "dealing" with President Trump. It is entirely likely that the more conservative the Congress, the more conservative the deals that will be made. But, conversely, if the "people" chose to elect those of the Liberal or Democratic viewpoints, Mr. Trump will work deals that would be more liberal. None of us would be completely happy, but I strongly suggest that government would, again, work! Remember that President Reagan worked with a Democratic Congress to get things done. So did President Clinton. Good administrators will find a way to accomplish more things in ways that make the most people more content.
So...if more and more people come to the same conclusion, I think that a lot of Democrats will cross over to vote for Mr. Trump...if he is nominated...knowing that if they also achieve numerical superiority in Congress, their views and wants will be heard and respected. And those of a more conservative bent will feel the same. Everyone will then focus on those Senate and Congressional races, realizing that the President will honor those elections in the manner in which he negotiates government action with the Legislative branch.
And THAT would be a good thing for the entire country.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Why such an increase in lawlessness?
While certain crimes appear to be fewer in number, general lawlessness seems on the increase, as does a disrespect for the concept of Law. Why?
Some argue that increased enforcement of laws has also come with lawless behavior on the part of those enforcing laws. Is that true...or is that a nurtured perception made possible by the ubiquitous nature of phone cameras and the social networks that make no effort to separate truth from fiction? Whatever the truth, and I would suggest the impact is relatively small, that does not really help to answer the question as to basic cause.
There is a theory that of the total population in America, there are about 20% that will always try to do the right and just thing, regardless of the law, its enforcement or the attitude of those around them. That theory also puts forward the likelihood that about 15% of the people in the country are true psychopaths, who ignore the law and attitudes about them with the exception of the care they take to do exactly what they want to, when they want to. Laws have no effect on them, and they regard the attitude of others as inconsequential. That leaves 65% of the population. That 65% is arguably highly influenced by the attitude of those around them and the degree of enforcement that various laws receive; if a law is ignored by the authorities, they will ignore it and break it with impunity and no sense of guilt...if a law is enforced and stringent punishments applied in a timely manner, they will forego breaking that law, even if they would wish to. While I can not verify the percentages suggested, I have no doubt that the three categories exist and that the vast majority of the populace is affected by laws and their enforcement.
So...back to the question.
It is inarguable that most of the laws in America are NOT enforced effectively; many are archaic and remain on the books, others are spottily enforced to the point where people are fined when caught but the vast majority will break those laws to some degree because of the small odds of being caught. But these factors have always been around and can be considered a constant.
So, let us turn to the matter of "selective" enforcement of laws...and almost as importantly, the selective "unenforcement" of laws. Laws were intended to reflect "right" behavior. Over time the concept or "right" and "wrong" have, for better or worse, gone by the wayside and now the law reflects "legal" and "illegal" behavior. Often this allows what is clearly wrong to be allowed as legal. This muddies the waters of any logical mind as they view the power and dictates of a formal society that has a governmental presence to enforce this "Legal" point of view. Civil Rights is a case in point where for years "wrong" was "legal." People broke the "law" to point this out. What was remarkable in the last century, however, was that those who broke those laws expected and were willing to suffer the legal punishment in order to bring attention to the "wrongness" of those laws. They did not expect to go unpunished; they respected the need of laws to be enforced if they were to have any validity at all...that to not be punished would take away the efficacy of ALL laws.
That is no longer true today. The Judicial System, including both judges and prosecutors, frees without penalty the vast majority of those arrested by police officers with little regard for the fact of the misdeed in favor of the technicalities that allow them to release most accused. In truth, such actions have fostered a belief in the majority of our citizens that most laws don't matter and there is little reason to be concerned for, or expect the meaningful enforcement of, the law generally.
Then we have the example set by the Federal Government of the United States of America; The President ignores laws on the books and directs law enforcement personnel to disregard them; the Congress passes RICO statutes but exempts themselves from the application of them; the Justice Department ignores perjury in sworn statements to Congress on the basis of political alignment, and then fails to elicit facts of disputes before condemning those front line Police Officers around the country tasked to be the first line of defense against lawlessness and crime. Government employees routinely break the law and are, save for the very occasional sacrificial lamb, never punished in any way, while citizens are routinely charged, have their money and property taken without due process and otherwise abused. Arguably the Federal Government made Organized Crime illegal because it didn't want the competition. And now, many would argue that they now are willing to license such activities as long as they get their share.
So why is there any wonder at all as to why lawlessness is on the increase. There is little, if any, honor of the concept of "what is RIGHT" in Washington. Instead, it is whether something is legal or...if illegal...proof can be eliminated. Our "Leaders" set the example and then they complain that we do as they do instead of as the "say".
Our police departments know how to fix this...but they are ignored. It is the "broken window" approach: take notice and action against the smallest infraction and it will lessen the tendency of more egregious law breaking to take place. Protect the civil nature of a neighborhood and lawbreakers find it harder to have a disparate impact. Bring to trial those who are accused quickly so that both the miscreant and the public understand the relationship between the misdeed and the punishment (does anyone other than a victim's family really connect a killer being put to death with the horror of their crime 10 or 15 years ago?).
A true Leader...a Representative Government...trusts the system to discover and prosecute fairly those who break the laws. They forego pre-judging any matter, as that is for a jury of the citizenry, not an elected or appointed official, to rule. And even as the quality and training of our Law Enforcement Personnel is scrutinized and their performance analyzed, there is respect and a demand made by all for the well-being and honoring of those who put their safety at risk to protect the rest of us.
ALL lives, including the quality of those lives, matter. Those who call for the killing of members of the Police Force are inciting lawlessness. Truly, if they were to be successful and we return to mob rule, it is they who would fall as the first victims of majority mob rule. Be careful what you wish for.
A cohesive argument can be made that the true cause of the current state of disrespect and disregard for the law lies with the actions and words of the United States Federal Government...and that they should be held accountable.
Some argue that increased enforcement of laws has also come with lawless behavior on the part of those enforcing laws. Is that true...or is that a nurtured perception made possible by the ubiquitous nature of phone cameras and the social networks that make no effort to separate truth from fiction? Whatever the truth, and I would suggest the impact is relatively small, that does not really help to answer the question as to basic cause.
There is a theory that of the total population in America, there are about 20% that will always try to do the right and just thing, regardless of the law, its enforcement or the attitude of those around them. That theory also puts forward the likelihood that about 15% of the people in the country are true psychopaths, who ignore the law and attitudes about them with the exception of the care they take to do exactly what they want to, when they want to. Laws have no effect on them, and they regard the attitude of others as inconsequential. That leaves 65% of the population. That 65% is arguably highly influenced by the attitude of those around them and the degree of enforcement that various laws receive; if a law is ignored by the authorities, they will ignore it and break it with impunity and no sense of guilt...if a law is enforced and stringent punishments applied in a timely manner, they will forego breaking that law, even if they would wish to. While I can not verify the percentages suggested, I have no doubt that the three categories exist and that the vast majority of the populace is affected by laws and their enforcement.
So...back to the question.
It is inarguable that most of the laws in America are NOT enforced effectively; many are archaic and remain on the books, others are spottily enforced to the point where people are fined when caught but the vast majority will break those laws to some degree because of the small odds of being caught. But these factors have always been around and can be considered a constant.
So, let us turn to the matter of "selective" enforcement of laws...and almost as importantly, the selective "unenforcement" of laws. Laws were intended to reflect "right" behavior. Over time the concept or "right" and "wrong" have, for better or worse, gone by the wayside and now the law reflects "legal" and "illegal" behavior. Often this allows what is clearly wrong to be allowed as legal. This muddies the waters of any logical mind as they view the power and dictates of a formal society that has a governmental presence to enforce this "Legal" point of view. Civil Rights is a case in point where for years "wrong" was "legal." People broke the "law" to point this out. What was remarkable in the last century, however, was that those who broke those laws expected and were willing to suffer the legal punishment in order to bring attention to the "wrongness" of those laws. They did not expect to go unpunished; they respected the need of laws to be enforced if they were to have any validity at all...that to not be punished would take away the efficacy of ALL laws.
That is no longer true today. The Judicial System, including both judges and prosecutors, frees without penalty the vast majority of those arrested by police officers with little regard for the fact of the misdeed in favor of the technicalities that allow them to release most accused. In truth, such actions have fostered a belief in the majority of our citizens that most laws don't matter and there is little reason to be concerned for, or expect the meaningful enforcement of, the law generally.
Then we have the example set by the Federal Government of the United States of America; The President ignores laws on the books and directs law enforcement personnel to disregard them; the Congress passes RICO statutes but exempts themselves from the application of them; the Justice Department ignores perjury in sworn statements to Congress on the basis of political alignment, and then fails to elicit facts of disputes before condemning those front line Police Officers around the country tasked to be the first line of defense against lawlessness and crime. Government employees routinely break the law and are, save for the very occasional sacrificial lamb, never punished in any way, while citizens are routinely charged, have their money and property taken without due process and otherwise abused. Arguably the Federal Government made Organized Crime illegal because it didn't want the competition. And now, many would argue that they now are willing to license such activities as long as they get their share.
So why is there any wonder at all as to why lawlessness is on the increase. There is little, if any, honor of the concept of "what is RIGHT" in Washington. Instead, it is whether something is legal or...if illegal...proof can be eliminated. Our "Leaders" set the example and then they complain that we do as they do instead of as the "say".
Our police departments know how to fix this...but they are ignored. It is the "broken window" approach: take notice and action against the smallest infraction and it will lessen the tendency of more egregious law breaking to take place. Protect the civil nature of a neighborhood and lawbreakers find it harder to have a disparate impact. Bring to trial those who are accused quickly so that both the miscreant and the public understand the relationship between the misdeed and the punishment (does anyone other than a victim's family really connect a killer being put to death with the horror of their crime 10 or 15 years ago?).
A true Leader...a Representative Government...trusts the system to discover and prosecute fairly those who break the laws. They forego pre-judging any matter, as that is for a jury of the citizenry, not an elected or appointed official, to rule. And even as the quality and training of our Law Enforcement Personnel is scrutinized and their performance analyzed, there is respect and a demand made by all for the well-being and honoring of those who put their safety at risk to protect the rest of us.
ALL lives, including the quality of those lives, matter. Those who call for the killing of members of the Police Force are inciting lawlessness. Truly, if they were to be successful and we return to mob rule, it is they who would fall as the first victims of majority mob rule. Be careful what you wish for.
A cohesive argument can be made that the true cause of the current state of disrespect and disregard for the law lies with the actions and words of the United States Federal Government...and that they should be held accountable.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Barack Obama - a layman's analysis
For almost eight years now...ever since he burst on the scene as a Junior Senator running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination to be President...Mr. Obama has been an enigma.
Here was an unproven young man with what appeared to be an excellent educational background and an exceptional oratorical ability seeking the approval of a major Political Party to attempt to win the Office of the Presidency of the United States. Any cursory examination of his background revealed that he had fine educational opportunities (although curiously his transcripts and papers from that period were never made available) and his work experience seemed confined to that of a Chicago-based Community Organizers, with little administrative experience or record. Further reading revealed that the closest thing to a mentor was one Frank Marshall Davis, an admitted and proven Communist active in Communist, Socialist and Marxist causes. Also of interest to any researcher was his long-time attendance and affinity for the Church of one Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who's sermons seemed to glorify a "victim" status for his church members and often called down the wrath of God on America for their treatment of his members generally.
Few attempts to discuss this background ever found its way into the mainstream media. There seemed a protective cocoon established around Mr. Obama's background and history other than the superlative labels of intelligence and high Educational background. Any challenge to this cocoon...any attempt to pierce it...were met with accusations of racism. You see, what we have not yet mentioned was that Mr. Obama's genetic background is 50% black, as his father was from Kenya, although not present for most of Mr. Obama's life, as he was raised in a single parent home in Hawaii.
However, the cocoon was no excuse for awareness of the totality of Mr. Obama's background. Any person who deemed it important enough to know details about the background for a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States of America could easily find and read the essential details. Few did. There was an aura of "special" about him seen by his supporters. How much of this perceived "awe" was the admitted power of his oratory and how much was the collective vision of putting to rest the stain of slavery by putting into the office of the Presidency a man of the black race, or some other perception may never be known. What seems clear, however, is that absent his Black background...if he were a white man of European heritage...he would have been judged as too young, too inexperienced, of unproven ability and with no track record by which to judge his likely intentions upon achieving the Office of the President.
He won.
Since taking office, Mr. Obama's performance has been spotty at best. Running on the ambiguous (subject to being defined differently by each listener) tag line, "Hope and Change," Mr. Obama promptly disappointed the first of his well-wishers by approaching elected officials of the opposing party, not with offers to compromise and work together but, with the comment, "I won," and then pushing through (barely) a partisan health-care bill. He failed to use his majority control of government to achieve promised immigration reform and generally earned a failing grade in "plays well with others" by totally neglecting to even attempt to establish a working, friendly relationship with Congress...even within his own party. He disturbed many with what appeared to be an "apology" tour of the world as unseemly and obsequious. Over his two terms, his Foreign Policy has seemed, at best, puzzling and at times non-existent.
While his supporters will deem my comments extreme, even they will admit a certain lack of achievement and direction, as well as Mr. Obama's proven propensity to lie to the the general public. I will not bore anyone with the multiple examples...the fact stands.
But...now rises the ongoing question of...Why? Some have argued that the lack of performance is simply a matter of lack of experience. Others assign darker motives. And the scope of the speculation is absolutely breath-taking with most being beyond the ability of this writer to consider, ...even momentarily.
I would like to suggest the major explanation (or motivation, if you wish) of Mr. Obama's behavior and attitude in office goes back to a self-perception of victim-hood. Certainly, Mr. Obama was subjected to the challenges of growing up as neither fish nor fowl; he was half-Black, raised in a single parent home by a loving mother but feeling clearly that he was a minority. He spent much time hearing the country and the world being analysed by Mr. Davis. While a card-carrying Communist, Mr. Davis also saw the Black race as being victims...and felt he was a victim. The truth is that Mr. Davis WAS a victim and was punished continually for the "sin" of "being black." Of course, he was also seen as at fault for his Communist views, a judgement that would have descended upon him regardless of his skin color. But...much of what an impressionable youth would take from the relationship was that element of being a victim, even as his education would steer him away from the Communist point of view...at least in part, although clearly there were associations (again, never explored or discussed during his campaign by anyone, much less the public) with socialist groups.
Would a self-image of being a liberated "victim" explain most, if not all, of Mr. Obama's character, behavior and attitudes? Consider: he has a thin skin, reacting badly to criticism, unable to admit fault; he is virtually unable to punish others or hold them accountable, finding sympathy with them regardless of outcome; he finds it virtually impossible to confront anyone or anything directly, unless at a distance or in surroundings he deems "safe"; he avoids contact with people where is is not in absolute control, where he can avoid one-on-one challenges (where unavoidable, he does not challenge directly any person face to face); he expresses true feelings and particularly anger only when with trusted friends.
"Victim-hood" places an almost unimaginable burden on anyone. To me, the consideration of it as a primary element explaining Mr. Obama's behavior and attitude, as well as his character, gave occasion to an "Ah-hah" moment. That doesn't make it so. But perhaps it is worthy of consideration?
Here was an unproven young man with what appeared to be an excellent educational background and an exceptional oratorical ability seeking the approval of a major Political Party to attempt to win the Office of the Presidency of the United States. Any cursory examination of his background revealed that he had fine educational opportunities (although curiously his transcripts and papers from that period were never made available) and his work experience seemed confined to that of a Chicago-based Community Organizers, with little administrative experience or record. Further reading revealed that the closest thing to a mentor was one Frank Marshall Davis, an admitted and proven Communist active in Communist, Socialist and Marxist causes. Also of interest to any researcher was his long-time attendance and affinity for the Church of one Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who's sermons seemed to glorify a "victim" status for his church members and often called down the wrath of God on America for their treatment of his members generally.
Few attempts to discuss this background ever found its way into the mainstream media. There seemed a protective cocoon established around Mr. Obama's background and history other than the superlative labels of intelligence and high Educational background. Any challenge to this cocoon...any attempt to pierce it...were met with accusations of racism. You see, what we have not yet mentioned was that Mr. Obama's genetic background is 50% black, as his father was from Kenya, although not present for most of Mr. Obama's life, as he was raised in a single parent home in Hawaii.
However, the cocoon was no excuse for awareness of the totality of Mr. Obama's background. Any person who deemed it important enough to know details about the background for a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States of America could easily find and read the essential details. Few did. There was an aura of "special" about him seen by his supporters. How much of this perceived "awe" was the admitted power of his oratory and how much was the collective vision of putting to rest the stain of slavery by putting into the office of the Presidency a man of the black race, or some other perception may never be known. What seems clear, however, is that absent his Black background...if he were a white man of European heritage...he would have been judged as too young, too inexperienced, of unproven ability and with no track record by which to judge his likely intentions upon achieving the Office of the President.
He won.
Since taking office, Mr. Obama's performance has been spotty at best. Running on the ambiguous (subject to being defined differently by each listener) tag line, "Hope and Change," Mr. Obama promptly disappointed the first of his well-wishers by approaching elected officials of the opposing party, not with offers to compromise and work together but, with the comment, "I won," and then pushing through (barely) a partisan health-care bill. He failed to use his majority control of government to achieve promised immigration reform and generally earned a failing grade in "plays well with others" by totally neglecting to even attempt to establish a working, friendly relationship with Congress...even within his own party. He disturbed many with what appeared to be an "apology" tour of the world as unseemly and obsequious. Over his two terms, his Foreign Policy has seemed, at best, puzzling and at times non-existent.
While his supporters will deem my comments extreme, even they will admit a certain lack of achievement and direction, as well as Mr. Obama's proven propensity to lie to the the general public. I will not bore anyone with the multiple examples...the fact stands.
But...now rises the ongoing question of...Why? Some have argued that the lack of performance is simply a matter of lack of experience. Others assign darker motives. And the scope of the speculation is absolutely breath-taking with most being beyond the ability of this writer to consider, ...even momentarily.
I would like to suggest the major explanation (or motivation, if you wish) of Mr. Obama's behavior and attitude in office goes back to a self-perception of victim-hood. Certainly, Mr. Obama was subjected to the challenges of growing up as neither fish nor fowl; he was half-Black, raised in a single parent home by a loving mother but feeling clearly that he was a minority. He spent much time hearing the country and the world being analysed by Mr. Davis. While a card-carrying Communist, Mr. Davis also saw the Black race as being victims...and felt he was a victim. The truth is that Mr. Davis WAS a victim and was punished continually for the "sin" of "being black." Of course, he was also seen as at fault for his Communist views, a judgement that would have descended upon him regardless of his skin color. But...much of what an impressionable youth would take from the relationship was that element of being a victim, even as his education would steer him away from the Communist point of view...at least in part, although clearly there were associations (again, never explored or discussed during his campaign by anyone, much less the public) with socialist groups.
Would a self-image of being a liberated "victim" explain most, if not all, of Mr. Obama's character, behavior and attitudes? Consider: he has a thin skin, reacting badly to criticism, unable to admit fault; he is virtually unable to punish others or hold them accountable, finding sympathy with them regardless of outcome; he finds it virtually impossible to confront anyone or anything directly, unless at a distance or in surroundings he deems "safe"; he avoids contact with people where is is not in absolute control, where he can avoid one-on-one challenges (where unavoidable, he does not challenge directly any person face to face); he expresses true feelings and particularly anger only when with trusted friends.
"Victim-hood" places an almost unimaginable burden on anyone. To me, the consideration of it as a primary element explaining Mr. Obama's behavior and attitude, as well as his character, gave occasion to an "Ah-hah" moment. That doesn't make it so. But perhaps it is worthy of consideration?
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Iranian Nuclear "Deal": Part III
If you wrote this as a fictional novel, not one publisher would touch it; they would claim it is too unbelievable for any reader to think that any leaders of any major country could possible be so blatantly naive...or inept.
Apparently News Reports that one of the major "side" agreements to the overall "agreement" provides for the Iranians to self-inspect their military sites. Perhaps a review of past history of Iranian adherence to promises made might be in order? Feels a little bit like the Police allowing a known Drug Distributor checking his own premises and/or warehouse and assuring them that there are no drugs being moved in or out of there...it leaves a shock of disbelief at the core of your being.
Yet...this is precisely what Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are approving as sufficient assurance that Iran will not develop a nuclear device. What they actually are trying to get approved constitutes an express lane for Iran to develop the "bomb."
There are only three possible explanations for this:
1. As previously suggested, everyone on our side of the table is naive and inept;
2. America's representative at the table are anxious to have Iran eliminate all opposition to controlling the Middle East; or
3. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are so blinded by their narcissistic need for a legacy that it is the creation of any agreement that is important, not the content of that agreement.
If the reports of this side agreement's contents is confirmed, then it strikes me that the act of recommending approval of our government to the "deal" would constitute treason.
I further suggest that if confirmation is obtained, the same charge would be in order against any Representative or Senator who votes to approve the "agreement."
Each of my Senators and Representative have been put on notice by me in writing that I will hold them directly accountable for the results if they vote for the United States to accept this agreement. And I suspect a lot of folks around the country will be watching and noting their own Senators' and Representatives' vote on this matter.
Apparently News Reports that one of the major "side" agreements to the overall "agreement" provides for the Iranians to self-inspect their military sites. Perhaps a review of past history of Iranian adherence to promises made might be in order? Feels a little bit like the Police allowing a known Drug Distributor checking his own premises and/or warehouse and assuring them that there are no drugs being moved in or out of there...it leaves a shock of disbelief at the core of your being.
Yet...this is precisely what Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are approving as sufficient assurance that Iran will not develop a nuclear device. What they actually are trying to get approved constitutes an express lane for Iran to develop the "bomb."
There are only three possible explanations for this:
1. As previously suggested, everyone on our side of the table is naive and inept;
2. America's representative at the table are anxious to have Iran eliminate all opposition to controlling the Middle East; or
3. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are so blinded by their narcissistic need for a legacy that it is the creation of any agreement that is important, not the content of that agreement.
If the reports of this side agreement's contents is confirmed, then it strikes me that the act of recommending approval of our government to the "deal" would constitute treason.
I further suggest that if confirmation is obtained, the same charge would be in order against any Representative or Senator who votes to approve the "agreement."
Each of my Senators and Representative have been put on notice by me in writing that I will hold them directly accountable for the results if they vote for the United States to accept this agreement. And I suspect a lot of folks around the country will be watching and noting their own Senators' and Representatives' vote on this matter.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Giffords' reaction disingenuous at best, considering the past
Want to find real "hate" speech? Go flip through the posts on the Daily Kos sometime...if you can stand it. And go over to Newsvine (sponsored by Newsweek) for more of the same. It makes the rather mild attacks on (primarily) the ideology of the Left look tame by comparison. The frequency of the calls for the untimely demise of various Conservatives and others that do not espouse the Liberal line is wall to wall...almost universal, yet I have never heard the media denounce that as inappropriate.
In the Giffords case, I find the rush to find blame through a domino effect to be disingenuous at best and flat out lying for political effect at worst. And the secular powered diminution of God and Morality enables the effort of the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elites' to take find some political advantage from the act of one psychopathic delusional nut.
Would the new media be treating this story the same if the victims had been Republican or Conservative...or Libertarian? Tea Party? My suspicion is that the media and the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elite would suddenly find that the victims had brought it one themselves.
What if the shooter of Giffords and the rest had been an illegal? Can you describe the sound of silence?
And, as tragic as the killings were, why indeed are they any more tragic than the death of a soldier in Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan from a suicide bomber, or the murder of a Rancher on his own American Ranch on the border? How is it that they do not deserve a personal visit from the President? What are they...chump change? I think not. And a visit from the President no only exalts the psychopathic shooter (and proving to other psychopaths out there that this is the way to fame), but by comparison shows his not so parallel values for others who have died at the hands of murderers.
In the Giffords case, I find the rush to find blame through a domino effect to be disingenuous at best and flat out lying for political effect at worst. And the secular powered diminution of God and Morality enables the effort of the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elites' to take find some political advantage from the act of one psychopathic delusional nut.
Would the new media be treating this story the same if the victims had been Republican or Conservative...or Libertarian? Tea Party? My suspicion is that the media and the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elite would suddenly find that the victims had brought it one themselves.
What if the shooter of Giffords and the rest had been an illegal? Can you describe the sound of silence?
And, as tragic as the killings were, why indeed are they any more tragic than the death of a soldier in Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan from a suicide bomber, or the murder of a Rancher on his own American Ranch on the border? How is it that they do not deserve a personal visit from the President? What are they...chump change? I think not. And a visit from the President no only exalts the psychopathic shooter (and proving to other psychopaths out there that this is the way to fame), but by comparison shows his not so parallel values for others who have died at the hands of murderers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)