271. Can or should wars have rules?

When we were kids, like most siblings, we would get into disagreements about almost anything. We would punch, wrestle, and even throw things at each other.

However, regardless of how heated the arguments were, there was an unwritten rule between us that we didn’t hit each other in the head. I don’t know why, and I don’t know that we ever talked about it.

When it comes to war, there are also rules, both written and unwritten. Considering that war, which has existed since the beginning of humanity, is the perfect failure of humanity, it’s interesting that rules exist.

In the American Civil War, much was made about prisoner camps and exchanges. In a recent CNN report, an ISIS convert complained about the way the United States tortured and humiliated prisoners. Germany held and killed prisoners in deplorable concentration camps. Syria is not the first country to use chemical weapons and, of course, the United States is the only country to use the granddaddy of them all — the nuclear bomb.

So what are the rules of war? What should be the rules, or is an oxymoron to even have rules of war?

Obviously, we would like to think that war should be left to the professionals. Civilians, particularly children, should be not be military targets. However, terrorism and mass shootings specifically target civilians, successfully creating fear. And large-scale destruction, like nuclear bombs, probably cannot escape killing civilians.

There are “central principles” to war itself. Wikipedia notes several, such as, “Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction. Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible. People and property that do not contribute to the war effort should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship.”

And within those central principles, humanitarian rules of warfare exist. Here are a couple examples under the Geneva and Hague conventions:

     • Parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare civilian population and property. Adequate precautions shall be taken in this regard before launching an attack.

    • Captured combatants are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity, personal rights, and convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence and reprisals. They must have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.

    • Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare. It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.

Clearly, war is a messy subject and let’s be honest, when push comes to shove, and a country and its military has its back against the wall, you can throw the rules out the window. And what is the punishment for breaking the rules of engagement — more war?

If the world is so interested in protecting humanity, why not outlaw war altogether? Regardless of the rules of warfare, the act of war means that for often many years, precious resources will be wasted, families will be ruined, lives will end needlessly, and generations of hate will be created. And it is interesting, again oxymoronic, that in the tragedy of war, where soldiers and civilians are intentionally killed over economic resources, strategic military territories and religious reasons, that we don’t want to inflict unnecessary suffering.

Some of these conflicts are based on events that happened thousands of years ago. Grievances and prejudices that are taught rather than experienced. Passion ignites ideological differences as the fight surrounds the absurdity of which god reigns supreme. And, unfortunately, war and violence are the only things some ideologies understand.

There are times when war seems unavoidable, even justifiable, to protect the innocent from the brutality of radical groups or dictators. But war should always be a last resort, when reasonableness and diplomacy completely fail. It should never be the result of ego or ignorance. Too many lives and too many resources, which could be better used for real humanitarian issues, are at stake.

Here is a simple decree regarding the rules of engagement: No more war.

270. 'Fake News' is fake news.

President Trump has been running around like a four-year old, screaming “fake news” every time a newspaper or news organization runs a story or segment criticizing him or his administration.

If Trump is going to run around proclaiming “fake news,” he should at least know what it really means. There is a difference between fake news, satire, biased reporting and inaccurate reporting.

Wikipedia helps out with the difference between fake news and satire, “Fake news websites (also referred to as hoax news) deliberately publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news — often using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect. Unlike news satire, fake news websites seek to mislead, rather than entertain, readers for financial, political, or other gain.

This is to say that fake news is the deliberate publication of news, with the intent to mislead naïve readers, that is blatantly false. Often, fake news is so outrageous that even a moderate skeptic would think two things 1) that’s seems really far-fetched or unlikely, I should look that up and 2) if it were true, why isn’t it all over the news and circulating though legitimate news organizations.

Shepard Smith of Fox News, apparently tired of the president’s whining, further explained, “For the record, ‘fake news’ refers to stories that are created, often by entities pretending to be news organizations, solely to draw clicks and views and are based on nothing of substance. In short, fake news is made up nonsense delivered for financial gain. CNN’s reporting was not fake news. Its journalists followed the same standards to which other news organizations, including Fox News, adhere.”

Journalism has reporting standards, including the sourcing of information. Certainly, there is bias, consider the assault Fox News levied on President Obama. They attacked him constantly. Regardless, freedom of the press should ensure that the dissemination of information and opinion, even unfavorable opinion, is not banned.

It even appears now that Trump’s administration is ready to pick and choose which news organizations will be permitted access to White House briefings. In are organizations like Breitbart and all its connections to the Trump organization and out are organizations like CNN and New York Times who regularly report on the national concerns.

The country should be appalled and terrified.  If there has ever been a president and administration that needs to be held accountable for their actions and the information it shares, it is this one. Trump’s statements have been fact-checked over and over, and it has been established that more than every other thing out of mouth is not completely true.

In other words, the last person, by his definition, that should be complaining about fake news is Trump himself.

Fake news is not simply a difference of opinion or an unflattering account of the way the Trump administration is being managed. What Trump is describing is dissent and resistance—tenets of American democracy. To dismiss, minimize and delegitimize it is the act of a narcissist and hints at oppression.

For example, the New York Times story about members of the Trump campaign talking to Russians is not fake news. Were there any inaccuracies in the story? Perhaps, but it was legitimate reporting from an established newspaper. Considering the relationship Trump has had with Russia, the story is more likely true than inaccurate—but, by any objective standard, it could never be considered fake news.

Regardless of how someone feels about Trump, his proclaimed attack on the media is not acceptable. Trump can only “cry wolf” so many times before people realize he is the problem—not the media.  To declare war on the media is to declare war on the search for the truth about our government. Journalists don’t want to get the story wrong—it’s embarrassing for them. Same for the news outlets. When mistakes are made, they should be admitted, retracted and offer an apology. It’s about being a professional—something Trump seems to know little about.

The irony is that the media created Trump. He owes his success to the media as he received much more media coverage in the presidential campaign that any other candidate. In fact, many have blamed the media for the extensive coverage they gave him in exchange for viewer ratings, and that his many transgressions were not more thoroughly reported. Trump likes the media when it benefits him and tries to discredit them when it criticizes him. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. You’re the president, you accepted the job—now accept the responsibility and scrutiny that comes with the position.

269. Our health is too important for political football

In illustrating his ignorance, President Donald Trump asked the question, “Who knew health care could be so complicated?”

I have two responses. The first is that everyone, literally everyone, knows health care is complicated. The second is, who elects someone who doesn’t understand that?

Trump said he was going to repeal the Affordable Care Act “immediately,” and “replace it with something terrific.” He and the Republicans failed to do so, despite having full control of the Senate, House of Representative and the White House and despite having obsessed about its repeal for seven years. They finally got in the game and choked — they looked like deer in the headlights. They were clueless and reports of their negotiations indicated they were willing to sell out the essentials of health care to avoid political embarrassment.

Health care affects everyone and almost always in multiple ways. It not only affects ourselves, it affects our family and friends. Most of us have seen someone we love fall ill, or become addicted to drugs, or suffer from mental health issues. It affects our finances and sometimes where and how long we work. Without health care coverage, people risk bankruptcy each and every day. Many also work in the health care field, directly or indirectly. Large complex medical corporations, hospital networks, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies employ millions.

And it affects everyone differently in terms of affordability and coverage. Health care is different for poor people and rich people. For individual and for families. For older people and younger people. For men and women. For people in different states. And for the employed, self-employed, and unemployed.

In that respect, that mostly white, wealthy men are making all the decisions is neglecting the challenges of diversity.

I have long advocated for national health care. Everyone pays, everyone is covered. Employers wouldn’t have to worry about providing insurance for their employees and people could work (or retire) without considering medical benefits. The large profits would be removed from the health care system — no longer would skyrocketing costs be associated with insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Government health care is nonprofit, with reasonable costs and modest salaries.

In that respect, I have no emotional or political ties to Obamacare. It is better than nothing, for sure, but falls short of what national health care could offer. I don’t know if health care is necessarily a right, but it is the right thing to do. It’s about human compassion and human decency. It seems for Republicans, health care is more about money than about people. It also seems driven by politics and not by the heart.

I will not gloat at the president’s loss. And I am disturbed by anyone who would take pleasure in letting Obamacare fail. If it fails, people get hurt. And if you are the president and have full control of Congress, and you think the lives of American citizens are at risk, then you have an obligation to improve health care. It is about the people, not your damaged ego.

Health care is hard work, there are lots of interests at stake, it impacts everyone, and is one-sixth of our economy. That unprepared Republicans attempted to make changes to health care in 64 days, and that the president abruptly ended negotiations, displays ignorance and arrogance.

For many Republicans, this was a political promise; for Trump, in a world lacking specifics, where things are either a “disaster” or terrific,” it was way too complicated to hold his attention.

The country should be offended with the effort made by Republicans. Health care is too important. It needs to be a bipartisan effort, considering both the financial and health aspects of this enormous industry. And in doing so, it should be carefully researched in all its complexity. There is a reason Obamacare was thousands of pages long.

However, I can save them some work. The simple answer, embraced by many other countries, continues to be national health care

268. We can’t let this happen to the women we love

I am embarrassed to admit that there was a time when I would roll my eyes when feminists spoke of living in a “rape culture.”

Of course, I knew it happened, it was horrible, and even once was too often, but I just didn’t consider it rampant and felt that the use of the word “culture” was exaggerated for effect. I thought it was isolated to hardened criminals.

I have been in plenty of locker rooms and heard all the crude and degrading comments made about women. I never heard anyone bragging about assaulting or raping a woman, but I heard them being treated as sexual objects. Of course, for some men, it was banter, and often exaggeration, in trying to keep up or blend in with other teammates. Most could tell the difference, and it wasn’t my view of women and it wasn’t the view of my friends. That kind of talk never appealed to me.

A rape culture is not just about how often it happens, it includes society’s attitude about it. And I would include all forms of sexual misconduct, such as sexual assault, stalking, sexual harassment, and revenge porn or photo sharing. It becomes a “culture” when it is prevalent, accepted, or normalized in society. The acceptance in society is directly related to the consequences of the action — namely how severely it is viewed as a crime and the degree of punishment.

Sexual crimes, in all their varying degrees, are everywhere. They are in the home, where there are many heartbreaking reports of children being raped by family members. We see them in high school, in everyday sharing of sexting photos and in well-publicized cases such as the Steubenville football team and the .

If you are not familiar with the Steubenville case, it resulted in convictions of two players who raped involved a high school girl; bystanders snapped pictures and spread them on social media. Steubenville officials were also charged with obstruction of justice for trying to cover up the crime. It’s disturbing that the Steubenville case divided the town — primarily because the accused were players in a football-crazed town. There was a segment of the town willing to blame the victim and support the coach.

Rape culture is prevalent in college, where recently institutions of higher education, such as Penn State and Baylor, have been forced to deal with very serious allegations of sexual misconduct and cover-ups. At Penn State, coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted for sexually molesting young boys and two other administrators pleaded guilty for mishandling the issue. At Baylor University, Marc Tracy and Dan Barry of the New York Times reported that “the allegations of sexual assault by Baylor football players have multiplied, causing incalculable damage to the university’s reputation and leading to resignations and firings, including those of the president, the football coach, and the athletic director.” After one of the victims reported the rape, she alleged in a lawsuit that “she encountered an indifference on campus — even a callousness — that baffled and wounded her.”

Sexual harassment in the workplace uses power and fear to solicit sexual activity. Recently, hundreds of employees at Sterling Jewelers have sued the company for “fostering rampant sexual harassment and discrimination.”

In politics, sexual misconduct allegations surround President Donald Trump for his admission on a hot microphone of sexual assault. Even though he admitted the inappropriate touching of women, on tape and unprovoked, almost 63 million Americans still voted for him. In entertainment, many were stunned when Bill Cosby was accused of a multitude of drug-related rapes.

And recently, the military has come under investigation for the posting of nude female service members. Marine veteran Thomas Brennan, who runs a nonprofit news organization called The War Horse, wrote that a Facebook group called Marines United had around 30,000 members and shared the nude photos while also encouraging the sexual assault of the women who had been photographed.

The effect of the crimes range from violence to humiliation. The physical and mental scars can last a lifetime, and personal and professional relationships can be permanently destroyed.

The statistics also support the claim of a rape culture. Because of under-reporting and definition discrepancies, actual numbers can be difficult to positively assert. But some claims are as high as one in five women will be raped or face an attempted rape in their lifetime and one in two women will face some sort of sexual crime.

Even if these numbers are significantly lower, they are way too high.

To be fair, there are false accusations, such as the Duke lacrosse team, which equally traumatized the athletes that were accused. And there are some arguments for personal responsibility — especially with the accessibility to social media. Each allegation is different and it is often “he said-she said.”

It appears, based on the reported prevalence of sexual assaults and the dismissive attitudes of not only authoritative figures but oftentimes public opinion, that the undercurrent of a rape culture does seem to exist. For men who would act with fury if their mother, wife, sisters, or daughters were sexually assaulted, it is unacceptable and disturbing how dismissive they can be toward other women.