Shouting Past Each Other

            I frequently post essays detailing my thoughts on current culture, society, and political machinations. Normally, I try to focus on ideas that undergird our culture and political decisions and not on specific individuals or their decisions. I try to raise ideas and let readers draw their own conclusions. But recently, I did take the time to criticize a specific policy and the decision that flowed from it.

            As expected, it infuriated some readers, pushing them to respond. I expected this and was not overly concerned. After all, if I enjoy freedom of speech, so should others. What surprised me was the virulence of some of the responses. I was also taken aback by the ad hominem attacks. One respondent demanded that I leave the country, moving to some unspecified place where I would learn the error of my ways and come groveling back, seeking forgiveness for my ignorance and boorish behavior. I was also a bit surprised at the vulgar language bandied about by some of the authors. Now, not all who responded negatively did so with vituperative vigor. Some respondents were gracious and careful in their wording, seeking to convince me with evidence and carefully constructed arguments. These were efficacious, forcing me to do more research and even adjust my thinking. One friend even approached me via a different platform, which resulted in an online conversation. What was the reason they chose another venue? They did not want to enflame the already burning passions. The result, again I was able to improve my understanding and further adjust my thinking. This one post and the associated exchanges reveal what is wrong and what is right in our current political communications model.

            What is wrong? We let our own ideological litmus test rule our passions. Anger replaces thoughtful measured response. If someone says or believes something we find unacceptable, we consider them the enemy and attack their character. We unleash withering broadsides comprised of angry attacks on the person with very little in the way of facts or other possibilities. We use language that is more fit for a barroom brawl than for a collegial debate. Our aim? Humiliation and validation. We seek to humiliate anyone that disagrees with us, and we desperately want validation from those who think the same as we do. We’re quite content to batter each other across the great divide we’ve constructed through our own intransigence.

            This mindset of intransigence and consigning all those who think differently to the enemy camp hobbles our national discourse, our politics, and our government. We accept boorish behavior from our elected officials and the accompanying policy failure as status quo. Oh, we blame those who think otherwise; but, we fail to own up to our own role in digging the dividing canyon and resultant chaos. We’ve forgotten the power of a well-spoken thoughtful word adroitly delivered.

            Returning to my recent experience. Those who sought to savage and pillory me had no real effect on my ideological construct. Their baseless attacks on my character and intelligence so obscured their ideas as to render them impotent. My friends who approached me with thoughtful words, appropriate facts, and well-reasoned ideas forced me to reconsider and reshape my worldview. Their words were powerful in effect, which is what we need. We do not need more braggadocios posturing. We do not need digital bullies who engage in personal attack when confronted with an idea or opinion that they do not like. If we’re ever going to find our way out of the morass which so stifles the goodness of our land, we must recover our ability to engage in civil discourse and even entertain ideas which, at first blush, we do not agree with. When we do that, we can start making good progress towards solving the problems that so vex us. 

Good News, Bad News

 

            I spent almost ten years wearing the “Green Tab” in the Army. The “Green Tab” was a small piece of green felt that I pinned around my epilate underneath my rank insignia, indicating that I was a troop leader. It also meant that I was responsible to my commander for the behavior, good or ill, of my troops. I was also responsible for the equipment and facilities I was signed for. As a second lieutenant I was responsible for over one hundred soldiers, NCOs, and a handful of civilian contractors. I was accountable for four buildings and millions of dollars of communications equipment. Additionally, I was responsible for communications links that sprawled across Europe and at times other parts of the world. The load only increased as I moved up the ladder. As part of this, I often had to bring my superiors bad news, always an experience full of trepidation. During the eighties and early nineties, some commanders embraced a zero-defect style of command. They considered any bad news a failure of one sort or another on my part. Bringing them bad news was always a journey through a minefield full of ambushes; consequently, their subordinates tended to drag their feet when delivering bad news. Often, they did not have a full understanding of how things were in their command; due in part to the hesitancy of their subordinates to deliver bad news and their unwillingness to deal appropriately with problems. Dealing with problems is a significant part of leadership.

            As a leader we must solve problems, and shooting the messenger is not a good way to solve problems. After you shoot a few messengers, they stop telling you the truth. They know that you do not really want to understand what is going on You simply want to feel good. I had one supervisor who had a sign on his wall which read, “If it looks good, it probably is.” That summed up his zero-defect view of the world quite well. In the late nineties, I took over a recruiting company, which was known across the command as a very problematic company. The commander had stopped caring and let things slide for a long time. Following the example set by the commander, most of the NCOs had stopped caring and did little to complete their mission. Before I took command, my commander pulled me aside and told me that I should, “Clean house.”

            One of the problems that I found was several NCOs who espoused racist attitudes and regularly used inappropriate language and actively sought to enlist young men and women that also embraced such an unacceptable attitude. It was evident that this problem was a cancer that infected the company, even into the leadership. It was so bad that it had drawn the interest of the local chapter of the NAACP. Gathering the evidence, I approached my commander with this disturbing news.

            Fortunately for me, he was not the kind of commander who would shoot the messenger. Instead, he, with clear eyes, assimilated the information, and together we took the actions necessary to root out the sickness and rectify the situation. Our willingness to confront the problem head on and take appropriate action to hold the guilty individuals accountable so impressed the NAACP representatives that instead of pillorying us, they applauded our actions. All this was due to my commander’s ability to absorb bad news, develop a plan, and then take affirmative action. Had he been a “shoot the messenger” kind of leader, the problem would have festered.

            Good leaders understand that at times they must deal with bad news. Dealing with bad news takes courage and fortitude. Beating up the bearers of bad news causes them to either keep it to themselves or to shade, color, or lie about it so that it is no longer bad. Either way, problems languish without a solution, often hidden from sight. Sooner or later, they will manifest themselves and usually are much worse and harder to solve due to the delay. We need fearless leaders that can face up to problems and then labor to solve them, not leaders who shoot the messenger.

The Tanker and Poetry

 

            “Sir, I’m just a DAT. I can’t understand that.”

            It was the early ‘90s at what was then Fort Hood, Texas. I was serving as the Signal Officer in an Armor Battalion, 3-66 Armor to be exact and training a young officer on how to use his radio. Now, I’m not a technically oriented person; however, the Army in all its collective wisdom decided that I would be a Signal Officer. In fact, my first assignment as an officer was to 5^th Signal Command, a fixed station unit which used satellite and terrestrial microwave technologies to extend voice and data communications from the supporting base to tactical units deployed to Europe and around the globe. Survival as an officer in such a highly technical organization required mastery of many different technologies and the leadership required to employ them. I was in over my head. Survival and promotion required that I learn and study. Fortunately, I served alongside some of the best NCOs and technicians in the free world who made my success their success. I went from that heady technical world into the tactical army replete with the hulking M1A1 Abrams and all the associated heavy machinery of armored warfare, and as the Signal Officer I was required to master a new set of technologies, FM and AM radio and the various computer systems required to shoot, move, and communicate. I also had to teach the tankers to do the same.

            DAT stands for Dumb Ass Tanker, a moniker the tankers tossed around with great aplomb and pride; though it was not a term they would accept from a non-tanker such as myself. The M1A1 Abrams is an incredibly complex piece of equipment. It uses a turbine engine, taken from the aviation world and modified to drive the 50-ton behemoth. Properly employed, an Abrams equipped battalion is an incredibly lethal organization able to rapidly kill and destroy over amazing distances. To appropriately fight such a tank or organization requires the mastery of many different skills and is not, repeat not,  possible for those of limited intellect. Though they loved to wrap themselves in the mantle of the DAT, tankers, good tankers, are among the smartest individuals to wear the uniform. Years later, after I retired from the Army, I plunged into a new world.

            I sought to satiate my innate abilities and teach English and Social Studies in the High School and Junior College arena. This required a return to school. So, I found myself in Graduate School. On a whim I signed up for a course Poetry, Form and Function. Dr. John Poch, the professor, asked me to stop by for a chat before the semester started. He informed me that this class was not sitting around and chatting about poems over coffee. While we would read and discuss the great poems through the ages, we would be required to write a poem each walk, using a particular form…none of them free-form. He wanted to see if I was willing to work in such a highly technical environment. Again, I was in quite over my head; however, with his help I learned and grew. I found that the world of poetry was much more technical and thrilling than I had ever known. I never became a great poet, that required a level of commitment, inspiration, and ability I was either unwilling or unable to summon. But I found a new love of the world of poetry, especially the Metaphysical poets of the seventeenth century. This new world of letters, social studies, and education required mastery of a new set of skills for survival.

            Success in any field of endeavor requires mastery of skills. It has always been that way and always will be that way. Pick any field and you will find that success hinges upon mastery. Blue-collar, white-collar, or techie, it does not matter. Mastery leads to success. My grandfathers and uncles, all blue-collar men were masters of their chosen trades. My father, a history professor, was a master of his chosen trade. And mastery, requires an intensive effort to understand the intricacies of craft, intellectual prowess in other words. The world is and has always been a complex place impervious to easy formulas or pat answers. This is what makes developing a political philosophy based on memes so hazardous.

            A meme is an amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media.¹ These fill the social media world and often induce a good laugh. But many people are starting to develop their political or religious world view through data gathered from memes. A recent opinion piece in the New York Times detailed this cultural shift. ² And while this article focused on conservative efforts in this arena, liberal groups display the same sorts of changes. “Influencers” seek to inform their audience through memes, claiming that modern youth do not have the attention span or time to consume and digest political material presented in more traditional formats. They claim to influence their target audience via memes and other similar formats, and they appear to be quite successful in their stated goal. But there is one glaring problem.

            The issues surrounding political theory defy easy explanation via meme. The problems we face as a nation or culture are much more complex. They always have been. This is not some sort of new societal geopolitical problem. A study of history reveals that once you get more than two people living together, problems become very complicated, refusing easy definitions and solutions. All of us love easy definitions and simple solutions; however, the real world does not work that way. It is impossible to compress a serious problem, such as the Israeli Palestinian conflict or progressive tax theory, into a short catchy phrase which entertains.

            We live in a complex world with many competing constituencies. Finding solutions which adequately services these, sometimes widely divergent, groups takes knowledge, understanding, time, and wisdom. You cannot employ a shortcut, but that is exactly what many “influencers” claim to do. They posit a new generation, which understands the world intuitively and is able to bypass the work of learning. They claim that “only young people know what the new world is like.”³ They purposefully sell an entire generation short and pander to its baser more ill-informed instincts.

            Such a crass and self-serving paradigm leads to faulty myopic policy which ultimately separates and does not serve the nation or society as a whole. Good policy takes thoughtful communication between stakeholders. Comprehensive strategy and programs require some level of compromise. Memes corrode compromise by creating cartoonish representatives of “the other” which bear little resemblance to actual people or groups. We need to stop flinging such snarky and sarcastic images at each other, claiming to have “owned” the opposition. Good governance, governance which serves the greater good for the greatest number of people, takes time, effort, intelligence, cooperation, and wisdom. We ought to jettison memes as a means of creating policy and building consensus, putting them in their proper place, a tidbit of humor that causes a chuckle. Let us leave the real work of developing a coherent and cogent policy to thoughtful consideration and hard work.       

           

1.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/opinion/trolling-democracy.html

3.  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/opinion/trolling-democracy.html

Juneteenth

            “@#%$!&* Baby Killers!” The epithet joined by a half-crushed beer can, bottle rocket, and offal soared out of a crowd on the other side of West Colfax Ave. in Denver, Colorado. It was the summer of 1981 and two friends of mine, fellow service members, and I were hoofing it back to Lowery, Air Force Base in the middle of the night. We’d attended a midnight movie, forgetting that the city buses stopped running at midnight. Being young and in shape we were unfazed by the prospect of the several-mile hike back to the barracks. However, we were surprised at the vehement treatment by the late-night crowds. In the days of long-haired rockers our buzz cuts identified us as military as clearly as if we’d worn our uniforms. We made it back to the barracks after a long and interesting night, but that is another story for another time. What really stuck with me was the hurt and anger I felt at being targeted by my appearance and nothing else.

            That experience has given me a small insight into the daily struggles that people of color face. Unlike my fellow citizens of color, I eventually left the military and grew a beard, and unless I wear my “Army-Retired” hat no one can really tell that I was once a soldier. Societal thoughts and practices eventually shifted, and thanks replaced curses. Unfortunately for my fellow citizens of color they don’t change, and our culture still suffers from lingering prejudice, which is why Juneteenth is so important.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

            While progress has been made, we have not arrived at that long-anticipated day Dr. King spoke of so eloquently. Those of color and other marginalized populations still suffer the indignities of prejudice. Often and in many ways, the playing field is tilted away from them. They still suffer from, often unseen, systems which make progress achingly difficult, if not impossible. To reach the goal of content of character we must continually strive for it, and that is why Juneteenth is so important.

            Remembering and celebrating Juneteenth helps reinvigorate our commitment to equality and opportunity. The hoary hand of prejudice often rises out of the tomb of historical eradication and must be re-slain and re-entombed. Sadly, the stream of human depravity flows through each generation. We cannot simply dust off our hands and say, “The job is done.” Juneteenth reminds us to find and root out what remains of societal and cultural prejudice. In many ways we’ve come far, let us not grow lax and let lingering hatred erode our progress. Each Juneteenth offers us an opportunity to think and reapply ourselves to the work of creating a more noble culture. Looking around provides us ample opportunities to address this centuries-old problem, ample opportunities to build a better society, ample opportunities to make a land where all can breathe free. Juneteenth is a good day to pause and recommit ourselves to the work still required.

EO and DEI

 

            I joined the Army in 1982 as the Army was reinventing and rebuilding itself from the post-Vietnam chaos. One of the challenges we faced was creating a force that somehow represented American society…demographically. Now as a private, this largely passed over my head. I was most focused on keeping the sergeants happy and avoiding interaction with officers altogether. Eventually I earned a commission, and this issue became one of many that I worried about. Truthfully, it was fairly far down on the list. Other items, maintenance, weapons qualification…and cleaning…, physical fitness, and paperwork filled most of my days; however, this issue did have significant impact on my world, namely as Equal Opportunity, normally referred to as EO.

            The EO program and all its subsidiary components was the Army’s plan to protect various minorities and to ensure that the force better represented the American demographic as a whole. For most of us, especially the white us, the EO program was fairly innocuous. It did not influence our daily lives. As an officer, I interacted with the EO program as a portion of the IG and other inspections. I also had an EO NCO in all my units who helped me make sure that I treated everyone evenhandedly. Rarely, I would have to answer an EO complaint. Fortunately for me, all those complaints against me were unfounded, though the investigation process could be intimidating. The Army used EO complaints and periodic EO briefings to help educate and improve the force. Though these efforts were not perfect, they helped us discard some old and rather bad habits. The EO program also influenced promotions, and here is where many complained.

            I was a young lieutenant when the Soviet Union collapsed, and the cold war wound down. The Army went through a series of reductions, shedding thousands of soldiers, NCOs, and officers. In many ways it was a daunting time professionally. Many friends, excellent officers and NCOs, found their careers cut short by the downsizing. In this atmosphere it was quite easy to blame EO. Though I do not know the exact mechanisms, I do have some knowledge of how the Army pursued creating a force that was demographically aligned with the American population.

            When the Army had a board for promotion or retention, the board would first determine all those administratively eligible for promotion. From that very large pool of highly qualified individuals the Army would then develop an order of merit list. In some ways this could be a bit arbitrary, but it was based on performance in general and in certain key positions, company commander, platoon leader, and the like. Once that list was created the Army would scrub it for demographic concerns. And this is where things get a bit sticky. Is it fair to move someone down on the order of merit list to elevate someone else based on race or gender? If we were talking about elevating an unqualified or lessor qualified individual over a more qualified one that would be problematic; but, such was not the case. The Army started with a very large pool of highly qualified individuals and sought to fill positions in a way that reflected our nation. Awaiting those board results was nerve wracking, but that was part of the process. The result of all those angst inducing machinations? The Army developed a highly professional force that well represented our nation.

            Sometimes when a board did not go your way, which happened to me, the temptation would be great to blame the EO process instead of your performance. The temptation to abandon cooperating and helping peers was also great. In one battalion that I served in our commander sensed a growing disunity and competition between the lieutenants. He gathered us all into a room and gave us this bit of very good advice.

            “Your fellow lieutenants are not your competition. You are only competing against yourself. If you strive to be the best officer that you can be and pull together as a team, then promotions and retention will take care of themselves.”

            It was excellent advice and helped build teamwork in the unit. As I remember, all the lieutenants in that room made captain and I knew several that made the exulted rank of colonel. But his true point was to avoid blaming others for our own lackadaisical attitude towards professionalism. This is the siren song of railing against EO, DEI, or any other program designed to help make the workforce more representative.

            Through its efforts the Army shed its post-Vietnam problems and emerged as a force which valued professionalism, afforded all members opportunities for advancement, and resembled the nation demographically. Did it always work? No, no organization, plan, or program is perfect. Later when I commanded a recruiting company, I learned even more about how this worked.

            As a recruiting company commander, my professional career hung on meeting monthly enlistment goals. These goals varied and were always hard to meet. While I met the raw numbers on a regular basis, I only mission-boxed once, recruiting speak for meeting all the numbers and categories assigned. I received regular reports on the demographics of my enlistees. The number-crunchers at Fort Knox, USAREC HQ, measured my success against the demographics of my company area. Truthfully, I never worried too much about the exact demographics as I struggled to meet the raw numbers. But I did find the data interesting. One area that I always failed in was enlisting wealthy white males. Rich kids just are not that interested in a life of service. They have many options. The Army understood the importance of a force that reflected the nation as a whole and how that enhanced unit cohesion. DEI and its predecessor EO worked to build a viable, vibrant, and strong organization.

            We do best as an Army, an organization, indeed as a nation when we strive to include all members of society. This comes with challenges as there are members of our society that find proximity to others uncomfortable. We all feel most relaxed around people who are like us. Most of my friends look kind of like me…old white guys. But it is those friends who think differently that add color and character to my life. And so it was in the Army.

            Though we all wore BDUs and “bled green” as it were, our differences brought vitality to the organization. My comrades from differing backgrounds brought different skills to the table. They often had a different way of solving a given problem. We were better for our eclectic character. I always found “Joint” (multi-service) and “Combined” (multi-national) operations challenging and invigorating. It is the same in society.

            We need not retreat from DEI and EO. These programs do not solve all problems, but they are a step in the right direction. Our country will thrive the most when people know that they are evaluated on the content of their character and abilities and not some arbitrary standard of sameness. All members of society have something to offer, and we need to do our best to open doors for their participation.

Deeds Inform Trust

 

            I’ve been reading a variety of posts and memes encouraging me to take a wait and see attitude towards the tactics of ICE rounding up all manner of aliens. ICE, under the direction of the administration, not only raids numerous workplaces, but also camps in the government buildings where immigration courts meet and detains or arrests individuals when they come in for scheduled court appearances. They are casting as large a net as possible in order to meet the stated administration goal of deporting more undocumented aliens than President Eisenhower. Their efforts and tactics have caused a considerable stir across the nation, and significant demonstrations in Los Angeles and New York. Some question the legality of detaining someone while they are attending a court ordered meeting as part of their process. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of men and women are being asked to wait and see while in custody.

            The idea of waiting and seeing implies a certain level of trust in the administration to properly work the system, to respect the concept of due process. Many of the memes and other postings claim that an undocumented alien does not deserve due process, which is untrue according to our legal system. In fact, due process enables us to verify a person’s legal status and take the appropriate action, whether that be release or deportation. Due process enables us to protect the innocent and hold the guilty accountable for their actions. We’ve long taken the stance that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and this is why I’m uncomfortable with the wait and see recommendation.

            Our administration has shown itself very willing to discard due process. They have already deported American citizens, adults and children. This callous attitude toward due process and human rights does not warrant my trust. Their willingness to deport citizens without cause, other than being brown and in the wrong place and wrong time, has eroded my trust. They must take steps to show that they understand due process and the roles of the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches. When they have trampled on due process, they have infringed upon the role of the judiciary. This lack of respect for the constitutional roles of government concerns me greatly. What is to stop them from detaining and then deporting me?

            This cavalier attitude towards due process and other civil liberties has eroded trust, and the administration needs to take appropriate measures to rebuild that trust. This does not mean that they need to give up on their stated goals; they just need to move the levers of government according to the Constitution and laws of the land. A population which does not trust its government will soon feel adrift and unattached. In this time, we need to work together to address the multitude of challenges that lay before us. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of good leadership and strength of character; both of which seem in short supply these days.

Budgets Speak

 

            Each month Christy and I engage in a small, but important, ritual. She sits down and sorts out the details of our budget. We set goals together, but she handles the heavy lifting of developing the detailed plan. She records it on a card and gives it to me. Then I fulfill my portion of the Robinson Budgetary Process, better known as the RBP. I go online and move money and pay bills via the internet. It is a small part, but it is my part, and I enjoy doing it. If you were to examine them, those cards speak loudly about our priorities as a couple.

            Peruse those cards and you will get a good picture of what we think is important. On each card you will find house and auto payments. Since we live on a dirt road that is frequently covered in snow during the winter and Christy often drives to Lubbock by herself, I support the expense of a good all-wheel-drive car. You will find out which charities we support and from that data glean a bit about where our heart lies. What we do with our share of this world’s resources says a lot about our morality. We are among the blessed who enjoy more resources than we need. And truth be told, for most Americans that is the case. Oh, we may get ourselves into such a situation that every dollar is spoken for; but, that is more due to our rapacious appetite than our actual physical needs. Just as our budgetary plans reveal what is important to us, our nation’s budget reveals our corporate priorities.

            A scan of the most recent budget proposals from the House of Representatives and the White House says much about what we consider important. Evidently, we consider providing tax relief to the wealthiest much more important than taking care of the most vulnerable in our society. Despite our protestations regarding deficit spending, we’re quite willing to add another trillion or so to the national debt to fund tax relief for the wealthiest and defense industries. We do not mind cutting out support for women, infants, and children. Medicaid designed to ensure that weakest among us do not go without basic healthcare is less important than a new weapons system…or two…or three. Protecting the environment, something we all depend on, does not rate very highly in our estimation, nor does improving our infrastructure, another thing we all depend upon. Our draconian reductions to the USAID budget send a very clear message to the world.

            We just do not care about those who suffer. All foreign aid consumed 1.17% of the budget in 2023.¹ Despite this rather parsimonious effort, our current administration has gone to great lengths to not only eradicate those funds, it has also sought to shutter the USAID department. These actions speak loudly concerning our priorities. They tell the world that we just do not care about those who suffer. We have no interest in the problems that they face. We cannot really justify these reductions as part of a plan to address the problems of our own people since we’re cutting what we spend to help our own population or poor families.

            If we want to be a nation known for our compassionate care for those who are less off, we must be willing to adjust our budget to reflect that. Contrary to popular belief, most taxpayers in the U.S. enjoy a lower tax rate than most of the rest of the world.² We think we’re highly taxed; however, an examination of the data shows otherwise. We also like to think that current government programs transfer wealth from the top to the bottom. Again, the data shows that is not the case.³ If we want to make judicious decisions regarding the construction of our budget, we must do so from an informed perspective.

            We must carefully think through our societal goals and the budgetary decisions that support those goals. For those of us who have the means, will we willingly allocate the funds needed to help the less off, or will we simply hoard our blessings to satiate our own desires. I believe that there are adequate resources to enable us to enjoy a high standard of living while helping those who are less off. After all, all of us have received help of some sort or another in our journey. We should willingly help those who are less well off. While we make lofty sounding pronouncements about concern for those less fortunate, our budget speaks more loudly. We wring our hands and spill much ink over a national debt; however, our budget shows that we do not really care. We like to believe that our economic system enables people to move from poverty to middle class; yet, our budget erects or strengthens barriers to such transitions. We talk about protecting the American Farmer, while we eviscerate the mechanisms and programs that support rural life. Our words paint one picture while our actions seek to erase that reality.

            If we want to live in a nation which fosters the spread of democracy, shows compassion for the weakest, and builds a thriving middle class, we must address our budget. Future generations will well understand our hypocrisy. They will read our words and evaluate them by our actions. I suspect that they will find us wanting in moral courage and strength of character.

           

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06/what-the-data-says-about-us-foreign-aid/

2.  https://www.worlddata.info/income-taxes.php

3.  https://www.epi.org/explorer/international