The Great Regression

It has been several weeks since the election and most of the shock has finally wore off. We have mostly come to grips with the fact that Trump will be the president. All the temporary flare ups with regard to recounts will pass and we will once again settle into the old tradition of passing the flame to the next person (guy) to hold the office. As much as I expect the ceremony of inauguration to be similar to past inaugurations, I see the ramifications of this one to be very unlike any we have had before, except perhaps the election of 1860 which assured the secession of the southern States and a civil war.

In modern times we have never elected a president with so many negatives attached to his persona. We have never elected a president with no governing experience of any kind. We have never elected a president who is so willing to meld his personal businesses with the affairs of government. In spite of Trump's claims, turning his businesses over to his children does not constitute removing himself from involvement- it's just another of his half-truths and slight-of-hand gestures. The real difference Trump's inauguration will be the onslaught of what may be the Great Regression.

Let's all think back over the last century of American and world history. The twentieth century marks the most tumultuous century of man's existence on the planet. It was the century that contained two world wars, with the Second World War being the deadliest experience in humankind's history. I doubt many of us today can comprehend the level of death and destruction wrought by that war. Over 50 million people were killed in WWII and the most savage treatment of humans by humans ever devised occurred during WWII. The latter half of the century saw a continuation of wars around the globe on a much smaller scale, in some form of a scaled-back continuation of WWII, but we would never be able to say we achieved any kind of real peace- even to this day. The Great Depression wiped away the wealth of this nation and much of the world. It also wiped away the hopes of those everywhere who sought prosperity or comfort from their labors.These were the horrors of the last century. But the twentieth century also brought with it incredible advancements in science, industry, and improvements in the human condition in some places on the earth. The twentieth century can be seen as a turning point in our social evolution as well as a turning point in understanding of the world through science and discovery; including the discovery that some of our so-called advancements were actually harming the very planet we live on and threatening our own existence- a notion never before conceived of by man.

Out of all that pain and all that discovery we began to see the seeds of wisdom concerning human advancement take root, and that is what I'd like to focus on in this essay. In the western world in general, and in the USA in particular we began the movement towards improvement in some aspects of our lives. The deep festering wound of slavery pushed into the twentieth century in the form of discrimination and hatred, both codified and informal. We began to make progress in combating that great American sin by passing new laws and enforcing new norms to combat racial hatred and discrimination. We integrated schools and we integrated neighborhoods. We outlawed discrimination in all forms of employment, housing, education and any number of other social institutions.We have not achieved total success, but there is progress.

The last century saw women achieve the right to vote and enfranchisement to real citizenship. The latter part of the century saw the women's movement take shape and the quest for full equality begin. Again, we have not fully achieved it but progress has begun and I hope it will continue. The last century was the breakthrough period for some semblance of economic justice. The union movement, and government programs and policies created a more equal sharing of increased national wealth. The middle class was solidified as the most important segment of the society following WWII. Finally working people could afford good housing, higher education for their children, and the best standard of living for the most people in the history of mankind. Even though some of that has since eroded thanks to political movements in the last part of the century (Reaganomics), an unprecedented period of economic justice and equal distribution of wealth took hold.

The other great sin of the American experience was the destruction of the Indian nations and the theft of their lands and resources in the nineteenth century. Nothing can undo the horrors of that genocide and theft, but at least there came a recognition of the wrongs we did and continued to do until the latter part of the twentieth century. Much work needs to be done to restore what can be restored- but there are those who are willing to work towards the ends of justice for Native peoples of this Continent- a sentiment that did not exist until lately.

Out of the Great Depression we invented the idea that government can redistribute wealth and resources so that our elderly did not have to die impoverished, or children did not have starve because the family lost a breadwinner. We also invented the idea that working people could just as well do productive labor for the public good as stand idle. The reforms of the Great Depression brought us Social Security, Public Works jobs, Aid to Dependent Children, Economic reforms to protect the wealth of the nation from the privileged elite- among a number of other programs and reforms. It was called the New Deal and it fundamentally changed our society- For the Better.

The 1970's brought us to the realization that our industry, our exploitation of the planet,  and our greed could destroy the delicate balance of nature on the planet. Advances in food production and medicine caused and unbelievable explosion of the human population worldwide and the need to exploit the planet even more to support the population growth. That decade thankfully also brought forth great thinkers who told us in very dramatic terms that we need to stop our wanton destruction of the planet, with a wealth of scientific evidence to support the notion that we must stop our use of fossil fuels and destruction of natural resources in order to survive on the planet.

 As I think back, as imperfect and incomplete as the advances have been, we can take pride that some progress has been made in the human condition and in human wisdom needed for our survival. It is also true that each step forward in human rights and improvement of the human condition was the result of a Progressive Movement- what some may call "liberal" policies and thought. And in each case the conservative movements of the day opposed them. Now we have come to the point with the election of Trump and control of the government firmly in the control of today's conservatives, where the progress of the last century could be lost. If this happens it will be the Great Regression. We will regress in our values, our compassion, our standards,  and possibly in our ability to survive the damages we have already inflicted on the earth.

Mr. Trump has given us every reason to believe this is where we're headed. He hasn't even taken office and he already exploding international relationships that took generations to build. His appointments to high offices suggest he is bringing in people to undo progress in education, housing, Health and Welfare, national security, health care, fair and affordable housing, civil rights, protection of the environment, and economic equality and justice. When we select a person as our leader who has lived everyday of his life by the code of financial exploitation of others for his own benefit, and disregard for truth unless it suits his ends, then we cannot be surprised when his leadership reflects that kind of sorted existence. The result cannot help but be a rollback of so much progress created in the last century- progress that was hard won from the pain of others leading to the recognition of the need for reform.

If you long to make America Great Again- to return to past era that was mostly mythical anyway, and see a demagogue as the way to do it,  please try to remember what America really was like for Hispanics or Blacks, for the poor, the elderly, for gay or transgender people, for working folks before the Fair Labor Standards Act, for young people who could not pursue a higher education, for women, or the Native American. It wasn't so great for them. America has always been wealthy with an abundance of land and natural resources taken from the original owners as we moved west, which made America powerful. But being rich and powerful doesn't make America Great- it just makes the rich and powerful people in America think they're great. The greatness of this nation is in the values that gave us our rights and responsibilities, taught us to care for those in need, and the planet we live on. I would hate to see this rebirth of boastful nationalism and the personal bravado of a selfish leader take us in to the era of the Great Regression.

Thanks for looking in.

Trump: Acceptance - Not Resignation

The last time I wrote an essay for this Blog was about a year ago. I made a conscience decision to stop writing because the times had me convinced there was simply too much noise in the midst of this political season, and I just didn't want to be a part of it. Additionally, I believed that nothing I had to say would add anything of value or be that much different from what anyone else had already said. At the risk of this essay being just another rant like the others, I'll add my thoughts once again. About a year ago Donald Trump had been on the campaign trail for five or six months and literally sucked the oxygen out of political landscape, turning it into a circus atmosphere where real issues and rational thought could not exist. Little did I know that in the months to come (and through the primaries) his outlandish and increasingly hate-filled rhetoric would explode every notion of traditional campaigning as he ridiculed and bullied very other contender (and their spouses) out of the race on his way to the nomination. Once that occurred I could not fathom a country where he could be president, and put my faith in the voting public to end the madness of a Trump presidency. On November 8th I learned that I was ultimately wrong on all counts.

Now we are at the point of knowing Donald Trump will be our President. This is the moment of acceptance. I accept that Trump won this race, and won it in rather convincing fashion. I must accept this fact because it is true and inescapable given the rules that govern us. In spite of the fact that the last two Republican Presidents were out voted at the polls our system gives them the needed votes in the Electoral College to become President. By the way, it's not Trump's fault we have this system- but it should still go. These are facts and they will not change for now. This is acceptance.

Even though I accept the result, I remain both curious about how it happened and resolved not to resign myself to the values Trump brings to the office or the country.

I will admit that his election was a shock to me and has caused me,along with millions of others, to really think about how it happened. My field of study in college was sociology, so oddities in human group behavior is not a new concept to me. I tend to see events such as these as a sometimes odd part of the make-up of our species, but still worthy of examination. I never believed the political pundits or the polls. They are usually as shallow and meaningless as the candidates themselves. But I did believe something else would keep us from the nonsense of Trump presidency, that being-rational thought. I actually believed, wrongfully it seems, that more people would apply simple thought to the matter than obviously did. When you look at how he captured the vote it is clear that many of his voters simply reacted on the basis of emotion rather than thought- often reflecting rather ugly emotions to boot. The emotions in play were fear, hate and anger. I have also come to believe this election had very little to do with Party- Trump is not a Republican in any traditional sense and I expect the Republican political establishment will continue to hate him as President as much as they hated him as a candidate. So let me give a few areas where Trump scored beyond what I believe is rational.

Working People: These are the middle class folks, some college educated but many without college degrees. These are the people who have not benefited as much as they would have liked from the slow recovery following the crash that President Obama inherited. It defies rational thought to believe that Trump could possibly be their champion. There is not one scrap  of evidence to suggest Trump has ever done anything in his life to support the working people of this country. He has never been a part of that group and has never committed to any business practice that showed the slightest empathy for the working class. The evidence shows quite the opposite. He is legendary in  NY Real Estate for not paying his bills- just because he had the financial clout to say so and then threaten to tie vendors up in court for years if they didn't like it. He gloats about his use of bankruptcy- but never even acknowledges the working people who didn't get paid because he failed, or swindled them- all the while claiming to be a "Genius" for using the bankruptcy laws for his benefit. How could the working class see this financial cad as their hero?

Minorities: It is true that Trump continued the Republican tradition of scoring poorly among minorities. But even if you are not among the racial or religious minorities of this country, decency would suggest we could never support a person who has disparaged minorities the way he has. He has leveled insults, unflattering stereotypes, and outright threats at every minority group in the country. There is only one explanation why he did so well among white voters and turned out the number of rural white voters he did. The inherent racism baked into our national character, residing in a majority of white people is still there. When Trump promised to "take our country back" he was speaking directly to those people and they responded. In tones much louder and plainer than the dog whistle language some people use, the idea of taking the country back meant taking it back from a black president- taking it back from Black Lives Matter, taking it back from Muslims, taking it back from everyone who is not a white male- by ginning up the fear and blame. He didn't create the latent racism, sexism or xenophobic hatred- he simply was audacious enough to take it public- tell people it is once again OK to express it, and stoked the fear-based hatred that motivated people to vote for him. It is not rational to embrace the higher values of our law, our culture, or even our widely held religious values - then turn around and vote for a person who despises and perverts them.

Governance: We live in the most complex society on earth. We are a country of nearly 320 million people who operate in a capitalistic economic system that does not include everyone- by design. That means that our complex culture and the institutions we have established to manage it are complicated and mostly full of conflicts- ideological conflicts- economic and fiscal conflicts- social and religious conflicts. I doubt our founders could have coped with the complexities of this age and still come up with the same form of government they created in the late 18th Century. It is a marvel that this country still operates as well as it does, but without doubt it's management grows more difficult with every passing year, no matter which party is in power. So our solution last week was to give the most powerful office on the planet to man who has no governing experience - except his own admission that he has bribed government officials from both parties in the past to get his way in business. This is irrational. I kept hearing that many people voted for Trump because they want to "shake up Washington". If you wanted to "shake up" medicine would trust your health care to car dealer? Even a really successful one? No - because it does not make sense to do so. Further evidence for the idiocy of this type of voting can be found in his policies (or lack thereof). Trump has not really ever provided a detailed plan for anything. What is his policy on health care?- repeal Obamacare ( but replace it with what?) Foreign Policy? - we need to be tough with our enemies and our friends. (but what does that mean and what actions are associated with that?- he has never said except to promise to "bomb the shit out of them" and reinstitute torture) The economy? America first- create jobs- bring back jobs from Mexico and China. (but how? - he never said) Rebuild the Military. ( it is the largest, most technologically advanced military in the history of mankind now- so what are you talking about?) Foreign Trade. He will renegotiate trade agreements and treaties ( has never given details and just wants us to believe he has some secret power because is a good deal maker- bankrupt businesses aside) ... You might have also noted that since the election Trump has changed every major position he had when he was campaigning. In the area of policy Jeb Bush was right when he called Trump the "chaos candidate". And because he was elected on the basis of a cult of his own ego maniacal personality, you can expect a clear ideology will never emerge- just a Capital and a country full of very pissed off people from both parties.

Immigration: Trump's solution to this vexing problem is to build a wall the entire length of the US- Mexican boarder. Not only is it a nearly impossible feat, the cost would be crippling and it wouldn't solve the problem. Saner people have all said this is ridiculous, but the irrational voter keeps thinking it is the answer. I grant you it's a simple solution- but it is stupid. For those illegal immigrants already here, again a simple answer that sounds good, but could never work. At first he said he would deport 13 million people- now he is down to 2-3 million; a task that is just as ridiculous. The logistics and the strain that would put on our judiciary would grind the entire system to a halt. But, if it sounds good and satisfies that voter itch to blame and punish immigrants for their lot in life, then by all means vote for it. You can also expect (if it were even possible) to have a head of lettuce cost $15.00, if you can get it. Just one more point- if you want to stop illegal immigrants from coming here and "taking our jobs" then start throwing American contractors, hotel owners, and corporate farmers in prison for knowingly hiring them to improve their bottom line.

Federal Budget: this one ought speak for itself. Trump has promised to invest billions more in the military, invest billions more for Veterans, invest in "the best" infrastructure building programs, build a "beautiful wall" 1900 miles long, provide health care "to everyone" ( while repealing the ACA- which includes Medicaid) etc. etc. While he is fulfilling all these wild promises he has also pledged to substantially reduce corporate taxes, high income earner taxes, and middle class taxes significantly. Every economist who has looked at this plan has predicted enormous deficits and recessionary growth curves. In other words the math just doesn't work. But because this "brilliant businessman" said it, the irrational voter bought it because it sounds good on the surface. When questioned on the viability of such a plan, Trump's answer is that he a "I'm a world class businessman, and I know how to do this." - bankrupt businesses not withstanding.

Women/Character: There has been so much said and written about this it is not necessary to recount it all here. His behavior and demeanor towards women is the most deplorable of any person who has ever been in the White House. It's not the affairs. FRD, IKE, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton all had affairs- and those are just the recent ones we know about. Trump takes disdain for women to a level never before encountered. It's not the same as the others- it's a deeply rooted disregard for the value of women as human beings that is deeply disturbing and permeates his being. He openly states his distain for women in his casual bragging about molesting them- and now some of the women he molested are coming forward. Between Trump, and his two main surrogates Giuliani and Gingrich, there are 9 marriages and at least as many affairs. These are people who are so self absorbed that they regard the women closest to them as replaceable parts that can be discarded when the looks and the amusement is gone- only to be traded in for a newer model. Would any rational person, possessing an ounce decency (man or woman) select this type of despicable man as national leader? It defies logic.

The Religious Voter: This one perplexes me more than any other category of voter. 78% of the people in the USA identify themselves as Christian. The rest of us have faiths other than Christian, or no religion at all. But let's focus on the Christians because they overwhelmingly represent people of faith and some of his strongest supporters. Trump did very well gathering the votes of Christians. On the campaign trail he claimed to be a Presbyterian- said the Bible was his favorite book. Did one Presbyterian minister ever come forward to say he knew Trump? No. Was there ever a shred of evidence from anyone saying he attended a church, ever? No. The religious community was flimflammed on that one- everybody knew it and nobody cared. But the most difficult thing to understand is that religion is supposed to inform and help direct the way one lives his or her life. Nothing in Trump's life fits with a Christian life. He is a serial polygamist, a notorious philanderer, a narcissistic man who has shown no regard for any other human being beyond himself and his children (who he seems to regard as nothing more than an extensions of himself). He is the perfect poster boy for every evil human activity Jesus of the New Testament spoke against- yet many Christians supported him. This to me is one of the greatest conflicts in logic I have ever seen. Either Christians were  not paying attention (though, I know that's not so) or Christians were willing to give up the tenets of their faith, making them far less Christian than they claim to be. How can one embrace Christian ideals and still think Trump should lead a country many Christians believe was picked by God to be the greatest country on earth? Extremely perplexing.

Clinton is Worse: Given everything we know about Trump, the "Clinton is worse" argument is the stuff of pure legend. She was not worse. For all of her faults, and there were significant ones, her life is far more exemplary than Trump's. Her political opposition has for years investigated and re-investigated her more than any other modern political figure. She has gone through 3-4 years of investigation on the Benghazi tragedy with no finding against her. She has gone through FBI investigations for the email issues and there is no criminal finding against her. Much of her early life was devoted to the health and safety of women and children, and her service in the US Senate was praised by both Parties (you can look it up). But none of that counted in this election. Facts simply did not matter. Trump perfected the old "I'm rubber and you're glue- what you say bounces off me and sticks to you" game. His life is a series of shady deals, federal law suits for fraud or racial discrimination, bankruptcy filings and fleecing creditors, influence peddling (which he bragged about)  birther lies and nut-ball conspiracy theories, affairs and divorces, and campaign lies. PolitiFact concluded he lied about the issues on the campaign trail 78% of the time- all the while refusing to reveal his taxes or foreign business holdings because he needed to hide them the voters.  But she became "Crooked Hillary". Tomorrow's students  will study the way mass media, and social media propaganda worked in this campaign, the way students today study the propaganda methods of the Nazi's in 1930's Germany, as a cautionary tale on how lies can be converted into "the truth". (and  no, I'm not calling Trump a Nazi- I'm talking about mass communication methods) Voters didn't have to like Hillary, but the misinformation campaign causing hatred for her was not truthful, proportional, or rational. If you couldn't vote for Clinton based on your notion of her character- but you were Ok with Trump's character, I simply don't understand you.

Like so many people now, I'm left not knowing what to think. I've seen quite a few elections in my life, but never one like this. Trump has added a new element to American politics and leadership- and it's not a pretty one. The politics of personal destruction is not new- but what is new is using the politics of personal destruction exclusively. He ran a campaign completely devoid of actual policy and entirely on fear-based negativity and hate bating. It is no accident the KKK showed up publicly in this election. It is no accident that rallies were places where mob violence was encouraged and practiced. Following his election, it is no accident that hate crimes and open acts of racial and religious violence are exploding (according to a recent FBI report this week). It is no accident that white supremacists are coming out in the open. It is also no accident that people of all walks of life are protesting in the streets. I have not seen this in my lifetime- but it shows you the divisive nature of the man, his beliefs, his words, and his actions.

I still don't know how to react to people who voted from Trump- I still cannot reconcile how so many voters ignored the facts before them, the open display of his vile beliefs and tactics, and voted for him, or threw away their vote on impossible third-party candidates or ridiculous write-ins.  This isn't angst that my candidate didn't win. This isn't about giving him "a chance"- he has the chance whether I give it to him or not.  This isn't comparable to how people felt when Obama won in 2008- or how many of us felt when George W. Bush won in 2000. I didn't like it- but I have never felt like the person we elected was an actual threat to the existence of the country as we know it. But I feel that way now. It will take me some time and much more thought to reconcile my feelings on the people who voted for him. But they did - and that's where acceptance comes in.

I will not be resigned to accept his deplorable actions and words, his disrespect for people, and his lack of human empathy, simply because he won. That's where: No Resignation comes in. None of us should resign ourselves to the values Trump brings to the office- or the America he envisions. None of us should ever stop fighting for the issues we believe in or give in to the backward movement of human dignity Trump has been promoting. I'd love to say, "I just hope he won't act that way when he is in office". But my rational mind and all my senses tells me he can't stop being who he is and always has been. So it's up to us to stay alert, active, and ready to speak out against any injustice. Even though he won- take heart in knowing more of us voted for Clinton- not him. Even democracies can produce horrible leaders- but we cannot not lose faith in our system. Instead we should become more engaged to bring better values back to government the next chance we get.

Thanks for looking in.

Garbage In- Garbage Out

Those of you who are old enough to remember the dawn of the computer age, somewhere in the early '70's, will remember this phrase: Garbage In- Garbage Out. As the first shards of light began to break over the horizon of the cyber-world we now live in, computers were already creating frustrations with the first pioneers in the business world to experiment with their everyday use. The early code writers and programmers found they encountered quite a bit of criticism from folks who sometimes blamed their own mistakes on those "damned new computers".  The programmers had a simple and unfailingly correct answer to the early nay-sayers,  "garbage in- garbage out". And, they were right! Their point was this; the machine cannot discern the bad information and data from good information that's loaded into it. So, if you put in bad data and bad information, don't blame the computer- it's only reporting the crap you gave it. By the end of the '70,s this simple phrase had spread to the cultural lexicon of the times and people used it to explain a whole host of issues in which bad input can only get you bad outcomes.

I was thinking about that phrase, Garbage In- Garbage Out, as I was reflecting on the political scene surrounding the Presidential contests as they heat up just ahead of the actual election year. I know it seems that we've been at this so long now, and we haven't even gotten to the year when it really happens- but that's what we get for allowing ourselves to far too many 24- hour news networks and a thriving system of social media where these two behemoths feed off of each other. Nonetheless, I confess to being hopelessly hooked on a news addiction myself. In my reflections I thought this phrase is such an apt analogy for the non-sense we've all seen since last winter. Normally I would have been writing and thinking about the sad state of the body politic a lot, but each time I had a thought where there might be a temptation to write a few lines, I thought of the over-all silliness and just said, "nah.."

But in this essay I've finally come to some words that sum up the totality of the silliness into one old phrase form the '70's. I think just about everyone over the last couple of weeks, for various reasons, have come to see our political processes, and thus our future leadership issues, as just plain broken. Of course once we recognize a problem the next instinct is to blame it on someone else. The most blatant example I've seen of this time-honored tradition (of blaming someone else) is the Republican Party's efforts to blame CNBC for the disastrous debate that took place this week- as they did Fox News the first time. I've watched all three Republican debates (because of my sick addiction) and this one by far was the craziest of the three. All three were crazy- but this one was not only crazy, it wasn't even entertaining. The CNBC moderators, like the Fox moderators were horrible. They asked stupid, childish questions, they did not hold anybody to the facts, and they lost control of the format-without ever addressing the major issues. Horrible on every level! The candidates have now banded together to demand a new debate platform. Even the RNC has called the debates shameful, and they are group who set them up. All three debates featured non-sense and childishness from start to finish.

Watching the news this morning and seeing the Republican effort to change the game I began to wonder if the field of candidates and the positions they have staked out for their respective campaigns has more to do with the quality of the debate than the networks and the moderators. Could it be that the Party and the Candidates are the ones ultimately responsible for the stupidity of the questions and the nonsense answers we have been seeing? Could this be a perfect example of Garbage In- Garbage Out? I think it is.

I don't know what the Party and the public should expect when they have elevated Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina to the top tier of their party. To be even more explicit, the questions asked at the debates can clearly be traced straight back the candidates themselves. Let's take Trump for example. He began his campaign by referring to Mexicans as criminals and rapists; he insulted Lindsey Graham personally and displayed his phone number publicly as a form of schoolyard bullying; he made fun of Rick Perry's eye glasses; made derogatory remarks about Scott Walker's and Carly Fiorina's facial appearance; made comments about rand Paul's hair in the most ironic moment ever; and called Jeb Bush a low-energy loser. He openly brags about his wealth, lies about his campaign donations, and flaunts his four corporate bankruptcies as being smart business moves (with no regard to the creditors he left hanging with his debt). The Christian right loves him because he now carries around a Bible even though he has led the most un-Christian of lives and is now on this third trophy-wife. He "loves" women but talks about them like they his possessions to be taken out, polished up and "cherished" every so often. His policy positions are pure silliness. He says he will export 11 million people and when asked how? says, "humanely". He said he will build a "tremendous wall" with a "beautiful door"- but never says how, how much it will cost, or how it will be operated, AND says he will get Mexico to pay for it. That is so stupid it doesn't even require a response, but he gets to say it everyday on TV or in these debates. Every economist from every political stripe has called his $10 trillion tax cut utter non-sense. He will not address race, violence or education in any cogent way. And his economic growth plan is just to let him make the deals because he so wonderful at doing it. In all, there is not one serious thing to talk to this man about- This constitutes Garbage In.

Dr. Carson and Carly Fiorina and more soft-spoken or even more articulate than "the  Donald", but no less crazy with their ideas for America. Carson became famous (politically) by going to a National Prayer Breakfast a few years ago and calling the Affordable Care Act " the worst thing since slavery", which clearly means be doesn't understand the ACA or slavery. He has no economic plan but promised big tax cuts that cannot stand the test of simple mathematics according to a wide range of economists. He is a scientist (physician) but denies scientific data on the climate; has said he would only preserve the Dept. Of Education to monitor and control "liberal" talk on college campuses; he is a doctor but cannot make any coherent policy statements on health care; and the list goes on and on. Ms. Forina has only one claim to fame, and that is her corporate executive career that ended in flames when she was fired for horrible missteps that nearly put Hewlitt-Packard out of business. Since then not one corporation on the planet has even approached her to acquire her "talents". Yet she will go to the debates and tell us that everything that happened in her career was actually great for H-P- and that is the kind of leadership the nation and the world needs, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Carson, Fiorina, and Trump all have exactly no experience with government, except how to degrade it or defeat it. So, of course they see themselves as experts on government. Would you hire a carpenter to build your house if they showed up and said "I can build you the best house ever even though I've never done anything like this before"? All see themselves as the savior of system they do not understand and could not operate effectively in. Trump even admits all of his government experience is tied up in buying (read: bribing) politicians to help his business. None of them have devoted a single moment on foreign policy other than to espouse international bullying, without giving the slightest nod to diplomacy. These folks have become the elite of the Republican field. The rest of the very large field of  Republicans are a hodge-podge of old political hacks who can't seem to muster much more than 5% from the party voters. Not one of the others has come out with a unified plan for anything. The entire race is about being against Obama and Clinton and for Jesus, with no "program" to do anything other than give tax breaks to rich guys, continue to expand the world's (already) largest military, and get us into more unwinnable wars in the middle-east. Add it all together and you have truck load of Garbage In.

Given the total volume of Garbage in, how can we expect to get anything but Garbage out when this bunch shows up on the national stage. The moderators of these events could certainly do better, but it would sure be easier for them if the candidates gave them something better to work with. If the candidates only talk non-sense on the campaign trail, that is all they will asked about. The candidates owe them and us reasonable solutions to serious problems. This Republican cycle is a clown show in much the same way as it was in 2012. That fact that Trump, Carson and Fiorina are appealing as the "outsiders" tells us only one thing: people are so frustrated and so whipped up by an irresponsible right wing media establishment in talk-radio and Fox News they don't know the difference between those who shout foolishness and those who can actually lead.

This situation reminds me of a scene from the movie, The American President written by Aaron Sorkin. In the scene a close advisor to the President is admonishing the President to stand up to his political opposition who have spread lies and falsehoods. He tells the President that the American people are thirsty for leadership. He says they need it so badly that they would crawl across the dessert and chase a mirage- and when they find no water, they will drink the sand because they were so thirsty. The President becomes somber, stares down his young advisor and says, "They don't drink the sand because they are thirsty, Louis- they drink the sand because they don't know the difference".

I had honestly hoped that this time around the Republicans would have tried to provide the People with a reasonable choice, embodied in serious candidates, making a thoughtful case to the American people. The emergence of these Garbage In candidates shows me that won't happen. This is a function of a Republican party with policies that can no longer create a national appeal, but it is also a function of an electorate that simply hasn't demanded it. If so many people can accept the nonsense of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and Fox News, Republicans will remain out of the national driver's seat. And, that is not good for the country. I don't support today's Republican policies, but a reasonable Republican Party could play an important role in national leadership. The thoughtful exchange of ideas can actually bring people together and will always create a much better result. But as things stand now, there it's only Garbage In- Garbage Out from the Republicans, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Thanks for looking in.

I'm Trying to Think Better

It's been more than a couple of months since I've written anything in this space. I have several really good excuses for my failure to write- a real sin in my personal list of life offences. First and foremost I just haven't found anything that moved me to write. That's not to say that there haven't been some events worthy of thought and debate. There most certainly have been. The police violence and rioting in Baltimore, the so-called military exploits of ISIS in Iraq- and constant Obama bashing over it, the growing herd of Republican Presidential candidates jumping in the clown car, the never-ending Benghazi/Email/Clinton Foundation/Chipotle.. made-up Hillary scandals all come to mind. But in the end I found the public discourse on these subjects both silly and tiring, and I had no desire to weigh in. It all began to be noise and I just didn't want to make any more of it.


I also have the great excuse of traveling quite a bit over the last month or so. Through my work at Goodwill, I was able to travel to Washington DC where I took part in national advocacy events with members of Congress and their staff. I had been to DC before, but this was the first time roaming the halls of Senate and House Office Buildings where the real work (?) is done. Talking to Senators and House Members and their staff people left me with enough impressions to keep me writing essays for months- but I won't go into the specifics just now. Sufficed to say, it's fairly obvious why things are a mess in our national government these days. But it was an interesting experience and I learned a lot. Another great opportunity came right on the heels of the Washington trip, and that was our national convention in Colorado Springs. It was interesting to meet people from all over the country and compare notes on common issues- aside from the pure pleasure of meeting new people. I always find meeting new people be a great experience. Diversity does not abound in my town- so this is a great way to experience people who think and see things differently from me, most especially from differing racial perspectives. For instance, I had breakfast with several people from Baltimore the morning following the riots and I got to see their sadness and worry very closely and personally. It's the kind of thing one normally doesn't get on the news. I'm thankful for that experience.


My final good excuse is that I spent more time reading. I'm not one to spend a lot of time with books. My preferred method to get information about the world I live in is to scan over lots of material from different sources and media, but long hours on airplanes and the chance to relax a bit gave me the opportunity to read a few things. I was particularly pleased to read a couple of books by Fareed Zakaria. The two books of his I read were The Future of Freedom and In Defense of a Liberal Education. I particularly enjoy his perspective because he has an outstanding understanding of this country- yet he brings an interesting point-of-view from a person not raised in the U.S. His name might suggest he is from a middle-eastern country but he was actually raised in India. I also read the Elizabeth Warren book, A Fighting Chance. I was well aware of her point-of-view on economic issues, but I enjoyed the story of her upbringing and how those experiences informed her academic and political careers. 


Well, those are my excuses. Good or bad I'm sticking to them. But, the lesson from all this travel, new people, new ideas, and new thoughts is that I should make a conscience effort to think better. How easy it is to get caught in the web of seeing events and experiencing the world from the same old sources and from the same old people.


I had wanted to read Zakaria's book on a liberal arts education since I first noticed it some weeks earlier. I'm a big believer in a strong liberal arts education. Over the last decade or more I have been disheartened to see so many young people tailor their education only towards the technical aspects of the jobs they hope to get, and ignore the benefits of a broader and more expansive education that favors arts and literature along with job-specific learning. I can't help but think that this phenomenon has been bolstered by the economic conditions wherein the middle class wages have remained low- placing more emphasis on "just making a living". The sad byproduct of this thinking is that a new generation of the workforce does not have "thinking skills" (let's call it critical thinking skills) those college educated people had a generation or two ago.  Now, as a person who does a lot of hiring, I can see the deficits in people I hire. Even people coming to me for jobs and possessing a college degree are unable to write a coherent paragraph and use basic rules of the English language.


For me, the ability to write and use language well is a critical skill. It is critical to professional success for two reasons. The first is that so much of professional behavior in this age of "compliance and accountability" is the act of documenting one's work. The ability to accurately record thoughts and actions in our professional life is more important than ever- mostly because we have come to rely on data so heavily. Data is not always defined as numbers- but is more broadly defined as "information" and information must have words attached to it on some level. The second, and most important reason is that writing, according to Zakaria, teaches you how to think. He writes," the central virtue of a liberal education is that it teaches you to write, and writing makes you think. Whatever you do in life, the ability to write clearly, cleanly, and reasonably quickly will prove to be an invaluable skill."


"The second great advantage of a liberal education is that it teaches you how to speak. The Yale-NUS report states that the college wants to make 'articulate communication' central to its intellectual experience. That involves writing, of course, but also involves the ability to give compelling verbal explanations...At the deepest level, articulate communication helps you to speak your mind. This doesn't mean spouting anything and everything you're thinking at any given moment. It means learning to understand your own mind, to filter out under-developed ideas, and then to express to the outside world your thoughts, arranged in some logical order." Well said Fareed!


These notions about education and thought have always been important to me. At the risk of sounding snobbish about a liberal education (and please note that the use of the word "liberal" in this context is NOT political) I remain convinced of the old adage that an educated person is one who doesn't necessarily possess the most information- but is the person who possess the best ability to locate and process information. In other words, it is knowing how to think. I'm also convinced that this is not a quality that once achieved, can be relied upon thereafter and always. Like any other ability it must be exercised- it must be taken out and given a good workout on a regular basis. Writing these essays is my workout for thinking.


When I started this blog a few years ago I did it for very selfish reasons. I knew that what I may  think about any particular topic would be largely unimportant to anyone else. But I wanted to create some forum to give myself exercise in both thinking and writing. I was creating a small rebellion in my own head against a world that had come to see writing as the expression of thoughts in 140 characters or less- a typical tweet. So much for the rebellion- more people than ever are "tweeting" and I'm still writing essays almost nobody reads. Nonetheless, I'll keep doing this and encourage others to read, and write, and think more- because I know it will make me think better- and I considerate trying to think better a worthy pursuit.


We are all facing a challenge over the next year and a half that will call upon us all to think better. President Obama called election time the "silly season" in 2008, and I can't think of a more apt name for our process of electing Presidents. The ability to think better is important for all of us no matter what our political leanings. My fear is that we have become victims of a culture that actually encourages the opposite of better thinking. The media and the talk-radio culture we now live in has served to dumb-down big portions of the country. I don't advocate silencing these purveyors of nonsense, and reasoning that can be summed up in a few hateful phrases meant for simpletons to repeat in famous "ditto-head" fashion. The Limbaugh's, Hannity's, O'Riley's, and other Fox News types have reduced our ability the think better. And they did it, not on the strength of the message, but by the constant and unrelenting volume of it. They make us reject analytical thinking and brow-beat us into giving up on our own efforts to think. What else could explain the emergence of Sarah Palin? I know some of the same criticism applies to the other side- but the shear amount and degree of non-sense coming from the Fox News Republicans make them too rich an example of doing damage to our minds to ignore. There was a time when journalism was sacred and not part of a media money machine. There was a time when conservatives made intellectual arguments and wrote eloquently in support of their ideas. There was a time when the public had the privilege of seeing both sides make honest arguments and the voting public had a better chance of casting more informed votes. These are not those days.

Given that important issues need to be resolved we must all make a commitment to think better. We have to understand the science behind climate change and quit calling people "arrogant" (Jeb Bush) for looking at evidence. We have to think about, and understand the intellectual truth of human rights and equal rights among them- and not be asked to suspend basic humanity because of religious dogma. We have to expect that our politicians give us more than slogans to explain the complex problems of the world because we think better and we now expect them to think better- write better- and speak better. I will always endeavor to think better and hope more of us will do the same.


Thanks for looking in.

Beliefs

I began to notice an unmistakable trend in how we have been experiencing in the world around us of late. As I observed events and listened to the people who spoke about them I began to develop some clarity in my own weird thought process about how we have come to confuse beliefs with knowledge. In a day when nearly everyone can send our thoughts out into the world, or even effectively spread them around with just the use of our own social networks, the ease with which the difference between knowledge and beliefs becomes muddy and confused, is remarkable. In my observations there are quite a few people out there who see no difference at all between knowledge and beliefs. It has even become an accepted practice with some folks to conflate the two on purpose so as to make the impression that what we believe is factual reality-a most dangerous condition.

I hate to fall back on the old devise of resorting to a dictionary to gain clarity- but is seems necessary in a time when so many around us have loss the simple meaning of words. Again, I'm reminded of the power of words, so it's good to go back to the basics when we find people who throw them around so carelessly. Let's just start with the word: Beliefs. The trusty dictionary defines beliefs as; 1. something believed, 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, 3. confidence-faith-trust; 4. a religious tenet or tenets- religious creed or faith. I think those are apt definitions of "beliefs". Now let's try Knowledge:  1. The facts, feelings or experiences known by a person or group of people, 2. the state of knowing, 3. awareness- consciousness-  or familiarity gained by experience or learning. 4. erudition or informed learning, 5. specific information about a subject. Comparing these definitions it's easy to discern thoughts that are beliefs from those that form real knowledge. I know why some people purposefully use beliefs in the place of knowledge- but I cannot understand why so many of us let them get away with it. These are not hard concepts to grasp, but perhaps we have just been beaten down by the steady drip-drip-drip of nonsense in our media and among the people in our "networks" that it's too much trouble to call bullshit on the tons of it slung our way each day.

I could only shake my head in disgust when I heard the total nonsense coming out of old mayor Rudy Giuliani's mouth last week. He "hated to say it" (of course, he really loved saying it) but he "believed" the President doesn't love America. Now, I'm not sure why anyone cares what Rudy believes- but his belief system started a firestorm of reaction. If you followed the media and it's self-serving need to fan the flame, then you surely saw the multitude of comments start again about how President Obama is a Muslim- how he hates America- how he is a socialist- how he became a communist (at age nine according to Rudy)- about how he is secretly plotting to purposely destroy the country. This is truly the stuff of Belief-land- not at all founded in facts or established knowledge. We know this because it so clearly fits that definition. The comments by Giuliani and those who jump on this bandwagon have dived headfirst into the pool of "... truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof." Then over the weekend this week's GOP front runner Scott Walker was asked if he believed the President is a Christian. Being the coward he has shown himself to be when asked pointed questions, he said he "didn't know". Here we go again, dog paddling in the pool of beliefs and uninformed innuendo, instead of knowledge. The shame of it is that this passes for news.

When we turn back to the world of knowledge we come to understand that these gutless politicians have knowledge- they just don't want to use it because a belief system, however inaccurate, works better for them politically. The facts are that the President cares deeply for our country- as every President does. He has told his personal story too many times, saying that only America would have allowed a person like him to be President. The right-wing whack jobs may disagree with his policies, but this man was elected easily two times. He has delivered health care to 12 million more Americans than had it before; and because of that my premiums haven't risen like they did when all those uninsured sick people went to the ER on my dime. He got us out of a war everyone wanted out of in 2008, and his work prevented us from going to another Great Depression with nearly five years of steady job growth. I would also contend that any President who has suffered the inexhaustible and calculated disrespect this President has, yet still comes to work each day without throwing hatred back at that who mistreat him, must surely love his country. These are facts. Knowledge tells me what I need to know about this President- not what Mr. Giuliani believes. And as for Scott Walker and the "truthers" - they know he was born in the USA because we have a birth certificate and we know he is a Christian- (even though that is not supposed to be a test for public service in this country). We know because he told us, he showed us, and the evidence is there. They know it too. They sure used that against him when the criticism was all about the time he spent in Reverend Wright's Christian congregation. But let's not let facts get in the way. When it comes to this President the opposition has a whole narrative based on beliefs, and not on facts. Sadly I am convinced by the evidence those narratives are rooted in racism, and the innate fear of "the other" that Mr. Obama represents to the small minded.

I suppose it can fun to let belief systems worm their way into the silliness of politics occasionally.  But the problems really start when the "silly season" of politics morphs into the serious time of policies and actions. This is the time when beliefs can be very dangerous and the consequences deadly. Take the case of Oklahoma US Senator Jim Inhofe. Here's an Inhofe quotation from the Congressional Record: "well, actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that 'as long as the earth remains there will be a springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night. My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous". Now, the scary part- Senator Inhofe is Chairman of the Senate Committee  on the Environment and Public Works. I find it troubling that a man with enormous power to shape public policy on the environment uses his religious belief system instead of established scientific knowledge to guide actions that will have dire consequences for the future of the planet. I find it equally troubling that we allow this to happen. (An interesting side note on Senator Inhofe is that his profound religious convictions about God's plan for the earth are accompanied by $1,352,523 in personal political contributions to him from the oil and gas industry.)  Public policy should be guided by knowledge. Our scientific knowledge and understanding of  our world is growing at a tremendous rate. It is inexcusable to be governed by beliefs while leaving knowledge on the sidelines.

I won't go into the mountain of evidence and record keeping to support the idea that the climate is changing rapidly due to man's influence on it through the use of fossil fuels. The evidence and accumulated knowledge of mankind on this subject is overwhelming. So, I won't dignify the "deniers" (many of whom are lining their pockets foisting this nonsense on conspiracy nuts and people with a financial or political agendas). If you don't believe it, do your homework- the scientific information is out there. And don't just Google climate change to read political opinion pieces- read the scholarly data. Likewise I won't dignify the folks who make outrageous claims about the President- his birthplace- his religion- his love of country, etc. etc. The facts of his Presidency will be borne out by the facts in the history books- not the ramblings of obstructionist and hacks. I only suggest that our challenge in the next few critical years as an informed electorate, is to wisely chose how we think about things that matter.

Ironically I worry, that in this age of knowledge, we have allowed ourselves to be dumb-downed by the current culture. I worry that our schools have been hijacked by those who believe academic success is measured by the numbers who pass standardized tests instead of judging education systems by the quality and content of an actual education. I note that this downward trend can be traced back to the politics of conservatives who worry too much about the cost of education instead of the long-term costs of a having an uneducated populace. From 1981 until 2009 (28 years)  we had twenty (20) years of Republican Presidents who didn't "believe" in high standards and made teachers and their unions the fall guys. We are seeing the results. (coincidentally- this was the same period that marked the decline of the middle-class) When you combine that phenomenon with the proliferation of social networking's  promiscuous spreading of bad information based on beliefs, and the failure of the press to pursue truth, the line between knowledge and beliefs has grown ever narrower. Our ability to process the huge amounts of information this new age provides has surely exceeded our ability and wisdom to know the difference between beliefs and knowledge.


The remedy has two parts. One, we must be willing to examine our own thoughts and scrutinize what we see and hear- be willing to challenge everything against the measuring stick of knowledge vs. beliefs. That takes energy and effort- but it can also provide an exciting awakening by looking at the world in new ways; and perhaps make us feel a little less like the sheep the politicians and media play us to be. Two, we need to take responsibility for our children's ability to think properly. Insist that schools return to the days of teaching the lost art of critical thinking-insist that schools teach civics and teach history lessons that tell the whole truth about who we are (warts and all). You may have noticed the latest trends in Boards of Education around the country to eliminate facts in the history books that do not support the political belief systems of conservatives. Those are disturbing events. If schools won't do it then we parents and grandparents must take the time to show our children the value of knowledge and the legitimate ways to find it. Faith and beliefs may have their place, but knowledge will always mark our progress as a people- and must mark the path to our future.

Thanks for looking in.

"American Sniper"- It's Complicated

I have avoided joining the partisan and polarized fray in reacting to the Clint Eastwood film that has generated so much interest in the film itself, and passion in the reactions to it. My avoidance up to now was based in part on my own responses to the film, and the other reading I've done on the life of Chris Kyle. I guess it has taken me a while sort out what I really think about this matter- and I'm still not sure I'm done with that process. This essay is about the two Chris Kyle's- one from the film, and the other I encountered in the research; and the other part is about my observations of the public reactions. But what follows are my different thoughts about this phenomenon. In sorting through my own thoughts I kept coming back to the phrase you find on the Facebook page where it asks us to describe your "relationship" status and it gives the option: It's Complicated. Well, this one is complicated.

What really spurred my thinking about this essay was a radio talk-show I was listening to on the way home from work this week. I tuned in well after the show started to hear this local commentator discussing the reactions to the comments made about Chris Kyle. Being a "right-wing" commentator this guy was all over some of the unfortunate comments made by Michael Moore and others who made very negative comments about the movie and the man. So the radio host posed the question to his conservative audience: Is Chris Kyle a hero or a coward?( knowing full well what the responses would be.)  Hearing that, I'm immediately yelling to myself about what a horrible question that is -and it occurred to me that this is the very reason we don't seem to have civil discussions anymore about our politics or our culture. Christ, does Chris Kyle have be only one or the other? Can't Chris Kyle (or anyone who has done that horrible job) be a little of both? or neither one? or any combination thereof on any given day? To my way of thinking all of the above possibilities would be far more likely than identifying the American Sniper as just a hero -or just a coward. But nearly all forms of public discourse now is phased in "either/or" terms that are polarizing by their nature. When I left the movie- and it was a powerful movie- I didn't feel one way or the other. For me, it's complicated.

Delving into my own thoughts a little more, I came to several touch-points in how I view what has now become such a huge controversy. The first point is: It's a movie! I would remind my friends that this a theatrical release of a feature film. It is not a documentary. Clint Eastwood is not a journalist documenting the unvarnished facts of a man's life. He made a film, which is an art form. As such Eastwood is free to portray his art from his own perspective and tell this story as he wishes. Of course there is a good deal of truth about Chris Kyle in the film- and some fiction too I suspect. But we have to remember what this piece is, and see it for what it is. There is no conceivable way that any filmmaker could capture all the nuance of a complicated life in a two-hour movie, so the storyteller is editing the story by the very nature of the vehicle he uses to express it. What I found so interesting is the reactions to the movie follow the predispositions of the viewers. In other words, reactions are largely based the way you expected to feel,  even before you see it. For those who wanted a gung-ho war flick, that's what they saw. For those who expected to see the human damage of war, that's what they saw. I can't decide if that is a strength or a failing of the film- but I'm convinced from the reactions its working that way.

Another touch point for me is the way this movie has become a metaphor for patriotism. I suppose that reactions to war or impending war as it relates to patriotism is common in this country. I grew up and into adulthood during the Vietnam era. Back then the response to those who did not support the war in Vietnam (in its early stages) got the phrase: America- Love it or leave it; which is another way to say that if you can't back the government position on the war you are not a real American so just get out, again eliminating the possibility of a middle ground. Of course the eventual outcome in the Vietnam era was that the protests began to resonate with many Americans and the war lost favor. Remember that the war was being fought by draftees- not volunteers like today. In Nixon's '68 campaign he argued that he would end the war. He didn't of course, and he actually expanded the war. By the time '72 rolled around and reelection was at stake,they had a "sudden breakthrough in negotiations with the North" and the pull back began. He was reelected. It looks like war and the representations of war (like this movie) tends to divide us today as it always has. If you favored the war in Iraq American Sniper represented righteous American patriotism. If you're against it -disliking the movie was somehow cowardly and un-American. President Bush got a lot of Democrats to support the war in Iraq precisely for that reason. Many regretted it in 2008 when they wanted to be the next President. We don't even like it when other countries question our war stance; Freedom Fries, anyone? Perhaps it is in our unique American nature to support war and denigrate those who don't - when it may be that real patriotism could be represented by means other than war and violence. At least we should make room for that possibility. We need to learn that in spite of what the politicians will tell us- not every war we fight is for our freedom- but we buy that line every time. Turns out war is complicated.

The last point is that American Sniper is very different from a number of other war movies in that it hardly even references the war itself. We see a brief scene where Kyle and his wife are watching the 9-11 attack on TV- then it's full out warrior stuff, as if the only reasonable response to 9-11 is war with nothing in between. And all during the numerous war scenes in the movie the purpose or greater mission of the war is never addressed. His purpose is clear. He is there to protect fellow warriors by killing anyone who is perceived as threat to his comrades. Perhaps that is the real legacy of this war- and possibly Kyle himself. We were lied into it- so there is no great purpose. This group of men and women can never be "the greatest generation" as Brokaw called the GIs of WWII- because the cause can never match the deeds. That raises the question of whether we can judge the warriors by the war. We made a terrible mistake in the Vietnam era by disrespecting and disregarding the warriors returning from Vietnam because the war was so unpopular by its end. The pendulum may have swung to the other extreme of the spectrum in the Middle East wars based on our enthusiasm to "support our troops" and not repeat the mistakes of Vietnam. That is, we are being ask to support the war as a sign of gratitude and respect for those who fought it. Neither position is feels very satisfying.

None of the "Hero or Coward" talk seems fair to the movie or the real Chris Kyle. Clearly (real life)Chris Kyle had some serious flaws and he had moments of real valor. His life appeared to be full of conflict and irony in spite of the portrayal of his "straight ahead" approach in the movie. He seemed motivated by his love of country but could not bring himself to be in the country he loved when the lure of action or dedication to fellow warriors called him away from his home and family. Was it sacrifice or compulsion? He mastered the use of firearms beyond the imaginable- but was killed by the errant use of a gun by a damaged Vet back home. He is the quintessential example of Jesus' warning to Simon Peter at Gethsemane that those who live by the sword will perish by the sword- and I don't think Jesus meant that as a good thing. But war is a reality and the damage to those who fight in them is a real thing too. No movie can do justice to that reality. We know that there was far more to Chris Kyle than was told in American Sniper. Eastwood hints at it, but never tells us of some of the more documented bizarre claims Kyle made about killing people in his civilian life. One thing Eastwood does in the movie, is portray every returned Vet as damaged in some way (physically or emotionally)- even Kyle's own brother who appeared before "The Legend" as dazed, shell-shocked and traumatized.

I'm happy to see that this movie and Chris Kyle's life has started this conversation. And, isn't that what art is supposed to do? So, for that reason American Sniper has performed a service. How we see wars and how we view and care for those who fight in them is an important discussion. It should be an on-going discussion. Being a warrior is not the only qualification for participating in that discussion- it should be a discussion for all of us in this democracy. So even though I'm glad to see the discussion happening, I'm disappointed at how quickly it devolves into good guys vs. bad guys; heroes vs. cowards; patriots vs. America-haters and so on. Life is more nuanced and complicated than that. Everything about the movie and the man were more complicated than that. My best wish is that it will encourage smarter and more in-depth discussions- honest discussions- and better outcomes for the country and those who serve it. Even though these matters can seem simple (and politicians want us to think they are simple)- they aren't. They always turn out to be gut-wrenchingly difficult and complex. In other words- It's complicated.

Thanks for looking in.

Dick Cheney was our Babysitter

My wife and I were just thrilled when we learned that I had won an all expenses paid, two-week trip to the Bahamas in this year's sales contest. This was going to be the best vacation of our lives and a great reward for all those long hours I'd put in. The only down side was that it was only for the two of us. That meant that we couldn't take our two kids along for this one. But, hey it would still be great to have a vacation as "just the two of us", a real second honeymoon. Of course that meant that we would have find someone to stay with our kids; our seven-year-old son Biff, and little sister five-year-old Candy.
Finding a good sitter was very important to us and a big responsibility. Since we had some time to plan Biff and Candy's care, I thought I would consult my old stand-by "life coach"- my dad. My old man has been around a long time and has had great, long-standing relationships with a number of important people through the years. So I went to dad and sought his help in finding just the right person to help with the kids while we were away. Dad immediately said that he couldn't really recommend anyone but said that his old friend Dick Cheney was very well connected and he'd be happy to help us find someone. I contacted Dick and he said he would conduct a very thorough search on our behalf. A couple of weeks later Dick called to say that, after a thorough search, he concluded that he himself would be the best person to do the job. Well, we couldn't argue with that! So all the arrangements were made and we took off for the Bahamas while Dick moved into the house to personally care for Biff and Candy.
The two weeks flew by and we had the time of our lives. We called occasionally to check in with Dick and talk to the kids. We didn't think too much of it at the time, but the kids seemed very odd on the phone and Dick would often take the phone away claiming that the kids didn't seem to want to talk. We chalked it up to the strangeness of being away for so long. But upon our return, I can hardly describe the nightmare we discovered.
 It took a long time for the whole truth to come out- but the horror of this experience was finally revealed after piecing together reports from many witnesses and a number of official agencies that looked into our family's tragic experience. Here's what we discovered: Dick Cheney had some very strange notions about how to take care of kids. Dick believed that kids represented some kind of threat to household order because he had lived through a pretty horrific event with some kids once in the past. He insisted they think and behave the way he wanted. Naturally, kids behave like kids and that did not sit well with him. He began to see their behavior as non-compliant and he even began to see Biff and Candy as conspirators who wanted to destroy our household. He made up stories about how they were in contact with other kids from other households who were plotting to destroy all of our homes to foster their radical "kid-like" way of life. He called some of his friends to have Biff and Candy watched to see if they would lead him to the kid leaders. After a while Biff and Candy simply grew to rebel against Dick's unbending authority. They did stuff like refusing to eat the food he made them, or not going to bed when he told them to- or not behaving at bath time. He had their room monitors tapped and cherry-picked the conversations to glean their conspiratorial intentions.
Dick just knew that the kids were plotting big trouble and applied his now famous 1% doctrine. Dick's 1% doctrine holds that if there is even a 1% chance of some bad thing happening you have to take action as if it would actually happen. ( If any of you want to know more about Dick's real way of thinking  please read the 2006 book The One Percent Doctrine by Pulitzer Prize winning author Ron Suskind) Dick felt like he had to take action to protect the household from further "attacks" by the kids. It turns out he authorized experts to try to extract the information from Biff and Candy. He made them stand in the corner for days until their little muscles cramped and seized and they were barely able to walk. He either wouldn't let them sleep or kept them in dark cold rooms for days, to "break" them. He told them he would have us (his parents) killed and threatened to kill them. He pretended he was about to kill them- then stop short of really doing it. They were terrified. In the end he had them repeatedly held down in the bathtub and put a washcloth over their faces until they gagged and couldn't breath. He had this done over and over again. When they refused to eat- he had their food blended and inserted into their rectums through a tube- or as he called it, "rectal administration of childhood nutrition".
You can image our horror when we came home to our abused and traumatized children. They will never be the same again, and now they hate us because we subjected them to Dick's methods. We wanted something done about this. The truth eventually came out. People investigated and when questioned, Dick didn't even try to deny it. In fact he said he was proud of it. A few people even asked him how he could justify the abuse. He answered that it was NOT "abuse" - it was Enhanced Parenting Techniques (EPT) He said his own lawyer told him it was legally not abusive and the reports of his abusive behavior "were full of crap". He said that even though it was harsh, it was absolutely necessary as he felt that the situation was dire in the household and that these EPTs were absolutely required-AND, he'd do it again!! He said that sometimes parenting isn't so simple- sometimes parental figures have to practice "parenting in the shadows- the dark side, if you will". And even though nobody can trace it now, Dick assured everyone that they got the information and compliance from Biff and Candy, and insisted he prevented other kids from misbehaving -and his EPTs saved families.
                                                         XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Please forgive me for using the analogy of caring for children and this silly story to discuss the very serious issue of our country's behavior towards prisoners in our never-ending war on terror, against no particular country whatsoever. About two weeks ago the Pew Research Institute did a national survey just after the Senate's Committee Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was released. I was amazed that 56% of Americans polled favored these techniques! This surprising finding caused me think about how we as a country will promote and claim the most lofty values and the highest forms of integrity- then turn right around and ignore them.
So let's examine those values by using children as the medium for what we believe. All of us who have raised children or are now raising children have come to a point where we teach our children lessons based on our values. In our endeavors as parents we tell our children that it is sometimes very hard to stick to our beliefs and our values- but people with real character stick to what's right even when it's hard. We tell them that doing what's right- even when it's hardest will make them better people and give them the strength do what's right later in life. We also tell them to be honest and straight with people; and above all be to honest with themselves. We teach them that honesty matters - and to use words that really say what we mean. We teach them these lessons not because they are lessons only for children, but because these lessons are the ones that create character in them as adults.
As it turned out none of those lessons were followed by our leaders in government. In the aftermath of the worst terror attack in our history and the loss of three thousand American lives two forces came together: one, was real fear because we had never been attacked on our soil like this before and we didn't know how to react; and two, old Neo-cons in the Bush Administration who knew the value of exploiting that fear to achieve old political ends for domination in the oil rich Middle East. The record is very clear that the Bush/Cheney White House was planning a military venture in Iran well before 9/11 and would have found another reason to go if 9/11 had not happened. This is made clear by the fact that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11- but we invaded them anyway, all the while using the fear from 9/11 to justify it. We had never before used that level of military might against a country that had not attacked us or an ally first. Once we crossed that line, I suppose the rest of this horrible behavior came easier.
As all the truth is now coming out we can remember the speeches and the Sunday morning shows where the Dick Cheney gang convinced us of things that weren't true, and imprisoned and mistreated people they knew were innocent just to cast the widest net,  and tell us they were making us safer. But at what cost? I know the terrorists that attacked us weren't children like I portrayed above and I know that terrorist acts are horrific in real life and we must do everything within the law to prevent them. But I would argue that our values mean something too. I would argue that those are the very things we should seek to preserve, instead of the things we give up so readily when we feel threatened.
Do we teach our children that the ends justify the means? No, we never tell our kids that to get what they want, they should do or say anything to make it happen. But in this case that is exactly what our leaders did. If you have a doubt, go back an listen the statements Cheney has made in the last month about torture and his role in it. It is as close to evil as anything I've heard from an American politician. And it is all because he took the position that the ends (his ends) justify the means. United States law and policy prohibit us from torturing. We have signed international treaties agreeing not to torture. The law is clear on this. But to justify these illegal actions the Bush/Cheney administration simply got their attorneys to define torture as something different. But this was torture by anyone else's definition!! Would we teach our children that if they just use other words for misbehavior, it is not misbehavior? If a child stole money from mom's wallet and then said it wasn't stealing, it was "appropriating funds based on a reasonable expectation of future payment"- would we pat him on the head and say "OK- I see now it wasn't stealing at all-because you used another word"; or we would say, "no, that is stealing- taking money from another person without permission IS STEALING." 
As a nation we need to admit that our leaders did things that were illegal and immoral. They did them full-well with the knowledge they were doing wrong but weaseled their way to legitimacy and public approval with lawyers and lies. We have prosecuted others for doing the same thing to our troops in WWII, we led the way to prosecuting Germans for war crimes at Nuremberg and we did that to help prevent those barbarous acts from ever happening again. It is shameful that now we (the self-professed) leader of nations who defend human rights has sunken  to such a  low level. As terrible a criminal as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is, what did we gain from the waterboarding him 185 times in a month- that we did not gain from the 180th time- or the 100th time? What have we done to our standing in the world as a leader in dispensing justice, when we have held so many for years on end with no trial? And, what damage have we done ourselves in the eyes of our children? What message have we sent to our enemies, should one of our children be tortured by them in the future. Can we object? Can we hold future enemies accountable, and hold our lofty ideals up as the measuring stick?  Can we really say, "we're better than that"?
The debates will rage on over this topic. Several countries have already leveled international charges against the Bush/Cheney administration, and last week the New York Times said criminal investigations should begin against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. But it's highly unlikely that will happen. Apparently we've bought the Dick Cheney argument that "we had to do it-and that makes it OK"- because over half of us agree with their methods.  I know this isn't the first time a President has violated our values: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and FDR interred Japanese Americans. But in the matter of torture it is all the more sinister and wrong- because it is about inflicting suffering for the sake of suffering. I know sticking to our values doesn't make our enemies give up their brutal and inhumane behavior, but even so (and maybe because of that) we must not follow suit. I would like to see the Justice Department investigate this. I would like to see every person involved from the soldier or CIA operative in the field to the Commander-in-Chief be held accountable. The lesson of Nuremberg is that everyone is expected to behave humanely, even if you are just following orders. The chips should fall where they fall. We claimed that this all started because "they" hated our way of life, and we justified these actions to maintain our way of life. I don't think any of that is entirely truly, but if we are going to say that- we should practice our way of life and the values that make it so. Those are the lessons we should pass on to our children.
Thanks for looking in.