Kerby Anderson
During this campaign season, will voters settle for generalities, or will they demand specifics? We will find out in seven weeks. Politicians are known for speaking with vague platitudes, but usually they are forced to give more specific answers when asked by voters or the media. Because this commentary is heard nationally, I will focus on the presidential candidates, though I could also use the state and local elections to illustrate my point as well.
Kamala Harris talks in generalities: “In our nation, I think the people are ready to turn the page … one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class … we need a new way forward.” Every time she uses one of these catch phrases and filler words, I want to ask: How do you plan to do this?
There are some specifics like a proposed 28% tax on long-term capital and a tax on unrealized capital gains for taxpayers with a high net worth. But specifics are rarely mentioned. Instead, phrases about hope, optimism, and a way forward are used frequently.
By contrast, you have speeches and interviews with Donald Trump where he proposes an extension of his previous tax rates and a targeted tax cut. He wants to establish a Government Efficiency Commission. This time he proposes removing 10 regulations for every one regulation.
One of the biggest criticisms at the Democratic Convention was of Project 2025, which is full of specific recommendations. The Trump administration may not implement many of them, and you may not like some of them. But the 900-page document is detailed and specific.
This election will determine if voters settled for generalities or demanded specifics. American voters deserve more than vague platitudes and campaign slogans.

Kerby Anderson
Should parents be held criminally liable if their child shoots others in a school or public place? That is a question being considered in Georgia. The 14-year-old shooter (who killed four people) has been indicted, but so has his 54-year-old father.
Earlier this year, a jury in Michigan convicted parents after their son killed four students and wounded six others. They were prosecuted for being negligent. They knew of their son’s mental health issues and failed to secure the family firearms.
Let’s look at this question logically and take guns out of the equation for a minute. Imagine a 4-year-old is left in a car that is running for a moment by a mother (who went to get the mail or open the garage door). He jumps into the car seat, somehow puts the car in reverse and backs over and kills four people. I think all of us would assume the parents are fully responsible for his act because of negligence.
Now change it to a 30-year-old in a car who mows down and kills four people in a moment of road rage. We wouldn’t hold the parents responsible at all. But what would we think if it was a 14-year-old doing the same thing?
In the Georgia case, there are other factors. The shooter had made previous threats and was interviewed by the police. His father bought him the gun. Other family members report the family was dysfunctional and the boy was the subject of lots of verbal abuse and suffering from significant emotional turmoil.
Those factors explain why the Georgia authorities charged the father with involuntary manslaughter, second degree murder, and cruelty to children. We will learn more as the case progresses, but this case sends a clear signal to parents that they are responsible for their child’s mental state and subsequent actions.