Joe Manchin and six other Senate Democrats voted this week to reject Obama's appointment to head the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. They, along with every Republican, slammed to door on Debo Adegbile's bid for the office.
Adegbile supported the release of convicted police officer murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal. As the National Review notes, Abu-Jamal was found guilty of murdering a Philadelphia police officer. Adegbile, apart from his activism, has worked for the NAACP and currently serves as counsel for Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
Bob Casey (D) Pa explained his vote, saying that support for Abu-Jamal was important. He described the pain still felt by the officer's family and the city of Philadelphia.
The Civil Rights Division is supposed to "uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans." Whoever oversees the division has some latitude to interpret and decide who to go after and why. The character of that man or woman is vital to ensuring that civil rights cases do not devolve into witch hunts.
In a larger sense, this illustrates an important split in the Democratic Party. Traditional liberals and moderates rejected a left wing appointee of a left wing president. Only two of these Democrats face voters this year. Manchin's electorate would not decide his fate based on this vote alone.
This also sets up a subtext to the 2016 presidential election. Will a moderate run on the Democratic side? The appearance of one not connected to the Obama Administration could make for a lively race and produce headaches for Republicans.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Putin, Ukraine, and an Abysmal Failure of US Foreign Policy
It did not have to be this way.
Today, Vladimir Putin's forces hold the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Barack Obama looks weaker than ever, his presidency's previous shambles even look good by comparison. Pundits decry the loss of US influence. The stark truth is that there is little that the United States can do to alter the situation.
But why?
First, Putin actually has defensible reasons to enter Ukraine. This is not to say that he could not have achieved better results with a less dramatic move. But a border country approaching chaos gives Russia a powerful excuse to protect Russian ethnics and Russian facilities there. What if Mexico devolved even more into violence and instability? At some point in the near future, US forces may have to occupy parts of that country to bring stability and protect Americans living there. Before criticizing others, a nation must consider what it would have to do in a similar situation.
The West failed in Ukraine because the United States abdicated its role, dating back to the Treaty of Versailles, to bolster free societies and free markets around the globe. US policy has, at times used the Franklin Roosevelt philosophy of "he's a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch" in backing friendly authoritarian regimes. But the overall goal has always been transition into free societies with economic opportunity.
That does not happen by dumping money or bombs on a nation. It comes from a consistently articulated vision by the US foreign policy establishment that natural rights, free markets, rule of law are essential to human happiness and world peace. Praising democratic friends, such as Britain and Israel, helps to broaden the "city on the hill" ideal articulated by Democratic and Republican presidents alike in different ways.
The vision does not just come from talking about freedom. Diplomatic, other government, and private groups must engage fragile societies to help educate and develop faith in the essential aspects of freedom and prosperity. Internationalize the values that Americans and others take for granted.
Instead, Obama tore apart the fabric. He blamed the United States for the trouble in the world, never realizing that wise use of American power and influence more often puts us in the referee role. We are keeping more conflicts apart than anyone realizes. Until the influence and respect dissipates and the world runs riot.
We are not the world's policeman, nor should we be. But constant engagement of rhetoric, policy, and economic influence has helped to keep the world at peace. Obama could not see the overall benefit of US power, only the rare times that it has not turned out right. He tore it down and now instability hits one country after another.
Power seeks a vacuum, Obama created one. Putin and China have been happy to step in.
And so you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it.
As for Putin, he is more Bismarck than Stalin. He's willing to bend his own region to his economic and security goals, use social issues to rally his supporters and alienate his political opponents. Russia's sudden worry about gays smacks of Bismarck's kulturkampf against political Catholics. But Bismarck did not want to completely revise the international system, just strengthen Germany's position within it. The Russian Czars acted in the same way. Russia traditionally seeks security on its borderlands and will aggressively move to ensure it.
Had the United States remained engaged in Ukraine and kept its near century old commitment to supporting freedom, that country may have solved its own problems. It may have remained solid enough to deter Russian fears or thoughts of aggrandizement.
China is more worrisome for a number of reasons. As is Iran. Both countries have more revisionist fantasies.
Today, Vladimir Putin's forces hold the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Barack Obama looks weaker than ever, his presidency's previous shambles even look good by comparison. Pundits decry the loss of US influence. The stark truth is that there is little that the United States can do to alter the situation.
But why?
First, Putin actually has defensible reasons to enter Ukraine. This is not to say that he could not have achieved better results with a less dramatic move. But a border country approaching chaos gives Russia a powerful excuse to protect Russian ethnics and Russian facilities there. What if Mexico devolved even more into violence and instability? At some point in the near future, US forces may have to occupy parts of that country to bring stability and protect Americans living there. Before criticizing others, a nation must consider what it would have to do in a similar situation.
The West failed in Ukraine because the United States abdicated its role, dating back to the Treaty of Versailles, to bolster free societies and free markets around the globe. US policy has, at times used the Franklin Roosevelt philosophy of "he's a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch" in backing friendly authoritarian regimes. But the overall goal has always been transition into free societies with economic opportunity.
That does not happen by dumping money or bombs on a nation. It comes from a consistently articulated vision by the US foreign policy establishment that natural rights, free markets, rule of law are essential to human happiness and world peace. Praising democratic friends, such as Britain and Israel, helps to broaden the "city on the hill" ideal articulated by Democratic and Republican presidents alike in different ways.
The vision does not just come from talking about freedom. Diplomatic, other government, and private groups must engage fragile societies to help educate and develop faith in the essential aspects of freedom and prosperity. Internationalize the values that Americans and others take for granted.
Instead, Obama tore apart the fabric. He blamed the United States for the trouble in the world, never realizing that wise use of American power and influence more often puts us in the referee role. We are keeping more conflicts apart than anyone realizes. Until the influence and respect dissipates and the world runs riot.
We are not the world's policeman, nor should we be. But constant engagement of rhetoric, policy, and economic influence has helped to keep the world at peace. Obama could not see the overall benefit of US power, only the rare times that it has not turned out right. He tore it down and now instability hits one country after another.
Power seeks a vacuum, Obama created one. Putin and China have been happy to step in.
And so you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it.
As for Putin, he is more Bismarck than Stalin. He's willing to bend his own region to his economic and security goals, use social issues to rally his supporters and alienate his political opponents. Russia's sudden worry about gays smacks of Bismarck's kulturkampf against political Catholics. But Bismarck did not want to completely revise the international system, just strengthen Germany's position within it. The Russian Czars acted in the same way. Russia traditionally seeks security on its borderlands and will aggressively move to ensure it.
Had the United States remained engaged in Ukraine and kept its near century old commitment to supporting freedom, that country may have solved its own problems. It may have remained solid enough to deter Russian fears or thoughts of aggrandizement.
China is more worrisome for a number of reasons. As is Iran. Both countries have more revisionist fantasies.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Why Do We Have Failure to Communicate?
Communication is a necessity for every successful group. Most fail to do it well and reach almost no one. And that is not the way anyone wants it.
Bad communication comes from barriers established by gibberish, which is unintelligible speech or writing. Most gibberish comes from either the least articulate or the most highly capable. People in between tend to actually get their points across pretty well.
Young people often communicate very poorly, more from the lack of experience than intelligence. Generally they don't give much thought to language style or word use. As a result, young people experiment and play with word use and definitions, creating slang. Some of these elevate into general use, like the word "cool." "Cool" entered slang decades ago, meaning a calm person, a good situation, and other things. It passed into political diction with "Keep Cool With Coolidge."
Words and phrases that don't make the cut fall quickly into dated disuse, a funny reminder of the place and time used. Where did "23 skiddoo" come from? Who knows? But it was slang for almost two decades.
Those trying to communicate with young people often make the mistake of trying to communicate in this invented lingo. They think it establishes rapport, but it really makes the listeners feel uncomfortable. Most likely, the awkwardness stems from the fact that most slang is just plain silly and comes from young people's inability to really use language precisely. The silliness is reflected in the surrealism of an older person speaking or writing in this way.
Invention of slang and playing with language is an effective collective stage for each generation, especially with the sharp decline of English language education. If any individual of any age wants to learn to communicate well, unless they went to a select few schools, they have to teach themselves. And innovation is not bad. At its best, slang keeps the language dynamic and relevant. But most slang is ridiculous.
Young people want messages related in the same way as anyone else, clearly and without fuss. Speaking to them in their own way smacks of condescension.
Other gibberish spewers deserve blame because they should know better. In this category fall business people, academics, and public policy wonks. Lawyers get a pass when they are trying to anticipate all legal variables which, honestly, is an almost impossible job. Lawyers are using necessary tools, not producing gibberish.
The rest of this crowd sets up barriers that do not need to be there, and they know better. Most understand that they can communicate more simply. They train themselves to speak gibberish just like a young person has to train themselves to like cigarettes. One has to overcome the initial revulsion of doing something unnatural until it becomes a comfortable, addicting habit.
But why? Likely because of an inferiority complex initially. One wants to sound "professional," be accepted as a peer. To moo using the same notes as the rest of the herd. To be a good cow.
This makes no sense in business. Certainly, each individual seeks acceptance as a professional and endeavors to reduce the gap between their actual employment position and their perceived professional goals (see how that works? Dreadful!) But the great corporate founders did not and do not speak that way. Tom Watson, Andrew Carnegie, Sam Walton never spoke like that. Bill Gates, one of the most brilliant minds in business, does not speak in gibberish. They use simple terms. They want to get their message across. Why business professionals don't emulate their models remains a great mystery.
Academics deserve no sympathy. Their entire job is communication and they purposefully erect gibberish walls to keep us commoners out, then blame us for not comprehending their point. The walls insulate their intellects, protecting them and their ideas from the vulgar Aristotlean world. Which is why their thoughts are often not practical and make no sense. They not so secretly hate accomplished writers like David McCullough whose writing has influenced generations. How? Instead of acres of pointless, dry, thick wordage he tells stories and produces beautiful prose.
Breaking the gibberish habit is simple. First, read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." Some of it does reflect linguistic nationalism, but the rest offers good advice. Use simpler words when possible. Follow the rules, but don't be afraid to break them if they lead you to writing something "barbarous."
Also, remove 10 percent of the total word count as part of the first edit. It forces the writer to simplify gibberish and communicate in the same way as normal humans.
The vast middle ground actually communicates well. For most people, simple and honest communication is a necessity. The barriers of bad language would keep them from accomplishing anything in their normal lives. The young and the professional world often condemn simple communicators as Philistines, but they could learn a lot from us.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Cold Winter Forces Soon To Be Closed Coal Fired Plants to Operate At Full Capacity
The State Journal reports that the winter cold forced many plants marked for EPA mandated closure to operate at high, sometimes full capacity. Officials say, however, that the law remains unchanged and that they will still close as scheduled.
Melissa McHenry, speaking for American Electric Power to the State Journal noted that 89 percent of the plants scheduled for closure had to run during the cold weather.
She went on to say that AEP is making investments in generation capacity to try and make up for what will be lost. McHenry also said that Washington regulators would need to help all power companies ensure that they could provide consistent power to customers during peak times.
After all, loss of power during very cold or very hot weather could harm their most vulnerable customers.
Added to the loss of jobs will come the higher cost of electricity. The Washington Examiner reports that an Obama Administration official predicts an 80 percent hike in the average electric bill to pay for EPA mandates. Although rates may eventually plateau, they are never expected to drop to current levels.
Bad news for those on fixed incomes and families already struggling in this economy.
American Electric Power plans to retire power generation plants in Mason and Kanawha County.
Melissa McHenry, speaking for American Electric Power to the State Journal noted that 89 percent of the plants scheduled for closure had to run during the cold weather.
She went on to say that AEP is making investments in generation capacity to try and make up for what will be lost. McHenry also said that Washington regulators would need to help all power companies ensure that they could provide consistent power to customers during peak times.
After all, loss of power during very cold or very hot weather could harm their most vulnerable customers.
Added to the loss of jobs will come the higher cost of electricity. The Washington Examiner reports that an Obama Administration official predicts an 80 percent hike in the average electric bill to pay for EPA mandates. Although rates may eventually plateau, they are never expected to drop to current levels.
Bad news for those on fixed incomes and families already struggling in this economy.
American Electric Power plans to retire power generation plants in Mason and Kanawha County.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
The Smallest US Military Force Since 1939: Why This Is Scary
The Obama Administration has determined that the US military will shrink to its smallest size since 1939.
Man for man we will remain the best. Any US soldier, Marine, sailor, airman, Coast Guard, or National Guardsman is the best trained and most professional on Earth. A few nations are close, namely Israel, Britain, Australia, Japan, and a few others. None are better.
Experts say that a smaller force is less expensive and preferable. They say that the challenges we face come from international operatives, terrorists, rogue nations and statelets. The days of Great Power warfare are gone.
Not so fast.
China has stepped up its aggressiveness, claiming territory of friends, allies, and other states. They want their sovereign claims over open ocean recognized. They do not yet have a fleet that can challenge us. But their army is massive and their military branches expanding.
They seek to revise the international status quo, starting first by establishing dominance over their neighbors.
A century ago, Great Britain ruled the waves much as we do today. Her army was small compared to others, but it was trained and geared toward handling small scale conflicts. A 100 percent professional force, its man for man effectiveness far outstripped any other nation on Earth. Britain did not foresee having to use it in a major war of attrition against a revisionist power. While other nations counted millions in their armed forces, the British relied on hundreds of thousands.
And the British paid dearly for their error, suffering more casualties per capita than any other major power in World War I.
We are blindly stuck in the present, much as Britain a century ago. We hope for the best, but our treaty obligations, much like Britain's with Belgium, put us square in the center of a possible coming conflict. We are stripping our armored divisions, discontinuing production of a feared tank killer aircraft, and destroying any chance of quickly reacting, or even maintaining respect in the Far East.
Our military needs to ensure that it can respond effectively to both small war scenarios and a Great Power war. We do not need many millions of troops, but we do need equipment and formations that serve as a foundation in case we need it. Where do we get the money? Start by slicing away at the bloated Defense Department bureaucracy. Stop the foolish waste of money on "green fuels." Get back to making national security the only priority of the military.
Britain lost its entire prewar army in the first year of World War I. They were not prepared or equipped to fight a modern war against another Great Power. Obama is putting us in the same predicament.
Man for man we will remain the best. Any US soldier, Marine, sailor, airman, Coast Guard, or National Guardsman is the best trained and most professional on Earth. A few nations are close, namely Israel, Britain, Australia, Japan, and a few others. None are better.
Experts say that a smaller force is less expensive and preferable. They say that the challenges we face come from international operatives, terrorists, rogue nations and statelets. The days of Great Power warfare are gone.
Not so fast.
China has stepped up its aggressiveness, claiming territory of friends, allies, and other states. They want their sovereign claims over open ocean recognized. They do not yet have a fleet that can challenge us. But their army is massive and their military branches expanding.
They seek to revise the international status quo, starting first by establishing dominance over their neighbors.
A century ago, Great Britain ruled the waves much as we do today. Her army was small compared to others, but it was trained and geared toward handling small scale conflicts. A 100 percent professional force, its man for man effectiveness far outstripped any other nation on Earth. Britain did not foresee having to use it in a major war of attrition against a revisionist power. While other nations counted millions in their armed forces, the British relied on hundreds of thousands.
And the British paid dearly for their error, suffering more casualties per capita than any other major power in World War I.
We are blindly stuck in the present, much as Britain a century ago. We hope for the best, but our treaty obligations, much like Britain's with Belgium, put us square in the center of a possible coming conflict. We are stripping our armored divisions, discontinuing production of a feared tank killer aircraft, and destroying any chance of quickly reacting, or even maintaining respect in the Far East.
Our military needs to ensure that it can respond effectively to both small war scenarios and a Great Power war. We do not need many millions of troops, but we do need equipment and formations that serve as a foundation in case we need it. Where do we get the money? Start by slicing away at the bloated Defense Department bureaucracy. Stop the foolish waste of money on "green fuels." Get back to making national security the only priority of the military.
Britain lost its entire prewar army in the first year of World War I. They were not prepared or equipped to fight a modern war against another Great Power. Obama is putting us in the same predicament.
Monday, February 24, 2014
West Virginia: The Happiest State In the Union
Last week, the National Journal ran the latest in a series of pieces from a number of different outlets listing the Mountain State as the most depressed, least happy, generally completely bummed out state in America.
Some of this comes from the general problems West Virginia shares with many areas. Unemployment, uncertainty about the future, a federal government contriving night and day to zap productive coal mines and farms from existence.
But others come from cultural misunderstandings. Lifestyle choices, such as eating, drinking, and smoking, have little to do with actual happiness. Yet physical health is factored into "happiness" analysis. It is just as likely, if not more so, that West Virginians and others are not as hung up on obesity as those who live in the suburbs and write for National Journal. West Virginians have a healthier and more realistic appraisal of body image and a lot of other things.
Cultural differences matter. Appraising happiness in every state by the same criteria is a basic flaw in every such study. Like when Vermont researchers concluded Texans are the least happy because they swear a lot in social media. More often, the Texan is unhappy if he is not swearing.
Anyway, some reasons why West Virginia is the happiest state.
Centennial Golden Trout
The streets are not paved with gold. You can't even dig it out of the ground. But you can catch a real live slice of gold, or several other tasty species of fish, from most of the state's beautiful streams.
Make a Joyful Noise . . .
Almost every town of any size has a festival between March and November. Pictured here is some joyful noise being made at the Augusta festival in Elkins. One can also get joyful food, joyfully noisy parades, joyful boat races, joyful buckwheat cakes, and joyful crafts at one or more of these fun community get togethers.
. . . and, of course, patriotic
West Virginia has the largest small town 4th of July celebration in the world centered in Ripley. It stands to reason that the Mountain State loves America. It sends more men and women per capita into the U. S. armed forces than any other state.
Safe
West Virginia's near nationally low levels of property and violent crime co exist with near nationally high levels of gun ownership. Hmmmmmm.
Foooooooooooood!
West Virginia usually tops out lists of least healthy eaters, most overweight people. That is not indicative of happiness outside of narrow classes of people who fret about their weight. No study has been done, but West Virginians have a different ideal of body image and physical attractiveness than those who make up these studies. Mountain State women tend to prefer bigger men and men prefer curvier women.
Look at the culture. Cultural influences of West Virginia come from the American frontier, as well as German and Italian peasants. Without stacks of cash lying about to pay for more refined diversions, most people entertained themselves and others with food. Frontier people, Germans, and Italians know, if nothing else, how to turn a little into a lot. Those cultural ideals of entertainment and hospitality have come down to the 21st century.
And, finally, West Virginia makes some of the best victuals around. Charleston and its suburbs are a breakfast mecca, sporting Tudor's and Shoney's. Northern West Virginia and Keyser's Italian fare rivals any city in the nation for taste and beats nearly all for affordability.
This is why country people don't always eat right or look like stick figures.
The boys of fall (and winter, spring, and summer!)
Everything from pee wee football and T ball to major college football at two ends of the state. Winning makes us happy. Even in losses, we can be proud of their hard work and effort.
Water, water, everywhere . . .
Most people love to be on the water. Fishing, swimming, sitting on a boat, running a jet ski way too fast. Everyone loves something a little different about the water. In West Virginia, unless you want salt water, you're in luck. Rushing shallow rivers, placid lakes, rivers long and deep enough for afternoon cruises, the Mountain State can make any fresh water aficionado happy!
History class is open
No one claims to like history class, but most people love history in some way. West Virginia has historical sites that are entertaining and informative. Above is Harpers Ferry, set in the drop dead beautiful confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers. Everything in town, except automobiles, electric, and the US 340 bridge, looks like it did in 1859 when John Brown launched his raid. The state also has museums, cultural centers, replicas of forts built over 200 years ago and more.
And this
Inside and out, one of the most beautiful buildings you will ever see, Forget the shenanigans that happen inside of it for a moment and consider just what a marvel it is.
And finally this little guy
He is wondering why anyone would think that a state that he represents would be the most bummed out.
Some of this comes from the general problems West Virginia shares with many areas. Unemployment, uncertainty about the future, a federal government contriving night and day to zap productive coal mines and farms from existence.
But others come from cultural misunderstandings. Lifestyle choices, such as eating, drinking, and smoking, have little to do with actual happiness. Yet physical health is factored into "happiness" analysis. It is just as likely, if not more so, that West Virginians and others are not as hung up on obesity as those who live in the suburbs and write for National Journal. West Virginians have a healthier and more realistic appraisal of body image and a lot of other things.
Cultural differences matter. Appraising happiness in every state by the same criteria is a basic flaw in every such study. Like when Vermont researchers concluded Texans are the least happy because they swear a lot in social media. More often, the Texan is unhappy if he is not swearing.
Anyway, some reasons why West Virginia is the happiest state.
Centennial Golden Trout
The streets are not paved with gold. You can't even dig it out of the ground. But you can catch a real live slice of gold, or several other tasty species of fish, from most of the state's beautiful streams.
Make a Joyful Noise . . .
Almost every town of any size has a festival between March and November. Pictured here is some joyful noise being made at the Augusta festival in Elkins. One can also get joyful food, joyfully noisy parades, joyful boat races, joyful buckwheat cakes, and joyful crafts at one or more of these fun community get togethers.
. . . and, of course, patriotic
West Virginia has the largest small town 4th of July celebration in the world centered in Ripley. It stands to reason that the Mountain State loves America. It sends more men and women per capita into the U. S. armed forces than any other state.
Safe
West Virginia's near nationally low levels of property and violent crime co exist with near nationally high levels of gun ownership. Hmmmmmm.
Foooooooooooood!
West Virginia usually tops out lists of least healthy eaters, most overweight people. That is not indicative of happiness outside of narrow classes of people who fret about their weight. No study has been done, but West Virginians have a different ideal of body image and physical attractiveness than those who make up these studies. Mountain State women tend to prefer bigger men and men prefer curvier women.
Look at the culture. Cultural influences of West Virginia come from the American frontier, as well as German and Italian peasants. Without stacks of cash lying about to pay for more refined diversions, most people entertained themselves and others with food. Frontier people, Germans, and Italians know, if nothing else, how to turn a little into a lot. Those cultural ideals of entertainment and hospitality have come down to the 21st century.
And, finally, West Virginia makes some of the best victuals around. Charleston and its suburbs are a breakfast mecca, sporting Tudor's and Shoney's. Northern West Virginia and Keyser's Italian fare rivals any city in the nation for taste and beats nearly all for affordability.
This is why country people don't always eat right or look like stick figures.
The boys of fall (and winter, spring, and summer!)
Everything from pee wee football and T ball to major college football at two ends of the state. Winning makes us happy. Even in losses, we can be proud of their hard work and effort.
Water, water, everywhere . . .
Most people love to be on the water. Fishing, swimming, sitting on a boat, running a jet ski way too fast. Everyone loves something a little different about the water. In West Virginia, unless you want salt water, you're in luck. Rushing shallow rivers, placid lakes, rivers long and deep enough for afternoon cruises, the Mountain State can make any fresh water aficionado happy!
History class is open
No one claims to like history class, but most people love history in some way. West Virginia has historical sites that are entertaining and informative. Above is Harpers Ferry, set in the drop dead beautiful confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers. Everything in town, except automobiles, electric, and the US 340 bridge, looks like it did in 1859 when John Brown launched his raid. The state also has museums, cultural centers, replicas of forts built over 200 years ago and more.
And this
Inside and out, one of the most beautiful buildings you will ever see, Forget the shenanigans that happen inside of it for a moment and consider just what a marvel it is.
And finally this little guy
He is wondering why anyone would think that a state that he represents would be the most bummed out.
Disagree With Democrats? Keep It to Yourself . . .Or Else
Since the election of Obama, liberals have gone after their political dissenters. First came White House attempts, fended off by the media, to declare Fox News a non news outlet, banishing them from the press corps. Then came years of the left's near fetish level fascination with "sedition." Tea Parties, Republicans, libertarians, nearly everyone associated with opposing this president gets tarred with the word. "Sedition" is the idea that speech that disrupts government functions should be criminal. Twice in American history have sedition laws been passed, both during wars with Great Powers.
The scandal over improper IRS harassment of groups opposed to the current federal government will not subside, despite the administration's best efforts.
Worst of all, last fall, a Washington Times reporter uncovering problems with the air marshal service had her research materials illegally seized by the Maryland State Police and turned over to the Department of Homeland Security.
Last week brought more stories of liberals and left wing attempts to chill speech or silence opponents.
Public outcry forced the Federal Communications Commission to back off of a plan to send monitors into broadcast and print media newsrooms to ask "invasive" questions about story selection and coverage. The FCC is mandated to regularly submit reports about potential barriers to small operators and entrepreneurship. Its questionnaire included many questions about journalism decisions, which could have a chilling effect on issue coverage. Many experts agree this violates the First Amendment, at least in spirit.
And finally on the state level, as West Virginia Metro News's Hoppy Kercheval puts it, some Democrats "can't stand a feisty Republican." West Virginia's elected Republican attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, faces the possible stripping of his constitutionally mandated powers. Like others, his "crime" seems to be strenuous opposition to the efforts and plans of the Obama Administration. Morrisey has been an outspoken opponent of infringements on the Second Amendment and EPA attacks on coal and power.
House Republicans and others noted that the state constitution and recent case law forbid the state legislature from doing precisely what House Democrats are trying.
The pattern is pretty clear. Speak out against Obama, oppose his administration's plans, and his allies try to bring the power of government down against you, usually illegally. Why can't America have bipartisan discussions and compromises? Partly because of this dynamic.
The scandal over improper IRS harassment of groups opposed to the current federal government will not subside, despite the administration's best efforts.
Worst of all, last fall, a Washington Times reporter uncovering problems with the air marshal service had her research materials illegally seized by the Maryland State Police and turned over to the Department of Homeland Security.
Last week brought more stories of liberals and left wing attempts to chill speech or silence opponents.
Public outcry forced the Federal Communications Commission to back off of a plan to send monitors into broadcast and print media newsrooms to ask "invasive" questions about story selection and coverage. The FCC is mandated to regularly submit reports about potential barriers to small operators and entrepreneurship. Its questionnaire included many questions about journalism decisions, which could have a chilling effect on issue coverage. Many experts agree this violates the First Amendment, at least in spirit.
And finally on the state level, as West Virginia Metro News's Hoppy Kercheval puts it, some Democrats "can't stand a feisty Republican." West Virginia's elected Republican attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, faces the possible stripping of his constitutionally mandated powers. Like others, his "crime" seems to be strenuous opposition to the efforts and plans of the Obama Administration. Morrisey has been an outspoken opponent of infringements on the Second Amendment and EPA attacks on coal and power.
House Republicans and others noted that the state constitution and recent case law forbid the state legislature from doing precisely what House Democrats are trying.
The pattern is pretty clear. Speak out against Obama, oppose his administration's plans, and his allies try to bring the power of government down against you, usually illegally. Why can't America have bipartisan discussions and compromises? Partly because of this dynamic.
Friday, February 21, 2014
If Michael Sam Can Play, He Will Play. But Where?
It was supposed to be the Johnny Manziel Show, but the talk of this year's NFL Draft will center around openly gay University of Missouri pass rushing specialist Michael Sam. His carefully prepared rollout of a public acknowledgment included placed stories in choice outlets designed to spark questions and, most of all, buzz. Questions and speculation runs the spectrum from where will he be drafted to whether he will be accepted.
First of all, plain and simple, if Michael Sam has NFL talent, he will get an opportunity.
At 6'2, weighing 255, his height could be an issue. Ideally, NFL squads like pass rushers with more length than Sam offers. He, however, excelled in the Southeastern Conference against NFL ready linemen. If anyone had any questions about whether or not he has NFL talent, this fact alone answers it.
The bigger question is if he will be accepted in an NFL locker room. Also, how will his team handle the blistering press attention? Some compare his possible entrance to Jackie Robinson, others see loose similarities with Tim Tebow and even Manti Teo.
Former NFL linebacker Lavar Arrington on his drive time show in Washington DC's WJFK insisted that Sam faced many of the same pressures and potentially much of the same hostility as Robinson. The most vulgar in opposing fanbases will never let him forget his sexuality. Then again, you also have the viral video of a Jets fan from last season screaming for his own team's quarterback to tear his ACL. Fans will be fans. Sam will get the taunts, no doubt. Certainly they will sting in a way that no one outside of his situation could imagine.
No one can predict how a specific locker room might react, but certainly executives do fear the scrutiny and potential issues.
That is why Sam will likely be drafted lower than he should, but will most likely end up with a winning organization.
Winning organizations generally forbid chaotic locker rooms. Witness the report on the hapless Miami Dolphins that described continual meltdown over several years. Remember how Tim Tebow, personally the least offensive player one can imagine, polarized the locker room of the New York Jets. Extra attention for non football attributes can rub people the wrong way, particularly on a losing team. No matter whether the player is gay, an evangelical Christian, or a famed balloon artist, there will be jealousy.
Winning organizations establish professionalism. Players and coaches do not become automatons, but they do have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do or say. They want to stay with a winner, so they conduct themselves accordingly. So Sam will likely end up playing for one of those well-established winners like the New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers, or San Francisco 49ers. Winning stems from a professional attitude established at the top. They also specialize in handling the press and putting public attention in its proper place.
And that would be the best possible outcome. On a team like the Steelers or the Patriots, Sam simply becomes a player doing his job. That was certainly not his intention when his people orchestrated his announcement, but that would be the best result for both Sam and whatever team drafts him moving forward.
First of all, plain and simple, if Michael Sam has NFL talent, he will get an opportunity.
At 6'2, weighing 255, his height could be an issue. Ideally, NFL squads like pass rushers with more length than Sam offers. He, however, excelled in the Southeastern Conference against NFL ready linemen. If anyone had any questions about whether or not he has NFL talent, this fact alone answers it.
The bigger question is if he will be accepted in an NFL locker room. Also, how will his team handle the blistering press attention? Some compare his possible entrance to Jackie Robinson, others see loose similarities with Tim Tebow and even Manti Teo.
Former NFL linebacker Lavar Arrington on his drive time show in Washington DC's WJFK insisted that Sam faced many of the same pressures and potentially much of the same hostility as Robinson. The most vulgar in opposing fanbases will never let him forget his sexuality. Then again, you also have the viral video of a Jets fan from last season screaming for his own team's quarterback to tear his ACL. Fans will be fans. Sam will get the taunts, no doubt. Certainly they will sting in a way that no one outside of his situation could imagine.
No one can predict how a specific locker room might react, but certainly executives do fear the scrutiny and potential issues.
That is why Sam will likely be drafted lower than he should, but will most likely end up with a winning organization.
Winning organizations generally forbid chaotic locker rooms. Witness the report on the hapless Miami Dolphins that described continual meltdown over several years. Remember how Tim Tebow, personally the least offensive player one can imagine, polarized the locker room of the New York Jets. Extra attention for non football attributes can rub people the wrong way, particularly on a losing team. No matter whether the player is gay, an evangelical Christian, or a famed balloon artist, there will be jealousy.
Winning organizations establish professionalism. Players and coaches do not become automatons, but they do have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do or say. They want to stay with a winner, so they conduct themselves accordingly. So Sam will likely end up playing for one of those well-established winners like the New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers, or San Francisco 49ers. Winning stems from a professional attitude established at the top. They also specialize in handling the press and putting public attention in its proper place.
And that would be the best possible outcome. On a team like the Steelers or the Patriots, Sam simply becomes a player doing his job. That was certainly not his intention when his people orchestrated his announcement, but that would be the best result for both Sam and whatever team drafts him moving forward.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Management Cannot Be Incognito When Employees Act Unprofessionally
For most of the last 40 years, the Miami Dolphins served as the southern flagship of the National Football League. Captained by Don Shula, steered by greats such as Larry Csonka and Dan Marino, the organization exuded class and success.
Those days are well past this franchise. Now the private world of its locker room over the last several years is laid bare. All the dysfunction and bizarre behavior exposed.
The initial string on the unraveled sweater comes from former offensive line starter Jonathan Martin. He complained of a difficult working environment full of taunts, harassment, and bullying. Some of it came his way, much of it was back and forth between others. Martin left the team abruptly, then claimed harassment at the hands of teammate and fellow starting lineman Richie Incognito.
But the story didn't add up. Teammates generally supported Incognito, even after the team released him. Incognito released hundreds of texts sent between the two men. As a whole, they paint a picture of two guys whose talk about women and life in general sound like sailors on perpetual leave more than bullying.
Martin also revealed that he suffered from severe depression and had been hospitalized in a mental institution. Incognito was one of the teammates texting to support Martin. Hardly the stuff of bullying.
The problem with the coverage of this story is that the media takes Martin's word at face value. Anyone suffering from clinical depression and bipolar disorder does not see the world as it is. They have a skewed perspective of the people around them and can see slights and offenses where none were taken. Much like Montressor dwelling on the "thousand injuries" of the good time Charlie Fortunato, Martin likely saw himself as a target when he was not.
Proof of this lies in Martin's actual position. Incognito did not bestride his narrow world as a Colossus. These men are about the same size. Both started on the offensive line. Incognito had no real power or leverage over Martin. Martin did not recognize that he is master of his own fate. It was not in his stars, but the mental illness that gripped him that made him feel like an underling.
That is not to say that bullying did not happen in that locker room or that Incognito was a pure saint. He is guilty of taking part in taunting and pranking that did, in retrospect, perhaps hold the team back from developing.
Some responsibility lies on the shoulders of Martin. Some lies on Incognito and other players who took part.
But most lies squarely on the organization. Organizational culture must be established at the top. That comes from clear expectations of professionalism by everyone from the owner down to the popcorn seller. This doesn't mean that players have to act like they are in a golly gee whiz 1950s movie, or like automatons. But they have to understand that they represent an organization and a team mission. That they are expected to conduct themselves in the locker room and on the field as if the whole world were always watching. Which, increasingly, it is.
Some jobs will never be Oprahfied, turned into bastions of caring sensitivity. The National Football League will have little problem accepting openly gay players, but it will always be relentless on those lacking mental toughness. Martin had problems that likely would keep him from succeeding anywhere in the NFL. The constant competition, scrutiny, and pressure fold, spindle, and mutilate some people. And he is far from the only one who could not handle the rigors of NFL life. Pittsburgh's Kordell Stewart had every physical gift to make him a starting quarterback, but could not handle the pressure when losses piled up. He was a great athlete and a good person, but lacked the mentality necessary to remain in his job.
Some will argue that it's just a game. But it is also a product that earns millions for participants and billions for teams. Fair or not, pressure comes with the position.
Organizations like the Steelers, Patriots, and others expect professionalism and subordinate everything to winning. The Steelers' ownership quickly ships out those who undermine the locker room. Bill Belichick expects a disciplined team. His coaches even call out quarterback Tom Brady when they feel he has abused his receivers too much.
Incognito will play next year. Martin likely will not. Incognito's problems do not stem from the fact, as many in the media have claimed, that he is a "meathead." His manner of expression and his behavior are not those of a particularly smart guy, but no one lasts long in the NFL without some smarts. The best of all possible worlds for him is a team like the Steelers. They need line help desperately, but are a strong enough organization to dampen any negative buzz around his acquisition. He would likely thrive in an organization with a disciplined and winning mindset.
Plus, after the pat year, once with another team Incognito will behave like a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Remorseful or not, he has one chance left in him and he knows it. The whole world is watching and he is now aware.
For Martin to play again, he would have to prove that he has healed and matured. One can easily prove recovery from a knee injury. Scars from mental issues are more problematic.
As for the Dolphins, they are in the same boat as anyone else whose deepest dysfunction just went public. Organizational chaos bred many of the problems they face right now, including chronic losing.
Incognito and Martin only revealed the deeper issues. An executive left the team months ago, claiming he had been shoved out. The head trainer, a coach and players relentlessly harassed an assistant trainer, implying he was homosexual. A lot has to change in the organization, not just a Band Aid, but a cultural overhaul.
Incognito and Martin only revealed the deeper issues. An executive left the team months ago, claiming he had been shoved out. The head trainer, a coach and players relentlessly harassed an assistant trainer, implying he was homosexual. A lot has to change in the organization, not just a Band Aid, but a cultural overhaul.
The Dolphins took years to reach this stage. Turning around will not happen overnight. But for them to earn respect again, the Dolphins must take the first step on a tough journey.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Ten Interesting Presidents
Not the best ten. Just ten interesting holders of the highest office in the land.
The American presidency has always had an allure unique among worldwide offices. It grants many of the powers assumed by Augustus, first emperor of Rome. The caveat is that office holders have a relatively short time to govern and that they must be chosen.
George Washington
Not just the greatest President. Not just the greatest American. Truly one of the great figures in world history. Without his calls to action and leadership, the American Revolution likely dissolves into a society of complainers and philosophy students. Guided the Constitutional Convention, often with glances instead of words. Defined what a president should be and how one should act.
Those who downgrade his accomplishments forget that he had to also establish international respect for America's territorial integrity and national credit during a world war.
Not placing Washington in the top spot as president is sheer trolling.
Washington believed strongly in the dignity of office, even among close friends as Governeur Morris found to his embarrassment. His belief in republican simplicity extended to wearing black suits instead of military dress and forbidding music or announcements when he entered a room. If a president deserves respect and attention, he will get it without the extra fuss.
John Adams
Obviously not a digital photo of the real John Adams. This is Paul Giamatti from the outstanding HBO miniseries based on the outstanding David McCullough book.
Modern students of history love John Adams. We all know someone like Adams. Or maybe some of us are this guy. Brilliant beyond measure. But also jealous (rightfully) of not getting the credit he deserves. Often grumpy and cynical (these traits usually soothed, but also occasionally stoked by his also brilliant wife Abigail. And held legendary grudges against Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and others.
Adams just didn't fit in. Not on his diplomatic missions to North Africa, Britain, and elsewhere; not with the intellectual set at the Constitutional Convention; not with men of action like Washington.
But without his intellect, work, and guidance, our Republic may not be here. His 20 hour days keeping things together at the Continental Congress built the nation. His presidency is remembered more for its foolish acceptance of bad laws than its creation of the United States Navy and successful fight against France.
The second president proves that social awkwardness and unchained, stubborn, untactful brilliance can succeed somewhere besides social media. Then again, in our time, Adams may never have been able to break free of Facebook argument.
By the way, Adams owes David McCullough big time.
Andrew Jackson
Jackson needs more attention. It is tempting to judge him directly on a single action, the Cherokee removal. Here, Jackson violated property rights and federal law to assist gold prospectors (basically the kind of crony capitalism that happens regularly in Washington today.)
That being said, Jackson represented a new democracy that in many ways diametrically opposed his removal of the Cherokees from their home. He stood for property rights, individual freedom, limited government, and workable state sovereignty. For the first time, the West had a voice in government through the figure of the backwoods warlord. William Henry Harrison, James Polk and Lincoln would follow after.
Jackson's impact on the Democratic Party lasted longer. Mistrust of big business and big government alike permeated the Southern backwoods. Belief that the Democratic Party represented these values only died in the last generation.
James K. Polk
Polk was neo-con when neo-con wasn't cool. This surprisingly Mel Gibson looking president represented the Democratic Party's return to running backwoodsmen who could pass as commoners (after the one term of New York businessman Martin van Buren.) Polk stood for election on annexing Texas and Oregon. As it turns out, most of the nation agreed. As did Texas and the region of Oregon Territory ultimately added to the Union.
Polk gets blamed for the Mexican War. Historians cite both Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee as sources blaming land greed for a war they deemed wrong. Grant and Lee were also both in the Whig Party, which could give some context to their opposition.
Fact is that Polk may have wanted a war with Mexico. But he did not want war worse than the Mexicans themselves. Mexico picked fights repeatedly during the mid 1800s and lost all of them, including (I kid you not) the Pastry War with France. The Mexicans refused Polk's offer to pay for Texas annexation, which was completely unnecessary under international law. They declared war. If Polk had set a trap, Mexico walked into it.
Polk's handling of the Mexican War should have blown up in his face. He removed Zachary Taylor from command out of fears that the general would grow too popular and become president, a correct prediction. But Mexico, under the leadership of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, lacked the organization and the economic strength behind the American forces.
Polk promised to serve one term. He kept his promise. That alone is worth remembering.
No Lincoln here
The most written about man in human history, which would have surprised him. No need to write more.
Ulysses S. Grant
This is how America should remember Grant. Grant's most well-known Civil War era picture shows the 21st century what swagger truly is. Against his enemies both in the Confederacy and in the Union Army itself, Grant applied slow, steady, relentless pressure. He used Northern economic and population superiority to wear down the South, while relying on Lincoln's support against military command rivals.
But America remembers the image that goes along with fifty dollar bill Grant. Rounder face, protruding stomach tightening his suit. History associates this Grant with his poor choices of friends and officeholders, many of whom betrayed him and the public trust.
Grant, however, earned his enemies while president by doing the right things as well. He aggressively used the power of the new Department of Justice and the military to stamp out Ku Klux Klan terrorism. Grant worked to treat Indians as humanely and respectfully as possible, blaming much of the friction on settler troublemakers. These grew unpopular as Reconstruction lasted 12 years longer than the Civil War itself and as political officeholders found themselves booted from Indian Affairs jobs.
He also lost support during one of the worst depressions in American history. Grant and the Republican Congress strengthened the dollar and did little else. The economy bounced back in four years, as opposed to much longer stretches under Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama. All of these unpopular moves required courage in the face of certain declines in popularity.
Grant was a great general. He was also one of the great autobiographers in history. But his virtues as a military man and a writer failed to serve him as a president or a businessman.
Rutherford B. Hayes
At the time of his nomination in 1876, Hayes had earned the description of "the good gray governor." This came from a lifetime of being quietly competent and just.
Hayes' Civil War service started in the backwoods of western Virginia. He was among the first to encounter the rise of guerrilla fighting as he marched his columns through narrow valleys. Despite the frustrations, Hayes rarely let the situation get the better of him. He upbraided a subordinate for the punitive burning of a courthouse. Toward the end of the war, Hayes escaped the raid that captured two other Union generals. He, Washingtonlike, shared the discomforts of his men by camping with them in frigid February 1865. the other two stayed in a lavish hotel with few guards.
Reconstruction ended in 1877 as part of the deal bringing Hayes to office. The razor thin margins threatened to unleash another Civil War. Neither side particularly supported the quid pro quo and its contribution to the long term establishment of Jim Crow is undeniable.
So why is Hayes "interesting?" Because he and his wife "Lemonade Lucy" (named so because she did not allow alcohol in the White House) may be the most boring of First Families. Hayes lived quietly, administered the government, did not seek attention, and stepped aside after one term. Like his military career, his presidency was quiet, effective, competent, and forgettable due to its success. No one ever writes about cruise ship captains who never wreck. And few are interested in a president so lacking in the dazzling show that the office has become.
And that is precisely why he is worth remembering.
William McKinley
Last of the Civil War officer presidents. McKinley, like Garfield, Harrison, and Hayes all served in the West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky theater of war.
McKinley ushered in a generation of Republican Party dominance and straddled eras. He was the last front porch campaigner who sat at home in the traditional way and let subordinates do all the work. But his campaign started the use of mailed campaign literature. Historians lump him with the 19th century presidents, but his annexation of the Philippines marked the United States' entry into international affairs.
McKinley fails to make the grade of "great presidents" in most academic lists. He, however, won a war against Spain that he personally tried to head off. Under McKinley the national economy boomed (albeit under anti-free market and probably unnecessary protective tariffs.)
It's hard to argue with success.
History's problem with McKinley is that he served right before Theodore Roosevelt, who was never supposed to be president. Had McKiney not died by an assassin's bullet, he likely would have been succeeded by another honest competent senator, West Virginia's Stephen Elkins who was seen as the next Republican option. McKinley was, however, assassinated by a terrorist and the polymath Roosevelt took office.
William Howard Taft
Taft, like Adams, has earned a spot in the hearts of historians (if not their rankings) because of his humanness next to a blue star of a predecessor.
He did not want to go to law school in the first place. His father, however, insisted that law school provided more of a future than catching for the Cincinnati Reds.
Taft worked well when working with someone else. Under Theodore Roosevelt, he solved problems across the globe, most notably in the Philippines where his conciliatory policies quelled a revolt.
He never wanted to be president. Mrs. Taft, however, had enough ambition for both of them. Jealous of the spotlight on her husband's friend Teddy, she allied with the president to badger Taft into a job he didn't want.
Roosevelt expected his friend to remain his cipher, following his policies to the letter. The lawyer Taft, however, made decisions based on rule of law, as opposed to the Roosevelt way of favoring friends and skewering enemies. This made an enemy out of Roosevelt who skewered Taft in the election of 1912, bringing an ignominious end to the political careers of both.
Taft got the last laugh, ending up with the job he coveted more than any other. Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, making him one of the most accomplished men in US history that few remember outside of a certain bathtub incident.
Calvin Coolidge
Less talk. Only acted when necessary. Country remained at peace. National economy boomed.
And he wore a dazzling array of cool hats.
The American presidency has always had an allure unique among worldwide offices. It grants many of the powers assumed by Augustus, first emperor of Rome. The caveat is that office holders have a relatively short time to govern and that they must be chosen.
George Washington
Not just the greatest President. Not just the greatest American. Truly one of the great figures in world history. Without his calls to action and leadership, the American Revolution likely dissolves into a society of complainers and philosophy students. Guided the Constitutional Convention, often with glances instead of words. Defined what a president should be and how one should act.
Those who downgrade his accomplishments forget that he had to also establish international respect for America's territorial integrity and national credit during a world war.
Not placing Washington in the top spot as president is sheer trolling.
Washington believed strongly in the dignity of office, even among close friends as Governeur Morris found to his embarrassment. His belief in republican simplicity extended to wearing black suits instead of military dress and forbidding music or announcements when he entered a room. If a president deserves respect and attention, he will get it without the extra fuss.
John Adams
Obviously not a digital photo of the real John Adams. This is Paul Giamatti from the outstanding HBO miniseries based on the outstanding David McCullough book.
Modern students of history love John Adams. We all know someone like Adams. Or maybe some of us are this guy. Brilliant beyond measure. But also jealous (rightfully) of not getting the credit he deserves. Often grumpy and cynical (these traits usually soothed, but also occasionally stoked by his also brilliant wife Abigail. And held legendary grudges against Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and others.
Adams just didn't fit in. Not on his diplomatic missions to North Africa, Britain, and elsewhere; not with the intellectual set at the Constitutional Convention; not with men of action like Washington.
But without his intellect, work, and guidance, our Republic may not be here. His 20 hour days keeping things together at the Continental Congress built the nation. His presidency is remembered more for its foolish acceptance of bad laws than its creation of the United States Navy and successful fight against France.
The second president proves that social awkwardness and unchained, stubborn, untactful brilliance can succeed somewhere besides social media. Then again, in our time, Adams may never have been able to break free of Facebook argument.
By the way, Adams owes David McCullough big time.
Andrew Jackson
Jackson needs more attention. It is tempting to judge him directly on a single action, the Cherokee removal. Here, Jackson violated property rights and federal law to assist gold prospectors (basically the kind of crony capitalism that happens regularly in Washington today.)
That being said, Jackson represented a new democracy that in many ways diametrically opposed his removal of the Cherokees from their home. He stood for property rights, individual freedom, limited government, and workable state sovereignty. For the first time, the West had a voice in government through the figure of the backwoods warlord. William Henry Harrison, James Polk and Lincoln would follow after.
Jackson's impact on the Democratic Party lasted longer. Mistrust of big business and big government alike permeated the Southern backwoods. Belief that the Democratic Party represented these values only died in the last generation.
James K. Polk
Polk was neo-con when neo-con wasn't cool. This surprisingly Mel Gibson looking president represented the Democratic Party's return to running backwoodsmen who could pass as commoners (after the one term of New York businessman Martin van Buren.) Polk stood for election on annexing Texas and Oregon. As it turns out, most of the nation agreed. As did Texas and the region of Oregon Territory ultimately added to the Union.
Polk gets blamed for the Mexican War. Historians cite both Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee as sources blaming land greed for a war they deemed wrong. Grant and Lee were also both in the Whig Party, which could give some context to their opposition.
Fact is that Polk may have wanted a war with Mexico. But he did not want war worse than the Mexicans themselves. Mexico picked fights repeatedly during the mid 1800s and lost all of them, including (I kid you not) the Pastry War with France. The Mexicans refused Polk's offer to pay for Texas annexation, which was completely unnecessary under international law. They declared war. If Polk had set a trap, Mexico walked into it.
Polk's handling of the Mexican War should have blown up in his face. He removed Zachary Taylor from command out of fears that the general would grow too popular and become president, a correct prediction. But Mexico, under the leadership of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, lacked the organization and the economic strength behind the American forces.
Polk promised to serve one term. He kept his promise. That alone is worth remembering.
No Lincoln here
The most written about man in human history, which would have surprised him. No need to write more.
Ulysses S. Grant
This is how America should remember Grant. Grant's most well-known Civil War era picture shows the 21st century what swagger truly is. Against his enemies both in the Confederacy and in the Union Army itself, Grant applied slow, steady, relentless pressure. He used Northern economic and population superiority to wear down the South, while relying on Lincoln's support against military command rivals.
But America remembers the image that goes along with fifty dollar bill Grant. Rounder face, protruding stomach tightening his suit. History associates this Grant with his poor choices of friends and officeholders, many of whom betrayed him and the public trust.
Grant, however, earned his enemies while president by doing the right things as well. He aggressively used the power of the new Department of Justice and the military to stamp out Ku Klux Klan terrorism. Grant worked to treat Indians as humanely and respectfully as possible, blaming much of the friction on settler troublemakers. These grew unpopular as Reconstruction lasted 12 years longer than the Civil War itself and as political officeholders found themselves booted from Indian Affairs jobs.
He also lost support during one of the worst depressions in American history. Grant and the Republican Congress strengthened the dollar and did little else. The economy bounced back in four years, as opposed to much longer stretches under Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama. All of these unpopular moves required courage in the face of certain declines in popularity.
Grant was a great general. He was also one of the great autobiographers in history. But his virtues as a military man and a writer failed to serve him as a president or a businessman.
Rutherford B. Hayes
At the time of his nomination in 1876, Hayes had earned the description of "the good gray governor." This came from a lifetime of being quietly competent and just.
Hayes' Civil War service started in the backwoods of western Virginia. He was among the first to encounter the rise of guerrilla fighting as he marched his columns through narrow valleys. Despite the frustrations, Hayes rarely let the situation get the better of him. He upbraided a subordinate for the punitive burning of a courthouse. Toward the end of the war, Hayes escaped the raid that captured two other Union generals. He, Washingtonlike, shared the discomforts of his men by camping with them in frigid February 1865. the other two stayed in a lavish hotel with few guards.
Reconstruction ended in 1877 as part of the deal bringing Hayes to office. The razor thin margins threatened to unleash another Civil War. Neither side particularly supported the quid pro quo and its contribution to the long term establishment of Jim Crow is undeniable.
So why is Hayes "interesting?" Because he and his wife "Lemonade Lucy" (named so because she did not allow alcohol in the White House) may be the most boring of First Families. Hayes lived quietly, administered the government, did not seek attention, and stepped aside after one term. Like his military career, his presidency was quiet, effective, competent, and forgettable due to its success. No one ever writes about cruise ship captains who never wreck. And few are interested in a president so lacking in the dazzling show that the office has become.
And that is precisely why he is worth remembering.
William McKinley
Last of the Civil War officer presidents. McKinley, like Garfield, Harrison, and Hayes all served in the West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky theater of war.
McKinley ushered in a generation of Republican Party dominance and straddled eras. He was the last front porch campaigner who sat at home in the traditional way and let subordinates do all the work. But his campaign started the use of mailed campaign literature. Historians lump him with the 19th century presidents, but his annexation of the Philippines marked the United States' entry into international affairs.
McKinley fails to make the grade of "great presidents" in most academic lists. He, however, won a war against Spain that he personally tried to head off. Under McKinley the national economy boomed (albeit under anti-free market and probably unnecessary protective tariffs.)
It's hard to argue with success.
History's problem with McKinley is that he served right before Theodore Roosevelt, who was never supposed to be president. Had McKiney not died by an assassin's bullet, he likely would have been succeeded by another honest competent senator, West Virginia's Stephen Elkins who was seen as the next Republican option. McKinley was, however, assassinated by a terrorist and the polymath Roosevelt took office.
William Howard Taft
Taft, like Adams, has earned a spot in the hearts of historians (if not their rankings) because of his humanness next to a blue star of a predecessor.
He did not want to go to law school in the first place. His father, however, insisted that law school provided more of a future than catching for the Cincinnati Reds.
Taft worked well when working with someone else. Under Theodore Roosevelt, he solved problems across the globe, most notably in the Philippines where his conciliatory policies quelled a revolt.
He never wanted to be president. Mrs. Taft, however, had enough ambition for both of them. Jealous of the spotlight on her husband's friend Teddy, she allied with the president to badger Taft into a job he didn't want.
Roosevelt expected his friend to remain his cipher, following his policies to the letter. The lawyer Taft, however, made decisions based on rule of law, as opposed to the Roosevelt way of favoring friends and skewering enemies. This made an enemy out of Roosevelt who skewered Taft in the election of 1912, bringing an ignominious end to the political careers of both.
Taft got the last laugh, ending up with the job he coveted more than any other. Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, making him one of the most accomplished men in US history that few remember outside of a certain bathtub incident.
Calvin Coolidge
Less talk. Only acted when necessary. Country remained at peace. National economy boomed.
And he wore a dazzling array of cool hats.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Liberals, Conservatives Wary of Time Warner and Comcast Merger
What could bring conservatives and liberal-leftists to, if not arm in arm cooperation, at least shouting distance agreement? The impending merger between Time Warner and Comcast, the cable company currently ruling the NBC empire of networks.
Media Research Center's Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog site, sounded the tocsin this week. It warned readers that the combination of two cable giants could bring competitive benefit to Comcast's prize NBC products. These would wield "even more influence."
Senator Al Franken, a former media figure in the employee of NBC during his years on Saturday Night Live, wrote to the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Communications Commission. Franken related his "serious reservations" about the merger. He went on to say " Unfortunately, a handful of cable companies dominate the market, leaving customers with little choice but to pay high bills for often unsatisfactory service."
Gizmodo related larger concerns. With cable dwindling, the size of the new conglomerate could control broadband access, since internet relies on the same wiring to get into the house. In the short term, a near monopoly in the cable market (Gizmodo compared it to Coca Cola buying Pepsi-Cola) could enforce bad deals on not only cable channels like The Weather Channel, but also the major networks. Fearing loss of market when television viewership as a whole is down, networks and channels could possibly be bent to the will of the new company much more easily.
Or this could be another case of Time Warner hitching itself to a fading star.
Back in what seems like a generation ago, there was once a company called AOL Time Warner. Time Warner endeavored to combine with the most prominent name in internet providers, raising fears of media monopoly. No one could speculate the impact of a single company across a spectrum of media. Certainly almost no one guessed that AOL was on the verge not of omnipotence, but irrelevance.
History may not repeat itself exactly in this case. But the history of monopolies in a free market shows a pattern. Monopolies, unless backed by government favor or power as in the example of the 1770s British East India company, are inherently unstable. They act sluggishly, only innovate slowly, and usually either shrink or break apart due to pressures from competition.
Monopolies rely on what worked in the past while ignoring the future. IBM was fated to lose technological dominance the day it ignored Bill Gates. Comcast's dominance of cable may be akin to a hypothetical carriage monopoly in 1900. They may win today and be a footnote tomorrow.
Advances in technology are the biggest enemy of monopoly and market dominance. Giant companies fear the change that smaller companies embrace and drive. The many technological alternatives to cable render fears of a monopoly moot. AT&T once dominated the long distance telephone market. Had Congress not broken AT&T up in the 1980s, the internet and cell phones would have undermined their market control. Time Warner itself struggles to figure out how to make sure profits on some of its traditional holdings.
After all, in the 21st century, Bleacher Report is worth more than the Washington Post. It's a new day.
Conservatives worry about the possible outsized influence on media and politics of their MSNBC nemesis. Liberals and leftists fear the old bogeyman of monopoly, this time in media form. At the end of the day, even if this merger goes through, history shows that there will be sound and fury. But market mechanics remain. Consumers will demand to be satisfied, or they will turn to satellite television, the internet, or some other source even more than they do now.
In the cable TV market, the cable companies do not rule the consumer. Increasingly, they will face the fact that they must serve the market or disappear.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Politico Has Bad News For Rahall, Other House Candidates
"There is no question that Democratic donors are shifting toward the Senate in 2014," Democrat megadonor and Nancy Pelosi friend Joe Cotchett told Politico.
Democratic donors may likely chalk up the House of Representatives as unwinnable and concentrate on keeping the Senate in their hands.
With noted congressional prognosticator Larry Sabato now rating the WV 03 race a tossup, diminishing Democratic support could help cost Nick Rahall the seat he has held for decades.
Democratic donors may likely chalk up the House of Representatives as unwinnable and concentrate on keeping the Senate in their hands.
With noted congressional prognosticator Larry Sabato now rating the WV 03 race a tossup, diminishing Democratic support could help cost Nick Rahall the seat he has held for decades.
Putting Communism's Stranglehold on Cuba In Perspective
More evidence that Marxism doesn't work.
In the past two years, Cuban president Raul Castro has introduced over 300 changes to the totalitarian command economy. These actions indicate that even the country's leadership knows that Communism is destructive to an economy and its people.
How destructive?
American Enterprise Institute released a state gross domestic product map. This map was unique in that it listed the country closest to each states output. Cuba's economy was closest to that of West Virginia.
The Mountain State ranked 49th in the nation in some measures of GDP in 2012, yet tremendously outperformed Cuba. West Virginia's 1.8 million people live in an area with less than half the land area of Cuba and less than 10 percent of the population.
Were Cuba a US state, a chasm would separate it from the per capita productivity of all other states.
Leftists avoid the issue of Fidel Castro's brutal treatment of political dissidents and Che Guavara's murderous terrorism, while praising selected parts of his system.
The current Cuban regime's moves mirror Vladimir Lenin's 1921 New Economic Policy. Lenin liberalized the Soviet Communist system just enough to keep it afloat, but did little to expand true opportunities for the industrious.
A free Cuba holds tremendous potential. Cuban refugees flourished in the American business community, particularly in Florida. Immigrants and their children have emerged as important leaders at the state and national level. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio represent their constituents ably in the United States Senate. West Virginia's Alex Mooney may well succeed Shelley Moore Capito as 2nd District Representative should he win the GOP nomination there.
Certainly the same tradition that produced such success stories in the United States can revive under the warm sun of liberty, once it is restored to that country.
That means that Cuba should not be overly praised or rewarded for simply trying to keep their totalitarian system afloat with piecemeal changes. Only a full revolution of liberty deserves praise and support.
In the past two years, Cuban president Raul Castro has introduced over 300 changes to the totalitarian command economy. These actions indicate that even the country's leadership knows that Communism is destructive to an economy and its people.
How destructive?
American Enterprise Institute released a state gross domestic product map. This map was unique in that it listed the country closest to each states output. Cuba's economy was closest to that of West Virginia.
The Mountain State ranked 49th in the nation in some measures of GDP in 2012, yet tremendously outperformed Cuba. West Virginia's 1.8 million people live in an area with less than half the land area of Cuba and less than 10 percent of the population.
Were Cuba a US state, a chasm would separate it from the per capita productivity of all other states.
Leftists avoid the issue of Fidel Castro's brutal treatment of political dissidents and Che Guavara's murderous terrorism, while praising selected parts of his system.
The current Cuban regime's moves mirror Vladimir Lenin's 1921 New Economic Policy. Lenin liberalized the Soviet Communist system just enough to keep it afloat, but did little to expand true opportunities for the industrious.
A free Cuba holds tremendous potential. Cuban refugees flourished in the American business community, particularly in Florida. Immigrants and their children have emerged as important leaders at the state and national level. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio represent their constituents ably in the United States Senate. West Virginia's Alex Mooney may well succeed Shelley Moore Capito as 2nd District Representative should he win the GOP nomination there.
Certainly the same tradition that produced such success stories in the United States can revive under the warm sun of liberty, once it is restored to that country.
That means that Cuba should not be overly praised or rewarded for simply trying to keep their totalitarian system afloat with piecemeal changes. Only a full revolution of liberty deserves praise and support.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Growth in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle Comes From Virginia Prosperity and Maryland Folly
Despite the economic slowdown, despite the persistent problems of state tax and regulation policy, West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle continues to see strong growth.
Two factors contribute to the growth. One is spillover from Virginia's business friendly system. Multiple outlets consistently rank Virginia as the friendliest state for business growth. The cluster of Northern Virginia counties within 90 minutes of Washington DC saw the most spectacular development. According to the State Journal Winchester, mere miles from Hampshire County, rocketed from 134 to 41 on the best performing cities list.
Winchester, population of near 30,000, and other growing cities along the Interstate 81 corridor, are technically suburbs of Washington. Those who can afford to do so are streaming through the gaps and over the mountains into West Virginia, colonizing exurbs.
Eastern Panhandle and Potomac Highlands counties are benefiting from Virginia's prosperity.
Other counties reap from the folly of their northern neighbor, Maryland.
Maryland's anti-business policies and crackdown on personal liberty drive people south of the Potomac. According to US Census Bureau statistics, West Virginia counties bordering Maryland tend to have population and jobs growth. The Maryland counties have either losses or growth that lags behind their cross river brethren in the Mountain State.
Either way, Eastern Panhandle representatives need to keep pushing Charleston to reform regulatory and tax laws to continue the growth. Jefferson, Berkeley, Morgan, Hampshire, Hardy, Pendleton, Mineral, and Grant counties are poised to reap the benefits.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Pornography as a Symptom of the Decline of Masculinity?
National Review today published a powerful indictment of the fate of masculinity. It lay buried at the end of a lengthy description of a pornography convention coupled with analysis of what this means for culture. In its own right, the piece bore deep into social questions often left untouched and introduced readers to an entire subculture. But should Kevin Williamson use this as another yet another obituary on the fate of the American Man?
"The future is female." Williamson laments. He sees marriage evaporating. Many others see the academic driven opportunities as more appropriate for females than males.Williamson's words seem to echo another thinker's fear about what modern times might do to the modern man.
"A life of slothful ease, a life of that peace which springs merely from lack of either desire or of power to strive after great things" has afflicted American men, according to one writer. He worries that parents have taught their boys "that ease, that peace, is to be the first consideration." America, should it continue along this path will "rot by inches in ignoble ease within our borders."
Hopefully the writing gave it away. This was not a modern assessment of the masculine. Almost 115 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt warned the nation. It, and especially its men, threatened to soften. And this only two generations removed from the great national test of the Civil War.
Roosevelt feared that the ease brought by modern wonders of his time might soften men, dulling their ambition and work ethic.
Obviously it did not. Great decades lay ahead. The free society that encouraged Roosevelt's narrow social circle to pursue ease and comfort spurred others to make their own fortunes. Surrounded by dandies, Roosevelt at the time did not see the big picture. A nation full of men and women willing to fight for fortune and success.
Williamson describes the general stereotype of the youngest generation of adult men. And stereotypes rarely pop into existence without some small basis of reality. But narrow views and the worries of older men about the generation that is to replace them may limit the picture.
The youngest adult generation has grown up in a country with broken schools and no guarantees. College does not guarantee a spot in IBM management school. It guarantees only debt for most. And even that in exchange for a curriculum high on social engineering and declining relevance or even intellectual stimulation.
Nothing that has happened in this century has inspired any faith that government can handle any problem. The youth have less faith in government than almost any group born and raised in the last hundred years.
Less reliance on the government and Big Business must translate into more reliance on self. Even as government seeks to supplant parents and institutions of faith with itself, it reveals its base incompetence. If you're going to do something right, you have to do it yourself.
On top of that is the core of this generation, not college kids living in their mom's basements, but tens of thousands of men who have served their country on the other side of the world. They bring work ethic, toughness, and perspective beyond anything learned in a classroom.
Fundamentally, things do not change. Men worth marrying will be married, as will many who are not. Ambition to do better in life will remain, so long as individuals may rationally hope that their efforts can lead to it. The older generation always worries about the younger.
In actuality, the 21st century should be a revival for masculinekind. So many in the last few decades dropped axes, trowels, and hammers to pursue corporate dreams that there is a perpetual shortage of people who have these skills. The idea that physical labor is beneath people has opened crucial opportunities. Not many women can build a stone or a brick wall. Men will always have a natural advantage in the realm of physical labor. The skilled craftsman who can handle physical labor has never been in more demand. In some parts of the country, one with experience and a good reputation can name his price.
Why go to college when you can make money and build a business right away? Parents must realize that college is not what it was, nor does it guarantee what it once did. Encourage entrepreneurship when you can.
And encourage pursuit of the noble and profitable.
"The future is female." Williamson laments. He sees marriage evaporating. Many others see the academic driven opportunities as more appropriate for females than males.Williamson's words seem to echo another thinker's fear about what modern times might do to the modern man.
"A life of slothful ease, a life of that peace which springs merely from lack of either desire or of power to strive after great things" has afflicted American men, according to one writer. He worries that parents have taught their boys "that ease, that peace, is to be the first consideration." America, should it continue along this path will "rot by inches in ignoble ease within our borders."
Hopefully the writing gave it away. This was not a modern assessment of the masculine. Almost 115 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt warned the nation. It, and especially its men, threatened to soften. And this only two generations removed from the great national test of the Civil War.
Roosevelt feared that the ease brought by modern wonders of his time might soften men, dulling their ambition and work ethic.
Obviously it did not. Great decades lay ahead. The free society that encouraged Roosevelt's narrow social circle to pursue ease and comfort spurred others to make their own fortunes. Surrounded by dandies, Roosevelt at the time did not see the big picture. A nation full of men and women willing to fight for fortune and success.
Williamson describes the general stereotype of the youngest generation of adult men. And stereotypes rarely pop into existence without some small basis of reality. But narrow views and the worries of older men about the generation that is to replace them may limit the picture.
The youngest adult generation has grown up in a country with broken schools and no guarantees. College does not guarantee a spot in IBM management school. It guarantees only debt for most. And even that in exchange for a curriculum high on social engineering and declining relevance or even intellectual stimulation.
Nothing that has happened in this century has inspired any faith that government can handle any problem. The youth have less faith in government than almost any group born and raised in the last hundred years.
Less reliance on the government and Big Business must translate into more reliance on self. Even as government seeks to supplant parents and institutions of faith with itself, it reveals its base incompetence. If you're going to do something right, you have to do it yourself.
On top of that is the core of this generation, not college kids living in their mom's basements, but tens of thousands of men who have served their country on the other side of the world. They bring work ethic, toughness, and perspective beyond anything learned in a classroom.
Fundamentally, things do not change. Men worth marrying will be married, as will many who are not. Ambition to do better in life will remain, so long as individuals may rationally hope that their efforts can lead to it. The older generation always worries about the younger.
In actuality, the 21st century should be a revival for masculinekind. So many in the last few decades dropped axes, trowels, and hammers to pursue corporate dreams that there is a perpetual shortage of people who have these skills. The idea that physical labor is beneath people has opened crucial opportunities. Not many women can build a stone or a brick wall. Men will always have a natural advantage in the realm of physical labor. The skilled craftsman who can handle physical labor has never been in more demand. In some parts of the country, one with experience and a good reputation can name his price.
Why go to college when you can make money and build a business right away? Parents must realize that college is not what it was, nor does it guarantee what it once did. Encourage entrepreneurship when you can.
And encourage pursuit of the noble and profitable.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Clicks Actually Not the Most Important Media Audience Measurement Statistic
Journalists always brag on number of clicks, if they get them. But it is not necessarily the most important statistic.
The Charleston Daily Mail until recently had the address www.dailymail.com . To someone not paying attention, this could have been easily confused with www.dailymail.co.uk This is the home of the Daily Mail, far and away the most viewed news website in the world.
Obviously there had to be some spillover traffic with people looking for Daily Mail who actually ended up accidentally at Charleston Daily Mail. So why didn't the paper based in the West Virginia state capital simply rest on their laurels of massive numbers of clicks?
To explain why they made the change, deterring the accidental visitors, Charleston Daily Mail editor Brad McElhinny explained on Twitter that "they depressed time spent on site figures as they navigated away immediately."
As it would be difficult for the Charleston Daily Mail to find a way to take advantage of the accidental traffic from readers of the Daily Mail, this move seems to make sense.
The Charleston Daily Mail until recently had the address www.dailymail.com . To someone not paying attention, this could have been easily confused with www.dailymail.co.uk This is the home of the Daily Mail, far and away the most viewed news website in the world.
Obviously there had to be some spillover traffic with people looking for Daily Mail who actually ended up accidentally at Charleston Daily Mail. So why didn't the paper based in the West Virginia state capital simply rest on their laurels of massive numbers of clicks?
To explain why they made the change, deterring the accidental visitors, Charleston Daily Mail editor Brad McElhinny explained on Twitter that "they depressed time spent on site figures as they navigated away immediately."
As it would be difficult for the Charleston Daily Mail to find a way to take advantage of the accidental traffic from readers of the Daily Mail, this move seems to make sense.
What Has Russia Lost So Far In Sochi Debacle?
Russia for centuries has remained obsessed about its image. It demands and craves respect as a modern, powerful nation, but also struggles with images of what it considers to be embarrassing backwardness. The Sochi Olympics should have advanced Vladimir Putin's plan to move Russia back to the forefront. Instead, even before the first event, it is a public relations nightmare.
The first rule of public relations? Put the best foot forward with the media. That also may be the second, third, and fourth rule. This Deadspin assemblage of reports and tweets puts Russia in the worst possible light. The land of the bear does not come off as strong, resilient, and capable. Sochi is "a hilarious adventure," looking less like competence and more like a bad prat fall flick. London's Daily Mail shows even more horrors, as well as a picture of the Russian president.
A reporter from one of the world's most prestigious sports-only publications must climb out his window because the hotel is locked down.
Another gets a terse warning not to use the water "because it contains something very dangerous." Her picture of the water looks like ginger ale or urine.
Whatever happens next will not unring the bell. When the media of the United States, Europe, and Japan were dumped into accommodations with broken doors, urinesque water, no lobbies, and mysterious bodily fluids, they gleefully reported all the issues. Being reporters, they dug and quickly found corruption, waste, and abuse of power mostly connected back to Putin. With 70,000 workers on the ground, Sochi may well be ready for the athletes. But the media sent home jokes and ridicule.
If Russia wants to break free of stereotypes and establish a better image, it should stop reverting to stereotypical images like Potemkin Villages.
For a nation seeking respect, ridicule is the deepest cut.
The obsession with its image in the West dates back to Czar Peter the Great in the late 1600s and early 1700s. He demanded that Russia modernize along Western lines. Being a very tactile intellect, Peter worked to bring visible changes, such as factories, newspapers, and western styles of clothes.
Peter established some westernism, but failed overall. He did not understand that the successes of the West sprang not from copying others, but from a liberty that birthed inquiry and development. Since then, Russia has vacillated between Slavic nationalism and Westernism, but has only rarely thought to embrace freedom to inspire innovation. It often finds itself playing catchup in the most visible ways, while lagging behind in others.
That is not to say that other countries have even patterns of growth and development. Certainly the United States does not. But most Americans do not see the perception of the world as damaging to economic development or national security in the same way as many Russians.
And Russians have reason to be concerned. They must compete with Western Europe's manufacturing economy, the shale gas revolution in the United States, keep a close eye on an increasingly nationalistic China, and figure out how to spur diverse growth and expand its population. Russia has over twice the land of China and one tenth of its population, all the while holding territory that the Chinese still consider their own. It also has innumerable ethnic groups within its borders, many of whom resent Moscow's rule.
Putin's nationalist bluster covers glaring weaknesses and concerns. So far, the Olympics that were supposed to serve as a crowning achievement have undermined the image of Putin and Russia alike.
The first rule of public relations? Put the best foot forward with the media. That also may be the second, third, and fourth rule. This Deadspin assemblage of reports and tweets puts Russia in the worst possible light. The land of the bear does not come off as strong, resilient, and capable. Sochi is "a hilarious adventure," looking less like competence and more like a bad prat fall flick. London's Daily Mail shows even more horrors, as well as a picture of the Russian president.
A reporter from one of the world's most prestigious sports-only publications must climb out his window because the hotel is locked down.
Another gets a terse warning not to use the water "because it contains something very dangerous." Her picture of the water looks like ginger ale or urine.
Whatever happens next will not unring the bell. When the media of the United States, Europe, and Japan were dumped into accommodations with broken doors, urinesque water, no lobbies, and mysterious bodily fluids, they gleefully reported all the issues. Being reporters, they dug and quickly found corruption, waste, and abuse of power mostly connected back to Putin. With 70,000 workers on the ground, Sochi may well be ready for the athletes. But the media sent home jokes and ridicule.
If Russia wants to break free of stereotypes and establish a better image, it should stop reverting to stereotypical images like Potemkin Villages.
For a nation seeking respect, ridicule is the deepest cut.
The obsession with its image in the West dates back to Czar Peter the Great in the late 1600s and early 1700s. He demanded that Russia modernize along Western lines. Being a very tactile intellect, Peter worked to bring visible changes, such as factories, newspapers, and western styles of clothes.
Peter established some westernism, but failed overall. He did not understand that the successes of the West sprang not from copying others, but from a liberty that birthed inquiry and development. Since then, Russia has vacillated between Slavic nationalism and Westernism, but has only rarely thought to embrace freedom to inspire innovation. It often finds itself playing catchup in the most visible ways, while lagging behind in others.
That is not to say that other countries have even patterns of growth and development. Certainly the United States does not. But most Americans do not see the perception of the world as damaging to economic development or national security in the same way as many Russians.
And Russians have reason to be concerned. They must compete with Western Europe's manufacturing economy, the shale gas revolution in the United States, keep a close eye on an increasingly nationalistic China, and figure out how to spur diverse growth and expand its population. Russia has over twice the land of China and one tenth of its population, all the while holding territory that the Chinese still consider their own. It also has innumerable ethnic groups within its borders, many of whom resent Moscow's rule.
Putin's nationalist bluster covers glaring weaknesses and concerns. So far, the Olympics that were supposed to serve as a crowning achievement have undermined the image of Putin and Russia alike.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
The Bizarroworld of College Campus Life and Vaclav Havel
Last year, New York City Police commissioner Ray Kelly cancelled a scheduled talk at Brown University. Students opposed to the city's "stop and frisk" procedures successfully disrupted the event through protest. According to The Daily Beast this was one of several events halted by the actions of small, but well organized student groups. Brown University claims to prize " the intellectual exchange that is sparked by a diversity of views and experiences" but caves into left wing rage.
The article goes on to explain how liberals who "accept basic norms of fair play" have been shoved aside by hate filled leftists who see the world as totalitarian and aim to impose those values on campuses. Its author explained how, as a staunch left wing student, he wanted to see a Marxist reviewer savage Dinesh D'Souza's accounts of campus tyranny. Instead he was shocked by the reviewer's agreement with the conservative thinker. American liberals and conservatives disagree on much, but they do generally agree with the principles expressed in the Bill of Rights.
Angry campus leftists, however, loathe experiencing speech that is not their own. But instead of avoiding it, they work as hard as possible to prevent it.
This happens also at the student level. National Review this morning posted a piece on "microaggression." Dr. Derald Sue, Columbia University psychologist, explains that it is speech or actions perpetuated by a majority against a minority individual in everyday life. This includes slights, discomfort, and anything else that may make the recipient feel "socially marginalized." Last November, according to the article, a group of students filed a complaint against a professor. He committed "microaggression" by correcting a capitalization error.
Fordham University has actively moved on this issue, training faculty on how to avoid microaggression and encouraging students to describe instances of abuse.
When asked, Sue said that microaggression lay in the eye of the recipient. If a person feels slighted, they are, in other words.
Colleges and universities were established for two purposes, to expand the mind and train for useful occupations. Campus speech policies, giving into hateful protesters and cancelling speeches, giving credibility to silliness like microaggression will close the student mind, not expand it.
Vaclav Havel in the late 1970s penned "The Power of the Powerless." The Czech dissenter and playwright looked to describe to a westerner the reality of life behind the Iron Curtain. He said that this was not the classical dictatorship of an individual or a small clique. Eastern Europe suffered from the dictatorship of bureaucracy. Although few were slaughtered in the same way as in Stalin's time, innumerable small punishments could be wielded. Each could drastically affect employment, social position, education, or something else important to the person. No one would risk offending the system, which he described as "post-totalitarian."
Havel said that in such a situation "the social phenomenon of self-preservation is subordinated to something higher, to a kind of blind automatism which drives the system." Those caught in it are not regarded as individually worthy, simply a collective reason for the institution to exist.
The most basic revolt against the numbing of this system is what Havel calls "living within the truth." One ignores orthodoxy and ideology, "rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game." The consequences of living within the truth? "The bill is not long in coming. He will be relieved of his post . . . his pay will be reduced . . .his superiors will harass him . . . his fellow workers will wonder about him."
Within most colleges, those who break the rules of the game could go before the social justice Star Chamber. Guilt or innocence decided by a stacked committee, very little right of true due process or appeal.
Willingness to let people live within the truth means that someone's sensibilities may be offended. Better they learn in college that the real world doesn't and shouldn't care about offending you. Better that real and perceived slights be ignored, confronted, or forgiven depending on the situation. Better than individuals, especially on campus, experience an atmosphere of free speech and inquiry, rather than help perpetuate an intellectual environment with the placidity and quiet of a graveyard.
The article goes on to explain how liberals who "accept basic norms of fair play" have been shoved aside by hate filled leftists who see the world as totalitarian and aim to impose those values on campuses. Its author explained how, as a staunch left wing student, he wanted to see a Marxist reviewer savage Dinesh D'Souza's accounts of campus tyranny. Instead he was shocked by the reviewer's agreement with the conservative thinker. American liberals and conservatives disagree on much, but they do generally agree with the principles expressed in the Bill of Rights.
Angry campus leftists, however, loathe experiencing speech that is not their own. But instead of avoiding it, they work as hard as possible to prevent it.
This happens also at the student level. National Review this morning posted a piece on "microaggression." Dr. Derald Sue, Columbia University psychologist, explains that it is speech or actions perpetuated by a majority against a minority individual in everyday life. This includes slights, discomfort, and anything else that may make the recipient feel "socially marginalized." Last November, according to the article, a group of students filed a complaint against a professor. He committed "microaggression" by correcting a capitalization error.
Fordham University has actively moved on this issue, training faculty on how to avoid microaggression and encouraging students to describe instances of abuse.
When asked, Sue said that microaggression lay in the eye of the recipient. If a person feels slighted, they are, in other words.
Colleges and universities were established for two purposes, to expand the mind and train for useful occupations. Campus speech policies, giving into hateful protesters and cancelling speeches, giving credibility to silliness like microaggression will close the student mind, not expand it.
Vaclav Havel in the late 1970s penned "The Power of the Powerless." The Czech dissenter and playwright looked to describe to a westerner the reality of life behind the Iron Curtain. He said that this was not the classical dictatorship of an individual or a small clique. Eastern Europe suffered from the dictatorship of bureaucracy. Although few were slaughtered in the same way as in Stalin's time, innumerable small punishments could be wielded. Each could drastically affect employment, social position, education, or something else important to the person. No one would risk offending the system, which he described as "post-totalitarian."
Havel said that in such a situation "the social phenomenon of self-preservation is subordinated to something higher, to a kind of blind automatism which drives the system." Those caught in it are not regarded as individually worthy, simply a collective reason for the institution to exist.
The most basic revolt against the numbing of this system is what Havel calls "living within the truth." One ignores orthodoxy and ideology, "rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game." The consequences of living within the truth? "The bill is not long in coming. He will be relieved of his post . . . his pay will be reduced . . .his superiors will harass him . . . his fellow workers will wonder about him."
Within most colleges, those who break the rules of the game could go before the social justice Star Chamber. Guilt or innocence decided by a stacked committee, very little right of true due process or appeal.
Willingness to let people live within the truth means that someone's sensibilities may be offended. Better they learn in college that the real world doesn't and shouldn't care about offending you. Better that real and perceived slights be ignored, confronted, or forgiven depending on the situation. Better than individuals, especially on campus, experience an atmosphere of free speech and inquiry, rather than help perpetuate an intellectual environment with the placidity and quiet of a graveyard.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Appeasing Iran Seen As a Step Towards More Mideast Nations Pushing For Nukes
Obama's lack of a foreign policy has so far resulted in a chaotic Libya, contributed to an unending Syrian civil war, discouraged Israel, and encouraged the terror linked Muslim Brotherhood. Instability and unpredictability mark not only the behavior of groups in the region, but also US policy.
Experts told the Washington Free Beacon that this could bring disastrous consequences. First, Iran aspires to Great Power status. Although it lags in productivity and capital, nuclear weapons would raise it above its neighbors. A state that once launched masses of its own citizens in suicide rushes at modern weapons cannot be trusted to be predictable with these weapons in hand.
Should Iran obtain them, other powers will as well. Saudi Arabia most certainly will develop its own.
Other countries will adapt. Turkey has already negotiated pacts with Iran. The NATO member, once an imperial power in the region, borders Iran. Fear of its growing influence will doubtless pull states into its orbit.
This is the predictable result of a weak and disoriented foreign policy on the part of the United States.
There may be no solution at this point.
Experts told the Washington Free Beacon that this could bring disastrous consequences. First, Iran aspires to Great Power status. Although it lags in productivity and capital, nuclear weapons would raise it above its neighbors. A state that once launched masses of its own citizens in suicide rushes at modern weapons cannot be trusted to be predictable with these weapons in hand.
Should Iran obtain them, other powers will as well. Saudi Arabia most certainly will develop its own.
Other countries will adapt. Turkey has already negotiated pacts with Iran. The NATO member, once an imperial power in the region, borders Iran. Fear of its growing influence will doubtless pull states into its orbit.
This is the predictable result of a weak and disoriented foreign policy on the part of the United States.
There may be no solution at this point.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Senator Stephen Benton Elkins: Carpetbagger or Savior?
West Virginia is closing in on the 120th anniversary of a milestone achievement in the life of one of its most important figures. In early 1895, the West Virginia State Legislature chose Stephen Benton Elkins to represent the state in the United States Senate.
Elkins did not have to win in a popular vote. Before 1913, legislatures chose senators. His career, however, had been remarkable. Elkins had helped to build one of the most powerful coal companies in the United States, extended railroads deep into the West Virginia countryside, and had served under President Benjamin Harrison as Secretary of War. Since 1888, he had guided the once lowly state Republican Party to the brink of decades of political dominance.
He officially came to West Virginia in early 1888. The Republican Party paper Wheeling Intelligencer rhetorically rolled out the red carpet, announcing his arrival almost like royalty. Civil War veteran and POW Nathan Goff of Clarksburg had capably led the party through much of the 1880s while a congressman. Elkins' arrival coincided with a tightly contested Goff run for governor. When Goff lost, many state Republicans switched their allegiance to Elkins.
Goff handled the shift with grace, likely consoled by appointment to the federal bench and eventual elevation to the US Senate. Meanwhile, Elkins and his regional allies strained to make the party and county Republican committees and clubs more active and effective. Elkins recruited Preston County newspaper editor W. M. O. Dawson to help run the day to day affairs of the state party. With the onset of free public school in West Virginia in the 1860s, experience and knowledge of the new media environment was crucial to helping build coming Republican majority.
Not everyone supported the new party leadership. In 1890, rumors swirled of an Elkins run for Congress. One Preston County Republican promised future congressman Alston Gordon Dayton that "If Elkins is to be the nominee . . . there will be many 'stay at homes' when election day rolls around." Despite Goff's quiet acceptance and willingness to work with Elkins, his former allies resented the new guard. They expected to be ignored and rejected by the newly minted West Virginia, but more often than not Elkins extended his hand to former Goff men willing to accept it.
Elkins' businesslike administration of the state party built on the prior work of the charismatic Goff. By 1894, the GOP had gained ascendancy in voter registrations, fundraising, and elected offices. West Virginia remained a Republican state until 1932.
Unlike his father-in-law Henry Gassaway Davis who was a powerful Democrat from West Virginia, but spent most of his time at a Maryland residence, Elkins embraced his new state. In 1890, he built for himself and his family the beautiful mansion Halliehurst. Not long before construction, the site of the home was near wilderness. Starting in 1890, the Randolph County city bearing his name grew up around his home and the new railroad connection.
On reaching the Senate, Elkins kept his eye on both state and national issues. During the 1896 presidential campaign, Elkins resisted considerable pressure by William McKinley advocates on the West Virginia and national level. While he could have gained personally by joining the McKinley bandwagon, Elkins was trying to obtain federal funds to dredge the Monongahela River. Other presidential aspirants sat in the Senate and Elkins feared antagonizing them. He explained "You know what is pending here and the reasons that move me to my opinion . . . Hope you can trust my judgment." He won the improvements and also ensured that a new United States Weather Service tracking station would be built in the state.
In national and foreign affairs, Elkins also had influence. In 1898, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst conferred with Elkins on ideas about national war policy. Several years later, Elkins authored legislation that ended the use of free passes by railroads to buy influence with politicians, editors, and others.
Rivals in his day and leftist historians later harped on Elkins' origins. John Alexander Williams called him New York's senator in West Virginia. In his personal and public correspondence, however, Elkins demonstrated his love for the state, concern for its people, and willingness to work very hard for the betterment of his adopted home and its Republican Party. West Virginia owes Elkins for much of its early 20th century prominence and prosperity.
He was certainly no opportunistic carpetbagger, looking for short term gains with plans to abandon his new home. Elkins brought his family to West Virginia to serve his new state and to grow along with it.
Unfortunately, Democratic machine rule cancelled out many of his achievements.
But now it is a new century and a new day for West Virginia Republicans. It is only right to occasionally honor the transplant from New York who worked so hard and did so much good for the Mountain State.
Elkins did not have to win in a popular vote. Before 1913, legislatures chose senators. His career, however, had been remarkable. Elkins had helped to build one of the most powerful coal companies in the United States, extended railroads deep into the West Virginia countryside, and had served under President Benjamin Harrison as Secretary of War. Since 1888, he had guided the once lowly state Republican Party to the brink of decades of political dominance.
He officially came to West Virginia in early 1888. The Republican Party paper Wheeling Intelligencer rhetorically rolled out the red carpet, announcing his arrival almost like royalty. Civil War veteran and POW Nathan Goff of Clarksburg had capably led the party through much of the 1880s while a congressman. Elkins' arrival coincided with a tightly contested Goff run for governor. When Goff lost, many state Republicans switched their allegiance to Elkins.
Goff handled the shift with grace, likely consoled by appointment to the federal bench and eventual elevation to the US Senate. Meanwhile, Elkins and his regional allies strained to make the party and county Republican committees and clubs more active and effective. Elkins recruited Preston County newspaper editor W. M. O. Dawson to help run the day to day affairs of the state party. With the onset of free public school in West Virginia in the 1860s, experience and knowledge of the new media environment was crucial to helping build coming Republican majority.
Not everyone supported the new party leadership. In 1890, rumors swirled of an Elkins run for Congress. One Preston County Republican promised future congressman Alston Gordon Dayton that "If Elkins is to be the nominee . . . there will be many 'stay at homes' when election day rolls around." Despite Goff's quiet acceptance and willingness to work with Elkins, his former allies resented the new guard. They expected to be ignored and rejected by the newly minted West Virginia, but more often than not Elkins extended his hand to former Goff men willing to accept it.
Elkins' businesslike administration of the state party built on the prior work of the charismatic Goff. By 1894, the GOP had gained ascendancy in voter registrations, fundraising, and elected offices. West Virginia remained a Republican state until 1932.
Unlike his father-in-law Henry Gassaway Davis who was a powerful Democrat from West Virginia, but spent most of his time at a Maryland residence, Elkins embraced his new state. In 1890, he built for himself and his family the beautiful mansion Halliehurst. Not long before construction, the site of the home was near wilderness. Starting in 1890, the Randolph County city bearing his name grew up around his home and the new railroad connection.
On reaching the Senate, Elkins kept his eye on both state and national issues. During the 1896 presidential campaign, Elkins resisted considerable pressure by William McKinley advocates on the West Virginia and national level. While he could have gained personally by joining the McKinley bandwagon, Elkins was trying to obtain federal funds to dredge the Monongahela River. Other presidential aspirants sat in the Senate and Elkins feared antagonizing them. He explained "You know what is pending here and the reasons that move me to my opinion . . . Hope you can trust my judgment." He won the improvements and also ensured that a new United States Weather Service tracking station would be built in the state.
In national and foreign affairs, Elkins also had influence. In 1898, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst conferred with Elkins on ideas about national war policy. Several years later, Elkins authored legislation that ended the use of free passes by railroads to buy influence with politicians, editors, and others.
Rivals in his day and leftist historians later harped on Elkins' origins. John Alexander Williams called him New York's senator in West Virginia. In his personal and public correspondence, however, Elkins demonstrated his love for the state, concern for its people, and willingness to work very hard for the betterment of his adopted home and its Republican Party. West Virginia owes Elkins for much of its early 20th century prominence and prosperity.
He was certainly no opportunistic carpetbagger, looking for short term gains with plans to abandon his new home. Elkins brought his family to West Virginia to serve his new state and to grow along with it.
Unfortunately, Democratic machine rule cancelled out many of his achievements.
But now it is a new century and a new day for West Virginia Republicans. It is only right to occasionally honor the transplant from New York who worked so hard and did so much good for the Mountain State.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)