Culture of Chaos?

“Of Chaos and Politics” was a piece expressing OneOldCop’s concerns about the direction in which the United States seemed headed. More recent pieces written in response to the chaos created by criminals and political dissidents posing as protestors support the concerns expressed in Chaos. While some may think this writer is being an alarmist, it seems clear the United States is on the edge of becoming a society and culture that accepts chaos as the norm.

“Of Chaos and Politics” opined that modern communication systems, including social media, might be leading to a culture in which the memory of trigger events does not fade. Not only do they not fade, they can be recycled because of  a form of societal attention deficit disorder.

Instantaneous, twenty-four hour news changes focus and concerns constantly. Add that constantly changing focus to information overload, and many people will forget the horrible injustice of an incident yesterday until it resurfaces next week. Then they will be outraged again. The constant cycle of outrage seems to be causing the social equivalent of a chain reaction.

If that is not the case, how does one explain the recent barrage of airline related horror stories? The airline industry has a less than stellar reputation in the customer service area for many reasons. It is likely one passenger or another is mistreated, misled or simply ignored daily somewhere, if not more often. Yet, one horrible appearing incident of a man being dragged from a plane makes the news, and the news is full of similar stories of outrage and mistreatment. Of course, that means Congress feels compelled to hold a hearing on the matter, and the chaos cycle is in full swing.

The latest airline related incident of chaos and anarchy was the knockdown, drag-out brawl at an airport in Florida. Due to an alleged job action by airline pilots, the airline cancelled a number of flights, and irate passengers ran amuck. Video of people fighting cops, cops fighting people, people being arrested, and general chaos were on the national news before the ink on the arrest paperwork was dry. Additionally, news personalities were opining new chaos would reign the next morning because more flights were being cancelled.

Sociologically and behaviorally speaking there are likely numerous possible causes for the chaos that seems to be spreading across the United States like a plague in the middle ages. Another writer opined the chaos is due to the fact people do not feel they have a voice, and this is the only way they can be heard. OneOldCop has a different opinion.

The government, educational system, and so-called progressives have been sending mixed messages to society for decades. Kids, and others, receive trophies for participation. Bullies and the kids they are bullying are both punished if the victim fights back. Kids can go to a movie or watch television where guns, bombs, knives, and ninja death grips are more common than curse words, but heaven help a kid pointing a finger at a playmate during recess.  That child gets suspended.

If that is not enough, the news or social media regularly report of someone praising protestors for destroying police cars, the corner grocery, and putting cops in the hospital. Then they report the words of someone who claims to be a religious leader speaking out against law and order in the name of what they claim is tolerance, acceptance and coexistence.

The bottom line is this. Today’s world is one of relativism and confusion. When everyone’s view is valid, depending upon his, her, or their perspective, nothing is valid. When society and culture refuse to define right and wrong, while attacking moral codes which do, stability and decency are in jeopardy.

Get used to it America.  We are, socially and politically at least, becoming a third world country.

© OneOldCop – 2017

Posted in Uncategorized

Scientifically Clueless?

For Earth Day 2017 thousands of people in the United States marched in support of science and the planet. They displayed signs, made speeches, and generally let it be known they backed science and scientist. Reportedly, they believe science is under attack, and if those attacking science are successful, the world will go to hell in a handbasket.

The unfortunate truth is many of those speaking in support of science do not have a clue about the topic. If science is under attack, the people attacking science are not the people against whom these marchers railed. The people named and despised, directly or by implication, are not against science. They are questioning the claims of some who call themselves scientists.

The sad part of this situation is the fact people generally do not understand science. For the record, science is not a bunch of people with PhD behind their name looking at a broad spectrum of data and deciding the data means a certain outcome is inevitable. That sort of science has as much validity as their critics going over the same data and dismissing any possibility they have a point. On the other hand, both sides have a right to their opinion and to debate the issue.

Apparently, that is something those marching for science do not understand. They seem to feel science and scientists, at least the ones they support, cannot be criticized. Criticism and debate have always been a part of science. That is how advances were made in the past.

A scientist or group of scientists would say this or that is true or untrue. Others would look at the data to see if they could prove or disprove the other side’s theory or conclusion. Sometimes, the data was confirmed, and sometimes it was not. For example, consider the sound barrier or sonic barrier for aircraft.

Some scientists and engineers believed it would be impossible for an aircraft to travel faster than the speed of sound. The naysayers of the time had good reason to believe this was the case. They knew it was possible for some objects to break the sound barrier, but aircraft approaching those speeds did not survive.

Others believed supersonic flight was possible. As it turned out, they were right. The first supersonic flight occurred on October 14, 1947. Since then, supersonic flight has become common places. Modern combat aircraft exceed the speed of sound regularly. The private sector even operated supersonic passenger planes for a time, and such planes may fly again soon.

There are other examples of scientists or other researchers having their work challenged by others. In some cases, the challengers were wrong, in others the challengers were right. The same dynamic goes on today within the world of science and research, and most people do not know or care. The exception is when political or other agendas are involved.

Climate change is undoubtedly real. Based on the evidence available to scientists today, the climate has changed significantly over the ages. What is in dispute today is the cause and time frame of the change. Archaeological data is understood to show that significant climate changes occurred over thousands of years, if not longer periods of time. Now, people are forecasting climate change leading to a catastrophe in just a few decades. To make that forecast believable, proponents had to identify a cause. They focused on industrialization and some forms of carbon emissions.

It is possible those making the prediction of catastrophic change in the foreseeable future are correct. It is also possible they are wrong. In times past challenging the catastrophic climate change proponents would have been expected. Today, due to the charged political atmosphere, challenging them is tantamount to blasphemy in the days of the inquisition.

The politically charged atmosphere means climate change proponents do not need to respond to criticisms of their data or admit data may exist which calls theirs into question. For instance, one of the largest and most rapid glacier melts in the last few centuries occurred in North America before massive industrialization and automobiles. One might think this could be evidence that climate change is not as closely tied to industrialization as some claim.

The location in question is Glacier Bay, Alaska. According to the National Park Service, “Glacier Bay is a dynamic place. Glaciers have ebbed and flowed here for thousands of years. In fact, Glacier Bay National Park was established for the purpose of studying these natural cycles.” Wow, natural cycles, thousands of years, one might think that would be some evidence that climate change just happens. Fat chance!

The facts indicate the latest massive melt started more than 300 years ago. At that time, there was no bay, just one massive glacier. Almost 100 years after the initial explorers mapped the area another group of explorers found the glacier had receded dramatically, creating a bay. This was almost 200 years ago, since that time, the glacier continued to recede.

The magnificent bay and tourist spot is the result of glacier melt occurring in a remote part of the continent long before Ford built his first carbon emitting car. While many might find these facts interesting, they are apparently considered unimportant and researching them is difficult. If the history of the bay is mentioned at all, it will be downplayed as it is on the web page from which the quotation above was taken. After that comment, the page immediately transitions into the climate change dialogue, ignoring the evidence presented by the bay itself.

Before closing, there is one other sad point to be made here. Within the group of people marching for science are many such as one quoted in CNN’s coverage of the Washington, D.C. event. A thirty-eight-year-old neurophysiology graduate student said she was marching because of the president. CNN quoted her as saying, “Science is really important, and the current administration is making decisions that are counter to climate change, genetically modified food and vaccinations.”

There you have it. The mind set of many who support marches such as the ones inspiring this piece. Science is important, as long as I agree with it. This highly educated graduate student supports the scientists who push the mainstream climate change hysteria. She does not however, support other scientists and their work.

Who does she think developed the genetically modified food and vaccinations she mentioned? Scientists developed genetically modified food, using scientific principles and research. Likewise, scientists and doctors developed the vaccines that save the lives of millions of people annually. Additionally, scientists and doctors almost unanimously agree these advances in food production and medicine are beneficial, but this marcher and many others do not believe that science.

The truth is science and scientists must be questioned and challenged. Scientists developing genetically modified plants should be challenged on their safety. Scientists developing vaccines should be challenged on their effectiveness and safety. Just as scientists who champion climate change should be challenged to prove there is anything more to their case than an agenda.

Science by consensus is the danger, not those who question the claims of such science.

 

© OneOldCop –

Posted in Political Extremes, Politics, Science | Tagged , , , ,

Collateral Damage

President Trump’s critics love to hammer him over his “xenophobic” tendencies. They claim his efforts to control the number of questionable refugees and illegal immigrants entering the country are the products of his bigotry and hate. When confronted with evidence of criminal or terrorist activity within some of these groups, they claim the status of a person’s residency is immaterial.  In other cases, they claim the risks to the public from refugees or illegal immigrants is so low as to be insignificant. In some ways there is validity to their arguments, but there are times when the worst misrepresentations are based on facts.

Consider the example floating around social media and the news using the number 0.00003. This reportedly illustrates how unlikely it is that someone in the United States will be killed by a foreign terrorist. In other words, as you read this the chance that a foreign terrorist will kill you, or anyone else this year, is 0.00003 percent. The implication is that anyone worried about refugees from the middle east is a xenophobe and alarmist. After all, one is much more likely to be killed by a shark than a middle eastern terrorist.

It would be possible to quibble with the data used to develop the 0.00003 number. In fact, some so-called fact checking groups pointed out some misrepresentations made by those using this figure or related data. Their findings were, in the terms of such groups, that the information was used in ways that made it a mixture of true and false. Of course, the false aspects were inconsequential. Therefore, the concerns of people opposed to unfettered immigration were unfounded.

OneOldCop tends to agree with the fact-checkers’ analysis. One’s chance of dying at the hands of a criminal in any major city is much higher than one’s chance of being killed by a jihadist. Likewise, one is more likely to be killed crossing the street in his or her hometown than being killed by an ISIS operative hiding among the thousands of people fleeing Syria. Additionally, the chances a fourteen-year-old school girl will be sexually assaulted by one of her native-born classmates are just as likely as her being assaulted by a classmate who is in the country illegally.

The foregoing notwithstanding there is a bit of a difference if one is killed by a terrorist or assaulted by someone who entered the country illegally when compared to victims of citizens. The refugee, immigrant or whatever is here because this country allowed the person to be here to commit the crime.1 Whether advocates like it or not, that is a difference.

Any assault or killing is unacceptable. Society should do everything it can to prevent those crimes or punish offenders, without regard to their citizenship or other status. Still, the idea the crimes are equivalent is ludicrous. To OneOldCop that makes as much sense as saying a vehicular homicide committed by a first time DWI is the same as one committed by someone convicted of DWI multiple times. Not only does OneOldCop believe there is a difference, it is likely many who oppose controls on immigration would not hesitate to support stricter sanctions for those who continuously put themselves and others at risk by driving drunk.2

If this were a debate, a forum or another discussion format we could engage in a good bit of give and take at this point. The problem is we would be discussing the wrong point. The foregoing was offered simply to lay the groundwork for the title of this piece.
The one thing no one discusses or quotes when tossing the 0.0003 or other terms around is the conclusion of the study from which much of this is taken. The CATO Institute is often quoted as the source of this data, and they are at least one source. What is never mentioned is the conclusion reached in the study. When this writer read the study, one point stood out starkly.

The conclusion of the institute’s 2016 study of this issue begins, “Foreign-born terrorism on U.S. soil is a low probability event that imposes high costs on its victims despite relatively small risks and low costs on Americans as a whole.”3 The conclusion goes on to speak to the economic benefit of immigration and how the risk is manageable given the overall benefit to the economy.

In case you do not translate academic jargon easily, the CATO Institute is saying a certain level of collateral damage is acceptable for economic reasons. Some politicians say the same thing using different words, and some of the bleeding hearts out there think the handful of people killed by foreign terrorists to date are the price we must pay to live up to our American values.

How does it feel to be expendable?


  1. For the nit-pickers out there, as used here the term ‘allowed’ means failed to prevent illegal entry, failed to deport, allowed entry without proper vetting or failed to monitor potential threats properly and take appropriate action.
  2.  Let me save you an email. I know some critics will claim that is a strawman, or some other logical fallacy, but the truth is most of the people making such claims are guilty of thinking illogically.
  3.  Emphasis added.

© OneOldCop – 2017

Posted in Daily Life, Law Enforcement, Leadership, National Defense, Police, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , ,

Simplistically Speaking

If only the woes of the world could be solved with a meme! It would be grand if one could post a meme, a symbol or a photo-shopped miracle cloud formation that would magically inspire people to see the error of their ways.  Unfortunately, as OnOldCop has noted before, most memes are simply ways to get likes and shares.  For example, consider the memes floating around showing two characters facing each other across a symbol drawn on the ground. One character claims the symbol is a “6.” The other claims it is a “9.”

Those sharing the meme are undoubtedly well meaning. It is clearly being offered as an attempt to encourage open mindedness and understanding. After all, people see or understand situations differently, depending on their experiences. One person sees a 6. The other sees a 9. How simple. No! How simplistic!

It is true that experience, language, beliefs and other factors may lead people to see things differently. That does not mean two people can both look at the same fact or data and see the truth in it differently. Can one really choose to see a 6 while another chooses to see a 9, simply because of where they stand or how they found themselves in that position? Where one of us stands does not change the fact six is not nine, and that fact might be important.

Okay! It is only a three point difference, and in the real world it is unlikely we would be arguing over the value of the figure. After all, the placement of the figure, the context in which it was used, and other factors would help us know the value was 6 or 9, or would it?

As long as we are speaking hypothetically, using simplistic analogies, consider this one. You and a coworker are called into your boss’s office. The boss says you are both perfectly qualified for a new position, and the selection committee could not decide which of you to promote. Accordingly, the boss, who loves puzzles and contests, tells you he has devised a test of your perception, intuition and problem solving ability to fill the new position.

The boss says the door code for the new office one of you will occupy is printed on a piece of paper. He explains that each of you will have one try to open the door, and you must decide which of you gets the first try. He then slides a sheet of paper across the desk. From your side of the desk the numbers are 60606. From your coworker’s side of the table they read 90909.

Silly? Of course it is a bit silly. It is also silly to think that a meme showing two cartoon people standing at the top and bottom of a symbol on the ground has any meaning beyond the number of likes and shares it receives.

A more serious example of perceptions differing from reality is a situation occurring in a small Texas community in 2015. A black female living in the community was out for her morning constitutional. The local police stopped her as she was walking down the street.

In a day or two, her story was all over social media and the news. She issued a public statement claiming she had been stopped for “walking while black.”  She believed the police profiled her because the community is predominately white. Also, she made other claims that put the officers and their department in a bad light. After all the dust settled, her position changed a bit.

The incident was captured on dash cam video which clearly showed the officers acted legally.  After the release of the video, the individual issued a statement indicating some of her facts and assumptions leading to her public complaint may have been wrong, but her fear had been real.  The individual was asked if the video changed her feelings about the police contact.  She responded with comments about different seeing something from different perspectives, concluding with the charge the video showed just one perspective.

What you might wonder is the purpose of this piece? Is it a dogmatic defense of absolutes? Is it a last stand for this writer’s perception that shades of gray don’t exist in the world? No, the piece is simply a statement of fact. Each person bases what they understand of the world on their life experiences, their cognitive abilities and other influences. That does not change the fact there are truths in the world.

The cartoon showing two characters arguing about the number due to their position is cute nonsense. The number is either a six or a nine. One’s perspective does not change the value. The situation with the lady and the cops is more complex, but the truth is the officers did nothing wrong. Her perspective led her to see their actions as inappropriate, but that only proves eye witness testimony is questionable, especially if the witness is involved in the incident.

Does that mean this writer or anyone else should not consider another’s perspective or point of view? Of course that is not the case. It is also not the case that this writer, or anyone else, has to agree to another’s point of view. It is possible to agree to disagree, and it is possible for people who think differently to live together in peace. Unfortunately, the society in which we live today seems to think we should be willing to call a six a nine simply because a others see it that way.

© OneOldCop – 2017

 

Posted in Daily Life, Ethics, Leadership, Politics, Uncategorized, Verbal Communication | Tagged , , , , , ,

Of Protests and Violence

If the title of this piece looks familiar, there is a reason. It is a followup to last week’s piece “Of Protests and Courage.” The gentleman making the comment, it took courage to protest, made another comment deserving of analysis. As noted in Courage, he stated, “In the history of the world what great change came without discontent, anger, protest, or even violence.” The gentleman on the other side of the dialogue agreed, but noted those changes may not always have been for the better.

OneOldCop can agree with both of the comments noted above. Great change in the world has often been accompanied by discontent, anger, protest and violence. The problem, as noted by the conservative side of the dialogue sparking this series of essays, is one cannot tell if the outcome of the discontent, anger, protest or violence will be a step forward or several backward. Additionally, one cannot tell if the discontent, anger, protest or violence is valid, trumped up for political reasons or the product of boredom on the part of minimally productive individuals.

One need look no further than the early twentieth century to see where change wrought by discontent, anger, protests and violence was not something to applaud. Unrest and uprisings in Russia during the early part of the century led to the overthrow of the Tsarist rulers and the birth of the Soviet Union. Shortly thereafter, Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany due to discontent, anger, protest and violence. The Nazis and the Soviets were two of the worst scourges on the world one can imagine.

The truth is that in more modern times positive changes have not come about through protests such as the ones seemingly endorsed by some liberal or leftist writers and advocates. If one looks objectively around the world, one can find many examples of such tactics bringing about changes that are far from positive. Of course, leftists, as do some others, take a long view of history. They are willing to inflict a great deal of pain and violence on society to achieve their version of a perfect world. Which brings up another point made during the dialogue being discussed.

A minor participant in the discussion expressed the thought that the protests and violence seemed designed to divide the country even more than it is at the moment. This is certainly a conclusion one can reach when witnessing or hearing about what is happening today.

Clashes between protestors and authorities are to be expected at times. Clashes between different groups of protestors are possible as well. What seems to be on the increase are groups showing up specifically to disrupt or attack another group. Of course, this is not a totally new phenomenon, and such actions are not limited to one side of the question or another. Still, many of the incidents reported lately seem to be planned aggression against a particular group or political thought. Additionally, most of the aggressors seem to be aligned with the left side of the political spectrum.

If that is true, one must wonder why. Why would the protesters at Berkeley and other campuses shut down the free speech of others through their over the top actions? Do they want to make the country more divided? Why do they apparently want to limit the free speech of those with opposing views?

One answer goes back to the nature of the beast so to speak. Many of the younger people involved in these activities have never been told no. They have never been required to deal with the consequences of their actions. Their parents have abrogated their responsibilities to the schools and the government. The result is a generation of overgrown children who only know one way to deal with not hearing what they want. They throw a tantrum, and try to destroy anything and anybody who irritates, disagrees or confounds them. Of course, the sad part of this is they have no idea they are being played by those they trust and respect.

One reason to escalate violence and create chaos is to force the government and one’s political opponents to overreact. At some point, if the Left is successful, there will be chaos in the streets, and it will not be limited to small areas. So far, the authorities and the system of government in this country have managed to avoid allowing the country to devolve into anarchy or a police state. One can hope this will hold true for now and the future. One can hope, but one cannot be certain.

Fellow travelers such as the gentleman who lauded the protesters for their courage may wake up one day to find the dark side of the movement is the one in control

© OneOldCop – 2017

Posted in Civility, Daily Life, Law Enforcement, Leadership, Political Extremes, Politics | Tagged , , , , ,

Of Protests and Courage

A recent social media dialogue concerning violent protests around the country caught OneOldCop’s attention. The individual’s post starting the dialogue implied the protestors seemed to have too much time on their hands. A more liberal, possibly leftist, acquaintance of his took the position this was their right, and it might be the only way they can make their voice heard. This writer tends to agree with the analysis of the gentleman posting the original commentary.

After all, it seems people are protesting everything from the new president to daddy/daughter dances. Okay. Maybe there have been no protests against daddy/daughter dances, but an elementary school in California is changing their annual event to a ‘Family’ dance for reasons of inclusiveness. Can protests at schools not making such changes be far behind?

Whatever happens concerning the daddy/daughter dances, there are plenty of protests to go around. Of course, as both parties agreed, protests are a part of the history of this country. Additionally, they are completely legal, if handled properly. The problem to be discussed here is a comment by the gentleman on the liberal side of the dialogue. He commented that it took courage to protest.

This comment was apparently made with all seriousness. Based on his comments, one must believe this individual actually think the anarchists at Berkeley and other liberal institutions, as well as the rioters and looters in Ferguson and other cities were being courageous. He said as much, and when called out on their outlaw behavior he responded with another statement this writer feels was outlandish. His comment was, “In the history of the world what great change came without discontent, anger, protest, or even violence.”

This individual clearly supports violent protests. He also feels those who engage in such protests are courageous. Both of these points deserve analysis, but the focus of this piece is the comment about courage. The idea that protestors in the United States today are showing courage is ridiculous, if not obscene.

Certainly there were times in the history of this country when protesting required courage. The men and women who protested and marched for civil rights in the mid-twentieth century certainly showed courage. They knew full well they were risking their lives to stand against the status quo.

Those marching with Dr. King and his followers knew they could be shot, burned, lynched or killed in some other horrible fashion for standing up for their cause. It took courage to go up against the opposing forces in those days, and some paid a terrible price for their courage.

The protests of the civil rights activists brought about changes in the law and society that made it much safer for future protestors. With a few tragic exceptions, protestors during Vietnam knew they faced relatively mild threats when compared to martyrs such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Evers, George Winston Lee, James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Henry Schwerner. Protestors today are some of the most protected people in the country.

The truth is, it takes little if any courage to protest today. The very government one may be protesting does its best to protect those who are protesting against it. Additionally, the nation has raised a generation of men and women who feel entitled and protected.  The average college student for the last few decades has been raised to feel untouchable and invincible.

The feeling of invincibility that comes naturally with youth is compounded by a society which insulates many young people from the consequences of their actions. The lack of accountability, the feeling of invincibility, and the tendency many have to follow the crowd leads to an unstable and dangerous environment. Little more than a social media post is needed to start a riot. When one adds the influences of the modern day equivalent of groups such as Students for a Democratic Society of the 1960s, it is amazing the violence and destruction is not greater.

These are the folks that show up for demonstrations looking like they came from a riot in a foreign country. They may be dressed like Ninja Warriors, cat burglars or bank robbers.  They are prepared to inflict violence on others, or cheer on those who commit such violence. Add the masked leaders and cheerleaders to the old adage about the average IQ of a mob, and one has the makings of a modern riot, excuse me, protest.

OneOldCop will close this piece at this point. To be generous, the gentleman claiming protestors are showing courage is a bit out of touch with reality.

© OneOldCop -2017

 

 

Posted in Civility, Daily Life, Political Extremes, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , ,

Jokers and Clowns Abound

The bulk of this piece was originally published as “Stuck in the Middle” in 2012. It is being posted again in honor of several prominent, and long serving, politicians who would be vying for joker and clown of the year awards if everyone in the middle were allowed to vote on the matter. As this is being written, OneOldCop has two prominent senators from opposite sides of the aisle in mind, as well as a number of members of the House of Representatives.1

Politics, the news and life today remind me of a song from the early 1970s. The group Stealers Wheel had their biggest hit with “Stuck in the Middle With You”. The lyrics made about as much sense as any popular song from that era, which is not much. Still, one verse resonates today, “Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.”

Hold on! Before anyone gets his or her nose out of joint, left and right are completely interchangeable. If you are a big fan of a political figure on the left and would be prefer he be called a joker, or one on the right and would prefer he be called a clown, please feel free to swap those words in your mind. Believe me. It makes very little difference. However, if you are still reading, it is likely you are not a fan of either a clown nor a joker. You are stuck in the middle and trying to make sense of it all.

The sad truth of these lyrics is that those in the middle or anyone who tries to be objective about any issue today is bombarded by both the left and the right. If you prefer, again your choice, the objective or centrist person can be bombarded by both the conservatives and the liberals, the secularists and the religious or the pros and the cons.

The extent of the political divide in the United States may not be as extreme as some claim. It is possible that there is a large portion of the population that is decidedly centrist in its views. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine if that is true, and if it is, there does not seem to be a way for the middle to make its voice heard.

There was a time in this country when the middle could be heard. Surveys or polls would show something that sociologists have known for decades. On every issue, there are those strongly opposed to it, those strongly in favor of it and everyone else, regardless of what “it” is.

There was a time when survey data could be trusted. There was a time in this country when the news media worked to be objective reporters of facts. There was a time when even the most partisan politicians were civil to each other, at least publicly.

Today, the same demographic groups can be targeted by different researchers concerning the same issue and the results can be dramatically different. If there has ever been a time when the old saying, “Figures can’t lie, but liars can figure,” was more true than today, it would be hard to imagine.

Today, objective reporting of the news is almost impossible to find. Instead, the media practices a form of hybrid reporting that blends opinions and selected facts in a way that makes it almost impossible to know when the reporting stops and the opining begins. The confusion is further aggravated by the development of television programs, websites and publications that make the appearance of being news sources, but are really something else. They are, at best, comedic or satirical entertainment. At worst, they are outright propaganda.

Today, politicians attack each other viciously and personally. Political attacks have always been a part of campaigning for office. Politicians running for office have never been afraid to attack their opponents, but there was a time when “dirty tricks” and “smear tactics” were frowned upon by the voting public and media. In the modern political arena, it does not make any difference if it is an election campaign or a political dispute in Congress. It is no-holds-barred, down and dirty politics twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

A person who wants to make an objective decision about anything today is in trouble. Polling data is untrustworthy. News sources are suspect. Politicians believe civility and honesty are as old fashioned as handlebar mustaches and spittoons.

The objective person’s lot in life becomes even more difficult if they express what they feel is an objective opinion. Objective opinions, middle of the road positions, or an objection to what is obviously biased information will automatically result in an attack from one or both sides of the particular issue.

In the political and public media world, the attack will come from talking heads in the television and radio communities, as well as the blogosphere. That seems to be expected and accepted. What is disappointing and more bothersome is how this same attitude has trickled down, to steal a phrase, to the every day social media user.

Facebook, Twitter and chat room users seem to have no problem blasting another user’s comments. Instead of attempting a reasoned response or asking for more information, respondents will lash out at a person calling him or her a kool-aid drinker, an idiot or a hater.

Others seem to have no problem denigrating an entire group with sarcastic, or even offensive comments. At times it seems only the far (pick your poison, right or left) end of various political and social continua speak out on issues, and they do so either to intentionally offend or to provoke others to respond in kind.

I am not surprised this is the case, just disappointed. I am disappointed that people I know to be intelligent and caring individuals will lash out at any opposing view, and in some cases lash out when there is no real view expressed. When it is the clowns and jokers on both sides of an issue who get the attention, others will follow suit. When the clowns or the jokers in leadership roles on all sides of political issues set the example of making everything personal and aggressive, others will lower themselves to that level.

It seems the time of reason and common sense, not mutually exclusive by the way, is long past and forgotten. Today we live in a world where the outrageous gets the attention and notoriety gives one credibility. A world in which clowns and jokers compete with each other to see who can be the biggest buffoon on the talk shows. A world in which stating your opinion can result in you being unfriended or blocked, but ranting like a lunatic will make you trend up hyperbolically.2

 

© OneOldCop – 2017


  1. FYI- If you have comments, questions or suggestions for which you might want a response, please use the “Feedback or Comments” link at the top of the page. OneOldCop will respond in some manner as time permits. General comments may be submitted below.
  2. As I reread this prior to scheduling it for publication, I realized not only is it still germane, in some ways it was pointing to the presidential race of 2016, and ongoing campaign for 2018 and 2020.
Posted in Civility, Daily Life, Leadership, Manners, Political Extremes, Politics | Tagged , , , ,