Most people can list common stereotypes of West Virginians. After all, academia and the media perpetuated them for years. Demographically, the state is merely described as overwhelmingly white. Many would add uneducated, insular, suspicious, misogynist, and a number of other three and four syllable words that add up to what West Virginians call "backwards." In other words, they spread the smear that West Virginia Republicans are resentful of advancing women and are inherently racist.
Nationally, Democrats and other leftists work tirelessly to attach the same stereotype to the GOP as a whole. In both cases they are wrong. Elections over the past ten years prove it.
Do West Virginians, and Republicans in particular, mistrust immigrants who come, live, and thrive here legally? State Republicans have nominated at least three first or second generation immigrants to important offices. In 2006, second generation Lebanese-American Chris Wakim was nominated and strongly supported by the Republican base and independents. Left wing conventional wisdom assumes that Republicans are racist and West Virginians even more so, but Wakim's ancestry was no issue for GOP voters.
Two years later, state Republicans nominated Charleston businessman and Nigerian immigrant Charles Minimah for secretary of state. Minimah, who also works to promote black history and cultural events in the Kanawha Valley, again garnered Republican and independent support despite a huge funding discrepancy between him and his opponent. This year, he is in a tightly contested race for the 37th delegate district in Charleston. Republicans often cite his experience, kindness, and honesty when talking about their support for him.
Just this month, Republicans in the West Virginia Second District nominated Alex Mooney for Congress. Voters responded positively to the story of his mother's escape from Cuban tyranny as forming part of the foundation for his ideals. National predictions still see the district as "lean Republican."
As for the national liberal "War on Women" scheme to tar the party, the Mountain State shatters that myth too. For many years, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito and former secretary of state Betty Ireland served as pillars of leadership for the state GOP. Ireland has since stepped back, while Capito is expected to cruise to victory in her US Senate race.
Also if state legislative races show anything, it's that the good ol' "boy" network of the Democratic Party remains alive and well. Fifty percent more women ran in state senate and delegate races on the Republican side than the Democratic. Many of them, including several incumbents, won their primaries or ran unopposed. Seventeen year old Saira Blair received national and international attention for upsetting her primary opponent.
Democrats, mostly white male Protestant liberals in positions of influence, will rush out the tired old tales of Republicans being racist and hating women. But the truth is not what is said, but what is done. The West Virginia Republican Party has attracted and supported more female and minority candidates than its Democratic counterparts due to its more inclusive atmosphere and its more effective set of ideals.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Monday, May 19, 2014
An Alternative to America's Archaic Teacher Education System
Although one should always take statistics and standardized test scores with a grain of salt, the numbers indicate that US students get less out of public education than they did in 1980. Several factors contribute to that, notably the life sucking increase of federal involvement. It is possible, however, that those aspiring to teach are less prepared than ever. Also, the rising cost of college education combined with rising student debt price many candidates out of the profession.
What's the answer? Replace most of current teacher education with an apprenticeship program.
West Virginia University, in an effort to try and improve teacher education, put together a five year program. It combines the heavy weight of endless education courses with more opportunities for the aspiring teacher to actually learn about what they are going to teach. This is a considerable improvement from the content light programs in the 1990s. Except, of course, that a five year program means that much more debt following the teacher into their low paying profession.
A better alternative could be the following:
Aspiring teachers take 66 hours for a two year degree. Three hours of educational foundations, three hours of an education course about the age group they will teach. Six hours of classes outside of their field. That leaves 54 hours worth of classes to learn about their field and any related subjects.
Next step, apprenticeship. A junior apprentice would function as a teacher's aide only. They would grade papers, assist with projects, observe the teacher handling their classroom. Next would come the senior apprentice stage where the aspiring teacher would get to teach classes under the direct supervision of the classroom teacher.
Once a teacher passes the apprenticeship, then they reach "assistant teacher" status. The assistant teacher can work as a substitute, at first only short term, later long term. They would still work as aides when not filling in for others. An assistant teacher can be trusted to handle and manage a classroom alone and also teach lessons.
Throughout this process, the candidates should be taking approved free online courses and webinars, attending presentations, reading on their subject.
After that stage, then one would become a full-fledged teacher, ready to design curricula and handle a classroom all year.
What are the benefits?
An apprenticeship could be paid or unpaid, depending on the finances of the school system. Either way, the aspiring teacher benefits because he or she pays nothing. WVU boasts that their teacher education program can put a student in the classroom for a thousand hours. Isn't that nice. Future teachers can pay for the privilege of helping schools out.
Apprenticeships put a premium on the real world instead of the theoretical. Substitute teaching teaches more about classroom management than 40 hours of education courses. Two courses can teach some basics. Experience should teach the rest.
Right now, going to the most pampered and elite schools gives any aspiring professional a mark of distinction. A broad based apprenticeship system does the opposite. Just as a Royal Navy midshipman earned respect by going on the yardarms in treacherous storms, aspiring teachers can earn the most professional respect by going to the schools and the districts that have the most challenges and need the most help.
Finally, in the epidemic coverage of teachers gone wrong, a system of supervised apprenticeship helps the schools to vet out those who might be considered suspect. The downside is that this can include vetting out candidates who simply disagree with the ideals of their mentors. But it also renders other potential problems much more easy to spot.
Teacher education in the current climate does not help the aspiring teacher. Get students out of five years of high tuition and get them into schools where they can learn the craft, help the schools, and help themselves.
Friday, May 16, 2014
How the West Virginia Second Congressional District Was Won
Last Tuesday, Alex Mooney won the West Virginia Second Congressional District primary in commanding fashion, outdistancing his nearest of six other competitors by 13 percent of the final tally. While Sasse's win in Nebraska and West Virginia's own 49th delegate district winner, 17 year old Saira Blair got more coverage, Mooney's win illustrates real changes in the 2nd.
It Has Grown More Conservative
In 2000, when Shelley Moore Capito beat Jim Humphries (and many do not remember what an underdog she was, outspent 3 to 1) the district had around 2/3 of its registered voters signed up as Democrats. Republicans trailed significantly and way fewer voters were independent. Capito then and now has never seen "moderate" as derogatory. Her style and charisma won over centrists who were not sold enough to join the Republican Party, but believed in her.
Capito's ascension to Congress came in the same year as West Virginia's favorite living president. George W. Bush also sold in West Virginia a moderate Middle American conservatism. His style, ridiculed by elitists elsewhere, endeared him to a state that enthusiastically supported his administration regardless.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party on the national level abandoned its roots. Jefferson founded it as the party of farmers. Jackson expanded it to include the poor country people. Later, it fully embraced the working man's cause. Since Bill Clinton, it neglected and even attacked all of these former rock solid constituencies. What Senator Zell Miller wrote about the South is true of all these groups, "if Southern voters think you don't understand them - or even worse, if they think you look down on them - they will never vote for you."
Al Gore attacked their livelihood. Massachusetts John Kerry never had a prayer. And Barack Obama's high church academic style that even Northeastern conservatives secretly admire looks condescending to West Virginians. Then the War on Coal, snide remarks about religious people and gun owners. Obama couldn't even carry his own primary in West Virginia by 2012. Romney won it by 22 points.
Somewhere between Bush and Obama, the district shifted far to the right. They still love Capito, but they have also embraced a candidate much more aggressively conservative across the board.
Add to that the exodus of conservatives from Maryland and Northern Virginia. Civil liberties in the Free State and the heavily regulated Fairfax Proprietary counties of the Old Dominion have decreased dramatically. Anti-gun attitudes, zoning laws, strict regulations all combined to push the population of Jefferson and Berkeley counties much higher. Many of these people, seeking a literally freer way of life, are very conservative.
The Eastern Panhandle Is Becoming a Republican Center of Power
West Virginians in other parts of the state are not used to hearing that people are moving here for opportunities and a better lifestyle. Bad economic conditions perpetuated by bad state level policies for decades bred a determination that better times looked more Utopian than possible. No one coming to the state could possibly move because the Mountain State offered something better.
The political success of Mooney and Attorney General Patrick Morrissey (who moved from out of state to Charles Town several years ago) illustrates a deeper trend. Maryland has lost business and residents to Jefferson, Berkeley, Hampshire, and Mineral counties. Hampshire also has attracted many who work and do business in Winchester, Virginia. Affluent private sector oriented families, such as those moving in, tend to be conservative and Republican. According to USA Today, Berkeley and Jefferson increased their populations by three to five percent between 2010 and 2012.
Kanawha's population declined to under 200,000 while Berkeley's is now near half that and ranked second, ahead of Cabell.
But It Was Not Just the Panhandle
Mooney won 15 of the 17 counties in the district. Ken Reed won his own county of Morgan; Charlotte Lane carried her home of Kanawha by a surprisingly small margin. The rest of the counties responded overwhelmingly to a message and a record of unabashed conservatism in gun ownership, pro life, and opposition to the EPA. A deluge of mailings, television, and radio ads reinforced Mooney's message. Certainly the broadcast advertisements helped to implant him in the minds of conservative Democrats and independents as well.
The Kanawha Valley bloc, that includes Putnam, gave the Charles Town resident much more support than what might have been predicted.
His opponents were unable to convince voters that residency mattered, regardless of region. Concerns about West Virginia's supposed hostility to "outsiders" is likely more stereotypical than true, voting in large numbers for Mooney, Morrissey, and Jay Rockefeller, among others would seem to confirm that.
Personal Wealth Also Did Not Matter
Two candidates tapped their own fortunes to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance their campaigns. Mooney, without a personal fortune, still ended up with a more substantial campaign chest by first having to appeal to donors. This certainly undercuts the usual Democratic narrative of rich Republicans simply "buying elections" (as if one could simply spend money and guarantee a win.)
Was the Campaign All That Rough?
No one was accused of wanting to establish monarchy, put "dwellings in flames," or see "female chastity violated." Candidates never heard the accusation that they imported mistresses from Europe. All in all, the campaign developed in a way more spirited than nasty, more populist than personal. Certainly some issues got exaggerated, others spun, but even modern campaigns in different areas have gotten far worse and for a much longer period of time.
The West Virginia Second, however, had not seen a really tough primary fight in at least a generation. Leading up to election day, more people paid attention as they saw the fight take place on TV and radio, over their phones, and in their mailbox. Interestingly, the focus on this race did not inflate voter numbers beyond what had been predicted shortly before balloting.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Black Bear Burritos Bashed By Feds
Morgantown's Black Bear Burritos must pay over a hundred former employees nearly a quarter of a million in back pay, says the US Department of Labor.
According to the State Journal, the business, which only has two locations, concocted an illegal tip sharing scheme that divided all tips evenly amongst all employees on the shift, including managers and kitchen staff. Black Bear owners used Facebook to apologize to employees and customers, pleading that they made a mistake.
They also explained that the policy was made clear to every employee upon hiring.
While the policy itself was likely not productive (what incentive do servers have if they know they will not get their full tips?) why is a tip distribution plan agreed to by all employees any business of the federal government?
If one does not like the plan and it is fairly explained from the beginning, go work somewhere else.
Black Bear is known for supporting local live music while offering deliciously prepared food and spirits in a relaxed setting.
According to the State Journal, the business, which only has two locations, concocted an illegal tip sharing scheme that divided all tips evenly amongst all employees on the shift, including managers and kitchen staff. Black Bear owners used Facebook to apologize to employees and customers, pleading that they made a mistake.
They also explained that the policy was made clear to every employee upon hiring.
While the policy itself was likely not productive (what incentive do servers have if they know they will not get their full tips?) why is a tip distribution plan agreed to by all employees any business of the federal government?
If one does not like the plan and it is fairly explained from the beginning, go work somewhere else.
Black Bear is known for supporting local live music while offering deliciously prepared food and spirits in a relaxed setting.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Calling Out the Mob
Last winter, as biting winds whipped snow around the federal capital, chilling news on energy was released. The moratorium on coal fired power plants, combined with a number of forced closures, would force energy prices to rise 70 to 80 percent. The Obama Administration last week tried to cushion the blow of higher prices with an apocalyptic prediction of climate destruction.
Ignoring Congress, the EPA manufactured a regulatory interpretation that allowed them to force plants to use sequestration technology to capture carbon. This technology does not even exist. Enforcing this rule will start shutting down plants whose output was necessary to maintaining power levels in the Northeast during the record cold winter.
This is, of course, done to prevent global warming.
The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore and Joel Griffith researched all of the climate claims used as "proof" of climate catastrophe. Every single weather phenomenon was debunked by the article. Temperatures have neither increased, nor dropped on average in ten years. Tornadoes do not happen with any increasing frequency. Hurricanes have actually happened less often.
Moore and Griffith also examined Jimmy Carter's own apocalyptic climate report, predicting oil shortages and starvation in 2000. None of the fearsome claims made by the scientists of the 1970s ever came to pass.
And they wonder why Americans view politicized science with more skepticism now.
Ignoring Congress, the EPA manufactured a regulatory interpretation that allowed them to force plants to use sequestration technology to capture carbon. This technology does not even exist. Enforcing this rule will start shutting down plants whose output was necessary to maintaining power levels in the Northeast during the record cold winter.
This is, of course, done to prevent global warming.
The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore and Joel Griffith researched all of the climate claims used as "proof" of climate catastrophe. Every single weather phenomenon was debunked by the article. Temperatures have neither increased, nor dropped on average in ten years. Tornadoes do not happen with any increasing frequency. Hurricanes have actually happened less often.
Moore and Griffith also examined Jimmy Carter's own apocalyptic climate report, predicting oil shortages and starvation in 2000. None of the fearsome claims made by the scientists of the 1970s ever came to pass.
And they wonder why Americans view politicized science with more skepticism now.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Ethanol Destroys Small Engines, But Still No Warning
For the last few years, consumer advocates and manufacturers have worked to warn customers of the destructive effects of ethanol on engines. Yet the federal government has still not mandated a warning at the gas pump.
Consumer Reports in May of last year described how ethanol destroys small engines. During periods of non use, ethanol separates from the gasoline. It burns hotter and corrodes vital parts, including the carburetor. The government issued warnings about the E 15 blend, but most manufacturers now warn that gasoline with 10 percent ethanol can also harm engines. They recommend special ethanol free gas.
AAA in 2012 issued that same warning about the threat of E 15 to automobile engines.
With warning labels on almost everything these days, why has the federal government remained reluctant to force gas stations to warn about the destructive effects of ethanol?
Consumer Reports in May of last year described how ethanol destroys small engines. During periods of non use, ethanol separates from the gasoline. It burns hotter and corrodes vital parts, including the carburetor. The government issued warnings about the E 15 blend, but most manufacturers now warn that gasoline with 10 percent ethanol can also harm engines. They recommend special ethanol free gas.
AAA in 2012 issued that same warning about the threat of E 15 to automobile engines.
With warning labels on almost everything these days, why has the federal government remained reluctant to force gas stations to warn about the destructive effects of ethanol?
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
West Virginia Should Legalize Marijuana
A handful of states have started cashing in on marijuana. Should West Virginia join them?
The debate would have to undo decades of faulty "drug education" which tried to establish direct causal links between so-called "gateway drugs," such as alcohol and pot, with harder intoxicants such as narcotics.
The gateway to hard drugs, however, has more often been an injury. For almost twenty years, report an injury to the doctor and he prescribes a strong narcotic. Prescription drugs, such as hydrocodone, have high rates of an addiction particularly tough to escape. The intoxicant is the same as that in heroin or opium, just stronger. Unlike conventional drugs, such as ibuprofen, they do not kill physical pain so much as they make the user not care that it exists.
Pills are big business. A pill mill pharmacy in Mingo County sold 3.2 million prescription units in a single year before the FBI busted it. Any better alternative coming into the market, especially one that could be grown in the user's backyard, would cut into both legal and illicit revenues.
Marijuana does have addicts, but not in the physical sense. It has very mild physical effects. Pot addiction is more along the lines of "addictions" to gambling, video games, and shopping, or even hyperfocusing on work. "Addicts" get irritated when they cannot obtain it, but have no physical withdrawal. People often overuse some form of stimulation or lack thereof to escape everyday life or feel good. Pot is less addictive than alcohol and certainly caffeine. It can get a hold on a person's mind, but does not wreck the body when people try to get off of it.
It makes sense to legalize pot even just for medical use. Unlike narcotics, which simply kill sensation, marijuana may have positive effects even on catastrophic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis. The District of Columbia and 21 states agree and legalized it. When choosing between drugs with strong physical and merely psychological effects, it seems that pot is the superior alternative.
West Virginia could reap a particular bonus from the movement. The Mountain State already produces a staggering amount of the plant. Legal cultivation could make currently unused land productive. Legal growth would help to fill state coffers with green. Millions could be made by people already in the state who already own the land. Tax revenues for states who fully legalized have been generous. In February of this year, Denver took in $3.2 million in tax revenue from pot alone.
West Virginia should legalize the production and sale of pot at least for medical use. The state has a massive pharmaceutical firm, land, and people who know how to work it. It should also consider at the very least legalizing pot that is grown and used within property boundaries.
With the money saved, the state could use more resources to go after drugs such as meth and pills that are destroying families and communities.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Empire of Unreasonable
Henry Steele Commager in Empire of Reason quotes Alexis de Tocqueville as being "chilled" by the sameness of the young American nation. Political parties rose, succeeded, sparred, and fell. Its geographical sections hotly debated war with Great Britain in 1812. Yet observers saw that the chasms dividing American politics were small.
Americans believed in their Constitution, believed in the representative republic, and also the free market. Even the debate over the Constitution's ratification reflected common concerns about infringements on liberty and dangers to the nation. The United States created a social, economic, and political system based on reason, merit, and experience. It did not save the nation from the unanswerable questions of state versus federal power, or the moral issues of slavery. But it did knit the nation back together after the Civil War. In this generation, however, the foundation has crumbled. The Empire of Reason faces cleavages at its very heart.
America is dividing. Last week, Rutgers University lost its commencement speaker. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice bowed out from the honor due to faculty and student protests. The university that paid Snooki $30,000 (honestly, no disrespect to her for taking the money while she still could) could not handle a talk from one of America's most learned and experienced figures.
Before the Civil War, American institutions started to split. Protestant churches cleaved into northern and southern branches. These served as the foundation of culture, society, and sometimes even learning. Colleges and universities partly fill that role today. As the Left increasingly stifles debate at mainline schools, the best and brightest conservatives and libertarians head to esteemed colleges such as Hillsdale or conservative religious schools. Others disregard college altogether for experience based training and entrepreneurship.
Demographics show that conservatives and liberals increasingly do not even want to live near each other. Reason reported the exodus of conservatives from blue states a year ago. Taxes, regulations, social policies, and other issues drive residents and businesses to friendlier locales. Californians move to Utah or Texas. New York and Maryland firearms manufacturers move to pro gun states.
Americans split over major issues. About half of the country wants government to leave it alone. Another half seeks to impose more controls for everyone's good, as defined by them. A few conservatives are more comfortable with NSA surveillance; a few leftists want government to leave organic farms and pot users alone. By and large, however, this is where the country splits.
The great contests of the past over issues like protectionism, free silver, and even the New Deal did not do this. The first two came from differences of opinion as to what would help America prosper more. The New Deal came as a response to a national emergency and no one articulated an alternative.
The house continues to divide against itself. Either the United States will move one way or the other, or the basic structure of the system will loosen and allow states a lot more latitude, or there is going to be a rumble.
Americans believed in their Constitution, believed in the representative republic, and also the free market. Even the debate over the Constitution's ratification reflected common concerns about infringements on liberty and dangers to the nation. The United States created a social, economic, and political system based on reason, merit, and experience. It did not save the nation from the unanswerable questions of state versus federal power, or the moral issues of slavery. But it did knit the nation back together after the Civil War. In this generation, however, the foundation has crumbled. The Empire of Reason faces cleavages at its very heart.
America is dividing. Last week, Rutgers University lost its commencement speaker. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice bowed out from the honor due to faculty and student protests. The university that paid Snooki $30,000 (honestly, no disrespect to her for taking the money while she still could) could not handle a talk from one of America's most learned and experienced figures.
Before the Civil War, American institutions started to split. Protestant churches cleaved into northern and southern branches. These served as the foundation of culture, society, and sometimes even learning. Colleges and universities partly fill that role today. As the Left increasingly stifles debate at mainline schools, the best and brightest conservatives and libertarians head to esteemed colleges such as Hillsdale or conservative religious schools. Others disregard college altogether for experience based training and entrepreneurship.
Demographics show that conservatives and liberals increasingly do not even want to live near each other. Reason reported the exodus of conservatives from blue states a year ago. Taxes, regulations, social policies, and other issues drive residents and businesses to friendlier locales. Californians move to Utah or Texas. New York and Maryland firearms manufacturers move to pro gun states.
Americans split over major issues. About half of the country wants government to leave it alone. Another half seeks to impose more controls for everyone's good, as defined by them. A few conservatives are more comfortable with NSA surveillance; a few leftists want government to leave organic farms and pot users alone. By and large, however, this is where the country splits.
The great contests of the past over issues like protectionism, free silver, and even the New Deal did not do this. The first two came from differences of opinion as to what would help America prosper more. The New Deal came as a response to a national emergency and no one articulated an alternative.
The house continues to divide against itself. Either the United States will move one way or the other, or the basic structure of the system will loosen and allow states a lot more latitude, or there is going to be a rumble.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Belated Kudos to the West Virginia Development Office
Inspector general reports are usually only cited when someone fails to do their job. Reporters quickly. and correctly, cite descriptions of serious neglect or millions of dollars of waste.
Sometimes it should be noted when a report reveals progress.
The Appalachian Regional Commission's IG audited a grant given to the West Virginia Development Office. It received $225,000 in federal money and came up with $450,000 in non-matching funds.
Auditors found that the procedures and safeguards against waste were "reasonable." Over 3,600 trainees at 22 companies indirectly or directly benefited from the program.
WorkForce West Virginia operates under the state Department of Commerce. According to the website, it works to help prepare workers to compete in the global economy and link them with employers.
Not much else to say, except a pat on the back to the WVDO for doing the job right.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Roll Call's Take On the West Virginia 1st District Incomplete
Roll Call yesterday evaluated the West Virginia political landscape, accurately noting its headlong drive away from the national Democratic leadership. Because of the intriguing contests within, it concentrated mostly on the 2nd and 3rd Districts.
The 1st came at the end as an afterthought. David McKinley, an incumbent expected to handily win re-election in 2014, might run for governor in 2016. Roll Call said "state Republicans" speculated that were that to happen, McKinley's son. Delegate Amanda Pasdon, or Mac Warner were the main contenders. This actually was an update from the original guess which was Mary Lou Retton.
"State Republicans" left a lot of possible names off of that list, including Delegate Gary Howell. Howell ascended to leadership positions in the House much sooner than most. He also raised more money for his 2012 campaign than almost any other delegate from a rural district. As a small businessman and chairman of a national automotive caucus, Howell has numerous contacts with industry.
Howell also spearheaded an intense and ongoing bipartisan effort to lure a major food manufacturing center from California to the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia.
Charleston based Republicans, unfortunately, often overlook the many emerging leaders in the Eastern Panhandle. In this case, it left a national publication with the impression that Republicans only had a handful of options in 2016 should McKinley move on and Tim Miley run for the seat. That hurts the party as a whole.
The 1st came at the end as an afterthought. David McKinley, an incumbent expected to handily win re-election in 2014, might run for governor in 2016. Roll Call said "state Republicans" speculated that were that to happen, McKinley's son. Delegate Amanda Pasdon, or Mac Warner were the main contenders. This actually was an update from the original guess which was Mary Lou Retton.
"State Republicans" left a lot of possible names off of that list, including Delegate Gary Howell. Howell ascended to leadership positions in the House much sooner than most. He also raised more money for his 2012 campaign than almost any other delegate from a rural district. As a small businessman and chairman of a national automotive caucus, Howell has numerous contacts with industry.
Howell also spearheaded an intense and ongoing bipartisan effort to lure a major food manufacturing center from California to the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia.
Charleston based Republicans, unfortunately, often overlook the many emerging leaders in the Eastern Panhandle. In this case, it left a national publication with the impression that Republicans only had a handful of options in 2016 should McKinley move on and Tim Miley run for the seat. That hurts the party as a whole.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
One of Humanity's Highest Honors For One of Its Greatest Individuals
Stalin once joked "how many divisions has the pope" in response to a henchman reporting papal opposition to him. The evil empire he built, however, came to ruin partly due to the efforts of the Papacy. Last Sunday, Pope Francis canonized two former popes, John XXII and John Paul II, also known as "the Great."
Not often can a 2,000 year old institution say that one of its greatest leaders governed in the living memory of most here on earth. St. Leo I the Great met the terrifying Attila and his Huns on the gates of Rome and convinced them not to plunder and slaughter the vulnerable populace within. St. Gregory the Great defined the Church and its role for centuries after in his writings. St. Gregory VII faced down the Holy Roman Emperor, protecting the power of his office, but had to flee Rome at the end of his life, his last words being "I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile."
Other popes led the Church through periods of modernization, such as the Catholic Reformation and the Second Vatican Council (under the tutelage of St. John XXII.) But not since the Middle Ages has a pope had an impact quite like St. John Paul II the Great.
He was born Karol Josef Wojtyla in Poland in 1920. At 19, he saw German tanks and Soviet Red Army ranks cleave into his fiercely proud country. He studied in secret for the priesthood under the Archbishop of Krakow during the war, learning both love for humanity and the desire to oppose unholy totalitarianism.
Poland during the Cold War occupied an unstable place in the Soviet Eastern European empire. They did not forget its occasional and bloody uprisings under the Czar in the 1800s. Leaders feared the latent strength of its people, who waged a destructive guerrilla war against German occupation. Poland, therefore, got a little more latitude than other countries.
Poland's Catholic Church never cracked under the pressure of the secret police. Unlike many other countries, Catholicism was seen as tantamount to patriotism. Church leaders fought to remain independent and true to the people and the Word as much as possible without bringing retribution. By 1964, he rose to become Archbishop of Krakow. In the meantime, he had served as a bishop and contributed heavily to the reforms undertaken at the Second Vatican Council.
Soviet leaders and intelligence opened psychological operations against Wojtyla in 1971. They noted that "without openly opposing the Socialist system, he has criticized the way in which the state agencies of the Polish People's Republic have functioned." By the mid 70s, Polish prosecutors concluded that his sermons could earn him prosecution and a sentence of one to 10 years. The respect of the Polish people and his international reputation saved him from anything but impotent outrage.
The College of Cardinals elected him as pope in 1978. He took the name of his predecessor who had died unexpectedly soon after his own accession. John Paul II served as a direct statement by the Roman Catholic Church at a point in the Cold War when western resolve seemed to flag. He was the first Pole ever chosen and the first non Italian in centuries.
Within a few years, the world saw the rise of three leaders, St. John Paul II the Great, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and President Ronald Reagan, destined to transform the world.
Each of the three were idealists at heart. Thatcher envisioned that a free market could restore Britain to its former economic glory. She and Reagan both believed in the spiritual power of freedom to inspire those living in tyranny. An entirely free world could be an entirely peaceful world. The pope shared these dreams, as well as Reagan's very deep personal faith in a God that wanted His people to live in freedom.
When a Pole became pope, the Soviet empire's days were numbered, although no one knew it then. Poland's keystone position in the prison of nations served as the flaw. Even the Polish government by the late 1970s gave up on Marxism-Leninism, looking for western credit to create semi-free trade. This debt scheme collapsed at about the same time as Polish workers started to rebel.
Polish shipworkers had tired of working in dangerous conditions for low pay so they did what many Westerners had done, form a trade union. In a free society, this happens without calamity. In a state supposedly dedicated to the workers, it struck at the heart of why Communist authoritarianism was legitimized. If a peoples' republic is not a workers' state, how can it justify tyranny. Walesa's union soon grew into a political party, Solidarity.
Communist bosses in Moscow and Warsaw celebrated Wojtyla's vacating his seat in Poland. They foresaw that the "Catholic Church will now make greater efforts to consolidate its position and increase its role in the social and political life of the country." But they sorely underestimated what was to come.
After the election of Reagan, Vatican ties with the United States warmed. An official diplomatic exchange took place for the first time in many years. Vatican and US intelligence shared information on happenings behind the Iron Curtain. Money came from the CIA through the Vatican to boost Walesa's Solidarity and other groups.
The Pope himself remained the prime mover of Polish public opinion. Millions poured into the streets to welcome his return in 1983. Communist leader Wojciech Jaruzelski found himself increasingly between the two stools of hard line rulers in Moscow willing to order in tanks to restore power and the enthusiasm of the people. Jaruzelski later remembered that even as an atheist, he found his knees shaking under the table in anticipation of meeting the Pontiff.
St. John Paul II had that effect. Only a generation removed from active anti-Catholic bigotry in the United States, Protestants outnumbered Catholics in overflowing crowds that came to hear him. He balanced a rigorous defense of traditional doctrine with repeated assurances of the love of Jesus Christ for all humanity. The Papacy remained a rock during his tenure as a defense of values such as right to life while never wavering in the ideal of God's grace and mercy.
By the 1990s, freedom had won in Europe. Poland's Communist leaders simply gave in to public pressure, held elections, and peacefully left office. Other regimes fell, some with peace, others in violence. In the end, hundreds of millions ended up living in relatively free societies unafraid of the KGB or its little brothers in occupied states.
The peaceful victory of liberty was the goal of St. John Paul II the Great and his secular partners, Reagan and Thatcher. All three were necessary to the process, all had roles to play.
In the end, the Pope needed no divisions. He helped to defeat the Evil Empire with the love of God; for that he earned the title of "Great."
Not often can a 2,000 year old institution say that one of its greatest leaders governed in the living memory of most here on earth. St. Leo I the Great met the terrifying Attila and his Huns on the gates of Rome and convinced them not to plunder and slaughter the vulnerable populace within. St. Gregory the Great defined the Church and its role for centuries after in his writings. St. Gregory VII faced down the Holy Roman Emperor, protecting the power of his office, but had to flee Rome at the end of his life, his last words being "I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile."
Other popes led the Church through periods of modernization, such as the Catholic Reformation and the Second Vatican Council (under the tutelage of St. John XXII.) But not since the Middle Ages has a pope had an impact quite like St. John Paul II the Great.
He was born Karol Josef Wojtyla in Poland in 1920. At 19, he saw German tanks and Soviet Red Army ranks cleave into his fiercely proud country. He studied in secret for the priesthood under the Archbishop of Krakow during the war, learning both love for humanity and the desire to oppose unholy totalitarianism.
Poland during the Cold War occupied an unstable place in the Soviet Eastern European empire. They did not forget its occasional and bloody uprisings under the Czar in the 1800s. Leaders feared the latent strength of its people, who waged a destructive guerrilla war against German occupation. Poland, therefore, got a little more latitude than other countries.
Poland's Catholic Church never cracked under the pressure of the secret police. Unlike many other countries, Catholicism was seen as tantamount to patriotism. Church leaders fought to remain independent and true to the people and the Word as much as possible without bringing retribution. By 1964, he rose to become Archbishop of Krakow. In the meantime, he had served as a bishop and contributed heavily to the reforms undertaken at the Second Vatican Council.
Soviet leaders and intelligence opened psychological operations against Wojtyla in 1971. They noted that "without openly opposing the Socialist system, he has criticized the way in which the state agencies of the Polish People's Republic have functioned." By the mid 70s, Polish prosecutors concluded that his sermons could earn him prosecution and a sentence of one to 10 years. The respect of the Polish people and his international reputation saved him from anything but impotent outrage.
The College of Cardinals elected him as pope in 1978. He took the name of his predecessor who had died unexpectedly soon after his own accession. John Paul II served as a direct statement by the Roman Catholic Church at a point in the Cold War when western resolve seemed to flag. He was the first Pole ever chosen and the first non Italian in centuries.
Within a few years, the world saw the rise of three leaders, St. John Paul II the Great, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and President Ronald Reagan, destined to transform the world.
Each of the three were idealists at heart. Thatcher envisioned that a free market could restore Britain to its former economic glory. She and Reagan both believed in the spiritual power of freedom to inspire those living in tyranny. An entirely free world could be an entirely peaceful world. The pope shared these dreams, as well as Reagan's very deep personal faith in a God that wanted His people to live in freedom.
When a Pole became pope, the Soviet empire's days were numbered, although no one knew it then. Poland's keystone position in the prison of nations served as the flaw. Even the Polish government by the late 1970s gave up on Marxism-Leninism, looking for western credit to create semi-free trade. This debt scheme collapsed at about the same time as Polish workers started to rebel.
Polish shipworkers had tired of working in dangerous conditions for low pay so they did what many Westerners had done, form a trade union. In a free society, this happens without calamity. In a state supposedly dedicated to the workers, it struck at the heart of why Communist authoritarianism was legitimized. If a peoples' republic is not a workers' state, how can it justify tyranny. Walesa's union soon grew into a political party, Solidarity.
Communist bosses in Moscow and Warsaw celebrated Wojtyla's vacating his seat in Poland. They foresaw that the "Catholic Church will now make greater efforts to consolidate its position and increase its role in the social and political life of the country." But they sorely underestimated what was to come.
After the election of Reagan, Vatican ties with the United States warmed. An official diplomatic exchange took place for the first time in many years. Vatican and US intelligence shared information on happenings behind the Iron Curtain. Money came from the CIA through the Vatican to boost Walesa's Solidarity and other groups.
The Pope himself remained the prime mover of Polish public opinion. Millions poured into the streets to welcome his return in 1983. Communist leader Wojciech Jaruzelski found himself increasingly between the two stools of hard line rulers in Moscow willing to order in tanks to restore power and the enthusiasm of the people. Jaruzelski later remembered that even as an atheist, he found his knees shaking under the table in anticipation of meeting the Pontiff.
St. John Paul II had that effect. Only a generation removed from active anti-Catholic bigotry in the United States, Protestants outnumbered Catholics in overflowing crowds that came to hear him. He balanced a rigorous defense of traditional doctrine with repeated assurances of the love of Jesus Christ for all humanity. The Papacy remained a rock during his tenure as a defense of values such as right to life while never wavering in the ideal of God's grace and mercy.
By the 1990s, freedom had won in Europe. Poland's Communist leaders simply gave in to public pressure, held elections, and peacefully left office. Other regimes fell, some with peace, others in violence. In the end, hundreds of millions ended up living in relatively free societies unafraid of the KGB or its little brothers in occupied states.
The peaceful victory of liberty was the goal of St. John Paul II the Great and his secular partners, Reagan and Thatcher. All three were necessary to the process, all had roles to play.
In the end, the Pope needed no divisions. He helped to defeat the Evil Empire with the love of God; for that he earned the title of "Great."
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
A Not So Sterling Reputation
Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling bought his team for $13 million in the early 1980s. Until now, he and his views have moved under the radar. Now the spotlight shines on him, his words, his actions, and his team. Will he survive as owner? He will not, but his handling of his franchise should have brought such attention long ago.
First, Sterling has consistently been a bad franchise owner. He is the old crotchety male version of the Cleveland Indians owner from Major League, except that his team is in the destination city. Two generations of players endured the Clippers cheapness, even to the point of falsifying statistics to get out of incentives bonuses. In the 1990s, they put off replacing a fired coach as long as possible. A Sports Illustrated writer dropped this memorable line "Going without a head coach did not make the Clippers any worse." Sterling figured out that he could turn a profit by paying as little as possible for players, personnel, and any other amenities.
When the Cincinnati Bengals approached this level of miserliness, the NFL threatened to seize control of its operations.
Of course Sterling has also been described as a "slumlord" by multiple outlets. Stands to reason, considering how he handled the Clippers.
Sterling has a long rap sheet of making outlandish comments about any number of people or groups. The worst may be, allegedly, wanting a white southern coach to mentor poor black men, like a "plantation."
He did manage to manipulate the perception game, contributing thousands of dollars to minority groups including the NAACP. Strangely enough, the century old civil rights group had stood poised to give him a lifetime achievement award. What for outside of contributions, few seem to know.
Now, Sterling has been recorded in a private conversation with his girlfriend (yes, he is married) berating her for bringing black people to "his games" and taking selfies with such degenerates as Magic Johnson. This will be a tipping point for a league long frustrated with his antics.
The NBA has a precedent they can follow, which is Major League Baseball handled the fallout from the misdeeds of former Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott.
Schott owned the Reds from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s. Publicly, fans loved the eccentric widow of a car dealership mogul. She always brought her beloved dog Schottzie to the ballpark, said crazy things, and basically seemed harmless. Ticket and concessions prices for Reds fans remained low comparable to most other franchises at the time. Under her tenure of ownership, the Reds usually remained competitive and even won a World Series.
Behind the scenes, many knew tragedy was coming. Former commissioner Fay Vincent tried to caution Schott about her drinking problems. Eventually in vino veritas won out. Schott sank herself by relating what she thought to be truths, such as how Hitler was not so bad before he started killing people, as well as other unpalatable opinions about minorities and a number of other issues. Keeping a swastika armband in her office did not help either.
Baseball suspended Schott a total of three times before she gave way and sold most of her ownership stake.
Donald Sterling's sins of commission in revealing his ugly opinions of blacks (and his mild mannered voice inflections on tape reveal these to be strongly held beliefs more so than an angry outburst would) will likely lead to s suspension later today. But the NBA should not have waited until this point to come down hard on Sterling. This owner cheated his players by falsifying their stats. He ripped off fans by not investing even adequately in trying to win, banking that he could profit off of media agreements and ticket sales more even when winning less than 20 percent of games per year.
What he said, what he feels disqualify him to represent the league as a fully functioning owner. What he did to the fans and men who played for him required sanction long ago.
First, Sterling has consistently been a bad franchise owner. He is the old crotchety male version of the Cleveland Indians owner from Major League, except that his team is in the destination city. Two generations of players endured the Clippers cheapness, even to the point of falsifying statistics to get out of incentives bonuses. In the 1990s, they put off replacing a fired coach as long as possible. A Sports Illustrated writer dropped this memorable line "Going without a head coach did not make the Clippers any worse." Sterling figured out that he could turn a profit by paying as little as possible for players, personnel, and any other amenities.
When the Cincinnati Bengals approached this level of miserliness, the NFL threatened to seize control of its operations.
Of course Sterling has also been described as a "slumlord" by multiple outlets. Stands to reason, considering how he handled the Clippers.
Sterling has a long rap sheet of making outlandish comments about any number of people or groups. The worst may be, allegedly, wanting a white southern coach to mentor poor black men, like a "plantation."
He did manage to manipulate the perception game, contributing thousands of dollars to minority groups including the NAACP. Strangely enough, the century old civil rights group had stood poised to give him a lifetime achievement award. What for outside of contributions, few seem to know.
Now, Sterling has been recorded in a private conversation with his girlfriend (yes, he is married) berating her for bringing black people to "his games" and taking selfies with such degenerates as Magic Johnson. This will be a tipping point for a league long frustrated with his antics.
The NBA has a precedent they can follow, which is Major League Baseball handled the fallout from the misdeeds of former Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott.
Schott owned the Reds from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s. Publicly, fans loved the eccentric widow of a car dealership mogul. She always brought her beloved dog Schottzie to the ballpark, said crazy things, and basically seemed harmless. Ticket and concessions prices for Reds fans remained low comparable to most other franchises at the time. Under her tenure of ownership, the Reds usually remained competitive and even won a World Series.
Behind the scenes, many knew tragedy was coming. Former commissioner Fay Vincent tried to caution Schott about her drinking problems. Eventually in vino veritas won out. Schott sank herself by relating what she thought to be truths, such as how Hitler was not so bad before he started killing people, as well as other unpalatable opinions about minorities and a number of other issues. Keeping a swastika armband in her office did not help either.
Baseball suspended Schott a total of three times before she gave way and sold most of her ownership stake.
Donald Sterling's sins of commission in revealing his ugly opinions of blacks (and his mild mannered voice inflections on tape reveal these to be strongly held beliefs more so than an angry outburst would) will likely lead to s suspension later today. But the NBA should not have waited until this point to come down hard on Sterling. This owner cheated his players by falsifying their stats. He ripped off fans by not investing even adequately in trying to win, banking that he could profit off of media agreements and ticket sales more even when winning less than 20 percent of games per year.
What he said, what he feels disqualify him to represent the league as a fully functioning owner. What he did to the fans and men who played for him required sanction long ago.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Mineral County Delegate, State of West Virginia Officials Go All Out to Court Pepper Sauce Plant
Despite the upcoming antagonisms of election year politics, one issue has linked West Virginia Democrats and Republicans hand in hand.
Hot pepper sauce.
Since the 1970s, Huy Fong Foods has crafted Sriracha hot pepper sauce in Irwindale, California. David Tran, a South Vietnamese Army veteran, fled his homeland to escape Communism. His creation has grown into a staple at many restaurants and a cult food classic.
Last year, four residents complained to the city of an odor coming from the plant. Despite ruling the claims groundless, city council called the plant a public nuisance.
Using the same tactics that attracted some attention from firearms manufacturers looking for friendlier areas, West Virginia elected officials immediately contacted Tran. Delegate Gary Howell (R-Mineral), State Agriculture Commissioner Walt Helmick, and the offices of both US Senators and David McKinley have joined efforts to lure Huy Fong to Mineral County.
Mineral County boasts industrial park space and abundant agricultural land. West Virginia University extension agents can help interested farmers learn to cultivate the peppers. The plant itself would bring over $300 million in investment and benefit not just local farmers, but also regional truckers.
A Facebook page started by local residents to support the proposal met with near universal support. The few sour posts came from Maryland residents. Of course Allegany County, Maryland has lost population, jobs, and business establishments over the past 12 years. Mineral County has slowly grown in jobs and population.
Helmick and others plan to travel to California to meet Tran personally to lay out the proposal.
When leaders in different parties agree on the basics, like the need for jobs and development, there is ground to work together for the betterment of all.
Hot pepper sauce.
Since the 1970s, Huy Fong Foods has crafted Sriracha hot pepper sauce in Irwindale, California. David Tran, a South Vietnamese Army veteran, fled his homeland to escape Communism. His creation has grown into a staple at many restaurants and a cult food classic.
Last year, four residents complained to the city of an odor coming from the plant. Despite ruling the claims groundless, city council called the plant a public nuisance.
Using the same tactics that attracted some attention from firearms manufacturers looking for friendlier areas, West Virginia elected officials immediately contacted Tran. Delegate Gary Howell (R-Mineral), State Agriculture Commissioner Walt Helmick, and the offices of both US Senators and David McKinley have joined efforts to lure Huy Fong to Mineral County.
Mineral County boasts industrial park space and abundant agricultural land. West Virginia University extension agents can help interested farmers learn to cultivate the peppers. The plant itself would bring over $300 million in investment and benefit not just local farmers, but also regional truckers.
A Facebook page started by local residents to support the proposal met with near universal support. The few sour posts came from Maryland residents. Of course Allegany County, Maryland has lost population, jobs, and business establishments over the past 12 years. Mineral County has slowly grown in jobs and population.
Helmick and others plan to travel to California to meet Tran personally to lay out the proposal.
When leaders in different parties agree on the basics, like the need for jobs and development, there is ground to work together for the betterment of all.
Time For the RNC and Old Big Labor to Have a Sit Down
Big Labor for generations reflexively supported the Democratic Party with financial support and people power. In the 20th Century, this symbiosis worked well. It gave their party almost lockdown control of the House of Representatives and almost the same stranglehold on the Senate.
Democrats owned Congress for much of the time between the Great Depression and the 1990s because they supported labor. They portrayed Big Business as opposing the interests of the working man. Working men and their supporters lined up to vote for the commoner's party. Republicans, they reasoned, didn't get the worker.
Workers did not leave the Democratic Party, but the Democrats at the national level left them. Obama's allegiance to billionaire Big Green businessmen continues to stall a Keystone pipeline that will directly benefit the pipefitters' union among many others. Before that came the war on coal. Blue collar voters who once temporarily ditched the Democrats for Reagan, but did not change affiliation, now see the GOP as a permanent home. Stephen Moore, economic analyst from Heritage Foundation notes that Republicans stand to gain in many currently blue or purple states just as they have in West Virginia.
Moore also says that only two groups oppose Keystone, Democrats who make over $100,000 per year and Democrats with postgraduate degrees.
Certain unions benefit from the new regime. Service workers and auto workers have reaped huge state based rewards. Mining and other manufacturing sectors have seen government policy try to drive them from the economic map.
It is high time that the GOP leadership and union bosses like Cecil Roberts have a quiet chat about mutual interests. They don't have to like each other, but Obama and Green Democrats are the common foe.
Democrats owned Congress for much of the time between the Great Depression and the 1990s because they supported labor. They portrayed Big Business as opposing the interests of the working man. Working men and their supporters lined up to vote for the commoner's party. Republicans, they reasoned, didn't get the worker.
Workers did not leave the Democratic Party, but the Democrats at the national level left them. Obama's allegiance to billionaire Big Green businessmen continues to stall a Keystone pipeline that will directly benefit the pipefitters' union among many others. Before that came the war on coal. Blue collar voters who once temporarily ditched the Democrats for Reagan, but did not change affiliation, now see the GOP as a permanent home. Stephen Moore, economic analyst from Heritage Foundation notes that Republicans stand to gain in many currently blue or purple states just as they have in West Virginia.
Moore also says that only two groups oppose Keystone, Democrats who make over $100,000 per year and Democrats with postgraduate degrees.
Certain unions benefit from the new regime. Service workers and auto workers have reaped huge state based rewards. Mining and other manufacturing sectors have seen government policy try to drive them from the economic map.
It is high time that the GOP leadership and union bosses like Cecil Roberts have a quiet chat about mutual interests. They don't have to like each other, but Obama and Green Democrats are the common foe.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
IRS Intentionally Or Unintentionally Creates Sebellius Shield
After ten years, statements made about John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have returned to haunt a conservative group. Statements made by the Patrick Henry Center during the 2004 campaign about Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have been cited as reasons by the IRS to revoke its tax exempt status.
The Patrick Henry Center responded that critical statements made by its group could be open to interpretation, were not made in an open forum, and could not have played a role in elections in 2004 and afterward.
Although Clinton was not officially a candidate for president in 2004 or 2005, she did come under the umbrella of potential candidate. Being proposed as a candidate, in the eyes of the IRS, makes a person a candidate. At that point, no tax exempt foundation can engage in criticism against them.
This interpretation brings serious consequences to policy debate. Last week, some floated Kathleen Sebelius as a possible Democratic challenger in the Kansas US Senate race. For the past year, Sebelius served as the public face of the floundering Obamacare website. According to the IRS, the mere fact that some want her to run for office makes criticism of the former Cabinet secretary out of bounds.
Since then, Sebelius has downplayed notions of a Senate run. Still, the tax exempt foundations must remain careful. Has she really rejected a run, or is she playing "reluctant tribune?" Criticize now, and if Sebelius changes her mind, you lose your tax exempt status.
This issue comes up at the same time as another organization defends its speech before the US Supreme Court. The Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life organization, has challenged an Ohio law barring "false" political speech. Ohio's law, much like a similar federal statute revoked a long time ago, invites subjective interpretation of "truth" and "lies."
Laws intended to create boundaries for political speech and money that finances it only invite subjective and unfair interpretations. They also impede the flow of dialogue about some of the country's most important policy and public choices.
The Patrick Henry Center responded that critical statements made by its group could be open to interpretation, were not made in an open forum, and could not have played a role in elections in 2004 and afterward.
Although Clinton was not officially a candidate for president in 2004 or 2005, she did come under the umbrella of potential candidate. Being proposed as a candidate, in the eyes of the IRS, makes a person a candidate. At that point, no tax exempt foundation can engage in criticism against them.
This interpretation brings serious consequences to policy debate. Last week, some floated Kathleen Sebelius as a possible Democratic challenger in the Kansas US Senate race. For the past year, Sebelius served as the public face of the floundering Obamacare website. According to the IRS, the mere fact that some want her to run for office makes criticism of the former Cabinet secretary out of bounds.
Since then, Sebelius has downplayed notions of a Senate run. Still, the tax exempt foundations must remain careful. Has she really rejected a run, or is she playing "reluctant tribune?" Criticize now, and if Sebelius changes her mind, you lose your tax exempt status.
This issue comes up at the same time as another organization defends its speech before the US Supreme Court. The Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life organization, has challenged an Ohio law barring "false" political speech. Ohio's law, much like a similar federal statute revoked a long time ago, invites subjective interpretation of "truth" and "lies."
Laws intended to create boundaries for political speech and money that finances it only invite subjective and unfair interpretations. They also impede the flow of dialogue about some of the country's most important policy and public choices.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Sometimes Something Somehow Reminds Us of All That Is Right About America
The Ford Mustang turns 50 years old this year, marking a half century of symbolizing what is great about America.
What makes the Mustang such an important product?
Innovation
Ford Motor Company's compact Falcon had sold well in the beginning, but its no frills boxy style soon bored customers. Instead of engineering a new car from the ground up Ford took the chassis of the Falcon, put a V 8 engine on it, and gave it a sleek convertible body. The famous line requoted by every news outlet this week has been how they "turned a librarian into a sexpot."
Ford figured out a lesson often forgotten. Making smaller cars fun creates excitement about the product. Toyota has produced generations of cars that seem to mostly update the old Ford Falcon idea of a smaller four door boxy car. Ford asked "why be stodgy?"
The company eventually did drift away from the idea that the car ought to be fun, but also practical and affordable. Back seat space shrank and the cost went up. Pontiac's G models probably evoked the spirit of the original Mustang as well as any car in the last ten years.
Spirit
It built on a growing American desire to take their lives on the open road. Many still took trains and buses for long distance travel in the 1960s. Don't believe me? Watch North By Northwest and wonder why the main character did not just escape by car into the anonymous countryside. Although no self-respecting television show or movie then or now depicts long range driving on an interstate, the new superhighways pulled Americans onto the open road in greater numbers than ever.
Style
Simplicity marked the Mustang. The previous decade featured tail fins, different light configurations, and any number of doo dads designed to increase a car's appeal. Mustang designers did not invent the more simple design, but they implemented it in a classic way. The sleek lines contrast with the previous decade's most timeless designs and stand up well to those from later decades.
Like Led Zeppelin, who started just a few years later, the original Mustang's style never has looked dated.
Marketing
Ford's unveiling of the Mustang prefaced modern roll outs of Apple products and other technology. They crammed ads into the premium time slot on all three networks. 2,600 newspapers carried its image in their advertisements. Both women and men could experience the rejuvenating power of the right car, according to the marketing. Perfect timing for a generation emphasizing gender equality.
Form following function; style following substance. The Ford Mustang was one of the great American products. Happy 50th!
What makes the Mustang such an important product?
Innovation
Ford Motor Company's compact Falcon had sold well in the beginning, but its no frills boxy style soon bored customers. Instead of engineering a new car from the ground up Ford took the chassis of the Falcon, put a V 8 engine on it, and gave it a sleek convertible body. The famous line requoted by every news outlet this week has been how they "turned a librarian into a sexpot."
Ford figured out a lesson often forgotten. Making smaller cars fun creates excitement about the product. Toyota has produced generations of cars that seem to mostly update the old Ford Falcon idea of a smaller four door boxy car. Ford asked "why be stodgy?"
The company eventually did drift away from the idea that the car ought to be fun, but also practical and affordable. Back seat space shrank and the cost went up. Pontiac's G models probably evoked the spirit of the original Mustang as well as any car in the last ten years.
Spirit
It built on a growing American desire to take their lives on the open road. Many still took trains and buses for long distance travel in the 1960s. Don't believe me? Watch North By Northwest and wonder why the main character did not just escape by car into the anonymous countryside. Although no self-respecting television show or movie then or now depicts long range driving on an interstate, the new superhighways pulled Americans onto the open road in greater numbers than ever.
Style
Simplicity marked the Mustang. The previous decade featured tail fins, different light configurations, and any number of doo dads designed to increase a car's appeal. Mustang designers did not invent the more simple design, but they implemented it in a classic way. The sleek lines contrast with the previous decade's most timeless designs and stand up well to those from later decades.
Like Led Zeppelin, who started just a few years later, the original Mustang's style never has looked dated.
Marketing
Ford's unveiling of the Mustang prefaced modern roll outs of Apple products and other technology. They crammed ads into the premium time slot on all three networks. 2,600 newspapers carried its image in their advertisements. Both women and men could experience the rejuvenating power of the right car, according to the marketing. Perfect timing for a generation emphasizing gender equality.
Form following function; style following substance. The Ford Mustang was one of the great American products. Happy 50th!
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Meanwhile, Back At the Ranch . . .
In the past week, the Bundy ranch incident has quietly split the American conservative movement. Was the arrival of armed Americans in defense of the Bundy ranch and its cattle a fundamentally American reaction to government overreach? Or was it the wrong action at the wrong place at the wrong time?
The Bundys have very little legal footing. They have grazed their cattle on public land since the 1870s. Properly speaking it is federal land, although ranchers since before the Civil War have chafed at the overwhelming amount of land owned by the government. Since the 1980s, ranchers grazing on federal land have agreed to pay grazing fees intended to maintain the land. The Bundys contend that the fees have started funding policies that undermine their ability to compete and decided to stop paying. Somewhere along the line a turtle got involved.
Government officials, after 21 years of litigation, sent a small army complete with automatic weapons to rustle the Bundy family's cattle. In opposition, a small army of fellow ranchers and others brought weapons and horses, surrounded the federal agents who then relented.
Opponents within the conservative movement see the ranch militia as a different kind of Occupy movement. They fear that it will put a radical face on conservatism that could make it less appealing. Also, they point out that the federal government has the property rights in this case. So they see the arrival of armed citizens as a hysterical overreaction, despite conceding that the federal agents themselves did the same.
A problem of understanding comes from regarding this as a single incident. If anyone looked simply at the Boston Tea Party, they would wonder why Americans so irrationally opposed a small tax on tea. Only looking back over the course of the preceding years would reveal the logic of the colonists' rage.
Same here. Americans just do not decide to go down the road to put themselves in the way of armed federal agents. Not even in Nevada do Americans in large numbers go out spoiling for a gunfight.
The Bundys are likely in the wrong. But dismissing the anger that led to the reaction is a huge mistake. Also, the men and women who showed up in Nevada included property owners, veterans, former elected officials. Not the floatsam and jetsom of society, but its foundation.
Why? Why so much anger? Decades of a government that refuses to leave the people in peace have done this. Farmers in California with fields dried up, irrigation cut off due to a salamander. Power plants in West Virginia about to shut down because of the EPA. Farmers facing fines because the government says they have too much dirt. Federal agents spend $1 million, mobilize a SWAT team, and trump up drug accusations to stop a farm from selling raw milk.
The anger is real. Agree or disagree with the reaction, but there is logic and there are years of reasons why this happened. You can't build a country's foundation on rebellion against tyranny and not expect resistance to the federal government pushing the people too hard.
Lest anyone forget, this was a peaceful protest. No one fired a shot.
The Bundys have very little legal footing. They have grazed their cattle on public land since the 1870s. Properly speaking it is federal land, although ranchers since before the Civil War have chafed at the overwhelming amount of land owned by the government. Since the 1980s, ranchers grazing on federal land have agreed to pay grazing fees intended to maintain the land. The Bundys contend that the fees have started funding policies that undermine their ability to compete and decided to stop paying. Somewhere along the line a turtle got involved.
Government officials, after 21 years of litigation, sent a small army complete with automatic weapons to rustle the Bundy family's cattle. In opposition, a small army of fellow ranchers and others brought weapons and horses, surrounded the federal agents who then relented.
Opponents within the conservative movement see the ranch militia as a different kind of Occupy movement. They fear that it will put a radical face on conservatism that could make it less appealing. Also, they point out that the federal government has the property rights in this case. So they see the arrival of armed citizens as a hysterical overreaction, despite conceding that the federal agents themselves did the same.
A problem of understanding comes from regarding this as a single incident. If anyone looked simply at the Boston Tea Party, they would wonder why Americans so irrationally opposed a small tax on tea. Only looking back over the course of the preceding years would reveal the logic of the colonists' rage.
Same here. Americans just do not decide to go down the road to put themselves in the way of armed federal agents. Not even in Nevada do Americans in large numbers go out spoiling for a gunfight.
The Bundys are likely in the wrong. But dismissing the anger that led to the reaction is a huge mistake. Also, the men and women who showed up in Nevada included property owners, veterans, former elected officials. Not the floatsam and jetsom of society, but its foundation.
Why? Why so much anger? Decades of a government that refuses to leave the people in peace have done this. Farmers in California with fields dried up, irrigation cut off due to a salamander. Power plants in West Virginia about to shut down because of the EPA. Farmers facing fines because the government says they have too much dirt. Federal agents spend $1 million, mobilize a SWAT team, and trump up drug accusations to stop a farm from selling raw milk.
The anger is real. Agree or disagree with the reaction, but there is logic and there are years of reasons why this happened. You can't build a country's foundation on rebellion against tyranny and not expect resistance to the federal government pushing the people too hard.
Lest anyone forget, this was a peaceful protest. No one fired a shot.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Arlington
Sacredness transcends boundaries of religion and faith. National shrines can bring about the same shared sense of spiritual reverence and sacrifice. Arlington National Cemetery is one such place.
Last Friday, I attended a funeral service for a man who earned a Bronze Star and Purple Heart in Vietnam, then went on to become a soft spoken leader among foreign correspondents.
Solemn dignity pervades the grounds, despite its encasement in one of the world's most powerful metropolitan areas. We drove from the understated modern Administration Building in a line to the gravesite. There the chaplain briefly delivered a warm remembrance bracketed by appropriate New and Old testament readings. Soldiers held a flag over the grave, folded it, and presented it to his wife. The honor guard, standing about 50 yards away, fired three times, and then a Marine delivered a perfect rendition of Taps.
As they left, the soldiers marched away in perfect step, their boots softly clacking on the pavement in unison.
Everything in this sacred ritual reinforced that the veteran now joined an eternal brotherhood of Americans who served and sacrificed.
Before the service, I took about an hour to walk the grounds. Washington rarely has Goldilocks days for walking; this was one.
In some areas, officers of high rank in all services got clustered together. Generals and admirals on one hillside had their own bluff. In other parts, however, one could see an admiral's final resting place positioned beside a non commissioned officer.
The dignity of the place even touched the large groups of middle school children touring the grounds in easily identifiable school tour shirts. All of them looked ready to burst with childlike energy and enthusiasm, but the place and its air of respect kept them as quiet as possible.
What struck me the most about Arlington was perfection. Washington DC does not always pay strict attention to aesthetics and detail. For example, temporary fences and road barriers ring the White House, interrupting the sublime beauty of the place. Many areas in the capital have little touches of shoddiness. Not the Arlington National Cemetery. Almost everything reflects and effort to honor the fallen in the most immaculate way possible.
Except . . .
the centerpiece of the grounds.
Arlington National Cemetery surrounds the former house and grounds of Robert E. Lee. Lee spent a lifetime literally and figuratively paying for the misdeeds and shenanigans of generations of Virginia's least favorite black sheep family. His father, "Light Horse" Harry Lee, served courageously in the Revolution. He also embraced a number of get rich quick schemes, blasted the popular Thomas Jefferson in one of his books, and had to flee to the Caribbean to escape creditors.
Robert E. Lee led a spartan and disciplined life as he sought to pay family debts and establish his own independent reputation. He impressed many while serving in the Mexican War, but grew frustrated trying to raise a family on an army salary. Eventually his thrift and fortitude enabled him to buy the mansion which still sits atop the hill in the center of Arlington.
He could only enjoy it a few short years before the onset of the Civil War. His front porch offers a commanding view of the national capital and the grounds surrounding his home would likely have been productive. The Greek Revival portico gives the illusion of grandiosity to a house with an otherwise unassuming size.
Lee looked forward to spending his middle age watching over his home, enjoying the company of his family and his cat Tom. War intervened. Lee turned down the offer of field command of all Union forces to serve in the military of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Despite mixed feelings about secession and opposition to slavery, Lee enlisted to fight what he saw as the federal invasion of his state.
Federal forces soon occupied the house; the only Lee remaining home was Tom. Government officials deemed that their enemy's home deserved to lie at the center of the human toll tallied by the cause Lee served. Indeed the graves of fallen soldiers and officers come within 10 yards of the house itself.
The house today, officially known as the Robert E. Lee Memorial, contrasts sharply with the rest of the grounds. It has the appearance of genteel poverty compared to the meticulously maintained surroundings. Lee would be surprised to see his home with peeling paint and ramshackle wooden stairs and walkways surrounding his front door. The gardens remain beautiful, but maintenance of the house itself appears to be an afterthought.
Lee still touches a nerve in American history while evading understanding. He fought to defend secession, yet opposed it. His country vowed to continue slavery, yet he criticized the institution. Other leading Virginia military luminaries, like "Stonewall" Jackson and Jubal Early, shared Lee's concerns, yet fought anyway. Historians and their students still have difficulty sifting through the complexity of it. Perhaps that is why Lee's home and memorial have fallen into such rough shape.
Yet even this forms part of the story of America that Arlington tells, a story still unfolding.
Last Friday, I attended a funeral service for a man who earned a Bronze Star and Purple Heart in Vietnam, then went on to become a soft spoken leader among foreign correspondents.
Solemn dignity pervades the grounds, despite its encasement in one of the world's most powerful metropolitan areas. We drove from the understated modern Administration Building in a line to the gravesite. There the chaplain briefly delivered a warm remembrance bracketed by appropriate New and Old testament readings. Soldiers held a flag over the grave, folded it, and presented it to his wife. The honor guard, standing about 50 yards away, fired three times, and then a Marine delivered a perfect rendition of Taps.
As they left, the soldiers marched away in perfect step, their boots softly clacking on the pavement in unison.
Everything in this sacred ritual reinforced that the veteran now joined an eternal brotherhood of Americans who served and sacrificed.
Before the service, I took about an hour to walk the grounds. Washington rarely has Goldilocks days for walking; this was one.
In some areas, officers of high rank in all services got clustered together. Generals and admirals on one hillside had their own bluff. In other parts, however, one could see an admiral's final resting place positioned beside a non commissioned officer.
The dignity of the place even touched the large groups of middle school children touring the grounds in easily identifiable school tour shirts. All of them looked ready to burst with childlike energy and enthusiasm, but the place and its air of respect kept them as quiet as possible.
What struck me the most about Arlington was perfection. Washington DC does not always pay strict attention to aesthetics and detail. For example, temporary fences and road barriers ring the White House, interrupting the sublime beauty of the place. Many areas in the capital have little touches of shoddiness. Not the Arlington National Cemetery. Almost everything reflects and effort to honor the fallen in the most immaculate way possible.
Except . . .
the centerpiece of the grounds.
Arlington National Cemetery surrounds the former house and grounds of Robert E. Lee. Lee spent a lifetime literally and figuratively paying for the misdeeds and shenanigans of generations of Virginia's least favorite black sheep family. His father, "Light Horse" Harry Lee, served courageously in the Revolution. He also embraced a number of get rich quick schemes, blasted the popular Thomas Jefferson in one of his books, and had to flee to the Caribbean to escape creditors.
Robert E. Lee led a spartan and disciplined life as he sought to pay family debts and establish his own independent reputation. He impressed many while serving in the Mexican War, but grew frustrated trying to raise a family on an army salary. Eventually his thrift and fortitude enabled him to buy the mansion which still sits atop the hill in the center of Arlington.
He could only enjoy it a few short years before the onset of the Civil War. His front porch offers a commanding view of the national capital and the grounds surrounding his home would likely have been productive. The Greek Revival portico gives the illusion of grandiosity to a house with an otherwise unassuming size.
Lee looked forward to spending his middle age watching over his home, enjoying the company of his family and his cat Tom. War intervened. Lee turned down the offer of field command of all Union forces to serve in the military of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Despite mixed feelings about secession and opposition to slavery, Lee enlisted to fight what he saw as the federal invasion of his state.
Federal forces soon occupied the house; the only Lee remaining home was Tom. Government officials deemed that their enemy's home deserved to lie at the center of the human toll tallied by the cause Lee served. Indeed the graves of fallen soldiers and officers come within 10 yards of the house itself.
The house today, officially known as the Robert E. Lee Memorial, contrasts sharply with the rest of the grounds. It has the appearance of genteel poverty compared to the meticulously maintained surroundings. Lee would be surprised to see his home with peeling paint and ramshackle wooden stairs and walkways surrounding his front door. The gardens remain beautiful, but maintenance of the house itself appears to be an afterthought.
Lee still touches a nerve in American history while evading understanding. He fought to defend secession, yet opposed it. His country vowed to continue slavery, yet he criticized the institution. Other leading Virginia military luminaries, like "Stonewall" Jackson and Jubal Early, shared Lee's concerns, yet fought anyway. Historians and their students still have difficulty sifting through the complexity of it. Perhaps that is why Lee's home and memorial have fallen into such rough shape.
Yet even this forms part of the story of America that Arlington tells, a story still unfolding.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Belgians: Leading the World Toward Soylent Green?
Belgian doctors want the power to decide when their patients should die for the common good.
Rod Dreher of American Conservative reported that Dr. Jean-Marie Vincent, head of a national society of intensive care doctors, wants a license to kill, so to speak. Doctors need the power, Vincent says, to kill off a patient whose "life quality has become too poor."
Vincent goes on to say that the first priority of doctors lies in restoring health, not prolonging life at all costs. Even if the patient and the family does not consent, doctors must have the right to flip the switch of life and end it.
Dreher describes the doctor as "ghoulish," but an English writer of a century ago may have described him better.
Joseph Conrad described in his book The Secret Agent a character called "The Professor." This man dreamt of a world "where the weak would be taken in hand for utter extermination . . . Exterminate! Exterminate! That is the only way of progress . . . First the blind, then the deaf and dumb, then the halt and the lame - and so on."
Conrad's "Professor," an ardent terrorist, is an archetype not only for countless dystopian productions, such as "Soylent Green," but also speaks the underlying philosophy of some of the most horrible plans of science. We remember the horror of the Nazis, not so much the eugenics movement of the pre World War II era.
Humanity has no capacity to rationally decide when another person has "quality of life" or not. What term could be more subjective? Yet the term gets thrown out there almost casually no matter what the stakes. Almost every person has the instinct and drive to continue life, even in a state that others may consider wretched. When comfortable middle class doctors get the power to make such decisions, tragedy will result.
Rod Dreher of American Conservative reported that Dr. Jean-Marie Vincent, head of a national society of intensive care doctors, wants a license to kill, so to speak. Doctors need the power, Vincent says, to kill off a patient whose "life quality has become too poor."
Vincent goes on to say that the first priority of doctors lies in restoring health, not prolonging life at all costs. Even if the patient and the family does not consent, doctors must have the right to flip the switch of life and end it.
Dreher describes the doctor as "ghoulish," but an English writer of a century ago may have described him better.
Joseph Conrad described in his book The Secret Agent a character called "The Professor." This man dreamt of a world "where the weak would be taken in hand for utter extermination . . . Exterminate! Exterminate! That is the only way of progress . . . First the blind, then the deaf and dumb, then the halt and the lame - and so on."
Conrad's "Professor," an ardent terrorist, is an archetype not only for countless dystopian productions, such as "Soylent Green," but also speaks the underlying philosophy of some of the most horrible plans of science. We remember the horror of the Nazis, not so much the eugenics movement of the pre World War II era.
Humanity has no capacity to rationally decide when another person has "quality of life" or not. What term could be more subjective? Yet the term gets thrown out there almost casually no matter what the stakes. Almost every person has the instinct and drive to continue life, even in a state that others may consider wretched. When comfortable middle class doctors get the power to make such decisions, tragedy will result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)