I had my bimonthly conversation with my daughter last night, about an hour this time round. She lives in that wasteland called California, a state in which for thirty years and felt as if I had been paroled for good behavior when I moved elsewhere. Oh, there are worst state in which one can find himself. And I understand W C Fields preference for the grave over Philadelphia, having lived a few years in that vicinity. My older brother has the worst of it being buried there. So we had our conversation, talked about a variety of items She had sent me the first two years of the series, House Of Cards. My reaction upon viewing the first episode was that of seeing Kaiser Sosai on steroids. The writing is excellent as well as the acting. Of course when I think back to those films and plays and books of the forties, fifties, and sixties, my perceptions are that those years were the last time anyone could have comprehended government at any level. Today the government over reach has become so great that it crowds out all attempts to explain itself in sufficient detail and lends itself to simplistic slogans of little meaning.
My daughter finds me too “conservative” and accuses me of being a Republican. I haven’t registered as a republican since 1988 when I voter for Anderson in the primary. My father blamed me for letting Bush get elected. On the other hand, when I was a young man I had liberal ideals. Civil Rights was one of the mainstays of my liberal ideas as was the need to end welfare and increase employment, including my own. Of course there was a draft on and I received my invitation to join Uncle Sam’s merry band of pranksters in Southeast Asia. One learns the need to safeguard information lest it kill others. You learn that items such as troop movements, ship movements, travel plans of generals, and so forth, are secret for a very good reason. such information needs no stamp, it is understood. But other information is also classified and carries the same innate security. I’ve tried to explain this need for security to my daughter but she views Hilary’s emails as a “so-what” affair. the fact that Hilary’s attitude and political practices are aims at her own attempt to circumvent any possible criticism when she is other than circumspect and goes to her character makes little difference to my daughter. All politicians lie, the Republicans are the worst of the lot and Hilary should be immune from criticism. I find it distressing to hear such attitudes. As a young man the idea that we should expect a great deal of transparency from our representatives has now become indifference. Of course the American populace has become accustomed to the idea that accountability means holding up your hand when called for a foul in basketball then never leaving the game when one fouls out. The sense of American morality seems to mean never being expected to to the time if one does the crime. America was outraged by Nixon’s operatives planning the Watergate Break-in. They were outraged that Nixon knew of that plan and encouraged it, he aided and abetted that crime. Nixon, a sitting president, was an accomplice in a criminal activity. Yes, many Republicans tried to soft sell that label. Yes, he had done a lot for this country, although if I were going to try him for any crime of great consequence it would be for taking this country off the gold standard, thus enabling the use of a fiat currency to bring about the downfall of our economy (which, by the way, will happen soon enough, we can’t cheat the math on this one). Oh the horror, cried the great liberal crowd.
Well, Hilary has not sanctioned breaking into the Republican headquarters (at least we don’t know of any plans) but her background has been anything but honest. did she really use insider information to trade commodities? She didn’t know enough about trading commodities on her own, she had to use insider information. What about all the women Bill coerced into sleeping with him? She was the pit bull threatening to latch onto their throats. Hardly the woman’s rights movement leader. The great healthcare debacle when she met in secret (she was only the first lady, not an elected or appointed official of the US government) with many influential members of healthcare so that in secret they could prepare a bill for the Congress to pass. Almost no one in Congress was consulted prior to the rumors that leaked out. This is a woman who believes transparency is a pair of opaque pantyhose worn under a pantsuit. Is it no wonder that she conspired with others to divert all her official communications in the State Department to her private email server in contradiction to the existing laws not only of open government but laws about classified material? Her server and her mobile devices, of which she carried the privately bought Blackberry, not government issued with government supplied encryption, the iPhone, the iPad, the mini iPad, and whatever else she lugged around, all of which had no government supplied encryption, this is a walking security nightmare. Well, so what, my daughter declares. If one is negating with a hostile government, there are some items that should and must be kept secret. If there are trade agreements that the Secretary of State is privy to, then these items are not for disclosure until the proper time. I mean, we brought a four star general up on charges and convicted him. True, we made him retire, took away a star, and generally slapped his wrist. But at least there was the appearance of justice. All of Hilary’s actions are criminal and carry heavy prison sentences. Where are those gleeful Democrats who demanded jail time for Nixon? Are politics so goddamn important that one of the most corrupt women in the Democratic party must not only be place in the front running of the presidential race but that all pretense to morality must be ignored? Is that the moral standard to which Americans are being asked to subscribe? I am at a loss for my daughter’s attitude. I though I taught her better than that through my believes and actions.
Perhaps she is caught up in all this social justice bullshit. I really wish someone would explain concisely the concept of social justice. When I worked for the telephone company and the local union official came to talk about the strike and why we should vote yes, approve the strike, she used that inane phrase, jobs with justice. I asked her what she meant by that and she walked off, a bit pissed with me. I’ve seen that phrase used in other strikes but no one seems to know what a job with justice is unless we are talking about employment with law enforcement. I’m sure if this post went viral I would be deluged with all manner of stupidity in reply. You seem, the current generation’s thinking has become influenced by the ideal of socialism that social justice just naturally flows. Essentially it is that “let the big government take care of it” attitude. Government sponsored welfare payments have been around since the fifties. It started out as payments to poor families with children. Children shouldn’t starve, a nice sentiment. But the regulations required that the father or fathers obtain any work if the payments were to be made. That is, the aid to family was in addition to the family earnings. But then we took it a step farther. If the father, the usual wage earner at that time, was absent, then the money went to the mother based on the number of children in that family. The government, in all its good intentions, was now in the business of pushing divorce or at least abandonment by the father or fathers, for the purpose of insuring that the family was now worthy of government help. Mom had to fill out the questionnaire about any boyfriends she dated and what money they contributed, thus encouraging welfare cheating. Yes, Uncle Sam was coming into the bedroom. Now is that social justice? Then came 1965 and Lyndon Johnson’s War On Poverty, that same war we are fighting and can’t seem to win. Well, combine that with the War On Drugs and we have, in all likelihood the same number of casualties as we had in the Vietnam War, maybe a lot more. I think the War On Poverty was lost the day Johnson signed it into law. It was an attempt at social justice and it has gone wrong. Socialism in not just a political and economic theory. Socialism is essentially to control by government of our lives to the point that we are unable to question the wisdom of the government. the classic modern liberal clings to the idea that he or she, along with others of their ilk, now best how you should live your lives, how you should be taught in school, the manner of social living. True, not all the economic means of control are owned by the government but the means to control all conditions of the operations of all business exists. Economically, socialism is one step removed from a government planned economy. The old USSR showed us that planned economies never work, they always fail. So it should not come as any surprise that a planned political and planned social society should fail in the long run. Generations who are raised as serfs act like serfs and accept such treatment as the government may mete out. The problem with social justice is that it seeks to do away with individual responsibility. It’s not the individual who fails but the government. Hence, more resources must be given to those whom the state has failed. Essentially, the state owes it’s citizens a living. the problem is that very few people ever step back from the problems they observe and ask about the consequences of their desire to help. How can we teach our children independence and self reliance if we preach that the government needs to do more for them?
I like what the one Black church pastor had to say to the leaders and the followers of “Black Lives Matter”. How come you aren’t focused on cleaning up your own neighborhoods? The average White American doesn’t really care about that movement except that it may mean violence in the street. Most of those who are Black and killed by police don’t live in the suburbs. They aren’t killed there. Most of these deaths occur in poor black neighborhoods, what use to be called ghettos. And crime is one of the biggest reasons for the deaths. Michael Brown died at the hands of a policeman because he committed a strong arm robbery and assault and then pushed a screw you attitude on the cop. He became uncooperative and possibly abuse to the cop. One may fault the lone policeman’s attempt to take Brown into custody. One may fault the police in Ferguson for allowing themselves to be used for the process of legal extortion by the local government in collecting fines and fees. But Brown gets no pass. He was not the innocent victim of police brutality. Both the police, local government, and local citizens attitudes are to blame. And if you believe that any national legislation will change any of this, you are mistaken. The local voters need to get serious about the operation of both police and local government. the local population needs to gain some control over its own members when it comes to acceptable attitudes by those who do the policing and those who are policed. It takes a community effort, Washington can’t begin to address the problems, they can only make the situation worse. Local schools are unresponsive to local communities. Local health resources are unresponsive to local communities.