The recent DOJ (Department of Justice) announcement that it had closed without prosecution the investigation into ex-DOJ employee A. McCabe triggered (you'll excuse the term) public scrutiny and thoughts on when, if ever, there would be prosecutions stemming from the apparent (& in some cases, admitted) over-reach of our intelligence agencies in spying on citizens and on those in the Trump election campaign. Such spying is explicitly illegal unless a FISA warrant is first obtained.
McCabe has admitted in involvement in leaking confidential material to the "Press." Such actions are a violation of law.
Years earlier Sec.State Clinton kept a private unsecured email server which was used on multiple occasions for keeping and transmitting classified material & documents. She claimed not to know the material was classified, and also claimed she had no intent to break the law. The applicable law does not require either intent or knowledge of the classified nature of material held or transmitted.
In both of these cases there was admitted and demonstrable violation of law with significant penalties attaching.
In both of these cases (and there are many others that could have been added if numbers were the goal) no prosecution was brought.
Those not favoring the actions of Ms. Clinton & Mr. McCabe have suggested both collusion (a favored word today in America), and partisan abandonment of law enforcement obligations and oaths on the part of the DOJ as the reason(s) behind the failure to prosecute and punish admitted law-breaking.
Such bad-faith reticence is certainly a possible if not probable factor; to hold anyone accountable, a prosecutor must bring charges, either on his(her) department's own initiative or on and indictment brought by a Grand Jury. The recent ascendancy to the position of Attorney General of the United States by Mr. Barr was seen by many as the needed antidote to the dedicated practice of not bringing charges for political spying. Yet...the recent decision to not prosecute Mr. McCabe after a two year investigation seems to pour cold water on expectations of renewed law enforcement.
Whispers currently heard in Washington suggest that a "fail-safe" secondary level of protection of the Deep State and its members exists that has remained little considered, investigated and/or received the publicity it deserves.
FACT: to convict, there must be a conviction by PEOPLE! They sit on the Grand Jury if the case is prosecuted on an indictment, and in any trial, on the jury impaneled for that specific purpose. The people eligible for a Grand Jury are residents of the place where the Prosecutor is investigating possible crimes. In a Jury trial, the members of the Jury are residents of the town or county where the trial is being held. In cases where consideration is of law breading by employees of the Federal Government at the highest levels, that place is Washington, D.C., and its immediate surrounding environs (eastern Virginia, Maryland, etc).
The single most ubiquitous employer in this area is the Federal Government. Is it reasonable...or even possible...to conceive of the ability to impanel a Grand Jury and/or Jury where the members did NOT have (in descending order) a relative, spouse, close friend, neighbor or employer that was employed in some direct or indirect way by the Federal Government? And, despite protestations, does anyone seriously believe that they will chance loss of regard, friendships and club memberships by not protecting the common employer and "friend," the Federal Government by voting to convict any Federal employee or associate of simply protecting themselves and all beltway residents from unwarranted attacks by "outsiders?"
Contrary to the Media claims of attacks FROM President Trump, I'd suggest that should President Trump while in attendance is a meeting on a high floor of any building in Washington, D. C., with FBI, CIA, and members of Congress and suddenly fall to his death, the unanimous testimony would be that Mr. Trump stabbed himself 15 times in his back with a carving knife, then broke a window and threw himself to his death and a clear case of suicide. And the matter would be closed without prosecution of any sort.
And the matter would likely be reported in the papers on the bottom of page 22, and receive a one line mention on the evening news, and not at all in the Congressional Record.
It is NOT possible to successfully prosecute any member of the Deep State for any law-breaking that the Deep State sees as simply protecting itself from "out of towners" that want to both reveal and stop the self-serving practices of centuries in Washington.
The only way to change that is to change the venue. Move the Grand Jury process to a place like West Virginia...or, better yet, Texas. And hold the jury trial there also.
Of course to do that, a Judge would have to approve the reason for, as well as the choice of, such an action. And that brings up still another un-investigated element standing in the way of enabling objective law-enforcement: the Federal Judiciary.
But that is a subject for another day.
Saturday, February 15, 2020
Sunday, February 2, 2020
What makes President Trump the focus of such hatred?
President Trump is hated by those who disagree with him. It is a visceral hatred, and extends to those who support him. In the last seventy (70) years no other President has been the target of such violent hatred, vocal disrespect, and harassment. The harassment has been public ( directed at those who work in his administration), private ( mob confrontation at the homes of those who support and work for him), and in Congress (through the contrived and partisan investigation(s) and impeachment actions). What makes President Trump a target of such intense, virulent, physical attacks?
Is it his performance in office? Considering that prominent Leftists were calling for his impeachment even as he was taking the oath of office, that doesn't seem likely. And since taking office, he has actually kept more of his campaign promises in just three (3) years than all the Presidents combined from FDR up to an including Obama. So his performance cannot be the added element.
Can it be because he came to office as an"outsider," with no political background. That also seems to fail upon examination and reflection. We have had Presidents that came to office with no, or insignificant, political experience; Presidents Eisenhower and Obama come to mind.
How about getting along with people? Could his combativeness in speech and "tweets" be the cause? Not since Grant and Roosevelt (Teddy) have we had a President that was so ready to do battle with opponents and the "Press" (whatever "press" stands for these days...but that is a subject for another day). But while that is mentioned often by his opponents, those opponents are themselves just as guilty of extreme language, so that also seems lacking as an explanation.
Is this "hatred" simply a symptom of American Society's slow but inexorable slide toward "un" civilization, loosing dedication to civil behavior in the striving to eliminate all who disagree with us? Well, I'd suggest that this may be "partly" to blame, but it doesn't really account for the quantum leap between the treatment and attitude toward President Trump and that of President Obama. Both were intensely disliked by those who opposed them, yet there was no outcry in public of general disrespect,and in particular not public harassment or hatred, of President Obama...yet it immediately surfaced toward President Trump even before he took office. So...why? Why indeed!
Perhaps it is the "Left" versus "Right" political ideology? With the accelerated slide to the Left of the Democrat Party, has the gap grown so large that neither can abide by even the existence of the opposite point of view? A careful analysis suggests that that doesn't hold a hope of an explanation; the "Right" has been sliding Left also, so the gap hasn't grown appreciably...although some small numbers of Republicans speak up in opposition from time to time, but with no significant effect.
Considering that Presidents have limited shelf lives (after all almost anything and everything can survive and carry on for a maximum of eight (8) years and come back) the extreme hatred seems to maintain its mystery. All Presidents have lied, so the accusation of not telling the truth is neither unusual nor the lying (when it occurs) seem to mark a deviation from the actions of other Presidents.
What is it that makes President Trump, and his administration, different? I suggest two (2) primary factors.
President Trump is the first President in at least the last seventy (70) years to come to office and to Washington, D.C., having neither desire to join the Washington Political "old boysl' (now "girls" also) club" nor respect for the "go along to get along" practices that have built up in Washington over the last two hundred and fifty (250+) plus years. Certainly others have been elected as outsiders, campaigning strongly on disrespect for and derision of the "Washington Establishment," but upon arrival went to bent knee and swore secret allegiance to the God of "Government" as the only true constituent they served. President Trump was the "Mr. Smith" in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" with the exception that President Trump was not and remains not naive about just what sort of corrupt operation that the Federal Government has become. He was NOT concerned with making small improvements; he was and remains intent on bringing to the surface and rooting out the corrupt practices that have become ingrained in the Federal Government over the years. He STILL represents those who elected him...NOT the elected and appointed officials who surround him.
That puts fear into the hearts of those who feel threatened. And that in cludes those who exist outside of Washington who have benefited because of who and what they know, rather that because of what they have earned or deserve. And FEAR GIVES RISE TO HATRED!
The developing discovery of the use of our FBI and Intelligence services to aid in political campaigns, the failure of the FISA court(s) to deliver on promises to protect our Constitutional Freedoms, the lies perpetrated by elected members of Congress to hide malfeasance and misfeasance are all signs of illegality that would arguably never have poked their ugly heads into public consciousness if President Trump had not been elected. Those who are, as a result, at risk are, in order of progression: concerned, fearful, desperate, and full of active, actionable hatred.
For myself, any expression of this hatred is reason to believe that the person exhibiting it must be inappropriately benefiting from some Federal Program (or one that is funded by the Federal Government) and worthy of investigative questioning.
Beware of "haters," they have something at risk and something to hide.
The secondary reason for the vitriol is that those who lean Left politically have slowly been gaining power since President Reagan left office. They became used to this gradual assertion of control and became convinced it was their divine right. So enamored did they become that they ignored signs throughout the country that there was a growing annoyance turning into anger as they became aware that their elected officials were not only lying to them about their intentions in Washington, but ignoring them except for the short season for election campaigning. The Left saw the election of Ms. Clinton as the final cap the signaled total power and control of the Federal Government. President Trump's election was like an unexpected cold shower in a one room efficiency instead of the Wedding Suite at the Ritz-Carlton.
So surprise turned to fear, then to hate. President Trump responded to Press attacks, so they felt fear...then hate. And the Republicans in office felt rejection of their invitation to join the "Washington Insiders Club" and felt hear than a slightly less hate. And all that have been getting "paid off" in various ways, as well as their lobbyists, felt fear...and then some level of hate. All this is the source of the group known as the "NEVER TRUMPERS."
Disagree? Tell me why...give specifics.
Is it his performance in office? Considering that prominent Leftists were calling for his impeachment even as he was taking the oath of office, that doesn't seem likely. And since taking office, he has actually kept more of his campaign promises in just three (3) years than all the Presidents combined from FDR up to an including Obama. So his performance cannot be the added element.
Can it be because he came to office as an"outsider," with no political background. That also seems to fail upon examination and reflection. We have had Presidents that came to office with no, or insignificant, political experience; Presidents Eisenhower and Obama come to mind.
How about getting along with people? Could his combativeness in speech and "tweets" be the cause? Not since Grant and Roosevelt (Teddy) have we had a President that was so ready to do battle with opponents and the "Press" (whatever "press" stands for these days...but that is a subject for another day). But while that is mentioned often by his opponents, those opponents are themselves just as guilty of extreme language, so that also seems lacking as an explanation.
Is this "hatred" simply a symptom of American Society's slow but inexorable slide toward "un" civilization, loosing dedication to civil behavior in the striving to eliminate all who disagree with us? Well, I'd suggest that this may be "partly" to blame, but it doesn't really account for the quantum leap between the treatment and attitude toward President Trump and that of President Obama. Both were intensely disliked by those who opposed them, yet there was no outcry in public of general disrespect,and in particular not public harassment or hatred, of President Obama...yet it immediately surfaced toward President Trump even before he took office. So...why? Why indeed!
Perhaps it is the "Left" versus "Right" political ideology? With the accelerated slide to the Left of the Democrat Party, has the gap grown so large that neither can abide by even the existence of the opposite point of view? A careful analysis suggests that that doesn't hold a hope of an explanation; the "Right" has been sliding Left also, so the gap hasn't grown appreciably...although some small numbers of Republicans speak up in opposition from time to time, but with no significant effect.
Considering that Presidents have limited shelf lives (after all almost anything and everything can survive and carry on for a maximum of eight (8) years and come back) the extreme hatred seems to maintain its mystery. All Presidents have lied, so the accusation of not telling the truth is neither unusual nor the lying (when it occurs) seem to mark a deviation from the actions of other Presidents.
What is it that makes President Trump, and his administration, different? I suggest two (2) primary factors.
President Trump is the first President in at least the last seventy (70) years to come to office and to Washington, D.C., having neither desire to join the Washington Political "old boysl' (now "girls" also) club" nor respect for the "go along to get along" practices that have built up in Washington over the last two hundred and fifty (250+) plus years. Certainly others have been elected as outsiders, campaigning strongly on disrespect for and derision of the "Washington Establishment," but upon arrival went to bent knee and swore secret allegiance to the God of "Government" as the only true constituent they served. President Trump was the "Mr. Smith" in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" with the exception that President Trump was not and remains not naive about just what sort of corrupt operation that the Federal Government has become. He was NOT concerned with making small improvements; he was and remains intent on bringing to the surface and rooting out the corrupt practices that have become ingrained in the Federal Government over the years. He STILL represents those who elected him...NOT the elected and appointed officials who surround him.
That puts fear into the hearts of those who feel threatened. And that in cludes those who exist outside of Washington who have benefited because of who and what they know, rather that because of what they have earned or deserve. And FEAR GIVES RISE TO HATRED!
The developing discovery of the use of our FBI and Intelligence services to aid in political campaigns, the failure of the FISA court(s) to deliver on promises to protect our Constitutional Freedoms, the lies perpetrated by elected members of Congress to hide malfeasance and misfeasance are all signs of illegality that would arguably never have poked their ugly heads into public consciousness if President Trump had not been elected. Those who are, as a result, at risk are, in order of progression: concerned, fearful, desperate, and full of active, actionable hatred.
For myself, any expression of this hatred is reason to believe that the person exhibiting it must be inappropriately benefiting from some Federal Program (or one that is funded by the Federal Government) and worthy of investigative questioning.
Beware of "haters," they have something at risk and something to hide.
The secondary reason for the vitriol is that those who lean Left politically have slowly been gaining power since President Reagan left office. They became used to this gradual assertion of control and became convinced it was their divine right. So enamored did they become that they ignored signs throughout the country that there was a growing annoyance turning into anger as they became aware that their elected officials were not only lying to them about their intentions in Washington, but ignoring them except for the short season for election campaigning. The Left saw the election of Ms. Clinton as the final cap the signaled total power and control of the Federal Government. President Trump's election was like an unexpected cold shower in a one room efficiency instead of the Wedding Suite at the Ritz-Carlton.
So surprise turned to fear, then to hate. President Trump responded to Press attacks, so they felt fear...then hate. And the Republicans in office felt rejection of their invitation to join the "Washington Insiders Club" and felt hear than a slightly less hate. And all that have been getting "paid off" in various ways, as well as their lobbyists, felt fear...and then some level of hate. All this is the source of the group known as the "NEVER TRUMPERS."
Disagree? Tell me why...give specifics.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Why is there more Hatred and Violence in America today?
Some push back on the claim that hatred and violence are more prevalent in America today and in the past hundred years. They suggest that it may seem that way but it is only because of faster and more thorough communication of violence than any statistical increase. That is open to discussion.
There is no argument, however, that civility is at a low ebb...lower than that in the past half century at least. Insults, disrespect, and harassment used to be not only objectionable, but cause for being ostracized from society at large and any consideration for holding authoritative office or employment. If you wished to be respected and have your ideas and beliefs considered seriously, you did not act or speak impolitely or insultingly. To do so was to invite violent reaction; most of us remember the term, "fighting words" as cause for violent reaction. Insulting your family would result in a violent fight and the courts saw the person uttering the disrespectful phrase or label as at fault.
Today, such a person is not ostracized, disrespected or shunned. Instead, they are elected to public office. If they are proven liars, they are re-elected to public office and not held to account; they are even granted immunity from legal action for libel and slander. Apparently consequences no longer exist for such.
Consider it may very well be this lack of consequences that has given rise to increased violence and deaths.
Hatred, anger and disrespect have always existed. It has been the combination of laws and societal norms that have served to cause those with those feelings to keep them to themselves in order to continue to earn a living and be generally accepted in society...these people felt the pressure of being unacceptable to all around them should they "act out" their antisocial feelings.
For many who disagreed with the ideology, beliefs and false statements of President Obama, these factors controlled. Mutterings were heard, but the concept of honoring our elective system(s) over-rode the anger and dislike of some, if not many, of President Obama's administration.
The election results of 2016 was considered by many at the time as a case of "what goes around, comes around." But the Left decided, whether individually or collectively, that such was not to be the case. They have, so far, thrown a three year tantrum! Vocal calls for Impeachment were heard even before President Trump was inaugurated. Disrespect and anger were the watchwords of the day. Harassment and actual assault was deemed appropriate behavior. Supporters and members of Mr. Trump's administration were chased from public spaces, from restaurants and followed down public streets subject to vile insulting language. They were not protected by the law or law enforcement; courts now discovered that such vile behavior was "free speech." Never before had assault and harassment been considered by the law or American society as constituting "Free Speech."
Consider that the more acceptable emotional outbursts become, the closer those that have emotional feeling come to that line of behavior that involves actual violence. An analogy would the that allowing everyone permission to stand closer to the edge of a cliff is not only likely, but certain, to result in more people falling off the edge.
That is what America is living with today. If we truly desire to be a civilized nation...if we want once again to respect all around us even as we disagree on programs, ideas and personal lives...perhaps we need to consider reining in our passions...our emotions. Maybe it is time to respect each other; not just our friends, but even those who are not our friends.
What continues to be aggravating is that the Left is currently blaming President Trump's administration for this hatred and the resulting violence, calling upon him to put a stop to it. Considering that the hatred AND the violence began with the "resist" movement, assaults and harassment by Antifa, calls on the public to harass any and all Trump appointees and supporters by the Left's elected representatives (Representatives Barbara Lee, Ted Lieu, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, Senators Kamala Harris, Charles Schumer, Governor Andrew Cuomo, among many others) one is tempted to laugh out loud at the hypocrisy.
Almost half of the voters in 2016 (some suggest MORE than half) have abandoned civility and past societal norms, advocating the casting away of the United States Constitutions Freedoms and protections in favor of mob rule.
Their words and actions have brought the American Republic to the brink of disaster. If they succeed we all...our children and grandchildren...will reap the consequences.
There is no argument, however, that civility is at a low ebb...lower than that in the past half century at least. Insults, disrespect, and harassment used to be not only objectionable, but cause for being ostracized from society at large and any consideration for holding authoritative office or employment. If you wished to be respected and have your ideas and beliefs considered seriously, you did not act or speak impolitely or insultingly. To do so was to invite violent reaction; most of us remember the term, "fighting words" as cause for violent reaction. Insulting your family would result in a violent fight and the courts saw the person uttering the disrespectful phrase or label as at fault.
Today, such a person is not ostracized, disrespected or shunned. Instead, they are elected to public office. If they are proven liars, they are re-elected to public office and not held to account; they are even granted immunity from legal action for libel and slander. Apparently consequences no longer exist for such.
Consider it may very well be this lack of consequences that has given rise to increased violence and deaths.
Hatred, anger and disrespect have always existed. It has been the combination of laws and societal norms that have served to cause those with those feelings to keep them to themselves in order to continue to earn a living and be generally accepted in society...these people felt the pressure of being unacceptable to all around them should they "act out" their antisocial feelings.
For many who disagreed with the ideology, beliefs and false statements of President Obama, these factors controlled. Mutterings were heard, but the concept of honoring our elective system(s) over-rode the anger and dislike of some, if not many, of President Obama's administration.
The election results of 2016 was considered by many at the time as a case of "what goes around, comes around." But the Left decided, whether individually or collectively, that such was not to be the case. They have, so far, thrown a three year tantrum! Vocal calls for Impeachment were heard even before President Trump was inaugurated. Disrespect and anger were the watchwords of the day. Harassment and actual assault was deemed appropriate behavior. Supporters and members of Mr. Trump's administration were chased from public spaces, from restaurants and followed down public streets subject to vile insulting language. They were not protected by the law or law enforcement; courts now discovered that such vile behavior was "free speech." Never before had assault and harassment been considered by the law or American society as constituting "Free Speech."
Consider that the more acceptable emotional outbursts become, the closer those that have emotional feeling come to that line of behavior that involves actual violence. An analogy would the that allowing everyone permission to stand closer to the edge of a cliff is not only likely, but certain, to result in more people falling off the edge.
That is what America is living with today. If we truly desire to be a civilized nation...if we want once again to respect all around us even as we disagree on programs, ideas and personal lives...perhaps we need to consider reining in our passions...our emotions. Maybe it is time to respect each other; not just our friends, but even those who are not our friends.
What continues to be aggravating is that the Left is currently blaming President Trump's administration for this hatred and the resulting violence, calling upon him to put a stop to it. Considering that the hatred AND the violence began with the "resist" movement, assaults and harassment by Antifa, calls on the public to harass any and all Trump appointees and supporters by the Left's elected representatives (Representatives Barbara Lee, Ted Lieu, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, Senators Kamala Harris, Charles Schumer, Governor Andrew Cuomo, among many others) one is tempted to laugh out loud at the hypocrisy.
Almost half of the voters in 2016 (some suggest MORE than half) have abandoned civility and past societal norms, advocating the casting away of the United States Constitutions Freedoms and protections in favor of mob rule.
Their words and actions have brought the American Republic to the brink of disaster. If they succeed we all...our children and grandchildren...will reap the consequences.
Monday, December 30, 2019
The Left's Game Plan: Authoritarianism over Civility
The actions and words of those on the Progressive Left in the United States of America support the concept that they are prepared to sacrifice civility, honor, and respect for election results and people of a different opinion in favor of authoritarian Rule.
Consider that Leftist Office Holder were admitting intent to impeach duly elected Republican President Trump within moments of his taking office. He had not yet acted in any official capacity, yet the Left was prepared to obstruct his authority to hold office.
Consider that members of the Leftist action group, Antifa, wear face masks while harassing and assaulting any people even suspected of not favoring Leftist political positions and actions. Leftist Officials...police AND Judges...dismiss charges against any members almost universally without any penalty for their lawless actions.
Leftist Members of Congress encourage harassment in public of any who fail to vocally support the Leftist Agenda and Ideology.
Leftist Media censor news to allow only pro-Leftist events to air or appear in print, and both create and promote false reports that denigrate all non-Leftist points of view. The further refuse to investigate any actions by any on the Left that might be improper or criminal in nature. They have resurrected the Goebbels' Big Lie to supplant journalism.
Universities, Colleges and Grade Schools have given up teaching American History, requiring students to learn to read and do arithmetic at grade levels before being passed to a higher grqade and been shown to indoctrinate students with Leftist points of view, rather that to learn ALL points of view and challenge each in debate. Further, they now refuse to honor the Constitution's guarantee of Free Speech, in favor ot Authoritarian limit of all but Leftist points of view.
Civil discourse has disappeared from government and public arenas. Personal insults have taken the place of critiquing ideas and positions. "Meanness" prevails.
Defense of and acquisition of Power has become the singular goal of the Left, and they are clearly prepared to use any and all means, both legal and illegal, both moral and immoral, both Constitutional and unconstitutional, to achieve that power and authority. They are clearly prepared to destroy the Republic in order to achieve their goal of authoritarian Control of America.
They have awakened the animosity, the ire, and the violent anger of those long-suffering folks not on the Left, who are fed up with the disrespect delivered on them and will not condone a continuation of this destruction of civility, of respect, and of moral conscience.
Enough!
Consider that Leftist Office Holder were admitting intent to impeach duly elected Republican President Trump within moments of his taking office. He had not yet acted in any official capacity, yet the Left was prepared to obstruct his authority to hold office.
Consider that members of the Leftist action group, Antifa, wear face masks while harassing and assaulting any people even suspected of not favoring Leftist political positions and actions. Leftist Officials...police AND Judges...dismiss charges against any members almost universally without any penalty for their lawless actions.
Leftist Members of Congress encourage harassment in public of any who fail to vocally support the Leftist Agenda and Ideology.
Leftist Media censor news to allow only pro-Leftist events to air or appear in print, and both create and promote false reports that denigrate all non-Leftist points of view. The further refuse to investigate any actions by any on the Left that might be improper or criminal in nature. They have resurrected the Goebbels' Big Lie to supplant journalism.
Universities, Colleges and Grade Schools have given up teaching American History, requiring students to learn to read and do arithmetic at grade levels before being passed to a higher grqade and been shown to indoctrinate students with Leftist points of view, rather that to learn ALL points of view and challenge each in debate. Further, they now refuse to honor the Constitution's guarantee of Free Speech, in favor ot Authoritarian limit of all but Leftist points of view.
Civil discourse has disappeared from government and public arenas. Personal insults have taken the place of critiquing ideas and positions. "Meanness" prevails.
Defense of and acquisition of Power has become the singular goal of the Left, and they are clearly prepared to use any and all means, both legal and illegal, both moral and immoral, both Constitutional and unconstitutional, to achieve that power and authority. They are clearly prepared to destroy the Republic in order to achieve their goal of authoritarian Control of America.
They have awakened the animosity, the ire, and the violent anger of those long-suffering folks not on the Left, who are fed up with the disrespect delivered on them and will not condone a continuation of this destruction of civility, of respect, and of moral conscience.
Enough!
Monday, November 25, 2019
How to keep lies from destroying the American Republic
Whines! Groans! Cheers! Jeers! Wringing of hands and dire warnings abound...all over the internet, with particular targeting of "Social Media." THAT is a misnomer, if I ever saw one...it is NOT social and it is NOT civil. Social media isn't even truthful, except seemingly by accident. Not many "thinking" people disagree as to the falsehoods that abound on the internet.
The same complaint(s) are becoming rampant regarding the media, with particular attention on what is euphemistically called the "news" media. The term "fake news" appears everywhere, both truthfully and falsely applied so often as to make the label ineffective as either a warning or a label (truth in anything, including advertising and public relations, is a rarity).
Politicians and their supporters (does that end up labeling over 90% of our population?) add to the lack of candor, having expanded their falsehoods from campaign promises to include actions and positions actually taken while holding office.
So...is this unacceptable? If so, to who (or is it "to whom,"...I never did get that right)? Is there any desire...a heartfelt desire...to change this and return to a more truthful existence for all of us?
It would be nice to believe that such a desire exists. But...how? Here are a few ideas to consider...and feel free to think up additional and (hopefully) even more effective ways to accomplish the goal.
First, the so-called "news" media have to be forced to tell the truth and/or label their lies as lies.
Second, internet posting of any kind has to be able to be tracked to the person or organization that is commenting.
Third, all media (including that labeled as "news") has to be made legally responsible for falsehoods. It is time to, in the interest of Justice, to eliminate the qualification or claim of "absence of malice." If a person in private life can be legally made responsible for libel and/or slander, so should the "news," whether it be broadcast or print.
Is there any real reason why our people, our country, our government cannot pass laws that require all comments, all stories, all reports be attributed to real people and real organizations so they can be held accountable? Is there any reason why anyone should be free to repeat slander or libel just by quoting another person? That should be unlawful unless the person or organization repeating the story has independently verified it with attribution...not anonymously.
Why shouldn't a person that defames another be held accountable and not allowed to hide behind anonymity of the internet? Require that identification of those posting be available, so that there can be confrontation, both personal and legal. I see comments on "social" media and in stories that, if the commenter were made public and had to repeat the comments face to fact, would never say the things that they have posted or written.
As I grew up, I was advised to live my life, and speak and write, as if everything I did and said could appear on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow; think and consider before speaking or writing or acting. So many today thing there are no such things as consequences. Or, if there are, that someone ELSE will suffer them. It is time to stop that thinking. Time for the chickens to come home to roost...
If the voters demand this and insist that the internet providers not be allowed to censure but that all who use the internet be identifiable and legally liable for comments and statements, we can again enforce a degree of civility. But...we have to want to accomplish that and take action to demand that. Will you?
The same complaint(s) are becoming rampant regarding the media, with particular attention on what is euphemistically called the "news" media. The term "fake news" appears everywhere, both truthfully and falsely applied so often as to make the label ineffective as either a warning or a label (truth in anything, including advertising and public relations, is a rarity).
Politicians and their supporters (does that end up labeling over 90% of our population?) add to the lack of candor, having expanded their falsehoods from campaign promises to include actions and positions actually taken while holding office.
So...is this unacceptable? If so, to who (or is it "to whom,"...I never did get that right)? Is there any desire...a heartfelt desire...to change this and return to a more truthful existence for all of us?
It would be nice to believe that such a desire exists. But...how? Here are a few ideas to consider...and feel free to think up additional and (hopefully) even more effective ways to accomplish the goal.
First, the so-called "news" media have to be forced to tell the truth and/or label their lies as lies.
Second, internet posting of any kind has to be able to be tracked to the person or organization that is commenting.
Third, all media (including that labeled as "news") has to be made legally responsible for falsehoods. It is time to, in the interest of Justice, to eliminate the qualification or claim of "absence of malice." If a person in private life can be legally made responsible for libel and/or slander, so should the "news," whether it be broadcast or print.
Is there any real reason why our people, our country, our government cannot pass laws that require all comments, all stories, all reports be attributed to real people and real organizations so they can be held accountable? Is there any reason why anyone should be free to repeat slander or libel just by quoting another person? That should be unlawful unless the person or organization repeating the story has independently verified it with attribution...not anonymously.
Why shouldn't a person that defames another be held accountable and not allowed to hide behind anonymity of the internet? Require that identification of those posting be available, so that there can be confrontation, both personal and legal. I see comments on "social" media and in stories that, if the commenter were made public and had to repeat the comments face to fact, would never say the things that they have posted or written.
As I grew up, I was advised to live my life, and speak and write, as if everything I did and said could appear on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow; think and consider before speaking or writing or acting. So many today thing there are no such things as consequences. Or, if there are, that someone ELSE will suffer them. It is time to stop that thinking. Time for the chickens to come home to roost...
If the voters demand this and insist that the internet providers not be allowed to censure but that all who use the internet be identifiable and legally liable for comments and statements, we can again enforce a degree of civility. But...we have to want to accomplish that and take action to demand that. Will you?
Monday, November 11, 2019
Multi-National Companies are never "Patriotic"
Haven't posted in a long time; the world and the Nation seem so tumultuous as to defy any reasonable discussion...on any level or any subject. But...I finally have come to believe that to do nothing is to approve of what is...even to encourage it. The other side of the coin is that if you do not have a better idea, then perhaps you should hold your criticism(s) until you do have something better to offer. Be that as it may, we all might want to at least be aware of and deal with the matter in my heading.
Each of us view the definition and needs of personal security differently, but the one universal seems to be that we value our personal freedoms and do not wish others to impede or subtract from the baseline that we currently possess. Consistency demands that we honor the converse: that we should not expect to invade others' space or interfere with their freedoms.
At some level each of us also value and have an expectation of truthfulness toward and from others, including our institutions (government, schools, Courts, business enterprises.
At the beginning of the last century, our business enterprises operated within national borders; their identified with the nation in which they operated and supported the general national interests, aligning with the national sense of patriotism. In the last 70 years that has changed. And the change poses dangers to the concepts of national identity and national patriotism.
The largest and most powerful business enterprises on the planet operate across national borders, most (if not all) making profits from both sales and manufacturing in disparate countries throughout the planet. They have no allegiance to any particular country. Oh, they claim to care; their public statements of their Owners, Officers and in their Press Releases claim allegiance...but to each nation in which the statement is issued. Clearly this is a propaganda issue, not a truth issue. Each company is concerned ONLY with profits. Anything that interferes with profits is their enemy. That means that ALL ELSE holds no consistent place of value. Clearly allegiance is toward whatever will positively impact profits...and is fleeting at best. Once the profit element has been secured, there will be neither allegiance nor memory of any such thing.
Under this set of unassailable facts, shouldn't EVERY nation-state consider that every business enterprise be viewed, regardless of national origin, as a non-citizen? Shouldn't each enterprise be required to meet criteria and standards in a proven way and not given the presumptive standing of "citizen?"
Enterprises such as Google, Micro-soft, Amazon and Nike (and many more) currently show more concern about the welfare of China than of the United States. But, you say, those are American companies (with the emphasis on "American"). Not anymore. Follow the money. Follow the power. And any payoffs are a threat regardless of size or scope; there is no such thing as being a "little bit" pregnant. Does anyone think that the proximity of Google, Amazon and Nike offices with multitudes of employees in the Northwest has nothing to do with main cities in that area harboring felons and illegals contrary to United States law? Those companies and their employees see themselves as superior to and having no allegiance to the United States of America. And other countries are having the same experiences.
As of now, each multi-national plays nation-states against each other to obtain financial and regulatory advantages. That is to be expected. But none of these countries are consistent in recognizing (and trying to control the effects of) the threat to their borders, to their government, to their citizens' freedom. Why?
It would be easy...and nice...to state that our governments just aren't as aware of this, or are preoccupied with more important things. Hogwash! Does anyone not question how one can run for public office with relatively low personal wealth, hold elected office for decades at a relatively low salary lever, yet retire with millions in assets? This state of affairs has existed for more than a century, yet the media doesn't care and clearly the governments' Inspector Generals don't care either, even in the face of public inquiries. Why?
One opinion would be that despite the wording of Oaths of Office, laws, and conscience, the awarding of money and/or power constitute bribes more powerful than the concepts of truth, honor, promises, and/or conscience.
So...the ultimate question is how strongly do citizens feel about allowing their freedoms and security to be eroded, dissipated and perhaps even at some point eliminated.
Logic would suggest that the American citizen (and citizens of all the countries of the world) demand of their governments changes that would first arrest and second deminish the power that multi-national companies now enjoy; that such business enterprises not be allowed to fly under the radar of public accountability and not the private accountability of being able to "pay off" those who stand in their way.
Government exists because WE delegate to it power and authority. Perhaps we should consider voiding that delegation and start over?
Each of us view the definition and needs of personal security differently, but the one universal seems to be that we value our personal freedoms and do not wish others to impede or subtract from the baseline that we currently possess. Consistency demands that we honor the converse: that we should not expect to invade others' space or interfere with their freedoms.
At some level each of us also value and have an expectation of truthfulness toward and from others, including our institutions (government, schools, Courts, business enterprises.
At the beginning of the last century, our business enterprises operated within national borders; their identified with the nation in which they operated and supported the general national interests, aligning with the national sense of patriotism. In the last 70 years that has changed. And the change poses dangers to the concepts of national identity and national patriotism.
The largest and most powerful business enterprises on the planet operate across national borders, most (if not all) making profits from both sales and manufacturing in disparate countries throughout the planet. They have no allegiance to any particular country. Oh, they claim to care; their public statements of their Owners, Officers and in their Press Releases claim allegiance...but to each nation in which the statement is issued. Clearly this is a propaganda issue, not a truth issue. Each company is concerned ONLY with profits. Anything that interferes with profits is their enemy. That means that ALL ELSE holds no consistent place of value. Clearly allegiance is toward whatever will positively impact profits...and is fleeting at best. Once the profit element has been secured, there will be neither allegiance nor memory of any such thing.
Under this set of unassailable facts, shouldn't EVERY nation-state consider that every business enterprise be viewed, regardless of national origin, as a non-citizen? Shouldn't each enterprise be required to meet criteria and standards in a proven way and not given the presumptive standing of "citizen?"
Enterprises such as Google, Micro-soft, Amazon and Nike (and many more) currently show more concern about the welfare of China than of the United States. But, you say, those are American companies (with the emphasis on "American"). Not anymore. Follow the money. Follow the power. And any payoffs are a threat regardless of size or scope; there is no such thing as being a "little bit" pregnant. Does anyone think that the proximity of Google, Amazon and Nike offices with multitudes of employees in the Northwest has nothing to do with main cities in that area harboring felons and illegals contrary to United States law? Those companies and their employees see themselves as superior to and having no allegiance to the United States of America. And other countries are having the same experiences.
As of now, each multi-national plays nation-states against each other to obtain financial and regulatory advantages. That is to be expected. But none of these countries are consistent in recognizing (and trying to control the effects of) the threat to their borders, to their government, to their citizens' freedom. Why?
It would be easy...and nice...to state that our governments just aren't as aware of this, or are preoccupied with more important things. Hogwash! Does anyone not question how one can run for public office with relatively low personal wealth, hold elected office for decades at a relatively low salary lever, yet retire with millions in assets? This state of affairs has existed for more than a century, yet the media doesn't care and clearly the governments' Inspector Generals don't care either, even in the face of public inquiries. Why?
One opinion would be that despite the wording of Oaths of Office, laws, and conscience, the awarding of money and/or power constitute bribes more powerful than the concepts of truth, honor, promises, and/or conscience.
So...the ultimate question is how strongly do citizens feel about allowing their freedoms and security to be eroded, dissipated and perhaps even at some point eliminated.
Logic would suggest that the American citizen (and citizens of all the countries of the world) demand of their governments changes that would first arrest and second deminish the power that multi-national companies now enjoy; that such business enterprises not be allowed to fly under the radar of public accountability and not the private accountability of being able to "pay off" those who stand in their way.
Government exists because WE delegate to it power and authority. Perhaps we should consider voiding that delegation and start over?
Thursday, November 16, 2017
America is on the brink of becoming a "3rd world country"
My definition (and my suggested reason for the existence) of a "3rd world country" is the absence of the rule of law. The status has nothing to do with the form of government. Even a dictatorship can be responsive to the needs of a majority of its people. Chaos, violence, denial of respect of "others," and a desire to eliminate or render powerless and inconsequential all those who would disagree or challenge a "different" point of view are the characteristics most prevalent.
With the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States, the above characteristics have become predominant...even in those elected to public office. Prior to his election, once an election was concluded and votes counted, those who considered themselves on the losing side would grouse, whine and moan...often loudly for a bit, promising the collapse of civilization as they knew it...but then retreat to wait for the next election; there was a respect for the election process and the rule of law.
One can argue that the election of President Trump was a legal revolt by the voters. Clearly a majority felt that those elected to public office were no longer honoring their oath of office to represent the citizenry, but were actively pursuing self-aggrandizement, accumulation of personal wealth and of power. Those possessing the perquisites of elected office find the presence of Mr. Trump in the White House to be a threat to their "elite" status and power, so they...in some cases quietly, in other openly and loudly...do all they can to render him powerless.
Unfortunately, these efforts have not been confined to sanctioned legal political maneuvering. Elected holders of office and even the press have openly challenged the right of President Trump to hold office, regardless of the fact that the election has been legally certified. For the first time, elected office holders are urging the portion of the public that disagreed with Mr. Trump's electioneering promises to disregard and disrespect the election and the rule of law, with the intent of disrupting and eliminating any discussion on policy and action in favor of emotional mob rule. Some have even spoken of their desire that Mr. Trump be "eliminated" only to later disingenuously argue that they only meant removal from office...even as their acolytes and supporters violently demonstrate, injuring persons and destroying property as they go.
These people behave as if laws are "optional"...only to be obeyed if they happen to agree with them. Civility and respect for others is now almost universally absent in America, except for small, almost secretive enclaves where people still value disagreeing with others without acting disagreeably. Friendships and marriages are failing and disappearing because of this encouragement of mob rule as a replacement for the rule of law.
It could be argued that this path started decades ago when the secularists in America began convincing a majority the the rules of behavior handed down in the Bible should be considered the Ten "Suggestions", open to both interpretation and human approval. Predictably, that now is extending to our secular laws of behavior, as those who chose to ignore and act contrary to law insist that they should not be required to suffer "consequences" for their transgressions.
With the ongoing combination of polarization, disrespect for those who do not agree with us, and the encouragement to disrespect not only the law but also those who enforce the law, it is certain that increased violence will result, as those so inclined will feel encouraged to kill and otherwise eliminate all who do not agree with them. And that, my friends, is exactly what happens in 3rd world countries. Take the time to breath deeply, set emotions aside, quietly calm yourself and consider if this is what you want for your country, much less the world around you.
Mob rule in this country was violent. And the day after, most of the members were quietly embarrassed and ashamed of their actions. Unfortunately, today's Media encourages and excuses the excesses, even labeling them as justified and proper, not particularly surprising as it if financially and ideologically rewarding for the media to do so. One wonders if the framers of the Constitution had that in mind when they gave the Press the freedom to libel and slander as they wish under the guise of "freedom" of the press. The result is that one Mob rule moves on and pops up somewhere else, sometimes under a different name or "cause." It makes me consider seeing them as the mob equivalent to the renown "Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game in New York" first described in "Guys & Dolls."
It would be reassuring to think that America will wake up at some point in the cold, harsh light of reason and reverse course.
That isn't going to happen.
With the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States, the above characteristics have become predominant...even in those elected to public office. Prior to his election, once an election was concluded and votes counted, those who considered themselves on the losing side would grouse, whine and moan...often loudly for a bit, promising the collapse of civilization as they knew it...but then retreat to wait for the next election; there was a respect for the election process and the rule of law.
One can argue that the election of President Trump was a legal revolt by the voters. Clearly a majority felt that those elected to public office were no longer honoring their oath of office to represent the citizenry, but were actively pursuing self-aggrandizement, accumulation of personal wealth and of power. Those possessing the perquisites of elected office find the presence of Mr. Trump in the White House to be a threat to their "elite" status and power, so they...in some cases quietly, in other openly and loudly...do all they can to render him powerless.
Unfortunately, these efforts have not been confined to sanctioned legal political maneuvering. Elected holders of office and even the press have openly challenged the right of President Trump to hold office, regardless of the fact that the election has been legally certified. For the first time, elected office holders are urging the portion of the public that disagreed with Mr. Trump's electioneering promises to disregard and disrespect the election and the rule of law, with the intent of disrupting and eliminating any discussion on policy and action in favor of emotional mob rule. Some have even spoken of their desire that Mr. Trump be "eliminated" only to later disingenuously argue that they only meant removal from office...even as their acolytes and supporters violently demonstrate, injuring persons and destroying property as they go.
These people behave as if laws are "optional"...only to be obeyed if they happen to agree with them. Civility and respect for others is now almost universally absent in America, except for small, almost secretive enclaves where people still value disagreeing with others without acting disagreeably. Friendships and marriages are failing and disappearing because of this encouragement of mob rule as a replacement for the rule of law.
It could be argued that this path started decades ago when the secularists in America began convincing a majority the the rules of behavior handed down in the Bible should be considered the Ten "Suggestions", open to both interpretation and human approval. Predictably, that now is extending to our secular laws of behavior, as those who chose to ignore and act contrary to law insist that they should not be required to suffer "consequences" for their transgressions.
With the ongoing combination of polarization, disrespect for those who do not agree with us, and the encouragement to disrespect not only the law but also those who enforce the law, it is certain that increased violence will result, as those so inclined will feel encouraged to kill and otherwise eliminate all who do not agree with them. And that, my friends, is exactly what happens in 3rd world countries. Take the time to breath deeply, set emotions aside, quietly calm yourself and consider if this is what you want for your country, much less the world around you.
Mob rule in this country was violent. And the day after, most of the members were quietly embarrassed and ashamed of their actions. Unfortunately, today's Media encourages and excuses the excesses, even labeling them as justified and proper, not particularly surprising as it if financially and ideologically rewarding for the media to do so. One wonders if the framers of the Constitution had that in mind when they gave the Press the freedom to libel and slander as they wish under the guise of "freedom" of the press. The result is that one Mob rule moves on and pops up somewhere else, sometimes under a different name or "cause." It makes me consider seeing them as the mob equivalent to the renown "Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game in New York" first described in "Guys & Dolls."
It would be reassuring to think that America will wake up at some point in the cold, harsh light of reason and reverse course.
That isn't going to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)