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.
Friday, October 18, 2013
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.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Obama's Company Town
On Monday, Salon compared Republican resistance to the Civil War. It called the GOP rebels without noting that it currently fights, as it did then, for liberty.
We can make historical comparisons, too.
Obama's entire administration has resembled the worst examples of the old coal company town in Southern West Virginia. How so?
In company towns, all aspects of life were provided for by or otherwise controlled by company authorities.
The company hired the teachers and controlled curriculum in the schools. Obama's Department of Education seeks more and more control, removing local government and parents from the equation.
The company provided the health care that it thought you deserved. Like Obamacare.
Many company towns actively monitored and suppressed dissent. They especially feared organized labor. Obama's NSA, IRS, DHS, and other agencies collect information on and/or harass groups whose influence it fears.
Reporters coming into coal towns to find the truth were routinely threatened and beaten. Obama's administration has secretly monitored the Associated Press and who knows who else.
Rising tuition costs and easy credit have trapped college graduates into a cycle of debt control. They do not make enough money to pay their debts. Just like the set up in the old company town stores.
In one infamous incident, striking miners living in houses on company land near Matewan were evicted by mine guards from the Baldwin and Felts Detective Agency. This violated local law that said any evictions must go through the courts and be carried out by the sheriff. Obama's administration evicted elderly families from homes they had lived in since the 1970s because they were on federal land.
The company towns were a bad development because they placed all power over a community in the hands of one central authority. Even if it had good intentions, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is a good thing that Congress has stood up for its role in our system of government. Obama has been corrupted enough already.
We can make historical comparisons, too.
Obama's entire administration has resembled the worst examples of the old coal company town in Southern West Virginia. How so?
In company towns, all aspects of life were provided for by or otherwise controlled by company authorities.
The company hired the teachers and controlled curriculum in the schools. Obama's Department of Education seeks more and more control, removing local government and parents from the equation.
The company provided the health care that it thought you deserved. Like Obamacare.
Many company towns actively monitored and suppressed dissent. They especially feared organized labor. Obama's NSA, IRS, DHS, and other agencies collect information on and/or harass groups whose influence it fears.
Reporters coming into coal towns to find the truth were routinely threatened and beaten. Obama's administration has secretly monitored the Associated Press and who knows who else.
Rising tuition costs and easy credit have trapped college graduates into a cycle of debt control. They do not make enough money to pay their debts. Just like the set up in the old company town stores.
In one infamous incident, striking miners living in houses on company land near Matewan were evicted by mine guards from the Baldwin and Felts Detective Agency. This violated local law that said any evictions must go through the courts and be carried out by the sheriff. Obama's administration evicted elderly families from homes they had lived in since the 1970s because they were on federal land.
The company towns were a bad development because they placed all power over a community in the hands of one central authority. Even if it had good intentions, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is a good thing that Congress has stood up for its role in our system of government. Obama has been corrupted enough already.
A Casualty of the Big Government Nanny State Remembered
The Calamity Cafe has returned, if only on Facebook.
Most in the Potomac Highlands would have no reason to have heard of it. But the Calamity Cafe for a decade was a Huntington icon. It sat on the corner of Hal Greer Boulevard and 3rd Avenue, right across from Marshall University's Old Main.
Mostly college faculty and students packed it for lunch, dinner, and live music on weekends. It featured a southwestern, hippified atmosphere with Indian blankets and cow skulls as decor. The food was incomparable. Recipes were created on site, using farm fresh ingredients well before that was all the rage.
Like I said before, this place was pretty hippified. And that made it a fun place to go at any time.
The Calamity did an amazing business. It served as a center of college life and was never empty. Yet it has not been there for almost 10 years. Why? Big government, of course.
Two rooms separated by a narrow hallway formed the restaurant. One side served non smoking customers, the other had the small stage and catered to smokers. Cabell County in the late 1990s wanted to join the anti-smoking regulation fad and required restaurants to have a physical barrier between the smoking and non smoking sections. This was meant for places that allowed smoking at the bar and not elsewhere in an open floor plan. But it was applied to the Calamity as well.
Chains like Outback and Applebees complied easily, constructing expensive barriers. The Calamity could not afford to reconfigure its restaurant so it closed. Chains picked up the business.
That is why small businesses close. Unnecessary and stupidly written regulations.
Now the Calamity Cafe only exists in memory. It was a small restaurant, but there were those who loved it. And Big Government crushed it.
Most in the Potomac Highlands would have no reason to have heard of it. But the Calamity Cafe for a decade was a Huntington icon. It sat on the corner of Hal Greer Boulevard and 3rd Avenue, right across from Marshall University's Old Main.
Mostly college faculty and students packed it for lunch, dinner, and live music on weekends. It featured a southwestern, hippified atmosphere with Indian blankets and cow skulls as decor. The food was incomparable. Recipes were created on site, using farm fresh ingredients well before that was all the rage.
Like I said before, this place was pretty hippified. And that made it a fun place to go at any time.
The Calamity did an amazing business. It served as a center of college life and was never empty. Yet it has not been there for almost 10 years. Why? Big government, of course.
Two rooms separated by a narrow hallway formed the restaurant. One side served non smoking customers, the other had the small stage and catered to smokers. Cabell County in the late 1990s wanted to join the anti-smoking regulation fad and required restaurants to have a physical barrier between the smoking and non smoking sections. This was meant for places that allowed smoking at the bar and not elsewhere in an open floor plan. But it was applied to the Calamity as well.
Chains like Outback and Applebees complied easily, constructing expensive barriers. The Calamity could not afford to reconfigure its restaurant so it closed. Chains picked up the business.
That is why small businesses close. Unnecessary and stupidly written regulations.
Now the Calamity Cafe only exists in memory. It was a small restaurant, but there were those who loved it. And Big Government crushed it.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Naturally Changing the World Balance of Power
America's "gas revolution," combined with stepped up domestic oil production could undermine a US foreign rival.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia relied heavily on its natural gas production to rebuild its economy. By the ascension of Vladimir Putin to the presidency, Russian dominance in gas production helped to steady its economy while Europe, Japan, and the United States experienced uncertainty.
Gas revenues helped Russia to rebuild its state and military over the past decade, but the country's inability to diversify its economy could lead to disaster.
Europe for decades relied heavily on gas exports from first the USSR, then Russia, to help satisfy its energy needs. Now, as Washington Free Beacon reports, a sudden upwelling of gas exports from the United States has forced prices to drop worldwide. Russia feels the pinch as their gas revenues decline.
The IMf, according to the story, revised down its estimates for Russian economic growth in 2014. Though three percent still qualifies as fairly robust, it pales in comparison to the expected seven.
All this comes as the federal government considers dropping many of the remaining gas export restrictions. This could help to open the markets in South Central Asia as well as Europe, hurting Iranian exports as well as Russia.
A hundred years ago, President William Howard Taft pioneered "dollar diplomacy." He tried to use US economic power instead of force in pushing other states to act more in line with American interests. The US has been stung many times by energy diplomacy from Russia and the Middle East. Increasing output, raising exports, and becoming self-sufficient is the right call for US jobs and national security
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia relied heavily on its natural gas production to rebuild its economy. By the ascension of Vladimir Putin to the presidency, Russian dominance in gas production helped to steady its economy while Europe, Japan, and the United States experienced uncertainty.
Gas revenues helped Russia to rebuild its state and military over the past decade, but the country's inability to diversify its economy could lead to disaster.
Europe for decades relied heavily on gas exports from first the USSR, then Russia, to help satisfy its energy needs. Now, as Washington Free Beacon reports, a sudden upwelling of gas exports from the United States has forced prices to drop worldwide. Russia feels the pinch as their gas revenues decline.
The IMf, according to the story, revised down its estimates for Russian economic growth in 2014. Though three percent still qualifies as fairly robust, it pales in comparison to the expected seven.
All this comes as the federal government considers dropping many of the remaining gas export restrictions. This could help to open the markets in South Central Asia as well as Europe, hurting Iranian exports as well as Russia.
A hundred years ago, President William Howard Taft pioneered "dollar diplomacy." He tried to use US economic power instead of force in pushing other states to act more in line with American interests. The US has been stung many times by energy diplomacy from Russia and the Middle East. Increasing output, raising exports, and becoming self-sufficient is the right call for US jobs and national security
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Hydra-Headed Obamacare Threat Spelled Out In State Journal Piece
The State Journal released a moderate sized article packed with Obamacare spawned problems.
It quotes David Ransey, CEO of Charleston Area Medical Center extensively. Ramsey is frankly fearful of Obamacare's impact.
First. he details the threat to state hospitals. Hospitals already face financial pressures. In West Virginia, 18 have closed in the past 40 years. The uncertain climate introduced by Obamacare threatens many of the rest.
Ramsey slammed public health care programs, both those for low income individuals and public employees. They pay late and do not cover the full cost of services. Hospitals must shift almost a third of a billion dollars per year onto private insurance to make up the shortfall.
Under Obamacare, this will only get worse. Since many doctors will refuse to take Obamacare, this shifts more burden onto emergency rooms. Costs rise for everyone.
The end of the piece adds in an interesting nugget. Mark Muchow, from the state Department of Revenue, claims that Obamacare's increased cost burden on state taxpayers will require cuts in the budget somewhere. He speculated these would come from higher education.
Obamacare is a nightmare for states, taxpayers, health care providers, private insurance, and, eventually state colleges and universities.
Good thing we didn't read it first.
It quotes David Ransey, CEO of Charleston Area Medical Center extensively. Ramsey is frankly fearful of Obamacare's impact.
First. he details the threat to state hospitals. Hospitals already face financial pressures. In West Virginia, 18 have closed in the past 40 years. The uncertain climate introduced by Obamacare threatens many of the rest.
Ramsey slammed public health care programs, both those for low income individuals and public employees. They pay late and do not cover the full cost of services. Hospitals must shift almost a third of a billion dollars per year onto private insurance to make up the shortfall.
Under Obamacare, this will only get worse. Since many doctors will refuse to take Obamacare, this shifts more burden onto emergency rooms. Costs rise for everyone.
The end of the piece adds in an interesting nugget. Mark Muchow, from the state Department of Revenue, claims that Obamacare's increased cost burden on state taxpayers will require cuts in the budget somewhere. He speculated these would come from higher education.
Obamacare is a nightmare for states, taxpayers, health care providers, private insurance, and, eventually state colleges and universities.
Good thing we didn't read it first.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
What to Do With the West Virginia School For the Deaf and Blind?
The rumblings have been coming for some time. What will happen to the 143 year old West Virginia School For the Deaf and Blind in Romney?
Assessments over the past year have raised questions. Why keep the school in Romney? How can the state afford to pay to maintain historically significant, but dilapidated and unused buildings? In what ways must the school update itself to meet 21st century guidelines?
Estimates run as high as $80 million to renovate the campus and its curriculum to meet modern guidelines.
The location vexes many. Why did the state put the school there in the first place? The first generation of West Virginia state leaders sprinkled state institutions in different regions. Most state jobs at the time were political appointments, so state institutions were seen as a good way to build party strength. A story, perhaps apocryphal, says that Moundsville could have had West Virginia University, but chose the penitentiary instead because it offered more state jobs.
State law requires that the school remain in Romney. It is unlikely that other legislators will desire to oppose Hampshire County's senators and delegates while also aligning themselves against an inevitable parade of disabled children and their supporters.
If Montgomery was able to prevent the sensible move of the school formerly known as West Virginia Tech to Charleston, the removal of this school from Romney is highly unlikely.
So it will likely stay put. But how should it change and where will the money come from?
Currently the school only uses a fraction of its campus for educational purposes.
So here's a thought. It may not even be doable. But ideas are always worth debating.
First, do what colleges and universities do. Hire a development team to raise money to refurbish the campus. If the state makes a commitment to keep the school there, fundraisers can put donor names on every building. They can even put plaques on every quarter acre.
Second, think beyond now. What else can the school offer with its unused space? Can it offer specialized digital classes to other schools and parents across the country? Can it put together a post graduate training center to educate teachers from all over on how to work with deaf or blind children?
In other words, how can this beautiful and historical space be best utilized to not only serve the children of West Virginia, but also help to advance the field of disabled education?
This can be done under the current regime. It might, however, offer better results if a non profit organization came together as a partner. A non profit could take over currently unused sections of the campus and expand programs while partnering with and enriching the traditional mission.
Such an institution would certainly provide significant economic impact for Romney and Hampshire County. A non profit that can attract out of state funds would perform that function much better than relying solely on taxpayer efforts.
It could be done. It is at least worth a discussion.
Assessments over the past year have raised questions. Why keep the school in Romney? How can the state afford to pay to maintain historically significant, but dilapidated and unused buildings? In what ways must the school update itself to meet 21st century guidelines?
Estimates run as high as $80 million to renovate the campus and its curriculum to meet modern guidelines.
The location vexes many. Why did the state put the school there in the first place? The first generation of West Virginia state leaders sprinkled state institutions in different regions. Most state jobs at the time were political appointments, so state institutions were seen as a good way to build party strength. A story, perhaps apocryphal, says that Moundsville could have had West Virginia University, but chose the penitentiary instead because it offered more state jobs.
State law requires that the school remain in Romney. It is unlikely that other legislators will desire to oppose Hampshire County's senators and delegates while also aligning themselves against an inevitable parade of disabled children and their supporters.
If Montgomery was able to prevent the sensible move of the school formerly known as West Virginia Tech to Charleston, the removal of this school from Romney is highly unlikely.
So it will likely stay put. But how should it change and where will the money come from?
Currently the school only uses a fraction of its campus for educational purposes.
So here's a thought. It may not even be doable. But ideas are always worth debating.
First, do what colleges and universities do. Hire a development team to raise money to refurbish the campus. If the state makes a commitment to keep the school there, fundraisers can put donor names on every building. They can even put plaques on every quarter acre.
Second, think beyond now. What else can the school offer with its unused space? Can it offer specialized digital classes to other schools and parents across the country? Can it put together a post graduate training center to educate teachers from all over on how to work with deaf or blind children?
In other words, how can this beautiful and historical space be best utilized to not only serve the children of West Virginia, but also help to advance the field of disabled education?
This can be done under the current regime. It might, however, offer better results if a non profit organization came together as a partner. A non profit could take over currently unused sections of the campus and expand programs while partnering with and enriching the traditional mission.
Such an institution would certainly provide significant economic impact for Romney and Hampshire County. A non profit that can attract out of state funds would perform that function much better than relying solely on taxpayer efforts.
It could be done. It is at least worth a discussion.
Why Primary Offense Expansion Gives Police Too Much Power
Allegheny Radio Corporation's Amanda Mangan reported on Facebook about new traffic laws in Maryland that could affect West Virginia drivers.
She reported that, as of October 1, using a cell phone while driving now is a primary offense. Like Maryland laws on seat belt usage, this means that officers can pull over drivers if they see them violating the law. A driver can use his or her phone if pulled over, but not in the travel portion of the roadway.
These changes certainly affect West Virginia drivers in the Eastern Panhandle who frequently use Maryland interstates.
But they can also lead to a wider problem because they expand the scope of probable cause. A police officer cannot pull a driver over unless they have good reason to suspect a violation of law. Police need probable cause to satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements that the government not interfere with persons or their effects without good reason.
When states expand the scope of primary offenses, they also unintentionally expand the opportunity for unscrupulous law enforcement officers. All an officer needs to say to justify pulling a car over is to claim that he or she thought they saw the driver using a cell phone.
The CDC reports that 3,331 drivers in 2011 died in accidents where cell phones were a factor. That rose by 70 from the year before. Proponents of expanding primary offense laws claim that they keep people safer from roadway malefactors
But is this worth the inevitable accompaniment of expanding law enforcement's ability to harass citizens at will?
She reported that, as of October 1, using a cell phone while driving now is a primary offense. Like Maryland laws on seat belt usage, this means that officers can pull over drivers if they see them violating the law. A driver can use his or her phone if pulled over, but not in the travel portion of the roadway.
These changes certainly affect West Virginia drivers in the Eastern Panhandle who frequently use Maryland interstates.
But they can also lead to a wider problem because they expand the scope of probable cause. A police officer cannot pull a driver over unless they have good reason to suspect a violation of law. Police need probable cause to satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements that the government not interfere with persons or their effects without good reason.
When states expand the scope of primary offenses, they also unintentionally expand the opportunity for unscrupulous law enforcement officers. All an officer needs to say to justify pulling a car over is to claim that he or she thought they saw the driver using a cell phone.
The CDC reports that 3,331 drivers in 2011 died in accidents where cell phones were a factor. That rose by 70 from the year before. Proponents of expanding primary offense laws claim that they keep people safer from roadway malefactors
But is this worth the inevitable accompaniment of expanding law enforcement's ability to harass citizens at will?
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Is the EPA Afraid of West Virginia?
List of cities where the EPA will hold hearings on carbon dioxide emissions, including from coal power plants.
Notice that none are in West Virginia or any other major coal producing state.
Outrageous.
Cecil Roberts needs to join with the West Virginia Republican Party and demand a hearing in West Virginia.
Notice that none are in West Virginia or any other major coal producing state.
Outrageous.
Cecil Roberts needs to join with the West Virginia Republican Party and demand a hearing in West Virginia.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Good and Bad Proposals From Children's Poverty Symposium
The "Our Children, Our Future" symposium last week brought several ideas to the table that proponents argue could improve the lives of children in poverty.
Dick Wittburg from the Mid-Ohio Valley Health Department in Parkersburg suggested that great strides in childhood dental health could be made with one simple change. He suggested that West Virginia petition the federal government to allow it to exclude sugary soda pop drinks from approved food stamp purchases.
He noted that sugar did not harm teeth as much as concentrated citric acid often found in the beverages.
Others argued that the state needed to raise its minimum wage above that of the federal level. This would obviously have a detrimental impact. Small businesses with thin profit margins would either cut employees or go out of business entirely because they are unable to pay more.
The state could also offer a scaled down version of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. Families with children earning under certain incomes qualify for more rebates on their income taxes. This program, started under President Ronald Reagan, rewards working families with children. Senator Mike Hall (R-Putnam) noted that such a program would likely cost the state around $37 million per year.
Such symposiums are valuable. Experts can bring ideas to Charleston to be debated by legislators and others. Despite the fact that some of these plans could be seriously detrimental, it is positive that the state provides a venue where they can be debated.
Dick Wittburg from the Mid-Ohio Valley Health Department in Parkersburg suggested that great strides in childhood dental health could be made with one simple change. He suggested that West Virginia petition the federal government to allow it to exclude sugary soda pop drinks from approved food stamp purchases.
He noted that sugar did not harm teeth as much as concentrated citric acid often found in the beverages.
Others argued that the state needed to raise its minimum wage above that of the federal level. This would obviously have a detrimental impact. Small businesses with thin profit margins would either cut employees or go out of business entirely because they are unable to pay more.
The state could also offer a scaled down version of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. Families with children earning under certain incomes qualify for more rebates on their income taxes. This program, started under President Ronald Reagan, rewards working families with children. Senator Mike Hall (R-Putnam) noted that such a program would likely cost the state around $37 million per year.
Such symposiums are valuable. Experts can bring ideas to Charleston to be debated by legislators and others. Despite the fact that some of these plans could be seriously detrimental, it is positive that the state provides a venue where they can be debated.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Has the Federal Government Inadvertently Set a States' Rights Precedent? Delegates Sobonya and Cowles Think So
Since 1819, McCullough v. Maryland has served as the law of the land. At that time, state governments exercised more power and held more credibility than the still infant federal government. Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court sought to bolster the federal government's position to prevent disruption from jealous states.
Marshall wrote the opinion broadly enough so that it legally prevented any state from officially acting in contradiction to any federal policy or agency. State police cannot even legally pull over a federal vehicle that is speeding.
Obviously this decision came in the context of its times. The federal government was very small and claimed few powers. Some of the states had existed for almost or over 200 years as political units.
Delegates Kelli Sobonya (R) Cabell, and Darryl Cowles (R) Morgan, think they may see a breach in the iron wall of McCullough.
In a recent Legislative committee meeting on medical marijuana covered by the Charleston Daily Mail , Sobonya queried about the inconsistent enforcement of marijuana laws by the federal government.
If Sobonya and Cowles are right, then the Obama Administration may have opened the door to states ignoring laws that they find onerous to their citizens. EPA regulations and Obamacare were cited by the delegates as examples.
Delegate Gary Howell (R) Mineral later noted "civil society depends on rule of law. You can't just have the president and his political aides pick and choose what to enforce. Then we have a government of men, not of laws, which John Adams saw as a prime threat to liberty." He also SAID that the inconsistent enforcement could set a precedent where states can legally defend their own interests.
It should be noted that no court or statute has ever refuted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions penned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. If the federal government violates the Constitution, according to Madison in the Virginia Resolution, "necessary and proper measures" must be taken to protect the people's rights. Madison never specified what those ought to be. At the very least, it would seem that Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia can refer to these works as grounds of legal argument.
Post Script: Full disclosure. I support legalization of medical marijuana. Frankly those who support it should take more issue with the Obama Administration's non enforcement than with either enforcing or getting rid of the law. By not enforcing the law, Obama is allowing businesses to grow. Those businesses will always be subject to legal extortion by the federal government because the law can always be held over them as a Sword of Damocles.
Marshall wrote the opinion broadly enough so that it legally prevented any state from officially acting in contradiction to any federal policy or agency. State police cannot even legally pull over a federal vehicle that is speeding.
Obviously this decision came in the context of its times. The federal government was very small and claimed few powers. Some of the states had existed for almost or over 200 years as political units.
Delegates Kelli Sobonya (R) Cabell, and Darryl Cowles (R) Morgan, think they may see a breach in the iron wall of McCullough.
In a recent Legislative committee meeting on medical marijuana covered by the Charleston Daily Mail , Sobonya queried about the inconsistent enforcement of marijuana laws by the federal government.
If Sobonya and Cowles are right, then the Obama Administration may have opened the door to states ignoring laws that they find onerous to their citizens. EPA regulations and Obamacare were cited by the delegates as examples.
Delegate Gary Howell (R) Mineral later noted "civil society depends on rule of law. You can't just have the president and his political aides pick and choose what to enforce. Then we have a government of men, not of laws, which John Adams saw as a prime threat to liberty." He also SAID that the inconsistent enforcement could set a precedent where states can legally defend their own interests.
It should be noted that no court or statute has ever refuted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions penned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. If the federal government violates the Constitution, according to Madison in the Virginia Resolution, "necessary and proper measures" must be taken to protect the people's rights. Madison never specified what those ought to be. At the very least, it would seem that Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia can refer to these works as grounds of legal argument.
Post Script: Full disclosure. I support legalization of medical marijuana. Frankly those who support it should take more issue with the Obama Administration's non enforcement than with either enforcing or getting rid of the law. By not enforcing the law, Obama is allowing businesses to grow. Those businesses will always be subject to legal extortion by the federal government because the law can always be held over them as a Sword of Damocles.
Cabell County Delegate Sick of Welfare Subsidized Drug Violence
From Delegate Kelli Sobonya, (R) Cabell County:
I am past sick and tired
of drug thugs taking over our state. The recent Huntington shooting is the last
straw for me. The shooting victims all have criminal records. I'm trying to
find out if any of them are on public assistance. I've cosponsored bills to
require drug testing for taxpayer benefits with leadership standing in the way
of debate. Today, I and Delegate Cowles sent the Secretary of WV DHHR a letter to
give us a full report of how many on public assistance have been convicted of
drug crimes. WV currently has a lifetime ban on drug convicts receiving food
stamps. We've also asked for a report of how this is enforced. I'm calling on
Governor Tomblin to call in the National Guard, much like Georgia and Puerto
Rico have done, to help with our war on drugs. The line in the sand has been
drawn. Drug thugs be on notice. And for those who want to buy or deal drugs on
public assistance, no longer with the taxpayers' or my money!!
Huntington News Net's coverage of the tragedy.
Huntington News Net's coverage of the tragedy.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Obama's Stimulus Mess Continues to Create Havoc
Back in 2009, Obama convinced the Democratic led United States House of Representatives and Senate to pass what the country was told was around $800 billion worth of economic stimulus. Others argue that the real price tag to the country ended up between $1 trillion and $1.7 trillion . Ever since its passage, reports have continued to detail the horrific waste of resources.
Among the first signs of trouble came when Franklin Center reporter Bill McMorris uncovered billions sent to non existent congressional districts. This included assertions by the federal government that $2.5 million in stimulus funds created a total of 14 jobs in the 54th, 9th, 4th, 12th, 13th, and 00th congressional districts in the Mountain State. Elected representatives from each of those districts were all unavailable for comment then or now.
Then came questions from Congress about stimulus funds intended for expanding broadband access in West Virginia. Marmet's tiny public library with a single obsolete computer received a $20,000 router designed for much larger and powerful networks. Similar purchases of expensive equipment went directly into storage because the state had no use for them.
An Obama administration official defended these purchases on the grounds that the state anticipated future needs. It would be interesting to know how much the West Virginia state government anticipates that the Marmet branch of the Kanawha County Public Library will expand.
Now come revelations from the West Virginia Legislature that even more stimulus money was misspent. Furthermore, both the Legislative Auditor Aaron Allred and at least one delegate, Gary Howell of Mineral County, publicly stated that the misuse of money was illegal.
According to the Charleston Daily Mail, money from a $126 million federal grant, which also overpaid for the routers, went towards the construction of a series of microwave towers. The allocation of funds bypassed the bidding process as required by West Virginia law. Non licensed and out-of-state subcontractors did much of the work on the towers while funds were distributed through county governments to avoid state purchasing oversight.
Governor Earl Ray Tomblin has promised to examine the Legislature's report. A decision to request an investigation from the US Attorney's office has not yet been made.
Post Script. This does not mean that all state agencies wasted funds. But the ones who spent responsibly and followed the law are now being combed over by federal auditors. This process uses up countless manhours to answer questions about money that was spent that originally had very few guidelines. Questions must be answered. It is a shame, though, that the foolishness of a few has thrown many state agencies into major behind the scenes anxiety when they acted responsibly all along.
Among the first signs of trouble came when Franklin Center reporter Bill McMorris uncovered billions sent to non existent congressional districts. This included assertions by the federal government that $2.5 million in stimulus funds created a total of 14 jobs in the 54th, 9th, 4th, 12th, 13th, and 00th congressional districts in the Mountain State. Elected representatives from each of those districts were all unavailable for comment then or now.
Then came questions from Congress about stimulus funds intended for expanding broadband access in West Virginia. Marmet's tiny public library with a single obsolete computer received a $20,000 router designed for much larger and powerful networks. Similar purchases of expensive equipment went directly into storage because the state had no use for them.
An Obama administration official defended these purchases on the grounds that the state anticipated future needs. It would be interesting to know how much the West Virginia state government anticipates that the Marmet branch of the Kanawha County Public Library will expand.
Now come revelations from the West Virginia Legislature that even more stimulus money was misspent. Furthermore, both the Legislative Auditor Aaron Allred and at least one delegate, Gary Howell of Mineral County, publicly stated that the misuse of money was illegal.
According to the Charleston Daily Mail, money from a $126 million federal grant, which also overpaid for the routers, went towards the construction of a series of microwave towers. The allocation of funds bypassed the bidding process as required by West Virginia law. Non licensed and out-of-state subcontractors did much of the work on the towers while funds were distributed through county governments to avoid state purchasing oversight.
Governor Earl Ray Tomblin has promised to examine the Legislature's report. A decision to request an investigation from the US Attorney's office has not yet been made.
Post Script. This does not mean that all state agencies wasted funds. But the ones who spent responsibly and followed the law are now being combed over by federal auditors. This process uses up countless manhours to answer questions about money that was spent that originally had very few guidelines. Questions must be answered. It is a shame, though, that the foolishness of a few has thrown many state agencies into major behind the scenes anxiety when they acted responsibly all along.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
War On Boys: Kids Play With Air Soft Gun, Police Called, Kids Expelled From School
WAVY TV in Virginia's Tidewater section reports that two seventh grade boys will be suspended for a year for playing with toy guns. At home.
A neighbor called police even though she knew that the boys were playing "zombies" with their toy guns. She claimed that she felt "uncomfortable," which must be a crime now in Virginia. The school board met, despite the boys playing on private property, and decided that they needed suspended.
The parents then learned they could send their children to an alternative school, likely one with real criminal offenders.
This follows a now long established pattern of public school systems' increasing prejudice against boys. This article from The Atlantic in 2000 illustrates the problem even back then. Normal boy behavior is increasingly seen as aberrant while girls thrive.
Boys play guns. Boys like to play like they are killing bad guys. This is natural behavior going back to caveman times. Adults should not worry if they like playing at killing bad guys, or in this case zombies. It shows a respect for societal norms. One would think that in choosing a mythical creature as their target instead of a human, they might be praised by the adults around them.
The woman who called police said that it made her uncomfortable to see a boy pointing a gun. He was pointing it at a target when she called.
But no, zero tolerance for common sense is now the norm. Especially in public school.
A neighbor called police even though she knew that the boys were playing "zombies" with their toy guns. She claimed that she felt "uncomfortable," which must be a crime now in Virginia. The school board met, despite the boys playing on private property, and decided that they needed suspended.
The parents then learned they could send their children to an alternative school, likely one with real criminal offenders.
This follows a now long established pattern of public school systems' increasing prejudice against boys. This article from The Atlantic in 2000 illustrates the problem even back then. Normal boy behavior is increasingly seen as aberrant while girls thrive.
Boys play guns. Boys like to play like they are killing bad guys. This is natural behavior going back to caveman times. Adults should not worry if they like playing at killing bad guys, or in this case zombies. It shows a respect for societal norms. One would think that in choosing a mythical creature as their target instead of a human, they might be praised by the adults around them.
The woman who called police said that it made her uncomfortable to see a boy pointing a gun. He was pointing it at a target when she called.
But no, zero tolerance for common sense is now the norm. Especially in public school.
Hollywood Is Not All Leftist. "Hitchcock" Shines With Great Messages
The AMC show Breaking Bad has spawned an entire minor industry of writers great and small commenting on its greatness. It is a great opportunity for the educated to show their knowledge of the history of Western culture, indirectly putting the show in context. Breaking Bad does resemble a multi-year running of a Shakespeare tragedy. Family underlies the entire series. The not perfect Hank Schrader relies on the love and faithfulness of his family while the evil of Walter White embraces manipulating the love, support, sympathy, and faithfulness of his own.
In the wake of the national attention bestowed on television's golden age, the motion picture industry has taken a lot of heat. Its creativity and storytelling has declined in relative, if not absolute, terms.
But it does still have the ability to tell a story.
The movie Hitchcock, starring Sir Anthony Hopkins, has hit cable television. This interpretation relies on two important themes, risk and marriage.
The film begins with Alfred Hitchcock finishing up North By Northwest and looking for something to do. Its storyline hints at some vices, such as his fascination with his blonde stars, and his overindulgence in food and alcohol. He also has noted the gradual drifting apart of his marriage with wife Alma.
Hitchcock finds his new project very quickly. As studios seek to pigeonhole him as a spy thriller director (he is offered what could have been the first James Bond picture), the director searches for a project very different from his previous success.
Then the recently published novel Psycho crosses his desk. Hitchcock immediately jumps on it and ignores the work of a man trying to wriggle into the life of his wife Alma. The trouble comes when the studios reject funding what they assume will be a flop. They do agree to distribute the film if Hitchcock can raise the money himself.
Which he does by taking a heavy mortgage on his home. If Psycho's film version flopped, he faced financial ruin. And therein lies the heroism of capitalism. Believing in a product against the advice of others. Risking security to make it happen. Pouring hard work into a project to make it work. The audience gets to see Hitchcock's pain, his fear, his uncertainty as the film runs into typical problems.
They also see a marriage under strain. Attention given to Alma pays off when she spends more and more time with her friend Whit helping with his book.
In the movie, Psycho is saved when Alma sees what Whit actually is, a cad, and puts more effort into her usual collaboration with her husband. While the film fell flat with Hitchcock alone, the partners and spouses together make it one of the all time greats.
Rarely do the two great themes of modern conservatism, the value of family and capitalism, get intertwined as they do in this film.
As for Hopkins, he once again shows why he is one of the great actors of his time. I had to actually click info to prove to my teenage son that he was seeing Hopkins. As a special treat, on another channel, Silence of the Lambs came on directly after we finished watching Hitchcock. Seeing one after the other shows the range of this great man.
As for Hitchcock the movie, definitely see it. No beautiful young people in sexual situations or explosions, but it is an honestly good story that is pretty well told.
In the wake of the national attention bestowed on television's golden age, the motion picture industry has taken a lot of heat. Its creativity and storytelling has declined in relative, if not absolute, terms.
But it does still have the ability to tell a story.
The movie Hitchcock, starring Sir Anthony Hopkins, has hit cable television. This interpretation relies on two important themes, risk and marriage.
The film begins with Alfred Hitchcock finishing up North By Northwest and looking for something to do. Its storyline hints at some vices, such as his fascination with his blonde stars, and his overindulgence in food and alcohol. He also has noted the gradual drifting apart of his marriage with wife Alma.
Hitchcock finds his new project very quickly. As studios seek to pigeonhole him as a spy thriller director (he is offered what could have been the first James Bond picture), the director searches for a project very different from his previous success.
Then the recently published novel Psycho crosses his desk. Hitchcock immediately jumps on it and ignores the work of a man trying to wriggle into the life of his wife Alma. The trouble comes when the studios reject funding what they assume will be a flop. They do agree to distribute the film if Hitchcock can raise the money himself.
Which he does by taking a heavy mortgage on his home. If Psycho's film version flopped, he faced financial ruin. And therein lies the heroism of capitalism. Believing in a product against the advice of others. Risking security to make it happen. Pouring hard work into a project to make it work. The audience gets to see Hitchcock's pain, his fear, his uncertainty as the film runs into typical problems.
They also see a marriage under strain. Attention given to Alma pays off when she spends more and more time with her friend Whit helping with his book.
In the movie, Psycho is saved when Alma sees what Whit actually is, a cad, and puts more effort into her usual collaboration with her husband. While the film fell flat with Hitchcock alone, the partners and spouses together make it one of the all time greats.
Rarely do the two great themes of modern conservatism, the value of family and capitalism, get intertwined as they do in this film.
As for Hopkins, he once again shows why he is one of the great actors of his time. I had to actually click info to prove to my teenage son that he was seeing Hopkins. As a special treat, on another channel, Silence of the Lambs came on directly after we finished watching Hitchcock. Seeing one after the other shows the range of this great man.
As for Hitchcock the movie, definitely see it. No beautiful young people in sexual situations or explosions, but it is an honestly good story that is pretty well told.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Team Mingo Once Again In the News
No need to write a long drawn out story or commentary on this. Kate White of the Charleston Gazette tells the story admirably.
Read it and ponder the question why. Why do some constituencies continually return not just corruption, but incompetent and malevolent corruption? They don't get financial benefits. They don't get superior services. They certainly don't get good government or qualified law enforcement. At least the "boss" style mayors like Richard Daley in Chicago could deliver some kind of success.
Mingo County gets to live with the mortification that one of its elected officials will be sentenced for extorting probably less than $100 worth of tire discounts from a local business.
It is a train wreck. Even worse than the ill fated "City of Jefferson" in Kanawha County that was governed for the strip clubs, by the strip clubs, and of the strip clubs. Whether or not you approve of strip clubs, few would argue that they are good administrators of government.
Mingo County is populated by good people who work hard, who have faith in God, and want better for themselves and their children. They've certainly had more than their share of problems. While they do deserve better, reality starkly says (to paraphrase Stephen King) that what you vote for is what you own and what you own always comes home to you.
The bottom row on the slate features names under investigation, under arrest, or assassinated.
Read it and ponder the question why. Why do some constituencies continually return not just corruption, but incompetent and malevolent corruption? They don't get financial benefits. They don't get superior services. They certainly don't get good government or qualified law enforcement. At least the "boss" style mayors like Richard Daley in Chicago could deliver some kind of success.
Mingo County gets to live with the mortification that one of its elected officials will be sentenced for extorting probably less than $100 worth of tire discounts from a local business.
It is a train wreck. Even worse than the ill fated "City of Jefferson" in Kanawha County that was governed for the strip clubs, by the strip clubs, and of the strip clubs. Whether or not you approve of strip clubs, few would argue that they are good administrators of government.
Mingo County is populated by good people who work hard, who have faith in God, and want better for themselves and their children. They've certainly had more than their share of problems. While they do deserve better, reality starkly says (to paraphrase Stephen King) that what you vote for is what you own and what you own always comes home to you.
The bottom row on the slate features names under investigation, under arrest, or assassinated.
This Week In Things That Dare Not Speak Their Names
It is probably beyond reasonable expectation to think that educated people in the 21st Century are even dimly aware of the culture they supposedly inherit.
But they should not wantonly toss around allusions when they have no concept of the origin.
Two examples in the last several days have popped up where the unknown origin of an allusion has rendered a main topic either confusing or silly.
Both refer to the a 19th century poetic line about "the love that dare not speak its name."
First example comes from the New York Times, bearing the title "The Fear That Dare Not Speak Its Name." The author, Lisa Schwarzbaum, starts by describing a Woody Allen product about a woman who went from being married and rich to becoming single and so destitute that she ends up on the streets.
The author discusses how it left her fearful of the same fate and with affected smartness exclaims "There but for the grace of a Chanel jacket go I."
She goes on to hazily describe feminism, marrying men, wanting to be independent yet taken care of. Typical New York Times pseudo social commentary.
Second example comes by way of the Daily Caller. The writer of the story is not the culprit here. She describes the talk of a Cold War policy maker who argues for resurrecting the old doctrine of "containment" against Iran.
He calls containment the "strategy that dare not speak its name."
And now why these allusions are so bizarre.
In the 1890s, Britain's most talked about trial was the libel suit of Oscar Wilde against the Marquess of Queensberry. Wilde had apparently grown smitten with a younger fellow poet, Lord Alfred Douglas. Wilde and Douglas excited gossip as they became friends, traveled together, and seemed pretty much inseparable. Lost letters from Wilde to Douglas fell into the hands of a blackmailer.
Rumors around the pair also reached Douglas' father, the aforementioned Marquess of Queensberry, better known for formulating rules of amateur boxing.
The libel suit against Queensberry broke down so completely that evidence given to prove his innocence also seemed to damn Wilde as a violator of the "gross indecency" statute that outlawed homosexuality. During one of Wilde's criminal trials, the prosecutor quoted from a poem by Lord Douglas.
Tell me why, sad and sighing, thou dost rove
These pleasent realms? I pray thee speak me sooth
What is thy name?' He said, 'My name is Love.'
Then straight the first did turn himself to me
And cried, 'He lieth, for his name is Shame,
But I am Love, and I was wont to be
Alone in this fair garden, till he came
Unasked by night; I am true Love, I fill
The hearts of boy and girl with mutual flame.'
Then sighing, said the other, 'Have thy will,
I am the love that dare not speak its name.'
The prosecutor seized upon the last line, asking Wilde to explain it. Despite his classically referenced answer, ever since the trial, the phrase has been used to refer to homosexual relations.
So therein lies the reason why the first example is so off base and the second is downright bizarre. Making allusions to well stated quotations from the past can liven up prose or speech. But those who use them without understanding their origin risk looking silly.
But they should not wantonly toss around allusions when they have no concept of the origin.
Two examples in the last several days have popped up where the unknown origin of an allusion has rendered a main topic either confusing or silly.
Both refer to the a 19th century poetic line about "the love that dare not speak its name."
First example comes from the New York Times, bearing the title "The Fear That Dare Not Speak Its Name." The author, Lisa Schwarzbaum, starts by describing a Woody Allen product about a woman who went from being married and rich to becoming single and so destitute that she ends up on the streets.
The author discusses how it left her fearful of the same fate and with affected smartness exclaims "There but for the grace of a Chanel jacket go I."
She goes on to hazily describe feminism, marrying men, wanting to be independent yet taken care of. Typical New York Times pseudo social commentary.
Second example comes by way of the Daily Caller. The writer of the story is not the culprit here. She describes the talk of a Cold War policy maker who argues for resurrecting the old doctrine of "containment" against Iran.
He calls containment the "strategy that dare not speak its name."
And now why these allusions are so bizarre.
In the 1890s, Britain's most talked about trial was the libel suit of Oscar Wilde against the Marquess of Queensberry. Wilde had apparently grown smitten with a younger fellow poet, Lord Alfred Douglas. Wilde and Douglas excited gossip as they became friends, traveled together, and seemed pretty much inseparable. Lost letters from Wilde to Douglas fell into the hands of a blackmailer.
Rumors around the pair also reached Douglas' father, the aforementioned Marquess of Queensberry, better known for formulating rules of amateur boxing.
The libel suit against Queensberry broke down so completely that evidence given to prove his innocence also seemed to damn Wilde as a violator of the "gross indecency" statute that outlawed homosexuality. During one of Wilde's criminal trials, the prosecutor quoted from a poem by Lord Douglas.
Tell me why, sad and sighing, thou dost rove
These pleasent realms? I pray thee speak me sooth
What is thy name?' He said, 'My name is Love.'
Then straight the first did turn himself to me
And cried, 'He lieth, for his name is Shame,
But I am Love, and I was wont to be
Alone in this fair garden, till he came
Unasked by night; I am true Love, I fill
The hearts of boy and girl with mutual flame.'
Then sighing, said the other, 'Have thy will,
I am the love that dare not speak its name.'
The prosecutor seized upon the last line, asking Wilde to explain it. Despite his classically referenced answer, ever since the trial, the phrase has been used to refer to homosexual relations.
So therein lies the reason why the first example is so off base and the second is downright bizarre. Making allusions to well stated quotations from the past can liven up prose or speech. But those who use them without understanding their origin risk looking silly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)