Email Timeline

“Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

—Hillary Clinton, interview on July 31, 2016

Not true.  The FBI director clearly stated there were classified emails in multiple chains which were classified Secret at the time they were sent by Clinton.  There were hundreds more that were classified after the fact.  The statements she made were not true.  Follow the timeline or jump to the last few paragraphs for the details.

January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001: Democrat Bill Clinton begins as the president of the US for eight years and his wife Hillary Clinton is the first lady.

June 9, 2000: Clinton says she doesn’t want to use email. Home video footage from a private fundraiser shows Senator Clinton talking about how she has deliberately avoided using email so she wouldn’t leave a paper trail. “As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? I don’t even want… Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?” By 2006 she will start using a personal and unsecured BlackBerry for email. (ABC News, 3/6/2015)

November 4, 2005: State Department Policy decrees day-to-day operations are to be done on government servers. The State Department decrees that “sensitive but unclassified” information should not be transmitted through personal email accounts. It also states, “It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [government server], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication, and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.” (US Department of State, 1/12/2016) (The Washington Post, 3/10/2015)

March 2007 – 2008: The Bush Administration gets embroiled in a private email scandal. A Congressional oversight committee investigates allegations that the White House fired US attorneys for political reasons. The committee asks Bush officials to turn over relevant emails, only to find that government work had been conducted on private email addresses. Millions of emails are deleted and permanently lost, preventing the committee from continuing their investigation. Bush officials use email accounts associated with a private gwb43.com server owned and controlled by the Republican National Committee, which is a private political entity not covered by government oversight laws. (The Washington Post, 3/27/2007) (Vox, 3/2/2015)

June 20, 2007: Clinton publicly criticizes the Bush administration’s use of non-governmental email accounts. While campaigning for president, Clinton says, “Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts. … It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok.” (ABC News, 3/6/2015) (The Hill, 3/5/2015)

2008: The US government publishes rules for email storage. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issues Bulletin 2008-05, which states that every government email system is supposed to “permit easy and timely retrieval,” and all work emails are supposed to be permanently preserved. Additionally, in the case of a cabinet secretary, permanent records are to be sent to the department’s Records Service Center “at the end of the Secretary’s tenure or sooner if necessary” for safekeeping. (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016)

Problem -- Polarization

Nobody believes.  If you tell the truth in a polarized world, only those who agree will believe you.  If they don't agree, they will assume you're lying.  For example:

True:  Hillary Clinton's foundation received millions, perhaps more than $100M from countries to which her State Department granted extraordinary arms deals despite their human rights violations and internal terrorist funding.
True:  Bill Clinton has a long list of accusers for sexual assault and misconduct.  Also true:  Clinton staffers were assigned to discredit the accusers.
True:  Donald Trump has been sued many times, and his university was generally a waste of money for students.
True:  Donald Trump has repeatedly and emphatically contradicted himself.
True:  Hillary Clinton lied to Congress.
True:  Donald Trump has spawned many businesses that ended in bankruptcy.
True:  Bill Clinton did meet inappropriately with the Attorney General just prior to the FBI announcement that they would not pursue criminal charges against Hillary.

Now notice which of the above you agreed were true and relevant.  That's your bias, perhaps, or is it objectivity, or thoughtful discernment?  Do we want to know the truth, or do we want what we prefer to be the truth?  The latter is the process and product of polarization.

In today's polarized culture, Democrats and Republicans no longer have a middle ground for going forward, the media is no longer fair and balanced, and there's not a reporter we trust to stick to 'just the facts'.

• Obama, apparently, is one step below the antichrist, and Hillary hates everything about America.
• Trump is a maniacal narcissist and incapable of honest interchange for mutual progress.
• There has never been a worse president than Obama ... unless Hillary is elected.
• It's the end of generations of progress and a return to the dark ages if Trump is elected.
• It would be better if a life-terminating event like an asteroid strike killed us all.

That's today's public forum.

Polarization in Congress means they accomplish little of consequence.  Perhaps that's just as well.




It used to be that there were just a few tv channels, just a few news organizations, and a reasonable amount of information we had to assimilate and process. Technology has given us hundreds of channels and news sources, and all of them are competing for a share of the marketplace. The result, they play to their audience, and we wind up with extraordinary polarization. That particular marketplace competition has made us idiots or uninformed or both.

What Roe v. Wade didn't say ...

The Supreme Court did not say abortion was a constitutional right.  Or that it was moral or just. 

In its perhaps most controversial ruling, the court did allow for a "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" or "penumbrae" of our constitution.  The consequences have been culturally divisive and deadly.

The court did not declare that abortion itself was a constitutional right, morally acceptable, or ethically appropriate. Instead, the Supreme Court said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins ... the judiciary at this point ... is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

They went further with a key admission:  "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e., "Roe" who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

If somewhere along the timeline from conception to delivery, 'personhood' begins, then perhaps some abortions have in fact been homicidal.  No surprise.  Life does begin before birth of course, and we do have a problem.

Culturally, we've become accustomed to discarding unwanted babies.  Doing what's right is perhaps going to be a difficult battle. After we've lived with easy answers, it's hard to pry our minds loose from that easier path and move back (or forward) to a more rigid rule. True?  A moral lifestyle isn't necessarily on the bucket list for everyone.

Currently, viability is the threshold for human life according to several court rulings.  So what happens when the fetus becomes viable ex-utero?  Medical science is close to requiring a legal answer to that particular question.

For those who have personal convictions on the issue, you'll be interested to know that the 'Life at Conception Act' is in the queue for Congress.  There are controversial outcomes expected from the fight.  It's a good time for raising the issue with elections pending.

You can join the public discussion and petition Congress at the National Pro-Life Alliance website.  Be careful; there are no simple answers when it comes to law.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supports late term abortion up to and including on the baby's due date.  On “The View”, she was asked: “At what point does someone have constitutional rights, and are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before delivery, still has no constitutional rights?”

Hillary responded “Under our law that is the case… I support Roe v. Wade…”  Note: the court did not say the unborn child does not have constitutional rights, only that the court could not (yet) make a determination on when the child's life begins.  Once that determination is made, the child has full status as an individual and protection under the Constitution.

_________________________________________________
Baby Chava was born alive by abortion at around 21 weeks gestation. The child struggled to breathe for ten minutes before clinic staff noticed.  They eventually called 911 for emergency assistance, and baby Chava was transported to a hospital.  The child was pronounced dead upon arrival.

This abortion clinic is the same one exposed in a undercover investigation in 2013. The released video shows the Phoenix, Arizona-based late-term abortion doctor Laura Mercer and an abortion center counselor saying they would leave a newborn, struggling for life after a failed abortion, to die. The abortion industry continues to fight against a federal bill, the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, that would ensure babies who survive abortions receive equal protection under the law.

It has been forty years since Roe v. Wade, and the public conflict continues.  Resolving this issue will not be easy.

3D ultrasound image  

 Ultrasound technology has advanced in recent years to 3D/4D imagery.  Interestingly, about 75% of women who are shown a modern ultrasound of their unborn child will subsequently decline their intended abortion. Dr. Bernard Nathanson quit aborting babies after he had done one while using ultrasound imaging.

Bernard N. Nathanson (July 31, 1926 – February 21, 2011) was an American medical doctor from New York, co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws — NARA. Dr. Bernard Nathanson was also the former director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, but later became a pro-life activist. He was the narrator for the controversial 1984 anti-abortion film The Silent Scream.

What we teach in school

Our original intent for schools was simpler than today.  For a young America, literacy was first and foremost; we needed an informed citizenry.  We needed to band together as participants in democracy for the principles that mattered.  Today, information overload hinders our maintaining that result.

Today, our children are bombarded with more information in a

year than early Americans would see in a lifetime.

Or ten. It's a flood, an overload, and more than

can be processed.

Reading, writing, and arithmetic - the early curriculum ... today, our children are bombarded with more information in a year than early Americans would see in a lifetime. Or ten.  It's a flood, an overload, too large to consume and process.  There's personal and cultural impact that happens without our consent. Flooding our children's minds, there's a casual worldview that is not constrained by what might be helpful in their personal development.  At an early age, they're fed materialism, consumerism, class & wealth, competition & superiority, violence & discrimination, judgmentalism, and secularism. Is that a problem?

We remember how children behind the iron curtain were educated, the specific worldview they were given. They were told that countries in the free world were wicked and corrupt and immoral. Children in Germany were educated about how immoral and inferior the Jews among them were. Hitler Youth, they were called; sweet kids being warped and misled by an inhuman ideology. Government controlled education has often been bent for political goals.  Today, with the help of a polarized media, is like that but in a hugely chaotic form.

In a child's learning process, they'll note what they see.  You and your kid can sit and discuss some persuasive advertisement or Kardashianesque scene they just saw.  It can be broken down and evaluated, and a child can learn to discern good from trivial, information from persuasion, and values.  

A dozen such exposures in quick succession without thoughtful review, however, can shape a child's thinking about 'normal' before the content is even processed.  Fashion and style can become preeminent personal values, sexual innuendo can become the norm in conversation, possessions and consumerism can become a lifestyle, all before the issues are thoughtfully evaluated.  It's the flood of exposure from media, from friends at school and in the neighborhood.  Much is advertising mixed in their entertainment content.

Traditional schooling, much like traditional church, is having a hard time keeping up.  Today, pretty much everyone has access to pretty much everyone.  We're interconnected in an uncontrolled public plaza.  Haters are still campaigning among us as are anarchists and other oddities. Anti-religionists, religious fundamentalists, and violent extremists spew their polarizing versions of reality as do similarly extreme liberals and conservatives.  And political bullies and biased media.  It's difficult enough as an adult to remain objective and adequately informed in the aggressive flood of information.  It is incomprehensibly difficult for a child; their chance of reaching the ethical and moral clarity of an early American child is small.

Cultural change has removed many of the needed safeguards.  Employed parents working outside the home may reduce the common interchange and safe processing of ideas.  Issues of character are frequently untaught and undemonstrated.  Schools have been tasked with progressively greater responsibility for character formation.  Most things that mom and dad taught their children in early days are now part of the mass production process of public education.

Absent parent situations have changed the message a child receives. Marriage and family have lost the endorsement of the national forum and have been redefined.  Issues of morality and personal integrity have been eroded into obscurity.  Church communities are having a difficult time being relevant.

How then might we make a way for our children that lets them climb up above the easy acquiescence of today's youth?

Opportunities for us and our children:

• Early introduction to difficult decisions and important values - equality, discrimination, generosity, compassion, honesty - with deliberate discussion and practical walk-throughs
• Homeschooling - today, support and inexpensive resources are available everywhere
• Apprenticeship/Internship - one-on-one education (as opposed to classroom)
• Cross-cultural engagement - pursuit of a worldview that reflects real life for all rather than just the wealthy, perhaps including international travel (engagement rather than vacation)
• Practical introduction to faith issues - how to know what's right and good (as opposed to having just an opinion) - life values are honestly built over time, not proffered by others.
• Broad and aggressive academic exposure (by professorial provocateurs rather than hubristic lecturers) that requires thoughtful development of convictions and values; perhaps both inside and outside the traditional educational institutions
• Talk about everything -- do your best to provoke visionary ambition and continual inquiry.

The key -- deliberate action, frequent review, and prioritization.

And where might we go if we want to pursue such a course? From an interview with MIT professor emeritus, Noam Chomsky, American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, logician, social critic, and political activist:

Q:  Have you considered leaving the United States permanently?

A:  No. This is the best country in the world.

The Alternate Target

Qayin, so the historical account tells us, killed Havel, his brother.

There's no record of the weapon he used or of any interest in what it might have been.  At issue is not the weapon but the killing.  It was perhaps because of jealousy, but we don't really know.  After Qayin (Cain) killed his brother Havel (Abel), no one asked about the weapon.

Heart issues remain the primary question, but they're hard to face and even harder to address. It's perhaps understandable that we might move on to less relevant targets and focus our efforts there.

Falling back on gun control as an easier target ignores the obvious, that murderous behavior is not brought about by the available weapon.

Is hitting that secondary target a solution to the primary problem?

The Arab Spring, Tahrir Square, Egypt - Christians
guarded Muslims during the violent times.

Not wise, but certainly understandable. Tackling the actual cause would require of us a measure of greatness, of courage, of nobility, would it not?

So how might we begin to address the primary problem?
What course of action might change the heart of mankind for the better?

First published 02/2013, but the issue remains off target.

Observations by a white mother of black children

A disturbing story in the Atlantic from July this year
explores a bit about how such thinking and
behavior persists in American culture.
The fact that it does, is troubling.





It's today, not ancient history.

Kate Riffle Roper
(from her facebook post) July 19, 2016 at 7:20pm · As a white mother of two black children, three white children, who all have a white father, I have something to say.

Racism exists. It is real and tangible. And it is everywhere, all the time.When I brought my boys home they were the cutest, sweetest babies ever. Wherever we went, people greeted us with charm and enthusiasm. Well, not all people and not everywhere. But, to me, they were the “wacko” exceptions. I thought to myself, “Get over it.”

Now my boys look like teenagers. Black teenagers. They are 13. Let me ask you these questions. Do store personnel follow your children when they are picking out their Gatorade flavors? They didn’t follow my white kids. Do coffee shop employees interrogate your children about the credit card they are using to pay while you are in the bathroom? They didn’t interrogate my white kids. When your kids trick-or-treat in, dressed as a Ninja and a Clown, do they get asked who they are with and where they live, door after door? My white kids didn’t get asked. Do your kids get pulled out of the TSA line time and again for additional screening? My white kids didn’t. Do your kids get treated one way when they are standing alone but get treated a completely different way when you walk up? I mean a completely different way. My white kids didn’t. Do shoe sales people ask if your kids’ feet are clean before sizing them for shoes? No one asked me that with my white kids. Do complete strangers ask to touch your child’s hair? Or ask about their penis size? Or ask if they are “from druggies”? No one did this with my white kids.

Did you tell your kids not to fight back because they will seen as aggressive if they stand up for themselves? Have you had to honestly discuss with your husband whether you should take your children to the police station to introduce them to the officers so they would know your children are legitimate members of your community? Have you had to talk to your children about EXACTLY what to say and not to say to an officer? Have you had to tell your children that the objective of any encounter with police, or security in any form, is to stay alive? It never occurred to me to have these conversations with my white children. In fact, it never occurred to me for myself either.

There is no question that my boys have been cloaked in my protection when they were small. What I did not realize until now is that the cloak I was offering them was identification with my whiteness. As they grow independent, they step out from my cloak and lose that protection. The world sees “them” differently. It is sweet when they are adopted little black boys so graciously taken in by this nice white family. But when they are real people? Well, it is not the same. And they still look like little boys. What happens to them when they look like the strong, proud black men I am raising?

The reason why the phrase All Lives Matter is offensive to black people is because it isn’t true. Right now, in America, my black children are treated differently than my white children. So when you say All Lives Matter as a response to the phrase Black Lives Matter you are completely dismissing the near daily experience of racism for those with pigment in their skin, curl in their hair and broadness of their nose.

I am posting this so you can see the reality I have witnessed and experienced, because, frankly, I didn’t believe it was true until I saw it up close, directed at two souls I love, over and over again. So, please, use this post as a pair of glasses to see the racism that surrounds you. Then we can actually make progress toward all lives being valued and cherished.

_______________________________

If every day, I had to work my way uphill against prejudice, I don't know that I could be gracious through it. If the world had a way forward for most but not for my kids, I wouldn't take it quietly. None of us should have to.

... we strive for better in ourselves and in our circle of influence; there's much yet to be changed.

One Day ...

In the Indonesian village of Lamalera, a whale is enough to feed everyone there (pop. 2,500) for a couple of months, and they don't waste any of it.  They are among the last of the whaling communities.

Most of us in the developed world live with some consistency.  Ever noticed how, payday to payday, you can sort of settle into the routine.  You get paid, you eat and sleep and travel and work, and then you get paid again.

About a quarter of the adults in the world have a regular paying job, maybe 30+ hours a week. The rest of the world folks are perhaps like the Lamalera whale chasers who depend on catching a whale every couple of months so they and their children can eat.  Some years are better than others.

At the end of the day, poppa gives the kids a chance to play in the boat.

In the developed countries, you'll get paid more in one day than a family makes in a month in the developing world.

Folks who fish to feed their families are being put out of business by big industry. Kind of like when Walmart started putting an end to the mom and pop businesses.  Fishermen in western Africa have seen a 90% decline in pelagic fish populations due to overfishing by outsiders. It's mostly illegal.  Now local folks have to work harder, sail farther, and get less.

And sometimes, our friends (right) tell us, they come home at the end of the day with nothing at all. Rich countries fishing illegally did that to them.

Folks here are among the world's nicest, and it's as beautiful a place as
any in the world, but it's difficult to get an adequate diet for your kids.
About a quarter are undernourished.

They're doing their best to defend their territorial waters and put the illegal players out of business. We're helping with that; we work with navy and coast guard groups for training, international cooperation, and technology.  There's a lot to be done and meanwhile, they've got kids to feed and keep in school.

You can lend a hand, if you like.  Or better yet, you can go see for yourself.  And take your kids along.  It'll change the way you feel about being rich and perhaps give you some ideas for getting involved in the real world..  :)

The Hierarchy*

The academics among us have struggled with nature, nurture, natural and supernatural for centuries.  Among those who must understand everything in scientific terms, describing humanity and human behavior has been a difficult challenge.

• Art and music, literature, and philosophy make little scientific sense and remain beyond adequate explanation.  
• Class and conflict are perhaps just competition, like monkeys might do.  Or Wall Street.
• Free will is scientifically impossible, or so the scientists tell us, 

                  ... and the entertaining debate continues.

The rationalist prefers a 'self and survival' based reality.  For them, even charity and philanthropy are self-serving, and as Ayn Rand popularized, selfless sacrifice is a fiction.  Pursued further, such reasoning quickly descends to an end of meaning for existence, an end of value for life or labor.

In our hearts, we know better, and every time we touch the truth, we're reminded.  Our lives are filled with purpose and opportunity, with difficulty and challenges and transcendent experiences, all of which require us to grow and learn.  And, there's extraordinary joy along the way, not in satisfying our own selfishness, but in truly loving others as we love ourselves.  Funny how that works.




*Maslow's Hierarchy is one of many attempts to contain the human experience in a defined context.  Popular for years, it has been generally abandoned by academics in favor of even more narrowly specified behavioral mechanics.  Scientific rigor is everything, we're told.  Are they right?  Or is there even more beyond a life purpose of loving others?  

It's the ideology

Immediately following the Bastille Day incident, this meme

circulated on social media. Exactly who do they have in mind, I wonder?

An ideology isn't a religion, interestingly enough; it's "a system of ideas and ideals,

especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."
Governance, position, influence ... I'm right and you're wrong.

If you've got a solution in mind, here's the root problem that has to be resolved.

Justifying the murder of innocents is based on a willingness to do harm to another, to reach your goal at the expense of another.

It's not a new idea.

Recent perpetrators include ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Boko Haram.  And governments.

In the early 90's, 857 cartons kept by the Iraqi secret police surfaced.  They contained detailed files describing genocide against the Kurds.  Time reported, 1 June 1992: 200,000 to 300,000 killed (late 80s).

The years before gave us the Rwandan genocide, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Holocaust under the Nazi Reich, the Armenian massacres by the Ottomans, the Nanking massacre, the Holodomor ....  In each case, the slaughter of innocents was directed by political leadership and justified by some rhetoric of superiority.

The colonial era cost the lives of more than half the population of Africa and the Americas with similar justification by perpetrators.

Centuries have passed, and they've not yet recovered. Ask a Mijikenda what it's like to be driven from your own lands. He can tell you now, but prior to the new constitution (2010) he'd be arrested and imprisoned for speaking ill of the government. Most of the 2000+ African tribes spent a century or more without any voice in their own governance while their  cultures were systematically destroyed, their resources were stolen and shipped off to foreign lands. And then, of course, there was three hundred years of slavery.

Untold millions have died in the name of our way, our rule, our empire.  What we see today is nothing new although the demographics of both perpetrators and victims have changed.  The world's population has tripled in my lifetime, and population densities have changed the geography and rhetoric of conflict.  The rationale, however, is unchanged since Herod ordered the execution of male babies in Bethlehem.  It's a power play risen from selfishness, perceived vulnerability, and perhaps opportunity for advancement.

Contributing to the problem, oppression, discrimination, disenfranchisement, and injustice have provoked an extraordinary degree of frustration and violence in communities, cultural groupings, and the world.  Add the two together, the power players and the oppressed, and the result is perhaps predictable.

It's the ideology, but go to the root.  It's not politics or religion, it's conquest for power and position, the climbing up over the bodies of others for personal gain.

The willingness and intent to do harm to another, to reach your goal at the expense of another ...

If you've got a solution in mind, that's the root problem that has to be addressed.

Different

The Angalamman Festival is celebrated each year in a town called Kaveripattinam in Tamil Nadu.

Devotees, numbering in tens of thousands, converge in this town the day after Maha Shivratri to

worship the deity Angalamman, meaning 'The Guardian God'. During the festival some of the

worshippers paint their faces that personifies Goddess Kali. Other indulge in the ritual of

piercing iron rods through their cheeks.

Just how different might we be in our varied cultures? There are bizarre differences, of course, and then there are all the similarities.  We care about each other, we care about our children and hope to see them healthy and safe and well equipped; we hope for peace and a good life for all.

Breathtaking pictures by National Geographic contributors and others give us a brief look into a different world. How might we relate across such a divide?

And ... how many places and people are there that would be just stunning to see and know?

Perhaps an interesting question for us all, is our view of 'the world' big enough?  Does it include these who might be so different from us? And if God so loved 'the world', does that suggest we might need to do anything differently? 

Is the fact that we're different a problem?

I suspect we'd be surprised how many things we have in common with these interesting folks.

Look both ways ...

At the border, to the north is wealth, to the south is poverty.  Why?

In the case of Nogales, the difference between the two sides of the border is the governance under which they live. Everything else is pretty much the same, isn't it.  On Mexico's side of the equation, there's a distinct favoritism and an elite structure that limits competition and keeps the common folks from making any particular economic progress.  To the north, entrepreneurship, competition, patent rights, monopoly law, and property rights open the door for many. Minimum wage used to help; now not so much.

Life in Nogales, Mexico, 1999.  Little
has changed since then.

To be sure, there are wealthy people and poor people living on this planet. Some have mansions, others are homeless. Some have caviar for breakfast while others starve. Some avoid paying taxes, others die of curable diseases because they can’t afford medicine.

Agriculture in North Korea is inefficient and
vulnerable.  Half the country's population
 lives in extreme poverty.

North and South Korea are an interesting case.  One of the poorest and one of the wealthiest countries in the world; they come from the same history, geography, ancestry, language, and culture, yet the difference is stunning.  North of the border, famine kills people, and half the population lives in extreme poverty. Again the only difference between the two is governance.

The wealth of an honest man is different than the riches of an oppressor, or a usurper of rights.  Mubarak, for instance; he and his family were worth billions, all extracted from the Egyptian economy before he was driven from office.

We have governments and regulatory agencies that do or don't serve us well.  All of us.

That brings us back to our issue of inequality.  

In the U.S., inequality (the GAP) began accelerating in the 70's, and the wealthy have made extraordinary gains.  Note the household income chart here.  For the bottom economic half, gains are due to more household members in the workforce while wages have been stagnant.  Below the halfway mark, household income hasn't kept up with increases in cost of living.  Particularly, education and healthcare are less accessible.

For too many, there have been difficult choices between children's education, retirement savings, and owning a home.  Typically, households live payday to payday, and the only option for some is living in a high-density, high-turnover neighborhood, not the best place to raise children.

Both education and healthcare costs have been inflated by programmatics rather than by value.  The student loan initiative caused college costs to elevate well ahead of nominal inflation rates.  It was supposed to make it more available but has had a significant detrimental effect opposite to intent.  Health care costs have followed a similar path.

Inequality between countries is a result of governance, internal and international.  

Inequality inside a country is the result of preferential governance.  It's perhaps not intended to be abusive to the lower economic segment, but it's certainly as effective as if designed for that purpose.

A failed minimum wage policy gave us Walmart and an end to many local businesses. Originally intended to protect workers, the minimum wage has lagged behind cost of living increases until today, it is worth 20% less than in the 60's.  Households now can't survive on a minimum wage job, of course. Even two full-time minimum wage jobs don't get a family above the poverty line.  We pay for welfare and assistance programs for the underpaid workers, something their employers should be paying, but they don't.  

The wage policy and regulatory processes weren't intended to do harm, and early on, they helped significantly.  After years of inattention, however, it appears that they've detrimentally reshaped a large portion of our economy and culture.

College costs have increased about 800% since I enrolled at UT fifty years ago.  Household income has increased less than a twentieth of that for all but the wealthiest.  That means that every year, fewer regular folks can send their kids to college.  That didn't just happen, it was the result of governance and regulation.  It served the wealthy quite well, but we've seen an accelerating inequality that affects more and more of our citizens.  It's not an accident, and it's not something chosen by the less fortunate among us.

Poverty isn't something you choose.  It's done to you.  Do the research for yourself.

Today's troublesome issues:
Inequality
Discrimination
Oppression
Access
Education
Healthcare
Employment
Advancement
Fair treatment
Fair wages
Fair representation
Prejudice
Hatred
Injustice
Marginalization
Disenfranchisement
Religious extremism
Opportunity denied
Selfishness
Greed
Malice
and
Willingness to do harm to another


As if we didn't have enough to do. :)

Power depends on inequality

Supply-side economics proposes that tax decreases lead

to economic growth. Historical data, however, shows

no correlation between lower top marginal tax

rates and GDP growth rate.

There have been attempts at equal opportunity and mutual benefit, and at caring for those less fortunate.  Today in America, the wealthy have a great chance at a great education, a great career, and a great income, but the bottom 80% or so do not.  For fifty years, they've lost ground, and the gap has widened. Why might that be?  Was it deliberate?

"Occupy Wall Street, the Arab Spring, the African uprisings, even the anti-austerity stance of new political parties in Spain and Greece, all have one thing in common: a recognition that the only way for a tiny group of people to become obscenely rich is for huge masses of others to be kept chronically poor." ~JASON HICKEL, JOE BREWER, AND MARTIN KIRK 03.12.15

Supply-side policies favoring the wealthy make them

wealthier at the expense of everyone else.  No
surprise. That's what we've done for
 four decades.

Is this perhaps a good time to reopen the discussion? It's called 'economic inequality' or the GAP, and it has spread through our financial system and trade agreements to the world. When 'too big' is part of the conversation, there are needed adjustments that are perhaps unlikely to be easy.

'Supply-side economics' or 'trickle down' are a known disaster for everyone except the wealthy.

Tax decreases on high income earners (top 10%) are not correlated with employment growth, however, tax decreases on lower income earners (bottom 90%) are correlated with employment growth.  No surprise.

So the continuing favoritism shown by each administration to large corporations and the financial industry is despite the evidence that such policies serve only the wealthy and do so at the expense of the common citizen.  Yes, that's what we see.  Government regulation appears to be available for purchase if you're wealthy enough.

Justification

"No God condones terror.  No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number."

Interesting remarks by the president at a prayer breakfast remind us that what we see in ISIS is not a uniquely Middle East horror.

"We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions."

"So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religion for their own murderous ends?"

He went on to paint reality as it is, "Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."

He didn't mention the thousands of lynchings of black Americans.  He could have, though.  Blacks, well into the 20th century, understood their place wasn't necessarily a safe one.  Lynching (reported) continued into the mid-60's (or 80's). Hate crimes continue.  Orlando, Dallas, San Bernardino, Boston.

March 2014, a leader of the Traditional American Knights of the KKK told a reporter, “We are a Christian organization.”  "It's not a hateful thing to want to maintain White Supremacy," he explained.  On a Twitter feed, he claimed the Klan is “about love for God, race and nation.”  Imagine the confusion in the minds of children being raised in that culture.

It's worth remembering that such hatred and discrimination are destructive and murderous. Justification by religious rhetoric only compounds the depth of harm done.

Dealing with root issues is difficult.

In 1970, I was in a Navy school in Georgia.  My friend Freddie and I had Sunday free and were glad for the chance to get away, go to church, and eat lunch off base.  At the Baptist church in town, we were met by the deacons as we entered, "You'll want to go someplace else," the head deacon told us.  It hadn't occurred to Freddie or to me that him being black was an issue.  I don't hold a grudge, and I hope Freddie doesn't, but that particular knife wound in my heart still hurts a bit sometimes.

When I see hatred and selfishness played out under some religious veil today, well, it's difficult to respond graciously, as you might imagine.  "No God condones terror.  No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number." ⁽¹⁾

Liberty and justice for all, as we're reminded today ...
That's our declaration, our deeply-held conviction, perhaps our calling.

We are thankful for every life and inspired by every individual who courageously stands for justice.  It's no small service.

___________________________________________________
Consider: Terrorism has no religion as a perhaps starting point for further inquiry.
Or (ref), (ref) (ref), it is an ongoing discussion and objectivity is difficult for the fearful.

No big deal

Judge William Young sentencing the shoe bomber

Remember the fellow who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?

His trial is over.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say.  His response: after admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stating, "I think I will not apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country."

Here's what the Judge Young had to say:

"Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years, again to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000, that's an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you, five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it, or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not-----, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said:

'You're no big deal.'

You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have, as honestly as I know how, tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty, and admit you are guilty, of doing? And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me, you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America , the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice, is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers, will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America . That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down." 

______________________________________

Not bad, sir. Not bad at all.