"There were giants in those days . . ."
This cryptic phrase comes from Genesis 6, the chapter detailing why God decided to flood the earth. According to the passage, not only did God intend to remove the wickedness of mankind, but also of others.
Two groups of sentient beings other than man receive mention in the chapter. "Giants," translated from nephilim. It also notes the existence of "the sons of God."
The Bible mentions nephilim in two places, Genesis and Numbers. Numbers 13:30 also relates that Moses's spies in Canaan ran across "men of great stature." The sons of God appear nowhere else.
Genesis describes how the sons of God took wives from the daughters of men, "the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Biblical scholars speculate at great length on this puzzling passage. Different experts concluded that they were descendants of Seth, another child of Adam and Eve. Others guess that they were fallen angels or space aliens.
The answer, however, might come from science.
Researchers concluded several years ago that all humans can trace their mitochondrial DNA back to a single woman in East Africa. Science calls her "mitochondrial Eve." Her likely emergence in the Great Rift Valley parallels Biblical descriptions of Eden. Now a desert, the valley once held many rivers and a rain forest environment.
As mankind spread through and eventually escaped Africa, scientists have determined that our species inevitably encountered closely related hominids. Human DNA reveals intertwining with three other species. One was identified long ago, traditionally called "Neanderthal Man," scientifically homo neandeerthalensis.
In the past couple of years, scientists found DNA and fossil traces of a Siberian based species called for now simply "Denisovans." More study is needed to properly classify this group, but many see them as an offshoot of the Neanderthals. Even more enticing is the discovery this year of "mystery species" traces in human DNA. No fossil record at all exists of this group.
Science and the Bible may link here. The mixture of DNA reveals that modern man (homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens) must have interbred with these other species. No other explanation exists for how the DNA could have intertwined.
Oral histories of some peoples are believed to extend back tens of thousands of years. Recorded history only extends back 5,000 years. Cave paintings by either humans or Neanderthals date back over 40,000. The recent Royal Society of London's presentations posit that the interspecies interactions could have taken place as early as 30,000 years ago.
Looking at the Bible as a possible record of these events not only fits this timeline, it also allows for a Great Flood related to massive meltoffs of glaciers at the end of one of the several ice ages.
The Bible is not the only source for these anecdotes. Greeks also passed stories of powerful giants in prehistory, as well as a civilization drowned under the water. Many other cultures from that period have similar tales to tell.
Strangely enough, most academics prefer to describe these tales as "myths." Mythology implies almost an almost total fictional basis. Legends may be a more apt description. There is some truth at the foundation, although time and practice may have embellished it (definitely did in the case of the Greeks.) That is not to suggest that titans roamed the earth with divine powers. But so many cultures have descriptions of powerful hominids who didn't survive and floods that wiped out civilizations.
The Occam's razor principle demands that science at least consider that oral traditions that led to great civilizations like ancient Israel and Greece may have something to contribute to the conversation. The Old Testament/Torah is more reliable than the Greek stories because it was not corrupted through enhancement of its entertainment value during written history. The Bible comes from a much more sacred and important tradition. If the ancient Israelites followed the mores of most oral societies, correct passage from one generation to the next was a high priority.
In any event, the very fact that the Bible's oldest accounts correlate with new discoveries should be news.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Turner Field or the Colosseum?
Turner Field was built in 1995 Anno Domini at a final cost of just over $200 million. It originally seated 89,000, but capacity fell to nearly 50,000 after its reconstruction into a baseball park.
The stadium looks remarkably similar to other baseball parks built at the time, which feature asymmetrical outfields. Designers incorporated spaces for food courts, but probably not much thought to aesthetic designs.
As it stands now, Turner Field will cease to be useful after 20 years of service. It replaced Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium which served both the Atlanta Falcons and the Atlanta Braves. It was demolished after 30 years.
Atlanta also features other sports stadiums, such as the Georgia Dome and Atlanta Motor Speedway.
Its projected replacement in Cobb County, Georgia, will likely cost at least $650 million.
The Colosseum opened in 80 Anno Domini. Its final cost was measured in Roman specie, but some have estimated that it may cost nearly $1 billion in modern money.
That would be before union contracts depending on the state.
Roman designers used concentric circles of arches as the basis of its design. This gave it unparalleled strength to seat 80,000 spectators over centuries. It was constructed of concrete, stone, and marble seating. Authorities staged a variety of events there including gladiatorial games, plays, the ruthless killing of social outcasts by animals, and even mock naval battles on water.
Rome constructed an even larger stadium, the Circus Maximus, for chariot races. It seated 250,000.
The city used this stadium for centuries. Despite earthquakes and the theft of materials for building over the past 2,000 years, two thirds of it remains standing. Below is how it likely looked in its original form.
Rome may have spent over $1 billion for its signature stadium. But how much will metropolitan Atlanta donors, businesses, and taxpayers shell out for Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, Turner Field, and the new Cobb County facility in a span of just about a half century?
We should take a lesson from the Romans. Invest to last. Build to last. Stop sticking taxpayers with disposable stadiums.
The stadium looks remarkably similar to other baseball parks built at the time, which feature asymmetrical outfields. Designers incorporated spaces for food courts, but probably not much thought to aesthetic designs.
As it stands now, Turner Field will cease to be useful after 20 years of service. It replaced Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium which served both the Atlanta Falcons and the Atlanta Braves. It was demolished after 30 years.
Atlanta also features other sports stadiums, such as the Georgia Dome and Atlanta Motor Speedway.
Its projected replacement in Cobb County, Georgia, will likely cost at least $650 million.
The Colosseum opened in 80 Anno Domini. Its final cost was measured in Roman specie, but some have estimated that it may cost nearly $1 billion in modern money.
That would be before union contracts depending on the state.
Roman designers used concentric circles of arches as the basis of its design. This gave it unparalleled strength to seat 80,000 spectators over centuries. It was constructed of concrete, stone, and marble seating. Authorities staged a variety of events there including gladiatorial games, plays, the ruthless killing of social outcasts by animals, and even mock naval battles on water.
Rome constructed an even larger stadium, the Circus Maximus, for chariot races. It seated 250,000.
The city used this stadium for centuries. Despite earthquakes and the theft of materials for building over the past 2,000 years, two thirds of it remains standing. Below is how it likely looked in its original form.
Rome may have spent over $1 billion for its signature stadium. But how much will metropolitan Atlanta donors, businesses, and taxpayers shell out for Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, Turner Field, and the new Cobb County facility in a span of just about a half century?
We should take a lesson from the Romans. Invest to last. Build to last. Stop sticking taxpayers with disposable stadiums.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
John F. Kennedy a Half Century Later: A Legacy of Effectiveness and Cheating
John F. Kennedy is an American paradox. His smiling visage was what New Dealers and their protegees imagined themselves to be. But Kennedy also reflected the corruption and dishonesty behind the attractive facade and earnestly stated intentions. Like his successor Richard Nixon, Kennedy mixed idealism and pragmatism well. Both were effective presidents. But neither could escape the temptations of shooting a few rounds of dirty pool.
Kennedy was the perfect convergence of image, style, and accomplishment. He was a genuine war hero, served respectably in the US Senate, and seemingly outpaced the shadow surrounding his bootlegger, Nazi sympathizing father.
The campaign of 1960 should historically bury John F. Kennedy's legacy in the same grave as Richard Nixon. Falsely campaigning in the general election on the missile gap perpetuated a serious fraud on the voters. Kennedy knew, via national security estimate provided as a courtesy, that the US was comfortably ahead of the Soviet Union in weaponry. Yet he played on fears stoked by the Soviets that they had reached parity. Nixon could not refute the claims without breaking national security laws. His silence on the issue cost him.
But if Kennedy had campaigned honestly, would he have even won nomination?
Justice Allen Loughry of the West Virginia State Supreme Court of Appeals, penned a dissertation at American University that covered political scandals from 1960 until the 1990s. The book published from it, Don't Buy Another Vote, I Won't Pay For a Landslide comes from Kennedy's glib reaction to accusations of cheating during that year.
Loughry's work draws from sources such as former political boss Raymond Chafin's Just Good Politics, among others. It describes in detail how Kennedy campaign money appeared in southern West Virginia counties. Once this money appeared, bosses supporting Hubert Humphreys overnight switched to Kennedy. In those days, the bosses and their slate always won the day. They had many loaves and fishes on the State Road Commission and public school system to distribute among helpful supporters.
And Ted Kennedy himself was in charge of Southern West Virginia, although no one has ever directly accused him of malfeasance.
Kennedy beat Nixon by a whisker in 1960.
Conservatives like to argue that Kennedy was not an effective president. Setting aside one of the most corrupt presidential campaigns ever for now, did Kennedy govern effectively?
He did. Kennedy understood that a strong national economy dovetailed into higher levels of respect for America around the globe, enhancing national security. He also understood 15 years before Laffer drew his famous curve that lower taxes spurred economic growth.
That being said, he combined lower taxes with increasing domestic spending. Chaffin actually demands the credit for giving Kennedy the idea about food stamps, but this could be a reach. Domestic spending on welfare and development programs expanded, along with defense. Kennedy wanted flexible response options, so his administration ratcheted up spending on weapons systems.
In foreign policy Kennedy was aggressively, maybe even recklessly interventionist in his thinking. In 1961, he tried to convince his military leadership of the wisdom in deploying troops into Laos to fight Communist rebels. This belies the liberal fairy tale that Kennedy would have avoided Vietnam.
In honesty, he may have torpedoed our main chance at victory by approving the assassination of South Vietnamese president Diem. Imperfect as Diem was, that was a truly Roman Empire-esque action against an allied head of state.
The Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco does lay at Kennedy's door. He was misinformed and inexperienced, but that was his fault. Kennedy gets blamed for the Berlin Wall going up, but short of war no one could have stopped that. The "ich bin ein Berliner" speech may have been awkward Deutsch, but Germans understood and remain thankful.
Kennedy's signature move represented leadership at its best. After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy listened to advice from the president he abused through much of 1960, Dwight Eisenhower. He listened to his advisers as a group rather than one on one, learning lessons from their disputes. Kennedy preserved American respect and strength without firing a shot. He deserves tremendous credit for that.
Kennedy did make powerful moves in the service of civil rights. He helped to rekindle J. Edgar Hoover's old hatred of the terrorist Ku Klux Klan. Attorney General Robert Kennedy allowed Hoover to open up a bag of tricks on the Klan reminiscent of the Czarist Okhrana, plus adding a few of his own. Whether or not one agrees that the tactics were justified, they worked. Under Kennedy's presidency, Hoover broke the Klan.
The Civil Rights Act, however, would not pass in its most effective form until the chief executive behind it spoke with a Texas accent.
Kennedy deserves credit for some notable achievements and blame for policy missteps. Overall, he served as an active, dynamic, and effective president with vision and ability, same as Nixon.
Both men, on the other hand, had crimes committed on their behalf that struck at the heart of the American democratic system. In Watergate, staff broke into a locked office to spirit away secret campaign files (this also happened to Republicans in Washington state in 2008.) Kennedy's 1960 campaign suborned Democratic Party officials at the local level in West Virginia to steal primary support.
It wasn't "just good politics." It was a crime. And few people outside of West Virginia have any interets in adding this to Kennedy's legacy.
The passage of time mellows the most intense of hatreds and even some hero-worshiping.
We owe it to history to start getting the story straight on President Kennedy.
Kennedy was the perfect convergence of image, style, and accomplishment. He was a genuine war hero, served respectably in the US Senate, and seemingly outpaced the shadow surrounding his bootlegger, Nazi sympathizing father.
The campaign of 1960 should historically bury John F. Kennedy's legacy in the same grave as Richard Nixon. Falsely campaigning in the general election on the missile gap perpetuated a serious fraud on the voters. Kennedy knew, via national security estimate provided as a courtesy, that the US was comfortably ahead of the Soviet Union in weaponry. Yet he played on fears stoked by the Soviets that they had reached parity. Nixon could not refute the claims without breaking national security laws. His silence on the issue cost him.
But if Kennedy had campaigned honestly, would he have even won nomination?
Justice Allen Loughry of the West Virginia State Supreme Court of Appeals, penned a dissertation at American University that covered political scandals from 1960 until the 1990s. The book published from it, Don't Buy Another Vote, I Won't Pay For a Landslide comes from Kennedy's glib reaction to accusations of cheating during that year.
Loughry's work draws from sources such as former political boss Raymond Chafin's Just Good Politics, among others. It describes in detail how Kennedy campaign money appeared in southern West Virginia counties. Once this money appeared, bosses supporting Hubert Humphreys overnight switched to Kennedy. In those days, the bosses and their slate always won the day. They had many loaves and fishes on the State Road Commission and public school system to distribute among helpful supporters.
And Ted Kennedy himself was in charge of Southern West Virginia, although no one has ever directly accused him of malfeasance.
Kennedy beat Nixon by a whisker in 1960.
Conservatives like to argue that Kennedy was not an effective president. Setting aside one of the most corrupt presidential campaigns ever for now, did Kennedy govern effectively?
He did. Kennedy understood that a strong national economy dovetailed into higher levels of respect for America around the globe, enhancing national security. He also understood 15 years before Laffer drew his famous curve that lower taxes spurred economic growth.
That being said, he combined lower taxes with increasing domestic spending. Chaffin actually demands the credit for giving Kennedy the idea about food stamps, but this could be a reach. Domestic spending on welfare and development programs expanded, along with defense. Kennedy wanted flexible response options, so his administration ratcheted up spending on weapons systems.
In foreign policy Kennedy was aggressively, maybe even recklessly interventionist in his thinking. In 1961, he tried to convince his military leadership of the wisdom in deploying troops into Laos to fight Communist rebels. This belies the liberal fairy tale that Kennedy would have avoided Vietnam.
In honesty, he may have torpedoed our main chance at victory by approving the assassination of South Vietnamese president Diem. Imperfect as Diem was, that was a truly Roman Empire-esque action against an allied head of state.
The Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco does lay at Kennedy's door. He was misinformed and inexperienced, but that was his fault. Kennedy gets blamed for the Berlin Wall going up, but short of war no one could have stopped that. The "ich bin ein Berliner" speech may have been awkward Deutsch, but Germans understood and remain thankful.
Kennedy's signature move represented leadership at its best. After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy listened to advice from the president he abused through much of 1960, Dwight Eisenhower. He listened to his advisers as a group rather than one on one, learning lessons from their disputes. Kennedy preserved American respect and strength without firing a shot. He deserves tremendous credit for that.
Kennedy did make powerful moves in the service of civil rights. He helped to rekindle J. Edgar Hoover's old hatred of the terrorist Ku Klux Klan. Attorney General Robert Kennedy allowed Hoover to open up a bag of tricks on the Klan reminiscent of the Czarist Okhrana, plus adding a few of his own. Whether or not one agrees that the tactics were justified, they worked. Under Kennedy's presidency, Hoover broke the Klan.
The Civil Rights Act, however, would not pass in its most effective form until the chief executive behind it spoke with a Texas accent.
Kennedy deserves credit for some notable achievements and blame for policy missteps. Overall, he served as an active, dynamic, and effective president with vision and ability, same as Nixon.
Both men, on the other hand, had crimes committed on their behalf that struck at the heart of the American democratic system. In Watergate, staff broke into a locked office to spirit away secret campaign files (this also happened to Republicans in Washington state in 2008.) Kennedy's 1960 campaign suborned Democratic Party officials at the local level in West Virginia to steal primary support.
It wasn't "just good politics." It was a crime. And few people outside of West Virginia have any interets in adding this to Kennedy's legacy.
The passage of time mellows the most intense of hatreds and even some hero-worshiping.
We owe it to history to start getting the story straight on President Kennedy.
The Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
November 19, 1863
Is European Anti-Semitism Back?
One in three European Jews has felt at some time or another recently that Europe has grown so hostile that they considered moving.
This comes from an online survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The same survey revealed that one in four Jews had suffered either harassment or direct attacks due to their faith.
Reason magazine reported these findings in a broader piece underscoring the growing problem of anti-Jewish intolerance in Europe.
Anti-Semitism was blamed on left wing politics and Islamic extremism. Only 19 percent blamed "right wing" individuals or groups. It should be noted, of course, that some neo Nazi groups have come together in Central Europe. They, presumably, cling to the traditionally irrational hatreds. Many misidentify Nazis as "right" when their traditions and ideology speak to a leftist origin.
A Norwegian academic even resurrected the old czarist hoax "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This was a tract concocted by the Russian secret police to discredit that country's Jews. It distracted attention away from the tottering Czar and directed it toward the vulnerable Jewish community. Treating it as legitimate reflects a horrifying tendency among European leftists to more brazenly unearth centuries old hatreds and stereotypes thought dead for decades.
This is no sign of the return of the nightmare of the Holocaust, but the dangers of prejudice and persecution are real. European peoples do not enjoy the same constitutional protections taken for granted in the United States. Rights and liberties are more easily infringed upon (for example, Britain is considering legislation that could seriously impact the right of the free press in that country.)
Americans in love with what they think is the superior European culture should look again at the dark underbelly of prejudice that lurks just beneath its urbane surface.
This comes from an online survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The same survey revealed that one in four Jews had suffered either harassment or direct attacks due to their faith.
Reason magazine reported these findings in a broader piece underscoring the growing problem of anti-Jewish intolerance in Europe.
Anti-Semitism was blamed on left wing politics and Islamic extremism. Only 19 percent blamed "right wing" individuals or groups. It should be noted, of course, that some neo Nazi groups have come together in Central Europe. They, presumably, cling to the traditionally irrational hatreds. Many misidentify Nazis as "right" when their traditions and ideology speak to a leftist origin.
A Norwegian academic even resurrected the old czarist hoax "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This was a tract concocted by the Russian secret police to discredit that country's Jews. It distracted attention away from the tottering Czar and directed it toward the vulnerable Jewish community. Treating it as legitimate reflects a horrifying tendency among European leftists to more brazenly unearth centuries old hatreds and stereotypes thought dead for decades.
This is no sign of the return of the nightmare of the Holocaust, but the dangers of prejudice and persecution are real. European peoples do not enjoy the same constitutional protections taken for granted in the United States. Rights and liberties are more easily infringed upon (for example, Britain is considering legislation that could seriously impact the right of the free press in that country.)
Americans in love with what they think is the superior European culture should look again at the dark underbelly of prejudice that lurks just beneath its urbane surface.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Thornsbury Scandal Should Provide New Impetus For Calls to Create Appeals Court In West Virginia
The Mingo scandals have been well-publicized around the nation. But could they change the state constitution?
Currently, West Virginia's court system relies on courts of original jurisdiction and one appellate court. That is, there are six courts where cases may originate. Civil or criminal cases can be appealed to the State Supreme Court of Appeals, but that court has discretion over whether it accepts an appeal or not. In recent years, the State Legislature has shot down proposals to create an intermediate court of appeals.
Now the corruption and abuse by former Circuit Court Judge Michael Thornsbury should force reconsideration.
An intermediate appeals court can rectify and even prevent the kinds of abuses that Thornsbury attempted. It could uncover the ham handed frame ups. More importantly, its very existence could make corrupt judges think twice about abusing the system.
Circuit court judges are elected. Their re-election depends upon personal popularity more than observance of the law. This could sway even honest minds. Corporations have found some circuits unfairly biased against business defendants. This has been cited as a major reason why West Virginia remains a "judicial hellhole" where business often cannot get an even shake. Conversely, the support of business could sway some judges too fr he other way.
Our suggestion is to divide the state into three sections. Judges will serve six year terms, staggered every two years. Judges could be nominated by the governor from each section and confirmed by a statewide vote. This ensures quality and respect for the law while preserving the voice of the people. It also means that one governor will not in usual circumstances be able to appoint an entire court.
The Mingo scandals should refocus this debate. What if the federal government had not been tracking these rogues? Their brand of justice could have raged unchecked for years. Many could have been unfairly jailed with no chance of appeal.
If for no other reason, the Thornsbury case gives an ironclad reason why West Virginia needs an interediate court of appeals.
Currently, West Virginia's court system relies on courts of original jurisdiction and one appellate court. That is, there are six courts where cases may originate. Civil or criminal cases can be appealed to the State Supreme Court of Appeals, but that court has discretion over whether it accepts an appeal or not. In recent years, the State Legislature has shot down proposals to create an intermediate court of appeals.
Now the corruption and abuse by former Circuit Court Judge Michael Thornsbury should force reconsideration.
An intermediate appeals court can rectify and even prevent the kinds of abuses that Thornsbury attempted. It could uncover the ham handed frame ups. More importantly, its very existence could make corrupt judges think twice about abusing the system.
Circuit court judges are elected. Their re-election depends upon personal popularity more than observance of the law. This could sway even honest minds. Corporations have found some circuits unfairly biased against business defendants. This has been cited as a major reason why West Virginia remains a "judicial hellhole" where business often cannot get an even shake. Conversely, the support of business could sway some judges too fr he other way.
Our suggestion is to divide the state into three sections. Judges will serve six year terms, staggered every two years. Judges could be nominated by the governor from each section and confirmed by a statewide vote. This ensures quality and respect for the law while preserving the voice of the people. It also means that one governor will not in usual circumstances be able to appoint an entire court.
The Mingo scandals should refocus this debate. What if the federal government had not been tracking these rogues? Their brand of justice could have raged unchecked for years. Many could have been unfairly jailed with no chance of appeal.
If for no other reason, the Thornsbury case gives an ironclad reason why West Virginia needs an interediate court of appeals.
Friday, November 15, 2013
The Current Status of the Federal Helium Reserve, In Case You Were Wondering . . .
One issue that should keep Americans up worrying at nights is the current status of the Federal Helium Reserve.
No worries. It is still there near Amarillo, Texas, storing vital helium for America's defense and scientific needs.
The Bureau of Land Management's brief history of the Federal Helium Reserve notes that stockpiling began in 1925. At that point, the Army and Navy were interested in the possibilities of dirigibles for wartime use. USS Akron is the best known example of naval airship construction and use.
Development of more reliable and effective airplanes quickly killed defense applications.
After World War II, NASA and research communities relied on the reserve for their helium. Overall, however, "federal demand for helium did not live up to postwar expectations."
In 1996, the goals of the program shifted. The government now operates the reserve and pipeline system, provides helium gas, evaluates helium bearing gas fields, and provides access to land for helium recovery.
The helium reserve must be of immense national importance. Right before the government shutdown last month, Congress passed and Obama signed a bill designed to keep the reserve fully funded and operational.
Helium, especially in liquid form, is vital to research and it gradually growing more expensive. Reports indicate that the United States reserve, the only of its kind, has allowed supplies to dwindle.
A helium reserve is needed and it may be a good idea to have more than one. The private sector, however, can and should run this operation.
No worries. It is still there near Amarillo, Texas, storing vital helium for America's defense and scientific needs.
The Bureau of Land Management's brief history of the Federal Helium Reserve notes that stockpiling began in 1925. At that point, the Army and Navy were interested in the possibilities of dirigibles for wartime use. USS Akron is the best known example of naval airship construction and use.
Development of more reliable and effective airplanes quickly killed defense applications.
After World War II, NASA and research communities relied on the reserve for their helium. Overall, however, "federal demand for helium did not live up to postwar expectations."
In 1996, the goals of the program shifted. The government now operates the reserve and pipeline system, provides helium gas, evaluates helium bearing gas fields, and provides access to land for helium recovery.
The helium reserve must be of immense national importance. Right before the government shutdown last month, Congress passed and Obama signed a bill designed to keep the reserve fully funded and operational.
Helium, especially in liquid form, is vital to research and it gradually growing more expensive. Reports indicate that the United States reserve, the only of its kind, has allowed supplies to dwindle.
A helium reserve is needed and it may be a good idea to have more than one. The private sector, however, can and should run this operation.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Cameras on Cops
Reason's December print edition has an updated column from last August entitled "Watched Cops Are Polite Cops."
Some jurisdictions have done this. Rialto, California saw complaints against officers drop by 88 percent. Judge Shira Scheindlin. of the federal district court in Manhattan, ruled that officers in high complaint areas film their "stop and frisk" efforts in an effort to see if officers are complying with civil rights laws.
Ronald bailey, who wrote the piece, argues that police should be on board. Complete photographic evidence can defend an officer against spurious complaints. The knowledge that officers had filmed interactions may have contributed to the drop in complaints in Rialto. Citizen recordings usually only start after tensions have risen and omit context.
Bailey warns that officers coming into homes with cameras on can violate civil rights, "video of someone's metaphorical (or literal) dirty laundry is nobody else's business." But safeguards, like those used on the reality show Cops, can protect the innocent. Mandatory erasing of videos in the short term, unless needed for evidence, is also necessary.
Bailey also points out that people may act more civil when they know the camera is on them.
The issue is complex. It certainly has the potential to invade privacy and violate rights, but also ensure that police act professionally at all times.
Some jurisdictions have done this. Rialto, California saw complaints against officers drop by 88 percent. Judge Shira Scheindlin. of the federal district court in Manhattan, ruled that officers in high complaint areas film their "stop and frisk" efforts in an effort to see if officers are complying with civil rights laws.
Ronald bailey, who wrote the piece, argues that police should be on board. Complete photographic evidence can defend an officer against spurious complaints. The knowledge that officers had filmed interactions may have contributed to the drop in complaints in Rialto. Citizen recordings usually only start after tensions have risen and omit context.
Bailey warns that officers coming into homes with cameras on can violate civil rights, "video of someone's metaphorical (or literal) dirty laundry is nobody else's business." But safeguards, like those used on the reality show Cops, can protect the innocent. Mandatory erasing of videos in the short term, unless needed for evidence, is also necessary.
Bailey also points out that people may act more civil when they know the camera is on them.
The issue is complex. It certainly has the potential to invade privacy and violate rights, but also ensure that police act professionally at all times.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
A Case Example of Government Greed: Kanawha County School Levy
The Charleston Daily Mail's Don Surber provides this week's example of government greed at work. It's worth a quick read.
The Kanawha County School Board asked voters to support a levy that would cost $130 million over five years. Within the request was $3 million for school libraries, but a lot more for who knows what else.
Voters rejected it, breaking from history.
Surber writes that Kanawha County has changed over the past few decades. What was once a manufacturing center has become a shopping destination. The valley has jobs, they just pay a lot less. Supporters argued that it would be one less latte per day, which is true. Most voters, however, never buy lattes because it is ridiculous to pay so much for a cup of coffee.
We're talking about people who have to brown bag tuna salad because they want to pay their bills and save a little for Christmas. Surber notes that it adds up to one less night eating out per month, which will end up meaning one less restaurant.
In general, this is a classic case of government greed. They ask for more than the voters can bear and try to make voters feel guilty because golly gee, it's for the children.
No it is not for the children. It is for the bureaucrats. It is for federal mandates that kill, rather than support education. It is for retreats and conferences. Don't say it is for the children. It rarely is in education.
And all too often, it is not for the teachers either.
Kanawha County would have supported a small levy simply for libraries because they see the value in that. But tens of millions more that would not have been spent wisely? No. Not today.
Government got greedy and voters did not fall for its manipulation. It is a shame that its greed cost the children.
Things are tough all over. And government does not care.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
The Legacy of Blind Alfred Reed
Musical genres have a life span just like most everything in the universe from stars to butterflies. Birth is followed by increasing energy and vitality. At some point a peak of production and power is reached. Then comes a decline, sometimes slow, sometimes rapid. If it is slow enough, irrelevance and loss of function precede death. It's not an even journey. Hills and trough of health and lack of productivity afflict many living and natural entities, even movements.
In music, a genre comes to life because it speaks to something that some group somewhere needs to hear. It springs from what came before. But it has a new form, or a combinations of old forms, that produces a new style. If it connects to what people need, if it speaks for them, it becomes popular. It's usefulness comes from being a catalyst for their sufferings, aspirations, and life experiences.
Invariably, if the genre gets popular, it grows into a sellable commodity. The rough edges get ground down. The words may remain the same or fade into echoes of their former vitality. But the mainstreaming of the genre enriches the broader population. They would have never listened to the authentic original, but they will try the sanitized version.
Purists hate this for understandable reasons. Meaning gets lost. Pioneers get forgotten. Yesterday's call to action sells vacuum cleaners or financial services tomorrow. You can tell when a genre of music loses touch with the roots that nurtured it. Singers can ape the accents, performers can play the instruments, but it lost some of its original soul.
Bluegrass music seems to be the purview of elite intellectuals, far from the farm and oil refinery worker roots of Bill Monroe. Monroe came to prominence playing traditional songs from Kentucky in a new style. "Blue Moon of Kentucky" and "Muleskinner Blues" were authentic coming from him. Later musicians sound fine when they sing these songs, but it lacks authenticity. And newer compositions with current themes just don't make sense.
Country music earns performers and record companies money hand over fist. Musicians make pretty good money singing about small towns, good or bad. Problem is that many of them don't really come from small towns and a lot of them have always lived in relative comfort. Very few people even living in what today is called poverty could fathom the early years of Loretta Lynn or Dolly Parton. Country music might not be quick to embrace addicts with personal pain like Johnny Cash or Hank Williams Sr. Would they today accept a convicted felon like Merle Haggard?
He may not have been 21 in prison serving life without parole, but he knew these guys personally during his stint.
The struggles they endured in life made their music real for their listeners battling the same demons and authentic for everyone else. Is the struggle for goodness and salvation, or the penalty for turning your back on decency and morality as emphasized in today's music.
Rap and hip hop is following the same track, definitely having reached the mainstreaming stage at this point. Its urban black roots share a common cultural source with what country music used to be. The Southern culture that gave birth to both had themes of violence, retribution, poverty, fatalism, and aspiration to material betterment. The element in old country missing from most rap and hip hop is the divine retribution for violating morality. Murderers and killers ( male ones, anyway), adulterers, and other malefactors end up punished somehow in country music, not in urban.
Thievery can be excused in country, as in Johnny Cash's "One Piece At a Time." Marijuana use also is tolerable, at least in the old music of Charlie Daniels, Hank Williams Jr., Steve Earle, and the general public perception of Willie Nelson.
Which brings me to a long forgotten, once popular, pioneer of radio music. Blind Alfred Reed (in the West Virginia Music Hall of Fame) emerged from obscurity around World War I, playing county fairs, political rallies, almost any venue. He was an early radio performer who earned some fame in the early years of the Depression.
Some remember his "How Can a Poor Man Stand These Times and Live" as a damning bit of social commentary, but most of his music reflected populism and Christian morality as it was seen at the time.
Reed's most mocked music (again, among those who remember!) was "Why Do You Bob Your Hair Girls?" and "Why Do You Bob Your Hair Girls 2." The two songs are at heart a tale of violating God's law, risking his disfavor, then the path to redemption. In the 1920s, short hair on women was subversive. It was contrary to standards of beauty, expectations of men, and symbolized sexual independence. Reed attacked the symbol instead of the behavior, which realistically might have required a longer song. The minister, however, does lay out an explanation of how sin and redemption work more clearly than most sermons. Unfortunately, his choice of sin makes the song painfully archaic.
As behind the times as "Why Do You Bob Your Hair Girls" sounds, "There'll Be No Distinctions There" is a crowning achievement of courage. Within the song comes the assertion that God does not segregate by race, nor does He discriminate against the Jewish in heaven. This is a shot across the bow of the resurgent Ku Klux Klan just after the peak of its national influence in the mid 1920s, right before J. Edgar Hoover's personal crusade to grind them into irrelevancy. In the mountain counties where Klansmen held considerable political power, these sentiments could be hazardous for one's health.
He also sang of the suffering caused by train wrecks and mine explosions. The Fairmount Mine Explosion has an interesting convergence of themes in it. The industrial and family themes dominate. A father is about to go to work in the mine. Before he leaves, his daughter awakes and begs him not to go to work. He must choose between the peace of mind of his daughter and his work ethic and need to be paid for the day. The father chooses to soothe his daughter's fears; then the mine explodes.
It also includes a touch of mountain mysticism. David Hackett Fischer in Albion's Seed describes the North British border country ways that came to Appalachia. Charms, sorcery, and divination were some of the forms that it took. In "Fairmount Mine Explosion", the daughter has the power of seeing the future through her dreams, expressed by the simple "sometimes you know my dreams come true." This comes from an older and hidden system of values percolating up in this 20th century song.
Reed's career had a short trajectory. By the mid 1930s he had returned to performing on street corners until his home county of Mercer in West Virginia prohibited street performances by blind people in 1937. this comes remarkably close to an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Horrifically, his most famous song became his prophecy. The man who asked if a poor man could stand such times and live, serving on the side as a Methodist preacher, died of starvation in the 1950s.
Blind Alfred Reed was part of the birth of country and folk music genres while also being part of the first generation of radio performers. Woody Guthrie, Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, and others owe Reed and performers like him a huge debt for building the foundation that helped them become both famous and influential.
In music, a genre comes to life because it speaks to something that some group somewhere needs to hear. It springs from what came before. But it has a new form, or a combinations of old forms, that produces a new style. If it connects to what people need, if it speaks for them, it becomes popular. It's usefulness comes from being a catalyst for their sufferings, aspirations, and life experiences.
Invariably, if the genre gets popular, it grows into a sellable commodity. The rough edges get ground down. The words may remain the same or fade into echoes of their former vitality. But the mainstreaming of the genre enriches the broader population. They would have never listened to the authentic original, but they will try the sanitized version.
Purists hate this for understandable reasons. Meaning gets lost. Pioneers get forgotten. Yesterday's call to action sells vacuum cleaners or financial services tomorrow. You can tell when a genre of music loses touch with the roots that nurtured it. Singers can ape the accents, performers can play the instruments, but it lost some of its original soul.
Bluegrass music seems to be the purview of elite intellectuals, far from the farm and oil refinery worker roots of Bill Monroe. Monroe came to prominence playing traditional songs from Kentucky in a new style. "Blue Moon of Kentucky" and "Muleskinner Blues" were authentic coming from him. Later musicians sound fine when they sing these songs, but it lacks authenticity. And newer compositions with current themes just don't make sense.
Country music earns performers and record companies money hand over fist. Musicians make pretty good money singing about small towns, good or bad. Problem is that many of them don't really come from small towns and a lot of them have always lived in relative comfort. Very few people even living in what today is called poverty could fathom the early years of Loretta Lynn or Dolly Parton. Country music might not be quick to embrace addicts with personal pain like Johnny Cash or Hank Williams Sr. Would they today accept a convicted felon like Merle Haggard?
He may not have been 21 in prison serving life without parole, but he knew these guys personally during his stint.
The struggles they endured in life made their music real for their listeners battling the same demons and authentic for everyone else. Is the struggle for goodness and salvation, or the penalty for turning your back on decency and morality as emphasized in today's music.
Rap and hip hop is following the same track, definitely having reached the mainstreaming stage at this point. Its urban black roots share a common cultural source with what country music used to be. The Southern culture that gave birth to both had themes of violence, retribution, poverty, fatalism, and aspiration to material betterment. The element in old country missing from most rap and hip hop is the divine retribution for violating morality. Murderers and killers ( male ones, anyway), adulterers, and other malefactors end up punished somehow in country music, not in urban.
Thievery can be excused in country, as in Johnny Cash's "One Piece At a Time." Marijuana use also is tolerable, at least in the old music of Charlie Daniels, Hank Williams Jr., Steve Earle, and the general public perception of Willie Nelson.
Which brings me to a long forgotten, once popular, pioneer of radio music. Blind Alfred Reed (in the West Virginia Music Hall of Fame) emerged from obscurity around World War I, playing county fairs, political rallies, almost any venue. He was an early radio performer who earned some fame in the early years of the Depression.
Some remember his "How Can a Poor Man Stand These Times and Live" as a damning bit of social commentary, but most of his music reflected populism and Christian morality as it was seen at the time.
Reed's most mocked music (again, among those who remember!) was "Why Do You Bob Your Hair Girls?" and "Why Do You Bob Your Hair Girls 2." The two songs are at heart a tale of violating God's law, risking his disfavor, then the path to redemption. In the 1920s, short hair on women was subversive. It was contrary to standards of beauty, expectations of men, and symbolized sexual independence. Reed attacked the symbol instead of the behavior, which realistically might have required a longer song. The minister, however, does lay out an explanation of how sin and redemption work more clearly than most sermons. Unfortunately, his choice of sin makes the song painfully archaic.
As behind the times as "Why Do You Bob Your Hair Girls" sounds, "There'll Be No Distinctions There" is a crowning achievement of courage. Within the song comes the assertion that God does not segregate by race, nor does He discriminate against the Jewish in heaven. This is a shot across the bow of the resurgent Ku Klux Klan just after the peak of its national influence in the mid 1920s, right before J. Edgar Hoover's personal crusade to grind them into irrelevancy. In the mountain counties where Klansmen held considerable political power, these sentiments could be hazardous for one's health.
He also sang of the suffering caused by train wrecks and mine explosions. The Fairmount Mine Explosion has an interesting convergence of themes in it. The industrial and family themes dominate. A father is about to go to work in the mine. Before he leaves, his daughter awakes and begs him not to go to work. He must choose between the peace of mind of his daughter and his work ethic and need to be paid for the day. The father chooses to soothe his daughter's fears; then the mine explodes.
It also includes a touch of mountain mysticism. David Hackett Fischer in Albion's Seed describes the North British border country ways that came to Appalachia. Charms, sorcery, and divination were some of the forms that it took. In "Fairmount Mine Explosion", the daughter has the power of seeing the future through her dreams, expressed by the simple "sometimes you know my dreams come true." This comes from an older and hidden system of values percolating up in this 20th century song.
Reed's career had a short trajectory. By the mid 1930s he had returned to performing on street corners until his home county of Mercer in West Virginia prohibited street performances by blind people in 1937. this comes remarkably close to an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Horrifically, his most famous song became his prophecy. The man who asked if a poor man could stand such times and live, serving on the side as a Methodist preacher, died of starvation in the 1950s.
Blind Alfred Reed was part of the birth of country and folk music genres while also being part of the first generation of radio performers. Woody Guthrie, Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, and others owe Reed and performers like him a huge debt for building the foundation that helped them become both famous and influential.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Will West Virginians Have to Put GPS Trackers On Their Cars For Government Monitoring?
Will West Virginians have to put GPS trackers on their cars for government monitoring?
Delegate Gary Howell, (R-Mineral) and national vice chairman of the State Automitive Enthusiast Leadership Caucus, warned voters via Facebook on Monday that it could be a reality. He said, "WV Democrats tried looking at putting GPS tracking in your car with Senate Bill 354." Those who voted no, 10 out of 34 cast, was to stop this bill.
The bill will allow the state to study a GPS tracking scheme that is likely already unconstitutional. Now it has gone over to the House of Delegates for its consideration.
Delegate Howell described shenanigans involving the House Roads and Transportation Committee. He says that Democrats met to discuss advancing the bill without informing the press or public.
While the intent is to consider a tax by the mile scheme, critics have consistently opposed such a measure on constitutional grounds. Tracking a person's movements electronically without a warrant violates a citizens rights, especially to privacy.
Most importantly, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot place such a tracking device on a vehicle. In United States v. Jones (2012) the Supreme Court says that placing such a device is a per se violation of privacy.
West Virginia Legislative Democrats are currently pushing a bill that violates the Constitution, as interpreted by the Fred Roberts and Earl Warren courts.
Delegate Gary Howell, (R-Mineral) and national vice chairman of the State Automitive Enthusiast Leadership Caucus, warned voters via Facebook on Monday that it could be a reality. He said, "WV Democrats tried looking at putting GPS tracking in your car with Senate Bill 354." Those who voted no, 10 out of 34 cast, was to stop this bill.
The bill will allow the state to study a GPS tracking scheme that is likely already unconstitutional. Now it has gone over to the House of Delegates for its consideration.
Delegate Howell described shenanigans involving the House Roads and Transportation Committee. He says that Democrats met to discuss advancing the bill without informing the press or public.
While the intent is to consider a tax by the mile scheme, critics have consistently opposed such a measure on constitutional grounds. Tracking a person's movements electronically without a warrant violates a citizens rights, especially to privacy.
Most importantly, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot place such a tracking device on a vehicle. In United States v. Jones (2012) the Supreme Court says that placing such a device is a per se violation of privacy.
West Virginia Legislative Democrats are currently pushing a bill that violates the Constitution, as interpreted by the Fred Roberts and Earl Warren courts.
60 Minutes, Guardian Separately Portray a Presidency of Dangerous Negligence
In the past week, reports from Britain's Guardian and CBS' 60 Minutes separately have added to the growing perception that the president is incompetent, perhaps dangerously so.
Lara Logan's segment on Benghazi last night showed in stunning and chilling detail many of the failures that led to the Benghazi disaster. Higher ups ignored months of reports by those whose job it was to warn of trouble. Al Qaeda flags flying over local government buildings, a warning that a planned attack was imminent, and other red flags were blissfully ignored by the State Department and intelligence services.
After the attack started, locally based CIA teams ignored orders to wait. Had they not acted on their own initiative, five more Americans would have died.
Repeatedly, Logan used interviews and computer generated maps to demonstrate the ineptness of leadership that makes decisions thousands of miles away.
While Obama is politically untouchable, the segment puts a broadside into the possible presidential plans of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Even as US intelligence broke down in Benghazi, it remained vigilant in keeping tabs on 35 world leaders. Some, such as Robert Mugabe, may warrant such treatment. Allied nations, however, were targeted. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has made her outrage plain.
The Guardian reported this morning, saying the NSA fl denied a German report that it briefed Obama on its monitoring of world leaders' phone calls.
These reports stem from documentation provided to Guardian by former intelligence contract worker Edward Snowden.
While this (on the surface) exonerates Obama, it does lead to the question of his lack of attention. Either Obama agreed to spy on allied heads of state and government, or his intelligence services were running operations without a presidential approval that they sorely needed.
Public perception of Obama as a president often engaged by vacations and tee times certainly do not help his image. The deterioration of administrations common in second terms seems to have set in early for Obama.
Last week, Gallup reported that Obama's approval rating fell below 45 percent.
Update: The hat trick of incompetence. Atlantic magazine writer says that Obamacare problems were predictable, but ignored.
Lara Logan's segment on Benghazi last night showed in stunning and chilling detail many of the failures that led to the Benghazi disaster. Higher ups ignored months of reports by those whose job it was to warn of trouble. Al Qaeda flags flying over local government buildings, a warning that a planned attack was imminent, and other red flags were blissfully ignored by the State Department and intelligence services.
After the attack started, locally based CIA teams ignored orders to wait. Had they not acted on their own initiative, five more Americans would have died.
Repeatedly, Logan used interviews and computer generated maps to demonstrate the ineptness of leadership that makes decisions thousands of miles away.
While Obama is politically untouchable, the segment puts a broadside into the possible presidential plans of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Even as US intelligence broke down in Benghazi, it remained vigilant in keeping tabs on 35 world leaders. Some, such as Robert Mugabe, may warrant such treatment. Allied nations, however, were targeted. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has made her outrage plain.
The Guardian reported this morning, saying the NSA fl denied a German report that it briefed Obama on its monitoring of world leaders' phone calls.
These reports stem from documentation provided to Guardian by former intelligence contract worker Edward Snowden.
While this (on the surface) exonerates Obama, it does lead to the question of his lack of attention. Either Obama agreed to spy on allied heads of state and government, or his intelligence services were running operations without a presidential approval that they sorely needed.
Public perception of Obama as a president often engaged by vacations and tee times certainly do not help his image. The deterioration of administrations common in second terms seems to have set in early for Obama.
Last week, Gallup reported that Obama's approval rating fell below 45 percent.
Update: The hat trick of incompetence. Atlantic magazine writer says that Obamacare problems were predictable, but ignored.
Friday, October 25, 2013
A Chronicle of the Conservative Nation, Circa 2114
The story's handed down from my father to me, from his father to him, and from his father to him, I place in your hands.
Please excuse my poor ability at letters. I am trained in many useful sciences, but feel less adept at writing. Nevertheless, there is some practical use in setting these stories down to paper.
Many moons and tides before my birth, the Conservative Nation ran free across the continent. Our people freely traveled, traded, hunted, bought health care insurance, fished, farmed, and did what was right in our eyes and, most of the time, in the eyes of Almighty God.
We tried to live by the Ten Commandments from our Heavenly Creator, the 11th Commandment from Reagan, and the overall doctrine that one must not infringe on another's natural rights. Others did not live as we did. Our people scolded, but normally did not try to restrict them.
Our people often clashed on fine points with the mostly friendly, but feistily independent Libertarian Nation.
Time passed. Winds blew different directions. Our republic of many states, many peoples, many cultures, pressed together more and more tightly over time. Where once people and groups did as they saw fit under the guidance of the law, they now bound tightly together as sticks tied together by ropes.
Led by the Great Father.
Our nation resisted with rhetoric. Sometimes we fought deftly. Often we fought unwisely. The Great Father divided our councils. It turned wise men and women against each other rather than it. It mocked our ways with such vehemence and tugs on the heart that some of us also mocked our ways. It convinced some in our councils that we ourselves lay at the root of not only our own problems, but everyone else's as well. Some of us believed and hung our heads in shame, feeling unworthy of public praise. Like the flagellants of old, some of us scourged ourselves and even others.
It was all a fine sight for the Great Father to behold.
Because we girded our loins to battle each other and not the darkness overtaking our people, we over time lost influence in the great councils of the country. The people turned themselves from us. The storytellers ignored our heroes and conjured up villains to represent our people and our ways. They took over the schools and tried to teach false ways to our children with the aim of undermining our ways that had been useful to us, so that we may take up ways that fit their purposes instead of ours.
And then came the Great Movement.
In my father's father's father's time, the Great Father informed us that we may have some lands of our own where we could live in comfort and try to forge prosperity. We could have them on our own, live under our own laws, and gather our people from around the country to live in these places as we saw fit. We debated this offer in our councils. We would lose our voice in the great councils of the country. But maybe we could live in peace and escape the laws that multiplied as rabbits in a land with no wolves.
The Great Father offered us the lands called Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, Alaska, Utah, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, and a slice of California known as Orange County.
We considered these lands. Many lay unconnected with each other. But all had marks of favor. Some had bountiful farmland. Some had reserves of resources. All had strong populations nurtured on freedom and faith.
But the offer came with a warning. If we accepted this offer, we cut ourselves free from the benefice of the greater nation. We could expect no nurturing from the Great Father. If we cried out in pain, Great Father would not hear our cries. If we wanted for basic needs, Great Father would not provide. Great Father was too busy tending to the wants and needs of his obedient children and would not suffer himself to help his unruly ones.
So we resolved to no longer be children. We put away our childish things and decided to become strong women and men.
While members of the Conservative and Libertarian nations concentrated in the lands granted to us, others had scattered across the continent. As we set up our lands into commonwealths (the Great Father called them "reservations") we welcomed our fellow nation members to come into our lands.
All we asked was that those who came would find some useful labor. Those who could not find employment in useful commercial endeavors might volunteer for the quickly expanding churches, synagogues, and service organizations. They could barter their talents for food, shelter, and money when possible so long as they behaved themselves.
We made few demands on the people who lived in our commonwealths, mostly that they refrained from infringing upon the natural rights of any other individual to speak, worship, develop their property, etc.
At first our commonwealths fell on hard times. We had grown too accustomed to relying on the indulgence of Great Father. It built our roads. It gave our elders a minimum subsistence to relieve us of family responsibilities. It taught our children some basic skills and baby sat them for thirteen years while telling them about subjects that we felt too uncomfortable to discuss, even though this taught false ways and instructed that our ways were harmful.
We had debates over what values our commonwealth should hold. Some advocated that allowing those of the same personal physical parts to engage in relationships was against the morals of the land. Others said that that the natural right of freedom of choice without infringement on others' rights was the highest value. After some discussion, the councils in each state followed the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin. Franklin had once related a story about a Scottish lord adjudicating a case between Anglicans who wanted to build a maypole and Puritans who opposed it. The lord ruled that the Anglicans would have the right to build it and the Puritans had the right not only to ignore it, but also to not have to build one of their own. When the wisdom of Franklin's anecdote was applied to this controversy, it satisfied most, but not all.
However, it became the general rule of the commonwealths and, being members in good standing of the Conservative or Libertarian nations, people tended to not make too much fuss.
Another debate came about over the cultivation of two different types of weeds. One weed required hard labor to bring it forth from the ground and then process it to render it smokeable. It created a somewhat disagreeable smell and had effects on health, but did not render one insensible. The second had a more disagreeable smell and did render one insensible, yet proved easier to cultivate.
We found that those within the commonwealth seemed to prefer the former, those under the care of the Great Father preferred the latter (although a few of the Conservative Nation and many of the Libertarian did not mind to occasionally experience the insensibility of the latter themselves.) Few opposed the cultivation and sale of the former. Some opposition rose over the latter due to its power to render people insensible. They also argued of the slippery slope to more dangerous commodities.
The councils debated this issue furiously and reached a resolution on commodities that might tend to make people insensible. Beverages distilled through fermentation would remain legal. Since the Son of God saw fit to provide wine to a wedding party, we reasoned that that, plus beer, whiskey, and mead met with divine approval if consumed in moderation.
The intoxicating weed, we resolved to allow its cultivation with restrictions. Almighty God did see fit to put it in the ground, but gave us faculties enough to make reasonable choices on commerce. First, it could only be consumed on the property where it was grown and not sold within the Commonwealth. We, however, found that the children of the Great Father revered its properties even more than our Libertarian Nation. Since, strangely enough, Great Father did not allow the weed to be used for recreational or medicinal purposes, we decided to provide the commodity covertly at a fair price to outsiders.
Quickly, we found the weed to be of another advantage. All of our schools an tutoring programs insisted that the men and women of the commonwealths learn the techniques of economy and commerce. They did not have to enter the field, but all needed to understand the basics so that they could not be caught unawares by sharp dealing.
Strangely, the children of the Great Father intentionally neglected this learning. Their great schools instructed children in odd and useless subjects, such as learning various ways to engage in reproduction (a subject our own people seemed quite able to teach themselves in privacy!), fingerpainting, Marxism, and other topics of peripheral interest but dubious value. Our sharper traders, though we did not condone this practice, found that once children of the Great Father became insensible after smoking the weed, more advantage could be gained in negotiation with them. Great Father tried to regulate, then use coercion to stop the practice, which only helped to bring more profit to the commonwealths.
These represented only two examples of how principled reasoning helped to solve
After the first generation, our people learned to stand on our own. Our commonwealths resolved to not stand in the way of any person honestly trying to better themselves through hard work and good judgment. Through trade and innovation our people thrived. Our people gave to the religious and service organizations who operated many charitable health care and welfare organizations for the disabled and elderly. Those who made a business of caring for the sick.
Some noted that personal fortunes did not grow as large in the commonwealths as they did before. They were answered by wise individuals who reasoned that this happened because of the nature of the law. Since the commonwealth never enacted laws that plundered one group for the benefit of another, or created regulations that destroyed the spirit of competition, but enriched a powerful individual, individuals could not amass very massive estates. Simply put, those who ran successful enterprises had to reinvest more into their firms to remain competitive. They could not rely on their share of the market to be protected by government. So they kept innovating and kept building. This kept their fortunes relatively modest, but their enterprises strong.
Children of the Great Father marveled at this because in their lands a few enjoyed the protection of the Father and remained stratospherically rich and no one else could ever start from nothing and compete for a market.
In the lands of the children of the Great Father, they celebrated our absence, now that they no longer had to fear the influence of our ways. Because they rejoiced in the Great Father's wisdom in sending us away to places far from them, they renamed the Great Father's city's football team, calling it "Robber Barons." Some from the commonwealth objected because they used an image highly inaccurate and prejudicial to our people. But most shrugged their shoulders, pitied their ignorance, and ignored their folly.
Overall, the children of the Great Father grew more restive over time. Great Father took much of their produce and handed it to its more obedient, but less industrious children. When those creating the produce complained, Great Father scolded its children, calling them greedy and unpatriotic.
Some of those people moved to our commonwealth and enlivened our communities. Others remained silent, but sullen. Often, they quietly resolved to produce less so as to reduce the burdens assessed to them.
Great Father, however, relied too heavily on gifts to his obedient children. When its ability to hand over gifts diminished, the formerly obedient children complained that Great Father itself had grown greedy. Great Father had always taught that one was greedy when one refused to hand over to another what they thought they needed. Now Great Father's words turned against it. It needed more.
Great Father looked at our lands and began complaining. How is it fair that the people in the commonwealths abandoned their country, abandoned its people, and get to be prosperous while others starve? Where is their compassion? Where is their sense of humanity? What does their Christian and Jewish faith teach them about the less fortunate?
People in our commonwealths reacted with surprise and anger. We asked nothing but to be left alone, but in their jealousy, they keep wanting more. Their hunger for our production never ceased to amaze and vex the councils. A few argued to leave them alone and let their people suffer the consequences of their false ways. More saw their suffering and wanted to make a gift that might help them through hard times that were hopefully temporary. The practical in the council reasoned that a good faith gift to the Great Father might appease its wrath, convince its children of our good will, and inspire them to leave us in peace.
We voted a munificent one time gift of gold, silver, food, and other commodities. Many of our people voluntarily contributed a tenth of their goods to help the suffering children of Great Father. We hoped that the good faith would bring good results.
Great Father responded with wrath. How dare you grant this insultingly small offering? One tenth? That is all you offer? My children give between two thirds and three fourths, sometimes more, with the exception of a few of the most obedient children whose loyalty has earned them the right to keep their produce! We call upon the greedy rich of the commonwealths to give their fair share over to Great Father so that it might alleviate the suffering of its children! And it must come every year, not just once!
Our councils were shocked and extremely vexed. This tribute would leave our charitable hospitals, religious institutions, and service organizations without the support they needed. The sick and elderly would be left without help. Incentive for work would disappear.
It would leave us as destitute as Great Father's own children. So we refused.
Great Father always surprises. If it applied such ingenuity and boldness towards encouraging enterprise rather than stealing from its children and others, it need not worry about how to pay its own bills. Great Father one day sent its warriors to the borders of our most dynamic and wealthy commonwealth, Texas.
Our brothers in Texas were shocked into insensibility to see Great Father's warriors at their borders. Had they not left Great Father's children alone? Had they not gone their own way and prospered while Great Father's children sank into poverty? Where was the justice in Great Father's demands that Texas, made productive and rich, now be handed over lock, stock, and barrel to Great Father?
Once again our councils divided. The injust audacity of Great Father's demands shocked us all. Many of us shrank back from overt resistance. Great Father placed tanks, planes and artillery at the borders of the Lone Star Commonwealth. The flat land offered little place to hide and fight guerrilla style. Great Father had chosen well and caught us unawares.
Unprepared for this because we believed in Great Father's promises, we decide to abandon Texas. Its vast farms, oil and gas fields, manufacturing, and other enterprises now divvied up. Many children of Great Father swarmed the lands, but none know how to farm. Some friends of Great Father took the oil and gas. But Great Father also decreed that this energy is bad and cannot be used. The power plants we built go unused and fall apart.
Our commonwealths take in the refugees who come with only what they could put into one car. The rest went to Great Father. It takes years to absorb millions of people, but they bring their brains, their bodies, and the desire to work.
And work they will. Until now, we satisfied ourselves that with a small police force and an armed population, that we needed few additional munitions. We had no limits on personal weapon ownership, and as a result, very little crime. But these weapons were bought for sport, property protection, and hunting. We had no organization or training on collective defense.
Now we see the error of those ways. We relied on a shared sense of justice with Great Father, you go your way, we go ours. Now we know that the way of the plunderer cannot be satiated until it has taken all that can easily be taken.
So we put some of the refugees to work in a new field. Our commonwealths revived the spirit of medieval England's King Henry II's Assize of Arms. Every man and woman will have a weapon. Every able man and woman will learn the necessary arts of war. We will not start hostilities with any creature of God, but by the good name of the same, we shall not suffer ourselves to be plundered. Great Father will find it tougher to plunder in the forests and the mountains against those stout and sturdy men and women resolved to protect what they own by natural right.
Now we hear of Great Father's hunger pangs again, that its children demand his gifts, and that he needs our people to give "their fair share."
Others must know, despite what has been taught elsewhere, that we only desired to be left alone.
It may come. It may even take what it wants. But it will not find the task easy.
Written in my own hand In The Year Of Our Lord 2014
Delenda est diripientium
Please excuse my poor ability at letters. I am trained in many useful sciences, but feel less adept at writing. Nevertheless, there is some practical use in setting these stories down to paper.
Many moons and tides before my birth, the Conservative Nation ran free across the continent. Our people freely traveled, traded, hunted, bought health care insurance, fished, farmed, and did what was right in our eyes and, most of the time, in the eyes of Almighty God.
We tried to live by the Ten Commandments from our Heavenly Creator, the 11th Commandment from Reagan, and the overall doctrine that one must not infringe on another's natural rights. Others did not live as we did. Our people scolded, but normally did not try to restrict them.
Our people often clashed on fine points with the mostly friendly, but feistily independent Libertarian Nation.
Time passed. Winds blew different directions. Our republic of many states, many peoples, many cultures, pressed together more and more tightly over time. Where once people and groups did as they saw fit under the guidance of the law, they now bound tightly together as sticks tied together by ropes.
Led by the Great Father.
Our nation resisted with rhetoric. Sometimes we fought deftly. Often we fought unwisely. The Great Father divided our councils. It turned wise men and women against each other rather than it. It mocked our ways with such vehemence and tugs on the heart that some of us also mocked our ways. It convinced some in our councils that we ourselves lay at the root of not only our own problems, but everyone else's as well. Some of us believed and hung our heads in shame, feeling unworthy of public praise. Like the flagellants of old, some of us scourged ourselves and even others.
It was all a fine sight for the Great Father to behold.
Because we girded our loins to battle each other and not the darkness overtaking our people, we over time lost influence in the great councils of the country. The people turned themselves from us. The storytellers ignored our heroes and conjured up villains to represent our people and our ways. They took over the schools and tried to teach false ways to our children with the aim of undermining our ways that had been useful to us, so that we may take up ways that fit their purposes instead of ours.
And then came the Great Movement.
In my father's father's father's time, the Great Father informed us that we may have some lands of our own where we could live in comfort and try to forge prosperity. We could have them on our own, live under our own laws, and gather our people from around the country to live in these places as we saw fit. We debated this offer in our councils. We would lose our voice in the great councils of the country. But maybe we could live in peace and escape the laws that multiplied as rabbits in a land with no wolves.
The Great Father offered us the lands called Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, Alaska, Utah, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, and a slice of California known as Orange County.
We considered these lands. Many lay unconnected with each other. But all had marks of favor. Some had bountiful farmland. Some had reserves of resources. All had strong populations nurtured on freedom and faith.
But the offer came with a warning. If we accepted this offer, we cut ourselves free from the benefice of the greater nation. We could expect no nurturing from the Great Father. If we cried out in pain, Great Father would not hear our cries. If we wanted for basic needs, Great Father would not provide. Great Father was too busy tending to the wants and needs of his obedient children and would not suffer himself to help his unruly ones.
So we resolved to no longer be children. We put away our childish things and decided to become strong women and men.
While members of the Conservative and Libertarian nations concentrated in the lands granted to us, others had scattered across the continent. As we set up our lands into commonwealths (the Great Father called them "reservations") we welcomed our fellow nation members to come into our lands.
All we asked was that those who came would find some useful labor. Those who could not find employment in useful commercial endeavors might volunteer for the quickly expanding churches, synagogues, and service organizations. They could barter their talents for food, shelter, and money when possible so long as they behaved themselves.
We made few demands on the people who lived in our commonwealths, mostly that they refrained from infringing upon the natural rights of any other individual to speak, worship, develop their property, etc.
At first our commonwealths fell on hard times. We had grown too accustomed to relying on the indulgence of Great Father. It built our roads. It gave our elders a minimum subsistence to relieve us of family responsibilities. It taught our children some basic skills and baby sat them for thirteen years while telling them about subjects that we felt too uncomfortable to discuss, even though this taught false ways and instructed that our ways were harmful.
We had debates over what values our commonwealth should hold. Some advocated that allowing those of the same personal physical parts to engage in relationships was against the morals of the land. Others said that that the natural right of freedom of choice without infringement on others' rights was the highest value. After some discussion, the councils in each state followed the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin. Franklin had once related a story about a Scottish lord adjudicating a case between Anglicans who wanted to build a maypole and Puritans who opposed it. The lord ruled that the Anglicans would have the right to build it and the Puritans had the right not only to ignore it, but also to not have to build one of their own. When the wisdom of Franklin's anecdote was applied to this controversy, it satisfied most, but not all.
However, it became the general rule of the commonwealths and, being members in good standing of the Conservative or Libertarian nations, people tended to not make too much fuss.
Another debate came about over the cultivation of two different types of weeds. One weed required hard labor to bring it forth from the ground and then process it to render it smokeable. It created a somewhat disagreeable smell and had effects on health, but did not render one insensible. The second had a more disagreeable smell and did render one insensible, yet proved easier to cultivate.
We found that those within the commonwealth seemed to prefer the former, those under the care of the Great Father preferred the latter (although a few of the Conservative Nation and many of the Libertarian did not mind to occasionally experience the insensibility of the latter themselves.) Few opposed the cultivation and sale of the former. Some opposition rose over the latter due to its power to render people insensible. They also argued of the slippery slope to more dangerous commodities.
The councils debated this issue furiously and reached a resolution on commodities that might tend to make people insensible. Beverages distilled through fermentation would remain legal. Since the Son of God saw fit to provide wine to a wedding party, we reasoned that that, plus beer, whiskey, and mead met with divine approval if consumed in moderation.
The intoxicating weed, we resolved to allow its cultivation with restrictions. Almighty God did see fit to put it in the ground, but gave us faculties enough to make reasonable choices on commerce. First, it could only be consumed on the property where it was grown and not sold within the Commonwealth. We, however, found that the children of the Great Father revered its properties even more than our Libertarian Nation. Since, strangely enough, Great Father did not allow the weed to be used for recreational or medicinal purposes, we decided to provide the commodity covertly at a fair price to outsiders.
Quickly, we found the weed to be of another advantage. All of our schools an tutoring programs insisted that the men and women of the commonwealths learn the techniques of economy and commerce. They did not have to enter the field, but all needed to understand the basics so that they could not be caught unawares by sharp dealing.
Strangely, the children of the Great Father intentionally neglected this learning. Their great schools instructed children in odd and useless subjects, such as learning various ways to engage in reproduction (a subject our own people seemed quite able to teach themselves in privacy!), fingerpainting, Marxism, and other topics of peripheral interest but dubious value. Our sharper traders, though we did not condone this practice, found that once children of the Great Father became insensible after smoking the weed, more advantage could be gained in negotiation with them. Great Father tried to regulate, then use coercion to stop the practice, which only helped to bring more profit to the commonwealths.
These represented only two examples of how principled reasoning helped to solve
After the first generation, our people learned to stand on our own. Our commonwealths resolved to not stand in the way of any person honestly trying to better themselves through hard work and good judgment. Through trade and innovation our people thrived. Our people gave to the religious and service organizations who operated many charitable health care and welfare organizations for the disabled and elderly. Those who made a business of caring for the sick.
Some noted that personal fortunes did not grow as large in the commonwealths as they did before. They were answered by wise individuals who reasoned that this happened because of the nature of the law. Since the commonwealth never enacted laws that plundered one group for the benefit of another, or created regulations that destroyed the spirit of competition, but enriched a powerful individual, individuals could not amass very massive estates. Simply put, those who ran successful enterprises had to reinvest more into their firms to remain competitive. They could not rely on their share of the market to be protected by government. So they kept innovating and kept building. This kept their fortunes relatively modest, but their enterprises strong.
Children of the Great Father marveled at this because in their lands a few enjoyed the protection of the Father and remained stratospherically rich and no one else could ever start from nothing and compete for a market.
In the lands of the children of the Great Father, they celebrated our absence, now that they no longer had to fear the influence of our ways. Because they rejoiced in the Great Father's wisdom in sending us away to places far from them, they renamed the Great Father's city's football team, calling it "Robber Barons." Some from the commonwealth objected because they used an image highly inaccurate and prejudicial to our people. But most shrugged their shoulders, pitied their ignorance, and ignored their folly.
Overall, the children of the Great Father grew more restive over time. Great Father took much of their produce and handed it to its more obedient, but less industrious children. When those creating the produce complained, Great Father scolded its children, calling them greedy and unpatriotic.
Some of those people moved to our commonwealth and enlivened our communities. Others remained silent, but sullen. Often, they quietly resolved to produce less so as to reduce the burdens assessed to them.
Great Father, however, relied too heavily on gifts to his obedient children. When its ability to hand over gifts diminished, the formerly obedient children complained that Great Father itself had grown greedy. Great Father had always taught that one was greedy when one refused to hand over to another what they thought they needed. Now Great Father's words turned against it. It needed more.
Great Father looked at our lands and began complaining. How is it fair that the people in the commonwealths abandoned their country, abandoned its people, and get to be prosperous while others starve? Where is their compassion? Where is their sense of humanity? What does their Christian and Jewish faith teach them about the less fortunate?
People in our commonwealths reacted with surprise and anger. We asked nothing but to be left alone, but in their jealousy, they keep wanting more. Their hunger for our production never ceased to amaze and vex the councils. A few argued to leave them alone and let their people suffer the consequences of their false ways. More saw their suffering and wanted to make a gift that might help them through hard times that were hopefully temporary. The practical in the council reasoned that a good faith gift to the Great Father might appease its wrath, convince its children of our good will, and inspire them to leave us in peace.
We voted a munificent one time gift of gold, silver, food, and other commodities. Many of our people voluntarily contributed a tenth of their goods to help the suffering children of Great Father. We hoped that the good faith would bring good results.
Great Father responded with wrath. How dare you grant this insultingly small offering? One tenth? That is all you offer? My children give between two thirds and three fourths, sometimes more, with the exception of a few of the most obedient children whose loyalty has earned them the right to keep their produce! We call upon the greedy rich of the commonwealths to give their fair share over to Great Father so that it might alleviate the suffering of its children! And it must come every year, not just once!
Our councils were shocked and extremely vexed. This tribute would leave our charitable hospitals, religious institutions, and service organizations without the support they needed. The sick and elderly would be left without help. Incentive for work would disappear.
It would leave us as destitute as Great Father's own children. So we refused.
Great Father always surprises. If it applied such ingenuity and boldness towards encouraging enterprise rather than stealing from its children and others, it need not worry about how to pay its own bills. Great Father one day sent its warriors to the borders of our most dynamic and wealthy commonwealth, Texas.
Our brothers in Texas were shocked into insensibility to see Great Father's warriors at their borders. Had they not left Great Father's children alone? Had they not gone their own way and prospered while Great Father's children sank into poverty? Where was the justice in Great Father's demands that Texas, made productive and rich, now be handed over lock, stock, and barrel to Great Father?
Once again our councils divided. The injust audacity of Great Father's demands shocked us all. Many of us shrank back from overt resistance. Great Father placed tanks, planes and artillery at the borders of the Lone Star Commonwealth. The flat land offered little place to hide and fight guerrilla style. Great Father had chosen well and caught us unawares.
Unprepared for this because we believed in Great Father's promises, we decide to abandon Texas. Its vast farms, oil and gas fields, manufacturing, and other enterprises now divvied up. Many children of Great Father swarmed the lands, but none know how to farm. Some friends of Great Father took the oil and gas. But Great Father also decreed that this energy is bad and cannot be used. The power plants we built go unused and fall apart.
Our commonwealths take in the refugees who come with only what they could put into one car. The rest went to Great Father. It takes years to absorb millions of people, but they bring their brains, their bodies, and the desire to work.
And work they will. Until now, we satisfied ourselves that with a small police force and an armed population, that we needed few additional munitions. We had no limits on personal weapon ownership, and as a result, very little crime. But these weapons were bought for sport, property protection, and hunting. We had no organization or training on collective defense.
Now we see the error of those ways. We relied on a shared sense of justice with Great Father, you go your way, we go ours. Now we know that the way of the plunderer cannot be satiated until it has taken all that can easily be taken.
So we put some of the refugees to work in a new field. Our commonwealths revived the spirit of medieval England's King Henry II's Assize of Arms. Every man and woman will have a weapon. Every able man and woman will learn the necessary arts of war. We will not start hostilities with any creature of God, but by the good name of the same, we shall not suffer ourselves to be plundered. Great Father will find it tougher to plunder in the forests and the mountains against those stout and sturdy men and women resolved to protect what they own by natural right.
Now we hear of Great Father's hunger pangs again, that its children demand his gifts, and that he needs our people to give "their fair share."
Others must know, despite what has been taught elsewhere, that we only desired to be left alone.
It may come. It may even take what it wants. But it will not find the task easy.
Written in my own hand In The Year Of Our Lord 2014
Delenda est diripientium
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Rent to Own Store Aaron's Accused of Illicit Recording
Aaron's was accused by the Federal Trade Commission of secretly recording from customer's webcams on computers they rented.
According to Philly.com, the FTC says that a prior case was settled last April. This is a new instance of cybersnooping on customers.
Aaron's has outlets in Mineral County and throughout the region.
According to Philly.com, the FTC says that a prior case was settled last April. This is a new instance of cybersnooping on customers.
Aaron's has outlets in Mineral County and throughout the region.
Interplanetary Internet Coming Soon. But What About Service Here?
NASA just figured out how to increase data transmission, including potentially internet service, 500 percent . . . to the moon and back.
According to Wired, a science and technology blog (duh), NASA successfully tested a laser based system of transmitting data. It launched a probe that traveled almost a quarter of a million miles (the approximate distance to the moon) and fired a laser at it. The test worked. Data streamed successfully to and from the probe.
One of the major hurdles to interplanetary space flight lay in reliance on radio waves for data transmission. While radio waves are, essentially, as fast as lasers (both traveling at light speed), radio transmission requires more power and energy to transmit. It also needs larger surfaces to "catch" signals from farther away.
Laser transmissions can also carry a broader range of information, such as 3 D videos.
The downside to laser transmission lies in the precision needed. Radio waves broaden out from the source. Lasers remain tightly focused in a small beam. Imagine a pitcher trying to hit a catcher's mitt from ten million miles away.
Google, NASA, and others look to the future and plan for an interplanetary internet.
Meanwhile, West Virginians are also looking for reliable high speed access. But problems with government waste may be standing in the way. Perhaps the best business and research minds in rural states with spotty access should take note of this latest development and see if it could help.
According to Wired, a science and technology blog (duh), NASA successfully tested a laser based system of transmitting data. It launched a probe that traveled almost a quarter of a million miles (the approximate distance to the moon) and fired a laser at it. The test worked. Data streamed successfully to and from the probe.
One of the major hurdles to interplanetary space flight lay in reliance on radio waves for data transmission. While radio waves are, essentially, as fast as lasers (both traveling at light speed), radio transmission requires more power and energy to transmit. It also needs larger surfaces to "catch" signals from farther away.
Laser transmissions can also carry a broader range of information, such as 3 D videos.
The downside to laser transmission lies in the precision needed. Radio waves broaden out from the source. Lasers remain tightly focused in a small beam. Imagine a pitcher trying to hit a catcher's mitt from ten million miles away.
Google, NASA, and others look to the future and plan for an interplanetary internet.
Meanwhile, West Virginians are also looking for reliable high speed access. But problems with government waste may be standing in the way. Perhaps the best business and research minds in rural states with spotty access should take note of this latest development and see if it could help.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Pro Obamacare Ad Promotes Spending on Drinking Rather Than Insurance
Above is a real live pro Obamacare advertisement.
It seems to say that college students should spend their money on binge drinking instead of their own health insurance.
The Centers For Disease Control suggest that people might be healthier if they bought their own health insurance with the money, rather than go binge drinking.
Hat tip Cam Matheny
Hat tip Cam Matheny
Ignorance Is Not Bliss
Hat tip to Terry Headley for passing this gem along from the director of the AFL-CIO's West Virginia Center for Budget and Policy:
Ted Boettner @WVpolicywonk
It's amazing how many people say America is "broke" and have little clue that since we issue our own currency that we can't go broke.
Ted needs to go back to the drawing board on his economic thinking. History is chock full of examples of states that have deluded themselves in this way. Thinking that one can simply print money to pay bills assumes way too much.
Paper currency based upon "full faith and credit" of the government relies on the understanding that the state will work to maintain its artificial value. It assumes that people will use it in place of commodities that have tangible value.
Some states have abused the trust and faith of the people in their money and government by printing money to pay its bills. This produces the classical definition of inflation, which is "too many dollars chasing too few goods."
Liberals like a moderate amount of inflation because it redistributes wealth from creditors to debtors. If debt is repaied at fixed amounts with a fixed interest rate, its real value will fall during periods of inflation. The debtor has to pay back less value than he or she originally borrowed. This will harm an economy in the long run because lenders will adjust their policies to protect themselves against this kind of loss.
Taking Boettner's idea to its logical end produces disaster. The Confederate States, Weimar Germany, and countless Latin American countries fell to this temptation. Weimar Germany obtained loans from the United States to shore up its system after the world saw the spectacle of people wheelbarrowing in bills to pay for bread. Those in the Confederacy relied on barter toward the end of the Civil War because the central government simply printed to pay.
There is no easy way out of paying debt, even for nations. To think otherwise is either delusion or ignorance.
That being said, America does not need to be broke. If federal and state regulators pare down burdens to those which are necessary. If the federal government gets out of the way of energy production. If Obamacare is reformed and put on a free market basis. If, if, if the competitive free market can be restored, then the United States can prosper and pay its bills. We have wealth locked not in our power to print money, but in our resources and potential production.
Unleash it, pay off the debt, secure the future.
Ted Boettner @WVpolicywonk
It's amazing how many people say America is "broke" and have little clue that since we issue our own currency that we can't go broke.
Ted needs to go back to the drawing board on his economic thinking. History is chock full of examples of states that have deluded themselves in this way. Thinking that one can simply print money to pay bills assumes way too much.
Paper currency based upon "full faith and credit" of the government relies on the understanding that the state will work to maintain its artificial value. It assumes that people will use it in place of commodities that have tangible value.
Some states have abused the trust and faith of the people in their money and government by printing money to pay its bills. This produces the classical definition of inflation, which is "too many dollars chasing too few goods."
Liberals like a moderate amount of inflation because it redistributes wealth from creditors to debtors. If debt is repaied at fixed amounts with a fixed interest rate, its real value will fall during periods of inflation. The debtor has to pay back less value than he or she originally borrowed. This will harm an economy in the long run because lenders will adjust their policies to protect themselves against this kind of loss.
Taking Boettner's idea to its logical end produces disaster. The Confederate States, Weimar Germany, and countless Latin American countries fell to this temptation. Weimar Germany obtained loans from the United States to shore up its system after the world saw the spectacle of people wheelbarrowing in bills to pay for bread. Those in the Confederacy relied on barter toward the end of the Civil War because the central government simply printed to pay.
There is no easy way out of paying debt, even for nations. To think otherwise is either delusion or ignorance.
That being said, America does not need to be broke. If federal and state regulators pare down burdens to those which are necessary. If the federal government gets out of the way of energy production. If Obamacare is reformed and put on a free market basis. If, if, if the competitive free market can be restored, then the United States can prosper and pay its bills. We have wealth locked not in our power to print money, but in our resources and potential production.
Unleash it, pay off the debt, secure the future.
Grant and Garrett Counties Part of Federal Small Business Preference Program
Two Upper Potomac region counties are part of a long established, but relatively unknown, federal program to promote small business.
Garrett County, Maryland and Grant County, West Virginia both participate in the HUBZone program of the Small Business Administration. The brainchild of former Missouri US Senator Kit Bond, this program encompasses qualified census tracts, qualified no-metropolitan counties, areas around closed military bases, and Indian reservations. In HUBZones, small businesses receive preference for federal contracts.
In fact, the first contract awarded under the program went to a firm in Accident, Maryland.
West Virginia has eight counties (Grant, Pocahontas, Webster, Wetzel, McDowell, Calhoun, Mason) that meet any or all of the three criteria:
1) That the county's median household income is less than 80 percent of nonmetropolitan median household income in the state
2) The county's unemployment rate is not less than 140 percent of the average unemployment rate for the United States or West Virginia, whichever rate is lower.
3) The county includes a Difficult Development Area, as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
After the 2010 Census, the Small Business Administration removed Jackson, Tyler, Tucker, Summers, and Mingo from the list.
Apart from designated counties, the SBA recognizes (but cannot legally designate) a number of qualified tracts. Mineral County has one qualified tract that extends along the western boundary around Elk Garden and Piedmont, but does not quite extend to Keyser. Western Morgan County and the western and southeastern portions of Hampshire County also hold these designations.
Garrett County, Maryland and Grant County, West Virginia both participate in the HUBZone program of the Small Business Administration. The brainchild of former Missouri US Senator Kit Bond, this program encompasses qualified census tracts, qualified no-metropolitan counties, areas around closed military bases, and Indian reservations. In HUBZones, small businesses receive preference for federal contracts.
In fact, the first contract awarded under the program went to a firm in Accident, Maryland.
West Virginia has eight counties (Grant, Pocahontas, Webster, Wetzel, McDowell, Calhoun, Mason) that meet any or all of the three criteria:
1) That the county's median household income is less than 80 percent of nonmetropolitan median household income in the state
2) The county's unemployment rate is not less than 140 percent of the average unemployment rate for the United States or West Virginia, whichever rate is lower.
3) The county includes a Difficult Development Area, as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
After the 2010 Census, the Small Business Administration removed Jackson, Tyler, Tucker, Summers, and Mingo from the list.
Apart from designated counties, the SBA recognizes (but cannot legally designate) a number of qualified tracts. Mineral County has one qualified tract that extends along the western boundary around Elk Garden and Piedmont, but does not quite extend to Keyser. Western Morgan County and the western and southeastern portions of Hampshire County also hold these designations.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
West Virginia Keeps Doing It Right
Good news, West Virginia! State leaders continue to make strides to make the area more attractive to investors and residents.
The State Journal reported that a recent Tax Foundation study rated West Virginia as having the 23rd friendliest tax climate. This places it slightly ahead of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky yet far ahead of Ohio and Maryland who ranked a dismal 41.
The Mountain State scored best in corporate taxation at 20. Property taxes scored at 27. Individual income and sales taxes rated between the two.
This makes West Virginia an average state, but also shows improvement. Under Governors Manchin and Tomblin, the state has looked at gradually reducing tax burdens anticipating a payoff in better economic growth.
In other words, counting on a Laffer Curve type of result. Laffer was one of President Reagan's chief economic advisers early on, arguing that lower taxes brought better economic returns.
One must give credit to Democratic governors who don't shy away from an idea because it came from Reagan.
The State Journal also noted that recent administrations have focused on making the overall tax climate more friendly to all levels of business growth, instead of offering drastic temporary tax breaks to lure investment. This results in a more evenly developed economy with more opportunities for in state entrepreneurs.
Governor Tomblin, however, warned that the state's expected expenditures next year would outstrip revenues. He said that either taxes would have to rise or spending be cut. With Republicans pushing hard at taking over at least one house of the Legislature next year, most likely spending will drop.
Certainly increased federal demands of states under Obama have pushed many states to have to stretch their budgets. West Virginia is no exception. Just last week a state official warned that the state expansion of Medicaid would likely force a funding cut to higher education.
West Virginia has done very well in making the tax regime more entrepreneur friendly. If it makes equal strides in reducing regulation and establishing a state court of automatic appeal, the Mountain State could grow into a serious competitor for attracting business from anywhere.
The State Journal reported that a recent Tax Foundation study rated West Virginia as having the 23rd friendliest tax climate. This places it slightly ahead of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky yet far ahead of Ohio and Maryland who ranked a dismal 41.
The Mountain State scored best in corporate taxation at 20. Property taxes scored at 27. Individual income and sales taxes rated between the two.
This makes West Virginia an average state, but also shows improvement. Under Governors Manchin and Tomblin, the state has looked at gradually reducing tax burdens anticipating a payoff in better economic growth.
In other words, counting on a Laffer Curve type of result. Laffer was one of President Reagan's chief economic advisers early on, arguing that lower taxes brought better economic returns.
One must give credit to Democratic governors who don't shy away from an idea because it came from Reagan.
The State Journal also noted that recent administrations have focused on making the overall tax climate more friendly to all levels of business growth, instead of offering drastic temporary tax breaks to lure investment. This results in a more evenly developed economy with more opportunities for in state entrepreneurs.
Governor Tomblin, however, warned that the state's expected expenditures next year would outstrip revenues. He said that either taxes would have to rise or spending be cut. With Republicans pushing hard at taking over at least one house of the Legislature next year, most likely spending will drop.
Certainly increased federal demands of states under Obama have pushed many states to have to stretch their budgets. West Virginia is no exception. Just last week a state official warned that the state expansion of Medicaid would likely force a funding cut to higher education.
West Virginia has done very well in making the tax regime more entrepreneur friendly. If it makes equal strides in reducing regulation and establishing a state court of automatic appeal, the Mountain State could grow into a serious competitor for attracting business from anywhere.
Monday, October 21, 2013
National Security Needs Must Be a Factor In Energy Policy
Energy production equals a more productive economy and a more secure nation.
West Virginia's Republican congressional delegation, Shelley Moore Capito and David McKinley, have pushed this idea for years. They have joined many colleagues in advocating an "all of the above approach" to fulfilling not only national needs, but also to make the US a powerful energy exporter as well.
Now a panel of retired military officers has expressed the same opinion.
John Gizzi last week covered the America's Future Energy Conference. He reported that retired military officers joined business leaders like FedEx CEO Fred Smith in arguing for higher production. American energy dominance, they claim, will help to ward off production cut threats from unfriendly organizations such as OPEC.
One such hostile action was the 1970 production cut to protest US support of Israel.
With the Middle East perpetually on the verge of conflict, an unpopular turn of US policy or a disastrous war could hurt the world's supply of energy. Stable American production could lead the world away from reliance on this fickle region.
One major improvement could be approval of the Keystone pipeline project. Obama opposes the construction of this connection between the Upper Great Plains and the Gulf of Mexico which would create tens of thousands of jobs.
The group also supported decreasing reliance on oil with more innovation. Electric and natural gas powered vehicles, once a particular interest of Senator Jay Rockefeller, could also help build energy security.
West Virginia's Republican congressional delegation, Shelley Moore Capito and David McKinley, have pushed this idea for years. They have joined many colleagues in advocating an "all of the above approach" to fulfilling not only national needs, but also to make the US a powerful energy exporter as well.
Now a panel of retired military officers has expressed the same opinion.
John Gizzi last week covered the America's Future Energy Conference. He reported that retired military officers joined business leaders like FedEx CEO Fred Smith in arguing for higher production. American energy dominance, they claim, will help to ward off production cut threats from unfriendly organizations such as OPEC.
One such hostile action was the 1970 production cut to protest US support of Israel.
With the Middle East perpetually on the verge of conflict, an unpopular turn of US policy or a disastrous war could hurt the world's supply of energy. Stable American production could lead the world away from reliance on this fickle region.
One major improvement could be approval of the Keystone pipeline project. Obama opposes the construction of this connection between the Upper Great Plains and the Gulf of Mexico which would create tens of thousands of jobs.
The group also supported decreasing reliance on oil with more innovation. Electric and natural gas powered vehicles, once a particular interest of Senator Jay Rockefeller, could also help build energy security.
Friday, October 18, 2013
International Law Meets National Sovereignty
The International Criminal Court based in The Hague, Netherlands plans to try Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta next month on a series of serious offenses including crimes against humanity that involve illegal deporting of a group, murder, rape, and persecution for political purposes.
While the ICC claims jurisdiction, its intended defendant can only be tried if he allows it. Mr. Kenyatta currently serves as the President of Kenya. Although the court would like for him to appear at the scheduled date in November, it is likely to defer to an African Union request to postpone the case until Kenyatta leaves office. AU member Sudan's president also faces criminal charges.
Kenyatta faces accusations over violence in the post 2007 elections against the Orange Democratic Movement. In turn, he asserts that the ICC's charges come from neo-imperialist mechanisms of manipulation. Kenyatta called it "a toy of declining imperial powers."
Although 34 of the African Union's 54 nations signed up for the ICC, calls have increased lately for individual African nations and the AU itself to leave the international convention that established it.
Established in 2002, the ICC is meant to prosecute crimes against humanity when national courts and prosecutors refuse to act.
Under Obama, the United States has assisted the ICC, but has not moved to join. With American military and diplomats operating in controversial fields throughout the world, serious concerns have prevented full US participation. African Union leaders call the US stance hypocritical, ignoring the constitutional divide between presidential action and the near impossibility of Senate assent.
African Union leaders specifically oppose the idea of prosecuting sitting presidents. They believe that the ICC could be used as a diplomatic weapon to attack sovereign states. This is similar to American concerns. The fact that the leaders of Sudan and Kenya are likely guilty does not change the fact.
Another problem is that Kenya plays a key role in regional peacekeeping, disarmament, anti-terrorism, and stability efforts. Kenya is a front line state fighting Islamicist terrorism. Its rapidly expanding population of Roman Catholic and Pentecostal citizens forms a faith bulwark against the infiltration of radical elements farther south.
Rule of law should be promoted and political rights defended. On the other hand, pressure on Kenyatta could weaken Kenya's prestige in the region.
In any event, Kenyatta will likely not face trial and prosecution in Europe now, if ever. The people of Kenya ultimately must make that decision on their own.
While the ICC claims jurisdiction, its intended defendant can only be tried if he allows it. Mr. Kenyatta currently serves as the President of Kenya. Although the court would like for him to appear at the scheduled date in November, it is likely to defer to an African Union request to postpone the case until Kenyatta leaves office. AU member Sudan's president also faces criminal charges.
Kenyatta faces accusations over violence in the post 2007 elections against the Orange Democratic Movement. In turn, he asserts that the ICC's charges come from neo-imperialist mechanisms of manipulation. Kenyatta called it "a toy of declining imperial powers."
Although 34 of the African Union's 54 nations signed up for the ICC, calls have increased lately for individual African nations and the AU itself to leave the international convention that established it.
Established in 2002, the ICC is meant to prosecute crimes against humanity when national courts and prosecutors refuse to act.
Under Obama, the United States has assisted the ICC, but has not moved to join. With American military and diplomats operating in controversial fields throughout the world, serious concerns have prevented full US participation. African Union leaders call the US stance hypocritical, ignoring the constitutional divide between presidential action and the near impossibility of Senate assent.
African Union leaders specifically oppose the idea of prosecuting sitting presidents. They believe that the ICC could be used as a diplomatic weapon to attack sovereign states. This is similar to American concerns. The fact that the leaders of Sudan and Kenya are likely guilty does not change the fact.
Another problem is that Kenya plays a key role in regional peacekeeping, disarmament, anti-terrorism, and stability efforts. Kenya is a front line state fighting Islamicist terrorism. Its rapidly expanding population of Roman Catholic and Pentecostal citizens forms a faith bulwark against the infiltration of radical elements farther south.
Rule of law should be promoted and political rights defended. On the other hand, pressure on Kenyatta could weaken Kenya's prestige in the region.
In any event, Kenyatta will likely not face trial and prosecution in Europe now, if ever. The people of Kenya ultimately must make that decision on their own.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Suggesting How to Conduct a "Patriot" Economy
This has been a long time coming, but now it's locked in. America now has a federal government that not only siphons wealth from the private sector to redistribute to its supporters, it also undermines the ways in which one can obtain and keep wealth. Friends of the government get special favors and waivers. Those without connections face the onerous regime of regulation designed to drive them out of business.
The Republican Party tried. Much as those on the right want to moan that it doesn't represent "We the People," the reality is that "We the People" failed the GOP. We did not go into neighborhoods where we might be unwelcome. We did not make the case for our ideals outside of our comfort zones. We did not take chances. Campaigns rely on we the people to help them. We did not do it. We failed.
But it does not have to end there.
In the 1760s, American patriots found some success in economic pressure. By finding ways to cut down reliance on the open market, Americans convinced London based trading firms with powerful connections to advocate for them. Yes, they only wanted their business back. But for a while it worked.
Resistance brought results. How can American patriots do the same today?
In general, we can cut back on transactions that produce tax revenues. That puts pressure on business while reducing the amount of our wealth that goes toward supporting a system built to suck resources from us.
Here are some ways to do this.
First, develop skills, produce goods, or do work that can be exchanged for cash or barter between friends.
Gardening can serve this purpose admirably. If a few people are determined to do this for the long haul, they can agree than person A will grow beans, person B grows corn, and so forth. One can freeze the corn, can beans, make cucumbers into pickles, etc. Then each person can use the product as a medium of exchange with the other, or pay cash.
Pay people in cash under the table for as many simple services as possible. Find the people in town willing to do work on your car, odd work on your house or property that you can't do. Engage them, figure a fair price, and pay under the table.
Teachers can really benefit from these ideas. It would be very easy to reach out to home schooling families, establish a price for services, and teach in a person's living room for cash.
Instead of eating out at a restaurant, exchange nights with friends where you go over and eat what they cook. That is more fun, saves money, and you still get to socialize.
Instead of eating out at a restaurant, exchange nights with friends where you go over and eat what they cook. That is more fun, saves money, and you still get to socialize.
Hunters are in good shape because they can pay in meat.
Farmers can set up their own networks and exchanges of buying and selling to customers, at least in part.
Some transactions may look like this. A person agrees to pay for a haircut with garden produce or a few pounds of deer meat. Everyone gets what they want except the government.
Second, look at yard sales for purchases. You can get decent furniture, almost new electronics, and any number of things more cheaply paying in cash. And there is really no effective way to tax yard sales.
Frankly, by cutting out the taxed and regulated market and bringing a true free market back into existence, buyers and sellers of goods and services both stand to gain in the long run.
This works on a couple of levels. If enough people do it, it could force a reconsideration of the direction that we are going, which is full tilt toward Eastern Europe. In fact, this is exactly how people in Communist countries learned to survive beyond the meager resources allowed by their governments.
Individually, however, a person can gain satisfaction from the fact that he or she can accumulate untaxed value while contributing as little as possible to the Leviathan that has been set up.
This is what individuals do when they come to the realization that the government takes too many resources from the people without being accountable. They conclude that the government has no moral right to their taxes. Despite this being poorly written and thought out, it is a blueprint by which patriots can opt out while remaining within the law.
Much like our late colonial forefathers.
Benjamin Franklin on Obamacare
Ben Franklin once shared a story about a crazy Frenchman who had an odd way of welcoming English tourists to Paris. He would speak with effusive correctness to them while holding a fireplace poker with a red hot tip in his right hand. He'd say Monsieur Anglais, would you kindly allow me to shove the tip of this up your backside. The Englishman would inevitably say something like "Zounds! (Because that was a word back then) I'll break your head if you come near me with that!" The Frenchman would then say "Fine, but at the very least you are obligated to pay me for heating it up!"
This was a story originally told in reference to how the Stamp Act worked. It is much more true when considering Obamacare.
Meanwhile, this is the new reality of healthcare.
This was a story originally told in reference to how the Stamp Act worked. It is much more true when considering Obamacare.
Meanwhile, this is the new reality of healthcare.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Let the Games Begin!
Hillary Clinton opened the 2016 presidential campaign with a powerful first strike aimed at the heart of her presumed to be most important opponent. At a conference of convenience store owners in Atlanta, the former secretary of state related how she fully supported the decision to kill Bin Laden while the Vice President waffled.
Joe Biden has attended a number of events in Iowa while making the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner rounds elsewhere.
Many, including some presidential aides, say the nomination is Clinton's to lose. But "experts" said much the same in 2008.
Interestingly, this could reignite the Benghazi scandal. Besides her general lack of authority in office or accomplishment as secretary of state, the Benghazi raid remains her weak point. Will Democrats who ignored Republican questions listen to Biden camp arguments?
America could finally get some real answers.
Also, the Bin Laden raid has become in Democratic circles the measure of toughness. Even those, like Jonah Goldberg, who argued that he should have been captured and questioned, have faced strong attack. It has hidden the wayward and bizarre foreign policy of Obama. A pusillanimous policy with the facade of the cowboy that frittered away international respect.
Biden finds himself in the same position as Hubert Humphreys in 1968. Much of his bosses policies deserve criticism. How far will he go to build credibility by attacking the poor decisions of the man who named him vice president? Especially since Biden can hang many of those albatrosses around Clinton?
Recent GOP intraparty debates have centered around principle, not personality. Should be interesting and instructive to see the Democrats fight over Biden versus Clinton
Joe Biden has attended a number of events in Iowa while making the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner rounds elsewhere.
Many, including some presidential aides, say the nomination is Clinton's to lose. But "experts" said much the same in 2008.
Interestingly, this could reignite the Benghazi scandal. Besides her general lack of authority in office or accomplishment as secretary of state, the Benghazi raid remains her weak point. Will Democrats who ignored Republican questions listen to Biden camp arguments?
America could finally get some real answers.
Also, the Bin Laden raid has become in Democratic circles the measure of toughness. Even those, like Jonah Goldberg, who argued that he should have been captured and questioned, have faced strong attack. It has hidden the wayward and bizarre foreign policy of Obama. A pusillanimous policy with the facade of the cowboy that frittered away international respect.
Biden finds himself in the same position as Hubert Humphreys in 1968. Much of his bosses policies deserve criticism. How far will he go to build credibility by attacking the poor decisions of the man who named him vice president? Especially since Biden can hang many of those albatrosses around Clinton?
Recent GOP intraparty debates have centered around principle, not personality. Should be interesting and instructive to see the Democrats fight over Biden versus Clinton
Friday, October 11, 2013
Stupid Things NFL Teams Do When They Are Really Bad
Taking a break from public policy, politics, and other weighty matters today to throw cold water on NFL doings and widely accepted myths.
They pick a quarterback before anything else.
Why is this dumb?
It's a familiar sight. A team plumbs the depths of horridness, winning one or two games. Defense plays like 11 fence posts. Offensive line blocks slightly less effectively than water vapor. Starting wide receivers and backs wouldn't even be on some teams' rosters.
And they think now is the time to draft a top quarterback.
So let me get this straight. You want to draft a quarterback, pay him scads of money, then put him back there to get beaten like an old rug for two years. At that point, the fans are calling him a bust so you draft the next human sacrifice and send the old one to the glue factory (or to be the backup of some other terrible quarterback on a bad team.)
Yes I am looking at you Cleveland Browns. And quit trying to hide behind your neighbor to the west, Oakland Raiders.
What should be done?
Build the team first. Then get the quarterback. For a few franchises this is counter-intuitive because HOLYCRAPTHATISTHEBESTQUARTERBACKEVERANDTHEREWILLNEVERBEANOTHERONESOPERFECTFORUS, at least until this one is dead and the next one gets drafted. They also seem certain that great quarterbacks only appear in the top five selections, so if they get a shot at one there, they must take it.
Great football operations understand that talented quarterbacks are not creatures mostly of myth that only appear at rare multiple planetary convergences. Every draft has at least a few that range from capable to good. Many, given patience on the part of the team and themselves, can develop over time into decent contributors.
Almost no quarterbacks can survive years of pulverizing without some effect on physical well-being or mental state.
So start by building the offensive line. A great offensive line has magical powers. It can turn the average into good and the good into stupendous. Some bad offenses happen to have great quarterbacks. Currently Ben Rothliesburger, absent a murder conviction, will go to the Hall of Fame no matter what else happens in his career. He has the same abilities as he had when the Steelers actually won games. A lot of bad offenses have one great wide receiver, many of whom live in double coverage but still cry for the damn ball.
But all bad offenses share one characteristic. They have bad offensive lines. A bad offensive line is why the aforementioned Steelers quarterback will be riding a cart through Wal Mart in a decade. He has almost zero chance to do great things because he has linebackers hanging off of his shoulders.
So build an offensive line.
Amazingly, if you build it, they will come. Offensive players will want to play for your team. Offensive line emphasis shows that a team has an actual serious intent to win, instead of simply shoving a top draft pick out there to sell tickets and die.
This leads neatly into the second stupid thing.
No balanced offense? No title.
The National Football League holds onto cherished myths, one of which is that offenses heavily dependent upon passing are the "future."
But those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That should be the NFL's motto.
Look at every Super Bowl winner in this century. Almost all of them relied heavily on a balanced offense and strong defense. Despite the fact that the NFL promotes rules that help the passing game (and, consequently, lead to more high speed collision injuries) titles are still won using the age old formula.
Evidence? Look at the Pittsburgh Steelers. When they ran the ball effectively, they dominated the post season. Running the ball keeps your defense fresh and tires the opponents. More importantly, it reduces the quarterback's exposure to risk. Not many bad things happen to a quarterback when he hands off. the offense also does not become overly dependent on a single guy to carry them.
A few quarterbacks can carry a team through a season passing all the time and be consistently successful. It takes hard work and a lot of mental toughness. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning can do that. That's it. It doesn't mean that a quarterback is not great if he runs a balanced offense. Joe Montana quarterbacked a team that ran the ball effectively. Shoot, they even gave the fullback the ball a few times per game! Troy Aikman almost played second fiddle to his running back, but no one would say he was not one of the great ones of his era.
But think about Peyton Manning. How many rings does he have? Remember his one Super Bowl win? It came when he was handing the ball off quite a bit to Edgerrin James.
How many rings does Tom Brady have since Corey Dillon left the Patriots, was cut, or retired, or whatever happened to him? Zero. He has had amazing season and playoff dominance, but then runs out of luck when a team gets pressure on him. Brady will be interesting to watch this year because he operates an offense built out of duct tape, coat hangers, and second hand shoestrings. And looks very human. And tired.
Conversely, John Elway could not win the big one until lassoed into Mike Shanahan's system. His zone blocking scheme used lightweight and brainy linemen. It enabled Denver to put anyone it wanted at tailback and get a thousand yards out of them. Terrell Davis running over people shocked no one. Olandis Gary gaining a thousand yards convinced some that the Shanahans dealt in some form of black magic.
So do your quarterback a favor. After you get a good line in place, bring in about four guys who can get some yardage consistently. And don't be like the teams who . . .
Avoid giving the ball to the fullback based on some warped principle
This is really a thing. When Andy Reid had nearly finished serving his time in Philadelphia (of course Philly fans thought they served time with Andy Reid) one constantly saw a bizarre sight. Fullback Owen Schmitt, a 240 lb freak of nature who could run almost a 4.5 in the 40 would run short pass routes. About every third game, Michael Vick tossed it to him and he rumbled for 16 yards. Then wait another three games. Defenses knew he'd rarely get the ball so they never covered him. Reid evidently preferred that Vick throw it 50 yards downfield into double coverage. Because we wanna be aggressive!
No, no, no!!! NFL coaches seem to think that putting the ball into the hands of guys who usually block means that they eschew a chance to get more yardage somewhere else. Which means that the defensive coordinator says "Whew, that's one less guy I have to account for!"
So for all that is decent and right, let the fullback have the ball! At least once or twice. And not just on third and 1 when 11 guys are within five yards of him. Imagine, just imagine the shock IF THE FULLBACK GOT THE BALL ON FIRST, DARE I SAY FIRST DOWN??? Broadcasters would scream themselves senseless. Defensive coordinators would fall over in shock. Fantasy players would be apoplectic!
But best of all, you force the defense to account for one more guy who might get the ball and run with it.
Fullbacks used to get four or five carries per game. Tom Rathman actually gained a few hundred yards a year in the 49ers glory days. Dallas' Darryl "Moose" Johnston sent Cowboys fans into shrill delight. Defenses in the 1990s stopped expecting the fullback to get carries, so Moose averaged about seven per.
If we give the ball to the fullback to fool the defense, surely we need a running quarterback. They are the wave of the future, right?
No, running quarterbacks are not the wave of the future
There's nothing wrong with running quarterbacks. But seriously, every generation acts like they discovered the running quarterback first. That all who came before were just sticks in the mud who had boring old pro style guys.
Stupid teams want to go for the latest fad. They usually end up doing what the fad was last year just in time for good defenses to adjust to it.
But just like the present generation forgot the "Run n' shoot" and "Fun n' gun" offenses of prior years, the present generation has no idea that running quarterbacks are nothing new.
All quarterbacks used to do was either hand off or run! Just like the best home run hitters in World War I usually jacked out about 10 per season, quarterbacks used to not pass all that often. And so, needing to contribute something, they often ran the ball.
By the 1950s and 60s, quarterbacks grew steadily more immobile, either handing off or throwing farther and farther downfield. A fast quarterback became an anomaly. When forced to, a quarterback running the ball looked awkward and unnatural, like wearing a clown suit in your wedding.
Some, however, ran and ran well. Roger Staubach in the 1960s and 70s. Randall Cunningham in the 1980s. Steve Young and John Elway in the 1990s. All of these guys ran well. And, of course, their arrival heralded the new era of the "mobile quarterback." Meaning that those old fuddy duddy quarterbacks who could not run ten feet in twenty minutes were doomed to irrelevance. Or golf.
The best pro style quarterbacks save their teams a lot of grief because the quarterback tries to get rid of the ball in under three seconds. Most offensive linemen can stay in a guy's way for three seconds. Because they can't get anywhere else very fast, they stay in the pocket, deliver the ball accurately, and don't get clobbered all the time.
A great running quarterback is as rare as the guy who can throw fifty times per game, every game, and still win all of the time. Attrition wears these guys down. They play through a lot of pain because they are the quarterback. Many cannot endure the constant beating they take.
Most adjust, except for Michael Vick who seems perfectly content to spend the rest of his career running through a brick wall and only playing 9 games a season. The key is to rely less on athleticism and more on judgment. The aforementioned Steve Young and John Elway transformed from great runners/good passers into great passers/good runners.
Of the current crop, Robert Griffin III should really look the hardest at the career track of Young. Like Young, he entered the NFL as a great runner who could pass accurately. Young carefully transformed his game and managed to survive in the league several years because he only broke out his runs when he had to. The rest of the time he deconstructed defenses with his arm. Griffin is very reminiscent of Steve Young in physical abilities and intangibles. Which reminds me . . .
Stop only comparing black quarterbacks to other black quarterbacks
Honestly, that really is racist. And ridiculous. Many moons ago, as Byron Leftwich prepared for the NFL draft, Mel Kiper compared him to Daunte Culpeper. They were both gigantic, had strong arms, and happened to be black. The difference? Culpeper ran like a fullback. Trucking people was part of his game.
Byron Leftwich ran like he was chest deep in molasses. But he did have accuracy and a quick release. At the time, Leftwich looked more like the next Bernie Kosar. Get drafted by a middling organization, have some pretty solid years, make the Pro Bowl a couple of times, then drift away.
Sometimes an up and coming black quarterback is like a white predecessor. Sometimes an up and coming white quarterback is like a black predecessor.
This may not have anything to do with teams, per se. But it's still dumb.
And Lastly, Stupid Teams Constantly Want Other Teams' Backup Quarterbacks
This tactic almost never works. Team A, a winning franchise, has an amazingly awesome quarterback. Probably going to the Hall of Fame. They also have a backup who gets to start maybe two games per year. When he plays, he is lights out. Throws for 300 plus yards, a couple of touchdowns, and has a winning smile.
By golly, he might be a great starter!
Back in the 1990s I had a friend who was really into fantasy football. Every year he drafted Jason Garrett, who backed up Troy Aikman. He knew that the inevitable one or two games that Garrett started, he'd shine. And he did. Like Frank Reich of the Buffalo Bills or Gary Kubiak of the Denver Broncos.
But as often as they had memorable games, none of these guys would have starred as starters.
Why?
Some quarterbacks have a few gifts that shine in rare chances to play. Many of these guys also play for good teams with real live linemen instead of fenceposts. They shine specifically because they rarely play. A guy who plays once a year gets no scrutiny. Conversely, some of the brightest minds in our nation constantly examine the play of Eli Manning, Tony Romo, and others to find the glistening flaws.
Example. Tony Romo is the best quarterback in the world when he faces no pressure, like when down 20 points in the 3rd quarter. Blitzes make him average. Eli Manning has definitely revealed a flaw at some point recently, because defenses now steal from him early and often.
So your talented second stringer comes in almost as a tabula rosa as far as the defense is concerned. they know very little about him. Which is why second stringers often have surprisingly good games.
Then they go elsewhere. Often to bad teams. Matt Cassel was a second string supernova with one glorious year in New England after Brady went down. Then faded to black in Kansas City. Matt Flynn showed some promise in Green Bay. Oakland just released him. You know you have hit the wall when Oakland doesn't want your quarterbacking services.
Know the difference between the second stringer and the heir apparent. One is fodder, the other is the Prince of Wales, waiting on or scheming for the throne. In any event, the heir apparent scenario often works out well. The old quarterback gets tossed out before he is done, usually to play well for a couple of years with another team. The new one often establishes greatness in his own right. Montana to Young, Favre to Rogers. Unfortunately, no team has ever figured out how to handle that transition with grace.
What Should a Bad Team Do?
Avoid the backup quarterback as a long term plan. It's like Elsa reaching for the Holy Grail in the third Indiana Jones movie. Go after the guy who is near the end of his career (and understands this reality.) If you get one of these while developing a young draftee, that becomes a bonus.
Don't do this in the middle of the season and expect the new guy to come in and light up the world. Yes, I am talking about you, Oakland Raiders. Carson Palmer was actually a good move, except you gave up too much and you expected miracles right away. He settled into Arizona, like a lot of old people, and is doing all right.
Great teams draft their stars and build depth through free agency. Bad teams often do the opposite.
Great teams have a vision that serves as the foundation of what they plan to do.
Bad teams have no plan. They follow fads and draft who their fans want.
Running an NFL franchise is like a lot of other endeavors. There are few short cuts to success, but there are tried and true formulas that require hard work, effort, good judgment, and, often, luck.
They pick a quarterback before anything else.
Why is this dumb?
It's a familiar sight. A team plumbs the depths of horridness, winning one or two games. Defense plays like 11 fence posts. Offensive line blocks slightly less effectively than water vapor. Starting wide receivers and backs wouldn't even be on some teams' rosters.
And they think now is the time to draft a top quarterback.
So let me get this straight. You want to draft a quarterback, pay him scads of money, then put him back there to get beaten like an old rug for two years. At that point, the fans are calling him a bust so you draft the next human sacrifice and send the old one to the glue factory (or to be the backup of some other terrible quarterback on a bad team.)
Yes I am looking at you Cleveland Browns. And quit trying to hide behind your neighbor to the west, Oakland Raiders.
What should be done?
Build the team first. Then get the quarterback. For a few franchises this is counter-intuitive because HOLYCRAPTHATISTHEBESTQUARTERBACKEVERANDTHEREWILLNEVERBEANOTHERONESOPERFECTFORUS, at least until this one is dead and the next one gets drafted. They also seem certain that great quarterbacks only appear in the top five selections, so if they get a shot at one there, they must take it.
Great football operations understand that talented quarterbacks are not creatures mostly of myth that only appear at rare multiple planetary convergences. Every draft has at least a few that range from capable to good. Many, given patience on the part of the team and themselves, can develop over time into decent contributors.
Almost no quarterbacks can survive years of pulverizing without some effect on physical well-being or mental state.
So start by building the offensive line. A great offensive line has magical powers. It can turn the average into good and the good into stupendous. Some bad offenses happen to have great quarterbacks. Currently Ben Rothliesburger, absent a murder conviction, will go to the Hall of Fame no matter what else happens in his career. He has the same abilities as he had when the Steelers actually won games. A lot of bad offenses have one great wide receiver, many of whom live in double coverage but still cry for the damn ball.
But all bad offenses share one characteristic. They have bad offensive lines. A bad offensive line is why the aforementioned Steelers quarterback will be riding a cart through Wal Mart in a decade. He has almost zero chance to do great things because he has linebackers hanging off of his shoulders.
So build an offensive line.
Amazingly, if you build it, they will come. Offensive players will want to play for your team. Offensive line emphasis shows that a team has an actual serious intent to win, instead of simply shoving a top draft pick out there to sell tickets and die.
This leads neatly into the second stupid thing.
No balanced offense? No title.
The National Football League holds onto cherished myths, one of which is that offenses heavily dependent upon passing are the "future."
But those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That should be the NFL's motto.
Look at every Super Bowl winner in this century. Almost all of them relied heavily on a balanced offense and strong defense. Despite the fact that the NFL promotes rules that help the passing game (and, consequently, lead to more high speed collision injuries) titles are still won using the age old formula.
Evidence? Look at the Pittsburgh Steelers. When they ran the ball effectively, they dominated the post season. Running the ball keeps your defense fresh and tires the opponents. More importantly, it reduces the quarterback's exposure to risk. Not many bad things happen to a quarterback when he hands off. the offense also does not become overly dependent on a single guy to carry them.
A few quarterbacks can carry a team through a season passing all the time and be consistently successful. It takes hard work and a lot of mental toughness. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning can do that. That's it. It doesn't mean that a quarterback is not great if he runs a balanced offense. Joe Montana quarterbacked a team that ran the ball effectively. Shoot, they even gave the fullback the ball a few times per game! Troy Aikman almost played second fiddle to his running back, but no one would say he was not one of the great ones of his era.
But think about Peyton Manning. How many rings does he have? Remember his one Super Bowl win? It came when he was handing the ball off quite a bit to Edgerrin James.
How many rings does Tom Brady have since Corey Dillon left the Patriots, was cut, or retired, or whatever happened to him? Zero. He has had amazing season and playoff dominance, but then runs out of luck when a team gets pressure on him. Brady will be interesting to watch this year because he operates an offense built out of duct tape, coat hangers, and second hand shoestrings. And looks very human. And tired.
Conversely, John Elway could not win the big one until lassoed into Mike Shanahan's system. His zone blocking scheme used lightweight and brainy linemen. It enabled Denver to put anyone it wanted at tailback and get a thousand yards out of them. Terrell Davis running over people shocked no one. Olandis Gary gaining a thousand yards convinced some that the Shanahans dealt in some form of black magic.
So do your quarterback a favor. After you get a good line in place, bring in about four guys who can get some yardage consistently. And don't be like the teams who . . .
Avoid giving the ball to the fullback based on some warped principle
This is really a thing. When Andy Reid had nearly finished serving his time in Philadelphia (of course Philly fans thought they served time with Andy Reid) one constantly saw a bizarre sight. Fullback Owen Schmitt, a 240 lb freak of nature who could run almost a 4.5 in the 40 would run short pass routes. About every third game, Michael Vick tossed it to him and he rumbled for 16 yards. Then wait another three games. Defenses knew he'd rarely get the ball so they never covered him. Reid evidently preferred that Vick throw it 50 yards downfield into double coverage. Because we wanna be aggressive!
No, no, no!!! NFL coaches seem to think that putting the ball into the hands of guys who usually block means that they eschew a chance to get more yardage somewhere else. Which means that the defensive coordinator says "Whew, that's one less guy I have to account for!"
So for all that is decent and right, let the fullback have the ball! At least once or twice. And not just on third and 1 when 11 guys are within five yards of him. Imagine, just imagine the shock IF THE FULLBACK GOT THE BALL ON FIRST, DARE I SAY FIRST DOWN??? Broadcasters would scream themselves senseless. Defensive coordinators would fall over in shock. Fantasy players would be apoplectic!
But best of all, you force the defense to account for one more guy who might get the ball and run with it.
Fullbacks used to get four or five carries per game. Tom Rathman actually gained a few hundred yards a year in the 49ers glory days. Dallas' Darryl "Moose" Johnston sent Cowboys fans into shrill delight. Defenses in the 1990s stopped expecting the fullback to get carries, so Moose averaged about seven per.
If we give the ball to the fullback to fool the defense, surely we need a running quarterback. They are the wave of the future, right?
No, running quarterbacks are not the wave of the future
There's nothing wrong with running quarterbacks. But seriously, every generation acts like they discovered the running quarterback first. That all who came before were just sticks in the mud who had boring old pro style guys.
Stupid teams want to go for the latest fad. They usually end up doing what the fad was last year just in time for good defenses to adjust to it.
But just like the present generation forgot the "Run n' shoot" and "Fun n' gun" offenses of prior years, the present generation has no idea that running quarterbacks are nothing new.
All quarterbacks used to do was either hand off or run! Just like the best home run hitters in World War I usually jacked out about 10 per season, quarterbacks used to not pass all that often. And so, needing to contribute something, they often ran the ball.
By the 1950s and 60s, quarterbacks grew steadily more immobile, either handing off or throwing farther and farther downfield. A fast quarterback became an anomaly. When forced to, a quarterback running the ball looked awkward and unnatural, like wearing a clown suit in your wedding.
Some, however, ran and ran well. Roger Staubach in the 1960s and 70s. Randall Cunningham in the 1980s. Steve Young and John Elway in the 1990s. All of these guys ran well. And, of course, their arrival heralded the new era of the "mobile quarterback." Meaning that those old fuddy duddy quarterbacks who could not run ten feet in twenty minutes were doomed to irrelevance. Or golf.
The best pro style quarterbacks save their teams a lot of grief because the quarterback tries to get rid of the ball in under three seconds. Most offensive linemen can stay in a guy's way for three seconds. Because they can't get anywhere else very fast, they stay in the pocket, deliver the ball accurately, and don't get clobbered all the time.
A great running quarterback is as rare as the guy who can throw fifty times per game, every game, and still win all of the time. Attrition wears these guys down. They play through a lot of pain because they are the quarterback. Many cannot endure the constant beating they take.
Most adjust, except for Michael Vick who seems perfectly content to spend the rest of his career running through a brick wall and only playing 9 games a season. The key is to rely less on athleticism and more on judgment. The aforementioned Steve Young and John Elway transformed from great runners/good passers into great passers/good runners.
Of the current crop, Robert Griffin III should really look the hardest at the career track of Young. Like Young, he entered the NFL as a great runner who could pass accurately. Young carefully transformed his game and managed to survive in the league several years because he only broke out his runs when he had to. The rest of the time he deconstructed defenses with his arm. Griffin is very reminiscent of Steve Young in physical abilities and intangibles. Which reminds me . . .
Stop only comparing black quarterbacks to other black quarterbacks
Honestly, that really is racist. And ridiculous. Many moons ago, as Byron Leftwich prepared for the NFL draft, Mel Kiper compared him to Daunte Culpeper. They were both gigantic, had strong arms, and happened to be black. The difference? Culpeper ran like a fullback. Trucking people was part of his game.
Byron Leftwich ran like he was chest deep in molasses. But he did have accuracy and a quick release. At the time, Leftwich looked more like the next Bernie Kosar. Get drafted by a middling organization, have some pretty solid years, make the Pro Bowl a couple of times, then drift away.
Sometimes an up and coming black quarterback is like a white predecessor. Sometimes an up and coming white quarterback is like a black predecessor.
This may not have anything to do with teams, per se. But it's still dumb.
And Lastly, Stupid Teams Constantly Want Other Teams' Backup Quarterbacks
This tactic almost never works. Team A, a winning franchise, has an amazingly awesome quarterback. Probably going to the Hall of Fame. They also have a backup who gets to start maybe two games per year. When he plays, he is lights out. Throws for 300 plus yards, a couple of touchdowns, and has a winning smile.
By golly, he might be a great starter!
Back in the 1990s I had a friend who was really into fantasy football. Every year he drafted Jason Garrett, who backed up Troy Aikman. He knew that the inevitable one or two games that Garrett started, he'd shine. And he did. Like Frank Reich of the Buffalo Bills or Gary Kubiak of the Denver Broncos.
But as often as they had memorable games, none of these guys would have starred as starters.
Why?
Some quarterbacks have a few gifts that shine in rare chances to play. Many of these guys also play for good teams with real live linemen instead of fenceposts. They shine specifically because they rarely play. A guy who plays once a year gets no scrutiny. Conversely, some of the brightest minds in our nation constantly examine the play of Eli Manning, Tony Romo, and others to find the glistening flaws.
Example. Tony Romo is the best quarterback in the world when he faces no pressure, like when down 20 points in the 3rd quarter. Blitzes make him average. Eli Manning has definitely revealed a flaw at some point recently, because defenses now steal from him early and often.
So your talented second stringer comes in almost as a tabula rosa as far as the defense is concerned. they know very little about him. Which is why second stringers often have surprisingly good games.
Then they go elsewhere. Often to bad teams. Matt Cassel was a second string supernova with one glorious year in New England after Brady went down. Then faded to black in Kansas City. Matt Flynn showed some promise in Green Bay. Oakland just released him. You know you have hit the wall when Oakland doesn't want your quarterbacking services.
Know the difference between the second stringer and the heir apparent. One is fodder, the other is the Prince of Wales, waiting on or scheming for the throne. In any event, the heir apparent scenario often works out well. The old quarterback gets tossed out before he is done, usually to play well for a couple of years with another team. The new one often establishes greatness in his own right. Montana to Young, Favre to Rogers. Unfortunately, no team has ever figured out how to handle that transition with grace.
What Should a Bad Team Do?
Avoid the backup quarterback as a long term plan. It's like Elsa reaching for the Holy Grail in the third Indiana Jones movie. Go after the guy who is near the end of his career (and understands this reality.) If you get one of these while developing a young draftee, that becomes a bonus.
Don't do this in the middle of the season and expect the new guy to come in and light up the world. Yes, I am talking about you, Oakland Raiders. Carson Palmer was actually a good move, except you gave up too much and you expected miracles right away. He settled into Arizona, like a lot of old people, and is doing all right.
Great teams draft their stars and build depth through free agency. Bad teams often do the opposite.
Great teams have a vision that serves as the foundation of what they plan to do.
Bad teams have no plan. They follow fads and draft who their fans want.
Running an NFL franchise is like a lot of other endeavors. There are few short cuts to success, but there are tried and true formulas that require hard work, effort, good judgment, and, often, luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)